Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
At 08:30 PM 9/11/2009, you wrote: I guess it's better to wait until the coldfusionproject list's membership builds up (in quantity I mean, it's quite good already in terms of quality I see) before we shift the technical discussions there? I intend to establish some structural stuff for the informal association. I will probably also pose some questions that we can start to address. But anyone is welcome to start threads there, as long as it is about engineering kits or related. I prefer to stay away from theory, there, unless it is closely related to kit design. What is essential is that the project list remain focused. A couple points: - the Galileo Project protocol seems a good basis, I say let's not bother with a closed cell and associated risks. I'd still rather keep it on the table. I haven't given all the reasons for semi-closed. I.e., routinely closed, but with pressure relief. For one thing, I don't want the experimenters to have to keep filling the cell with heavy water. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out, either, kits using ordinary water, and I see no reason to seal light water cells unless we are using light water as a control or variable vs. heavy water, in which case the cells should be otherwise identical. - what's the cathode's substrate wire material in the TGP, it's silver isn't it? Yes. They used a platinum anode, which is the single most expensive component. Would silver work? - what's the electrolyte volume in TGP, 25ml right? Why would you want to make a smaller cell? Well, the parts list says that 100 g of D2O will do for 2 or 3 cells. The protocol talks about adding up to 25 mil per cell of D20, but that is in addition to the 10 mg per cell, so it's about 35 mil max. If we use standard CR-39 chips, as shown (they are clear at the beginning, as seen in the photos. They are milky, after electrolysis. It's not the solution itself that changes them, a no-electrolysis control seems to remain clear. This is good news; we may be able to package complete cells and they might have good shelf life. A cell with no electrolysis is a nice control for possible radioisotope contamination from the cathode or other materials. (However, contamination of the palladium in the palladium choloride would not show up in quantity until the palladium is plated onto the cathode; possibly another test would be some of the palladium choloride spooned onto a chip to sit for a time.) - shouldn't we go for one of the impatient protocols? (producing pits in days instead of weeks) Perhaps, speed is desirable. However, reliability is more desirable. I certainly don't know anything like enough to decide yet, for myself. Now that I'm reading the protocol in more detail, I appreciate the design and work that was done. The GP, provided as a kit ready to go, would be adequate. They say that experimenters should be prepared to spend about $700, excluding a power supply, giving enough material for two to three cells. Remember, this includes doing all one's own CR-39 etching, probably the most hazardous of the procedures. There would be value in a simple GP kit, and my guess is that it could be offered for less than that and still have room for profit. Looking at the bill of materials provided with the protocol, I estimate $58 as a cell cost. The rest is setup and etching and the like. It also looks to me like the cells are about twice as big as necessary, unless the anode and cathode must be further apart than they would be if the cells were half the size. (i.e., the square becomes a 1:2 rectangle). This would use half as much deuterium. If we want the same total plating on the cathode, there is no savings on the palladium. The single biggest cost with the Galileo design is the platinum anode. In prototyping, both cell sizes could be tried, the difference would be the concentration of PdCl and LiCl in the solution; maybe it would be better to go for less palladium/lithium so that the initial concentrations are the same. These are small variations that might be significant, but which would easily be tested if the effects aren't known.
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
Looking at the SPAWAR presentation at the Duncan seminar recently, I see slides of effects visible from a piezoelectric detector, perhaps sound from the mini-explosions that create the melted palladium featuress. That is something that might be cheap to do; likewise there are the IR emissions, and if there is something in the visible or near-IR, I think we have a winner. Anyone know? Perhaps the CR-39 is a window in the cell, with the cathode contacting it directly. Thus, until the CR-39 gets too fogged, if it does, we can see the cathode surface directly with little or no intervening electrolyte. What happens if the anode is also silver? What happens to a cell with modest palladium plating that is reversed, i.e., the cathode becomes the anode? If I'm correct, the palladium plating dissolves and is deposited on the new cathode. However, if the plating flakes off and falls to the bottom of the cell, it is lost, I think. Unless the cathode is at the bottom of the cell there is an argument for the cathode on the bottom configuration. Other ideas with the CR-39 window: any cheap electronic radiation detectors? We'd be looking for bursts correlated with activity in the visible/IR and signals from the piezo detector.
RE: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
I saw some posts indicating the type of PD and who you purchase it from is very important to success. Will the rigidity be maintained through co deposition? As to lowering the cost would co-deposition on a Pourous Stainless Steel tube still meet the criteria for rigidity? It would still provide the cathode but also allow variations for those wanting to disassociate the hydrogen through the tubes membrane like a little reactor using a tungsten filament inside. The best of Mills and Arata combined? Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm getting different reports. Some techniques are obviously extremely difficult. Codep doesn't appear to be, the Galileo project proved that it was within reach. I do not know enough about the Galileo project or co-dep to judge, but I can see that the project is not continuing and the number of people doing the experiment is not expanding, so by that metric it has not succeeded. I do not think the project was intended to give people the ability to do this without hands-on training. That was not a project goal. Think of the Galileo project as the first step in an engineering journel. What's the next step, Jed? I wouldn't know about this technique. I will then call some of these venture capitalists who have been hounding me and we'll get you tons of money. Maybe. Tons of money for what? To develop science fair kits? No. They want reliable excess heat. They have no use for neutrons, kids, or science fairs. Sure. It is roughly as difficult as building an automobile in 1908, just before the Model T went on sale. I'm going to say, horseshit. I think that if I had the funding necessary to build an automobile (analogously to that time), I'd be set on these kits. I suggest you read books about Henry Ford did what Charles E. Taylor did. I should get the title of the book I have at home about Taylor. It took considerable skill to make your automobile back then, especially when you started by making an engine. Of course those engines were primitive. Jed, your account of how difficult it is to replicate cold fusion experiments would be true for Fleischmann-type cells, probably, though I do assume it is easier now than in 1985-1989! Or 1990, for that matter. You have it backward. Charles Taylor's 1903 engine was easy to make; the ones he and the Wrights were making a few years later were much harder, but much better. The engines Ford began mass-producing in 1908 were better still and far beyond the capabilities of a single mechanic at a workbench in a bicycle store. It was easy to do cold fusion experiments in 1989 and it is much harder now. Nowadays people know how to do them and there is a long checklist of things you must accomplish and verify, so it is hard. In 1989 it was a shot in the dark that wasn't hard to do, but it usually failed. As Ed Storms says it was like randomly selecting pieces of gravel from your driveway to look for the semiconductor effect. To take an actual similar example from the history of semiconductors: Shockley was a theoretician, not an experimentalist. One day in 1940, a scientist named Wooldridge found him fiddling around in the lab with a piece of oxidized copper, which 'had apparently been cut out of some very old copper back porch screen with very dull scissors.' Shockley was trying to position wires so they would barely touch the green oxide coating. He hoped to adjust the voltage applied to the mesh to control the current flow. In other words, he was trying to make a crude transistor. Wooldridge later wrote: 'so here he had the three elements of a transistor, these two wires and the copper screen. Of course, he was orders of magnitude away from anything that would work!' http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf It was easy to cut some old copper screen with scissors and do a rudimentary experiment. It was much harder to make an actual working semiconductor 8 years later. But I'm leaning a bit on He Jing-Tang. He claims that some groups have been getting 100%. Okay. How did they do it? By assembling millions of dollars of equipment and paying experts who have decades of experience. Look, you are right. It's worth billions of dollars at 1W reliable output. But why hasn't this been built, if it is worth so much? Well I don't know anyone who can make one that works reliably, except perhaps Arata and that has not yet been demonstrated. The reason why people have not spent the money to make them reliable is because of political opposition from academic rivals. Read the Beaudette book. Also because it would probably cost $100 million, or maybe $300 million depending on which expert you ask. IMRA (Toyota) spent tens of millions and made significant progress but the data is locked away somewhere at Johnson Matthey. No, I have in mind a total shoestring project, self-funded, bootstrapping. I do not believe such a thing is possible, because I have seen similar attempts fail, and because I do not believe that anyone is capable of reducing art to science at this stage of development. But good luck! It may be that you can pull this off. I cannot judge. I have seen many people claim they can do this in the past. They have all failed, but that does not mean you will fail. Go ahead and try, and more power to you. I suggest you visit experiments. I'm calling your bluff, Jed, if it's a bluff. Who tried it? What happened? Exactly what happened?
RE: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
At 09:29 AM 9/11/2009, you wrote: I saw some posts indicating the type of PD and who you purchase it from is very important to success. Will the rigidity be maintained through co deposition? As to lowering the cost would co-deposition on a Pourous Stainless Steel tube still meet the criteria for rigidity? It would still provide the cathode but also allow variations for those wanting to disassociate the hydrogen through the tubes membrane like a little reactor using a tungsten filament inside. The best of Mills and Arata combined? Regards Fran Someone correct me if I stick my keyboard in my mouth or my foot in my keyboard or something like that. Palladium fabrication quality is critical for Fleischmann type cells. I don't know about purity; some impurities might enhance the effect, some might suppress it, I'm sure a lot of work has been done on that. However, with codeposition, the palladium lattice is manufactured inside the cell. I imagine that deposition conditions may affect the quality, but codeposition seems to create a fractal surface, it's a very different approach. Substrate for codeposition appears to matter very much. Gold seems to be the best? For kit cells we only need a little cathode, it may be a piece or coil of gold wire, or perhaps gold foil? Wires and foils can be very low weight, especially with gold. I'd been thinking we'd use platinum, but silver is also a possibility, I think. Now, something is hinted at that has been rattling around my brain. If a cell is sealed, and we run electrolysis in it, it's dangerous,. But that isn't so true if the cell is small, because the whole apparatus could be contained inside a box that could contain the pieces safely if it blows. So ... what happens if we electrolyze heavy water in a closed cell? The pressure of deuterium gas and oxygen would build up. How much? What does oxygen do in this environment? If the oxygen could be scavenged out (how?), could the deuterium pressure go high enough to run an Arata cell? But this gets hairy. How about a nice, simple codep cell, with materials known to work? To start. I do have a serious question about sealed vs. open. If we aren't worried about calorimetry, we could recombine very simply to keep the pressure down. Sealed is nice for lots of reasons, including possible helium analysis later. Sealed is a factory cell, ready to go, just add current and see what happens. All ideas are very welcome at this point. Later, those of us who want to go ahead and *actually make something* will have to make choices. Individuals and small groups may want to pursue various wild ideas, but the central project should be very solid. If possible, there should be some general agreement from those with experience that the cells will work as designed, before they are ever built, which means that variations from what is known to work shouldn't be ones expected to quash the effect. (I don't think that a cell being small should quench it, for example, just lower cost and be safer.) Once we have a solid experiment, then all kinds of variations become possible.
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
Redux. At 06:25 PM 9/10/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Why bother selling to people who can't afford it?!? That's nuts. Sell to people who are loaded with money and who really, really want your product. Every major industrial corporation in the U.S., Japan and Europe tunes into LENR-CANR from time to time. Within a few months they will download thousands of copies of the NSF/EPRI proceedings, for example. They control trillions of dollars in capital. If you can convince them this kit you are describing exists they will pay any amount of money for it. Money is not the limiting factor. Credibility is. The resistance to new ideas, and the fear of making a fool of oneself is. Believability is, and that particular barrier was greatly reduced thanks to CBS 60 Minutes. With the kind of kit you describe, these barriers would be easily overcome. It is as if you think you can make a machine that turns lead into gold, but you are fretting that people will not have enough money to buy it. It may be that you can pull this off. I cannot judge. I have seen many people claim they can do this in the past. They have all failed, but that does not mean you will fail. Go ahead and try, and more power to you. I suggest you visit experiments. Well, it's a chicken and egg problem. I agree with Jed in this sense. If we can do this it's all over. (1) Make a kit that demonstrates low-energy nuclear reactions with reliability. Ideally, 100%. But still possible with lower percentages under some conditions. (2) Convince those industrial buyers that it is worth testing. The problem is that nobody has done the first, to my knowledge. Rather, experiments have been done, and an investor has been lured into the lab to see it working. And under those conditions, investors know, the mine can be salted, deliberately or otherwise. Investors, including governments, because of the huge potential returns, have, in the past, put in huge sums to develop scaled-up effects. And those efforts shut down, because results were not what we expected. The critics interpret that as meaning there wasn't an effect, but that's not how I read it. I read it as a finding that the effect couldn't be scaled up for practical use, they realized that it was a very difficult problem. Now, it's all insane, because a highly speculative concept, from an engineering perspective, hot fusion, has received huge long-term investment, but we all know why that continues. Hint. It's spelled P O L I T I C S. Some angel could fund the creation of the kits, and the one putting up the money gets to make choices, unless the angel is very unusual. Nothing wrong with it. Someone wants to make expensive kits, fine with me. Why hasn't it happened, Jed? I have my ideas, actually several possibilities, but you have the experience, you could probably come up with something more accurate. But I see a market that, I believe, exists now, it is simply a different market. The science-interest market. It's a very small market, locally. We are not going to open Home Cold Fusion Depot. However, the world is big. One person in a million is a 300-customer market in the U.S. alone. That is big enough to support a modest company. Very modest, but doable. But, of course, as you note, if such a kit exists there would be no problem selling it, once the credibility exists, the buyers will exist, including buyers for whom price is practically no object. Sorry, but if someone who is influential has a grandkid who runs one of these experiments, because their dad checked it out and it looked like fun, there is then a toe in the door, and maybe more than a toe. Whom do you trust more, an expert or your kids? You seem to think, the expert, but people aren't as stupid as you think. It just looks that way when you can't penetrate the noise filters. Those filters are necessary, and functional, they just sometimes get too tight, and ways around them are needed. Social networking. In fact, social engineering. The kits may be studied by experts, professionals. I'm sure they will be. They are part of the market too. An angel may say, I want the experts to see this, and buy those fifty kits or hundreds of kits and send them out. But the kits have to exist first, most likely, unless there is an angel who is confident in the ability of some company to produce the kits. That means confidence in the *process* by which the kits will be designed and manufactured. My sense is that, if cold fusion is real, if the literature isn't distorted toward belief, toward creating a false impression that these experiments are reproducible, it can be done, and it can be done fairly cheaply. Sure, some experiments require phenomenally expensive equipment, and many are so complex that they require high art as well. I wouldn't suggest an Iwamura home elemental transmutation kit. But why hasn't Iwamura convinced the experts.? It's obvious, Jed. Replication is
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
At 11:06 AM 9/11/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm getting different reports. Some techniques are obviously extremely difficult. Codep doesn't appear to be, the Galileo project proved that it was within reach. I do not know enough about the Galileo project or co-dep to judge, but I can see that the project is not continuing and the number of people doing the experiment is not expanding, so by that metric it has not succeeded. I do not think the project was intended to give people the ability to do this without hands-on training. That was not a project goal. The goal was limited, and Krivit did not continue the project. He ran into social obstacles, as has often happened in this field. He writes about it, and the experience of the Galileo project is very important to us. Think of the Galileo project as the first step in an engineering journel. What's the next step, Jed? I wouldn't know about this technique. Journey. I will then call some of these venture capitalists who have been hounding me and we'll get you tons of money. Maybe. Tons of money for what? To develop science fair kits? No. They want reliable excess heat. They have no use for neutrons, kids, or science fairs. Right. And they want more than a little excess heat. They want to be able to brew cups of tea, at least. How do we get there, Jed? Sure. It is roughly as difficult as building an automobile in 1908, just before the Model T went on sale. I'm going to say, horseshit. I think that if I had the funding necessary to build an automobile (analogously to that time), I'd be set on these kits. I suggest you read books about Henry Ford did what Charles E. Taylor did. I should get the title of the book I have at home about Taylor. It took considerable skill to make your automobile back then, especially when you started by making an engine. Of course those engines were primitive. Very much. My point. I'm trying to mass-produce one component for an automobile, one that has a value all of its own, satisfying an interest in *science*. Not free energy. I'm really still a kid, I have adult ADHD, a developmental disorder, it means, basically, that I never grew up. I think it would be totally neat to run a nuclear reaction on my kitchen table. And I know that there are, in fact, millions of people like me. Well, maybe not millions. Hundreds of thousands. Jed, your account of how difficult it is to replicate cold fusion experiments would be true for Fleischmann-type cells, probably, though I do assume it is easier now than in 1985-1989! Or 1990, for that matter. You have it backward. Charles Taylor's 1903 engine was easy to make; the ones he and the Wrights were making a few years later were much harder, but much better. The engines Ford began mass-producing in 1908 were better still and far beyond the capabilities of a single mechanic at a workbench in a bicycle store. None of these were easy to make. But, I'm sorry, a cold fusion cell, a basic codep cell, should be easy to make; if it is not, we've been snookered, and I don't think we have. It was easy to do cold fusion experiments in 1989 and it is much harder now. No, it is much easier, with codep. With bulk palladium, I'm not going to comment. Parts of it are certainly quite difficult. Nowadays people know how to do them and there is a long checklist of things you must accomplish and verify, so it is hard. No, that means easy. Especially it means easy when manufacturing kits. You can do all those things, with people doing them over and over. Doing it the first time for anyone can be hard, quite hard, because it's easy to overlook or misinterpret one item that turns out to be critical. In 1989 it was a shot in the dark that wasn't hard to do, but it usually failed. As Ed Storms says it was like randomly selecting pieces of gravel from your driveway to look for the semiconductor effect. To take an actual similar example from the history of semiconductors: Yes. Now, how does this apply to codeposition? Shockley was a theoretician, not an experimentalist. One day in 1940, a scientist named Wooldridge found him fiddling around in the lab with a piece of oxidized copper, which 'had apparently been cut out of some very old copper back porch screen with very dull scissors.' Shockley was trying to position wires so they would barely touch the green oxide coating. He hoped to adjust the voltage applied to the mesh to control the current flow. In other words, he was trying to make a crude transistor. Wooldridge later wrote: 'so here he had the three elements of a transistor, these two wires and the copper screen. Of course, he was orders of magnitude away from anything that would work!' http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf It was easy to cut some old copper screen with scissors and do a rudimentary experiment. It was much harder to make an actual working semiconductor
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
The book about Taylor is: H. R. DuFour, P. J. Unitt, Charles E. Taylor: 1868 - 1956 Prime Printing 1997 A detailed biography with many illustrations, blueprints facsimile copies of letters and so on. The author lectured at a Fernbank Science Center series on aviation sponsored by Lockheed Martin. Appendix C, which is long, describes the author's replication of the 1903 engine. Taylor himself built a half-scale model in 1937 for an exhibition, paid for by Henry Ford. Taylor also worked for Cal Rogers, the first person to fly across the U.S. in one of the most extraordinary sagas of early aviation. He flew the Vin Fiz a Wright 1911 Model B now in the Smithsonian. It took 49 days. There were 75 stops including 10 or 20 that would now be considered crashes. Only a few pieces of the original machine reached California, and Rogers spent 3 weeks in the hospital. He was killed two months later in another air accident. People nowadays cannot imagine how hazardous airplanes were in the early days. I knew a WWII Japanese pilot who was trained by first generation Japanese aviators. They had two different words for landing: chakuriku (the conventional word; Chinese characters arriving + ground) and chakuboku (landing in a tree). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
2009/9/11 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 11:06 AM 9/11/2009, you [Jed] wrote: ... He hoped to adjust the voltage applied to the mesh to control the current flow. In other words, he was trying to make a crude transistor. Wooldridge later wrote: 'so here he had the three elements of a transistor, these two wires and the copper screen. Of course, he was orders of magnitude away from anything that would work!' http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf It was easy to cut some old copper screen with scissors and do a rudimentary experiment. It was much harder to make an actual working semiconductor 8 years later. Sure. But easier to do rudimentary experiments, once it was known what to do. You're right, same goes for a Volta pile, and same should go for a rudimentary CF cell. Let's not give up Abd, we're on the right (nuclear?) track I think. In any case it's worth trying, it would be nice to elucidate the exact cause of those CR-39 pits. I guess it's better to wait until the coldfusionproject list's membership builds up (in quantity I mean, it's quite good already in terms of quality I see) before we shift the technical discussions there? A couple points: - the Galileo Project protocol seems a good basis, I say let's not bother with a closed cell and associated risks. - what's the cathode's substrate wire material in the TGP, it's silver isn't it? - what's the electrolyte volume in TGP, 25ml right? Why would you want to make a smaller cell? - shouldn't we go for one of the impatient protocols? (producing pits in days instead of weeks) Michel
Re: [Vo]:If Lomax can do half of this, kits will not be needed
At 06:25 PM 9/10/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way: If an amateur could do a cold fusion experiment in his spare time, and produce a meaningful or even persuasive result, that would be a remarkably easy experiment. . . . Well, then, we know where we can sell the kit! Jed, I know it's difficult, I get it. But, I suspect, it isn't as difficult as you think, it is only difficult when you are one person with no experience and you try to set it up yourself. Actually, I do have experience doing cold fusion experiments, albeit mainly ones that did not work. But I was reporting what the researchers say, not what I say. They say it is difficult and it does not work most of the time, for unknown reasons. There are some experiments that work very often, or all of the time, such as Iwamura's, but these are extremely demanding. That is why they work. The people doing them have established elaborate and time consuming procedures that must be followed. (You can see from their equipment that the experiment is not portable.) I'm getting different reports. Some techniques are obviously extremely difficult. Codep doesn't appear to be, the Galileo project proved that it was within reach. Understand that codep hasn't had a lot of interest because it may not be scalable. But for our purposes it might be fine. Have any of these people who had such a hard time had a kit to buy that had been designed *and tested* by people with the necessary experience? I do now know anyone capable of designing or testing such a kit. The experiment you are thinking of making into a commodity (as it were) was taught to others in the Galileo project. The results were mixed. Yes. And Krivit reported the problems, which were *social* problems, Jed. Mized results, I take as good news, you seem to take as bad. Think of the Galileo project as the first step in an engineering journel. What's the next step, Jed? I do not know the details but I did not get a sense that it reached the point that you could put something in a box, ship it, and have the recipient do a meaningful experiment. As far as I know, the replications were done by people who got hands on training. Steve Krivit would know. I've read the reports. Now, was the training documented in detail. If not, Jed, there is the problem in a nutshell. We are not talking something enormously complicated. If you can accomplish this, and reduce the art to science, you should do a more practical experiment such as Arata. I will then call some of these venture capitalists who have been hounding me and we'll get you tons of money. Maybe. Tons of money for what? To develop science fair kits? Remember, I'm not at all talking about energy generation; we'll be lucky, if I'm correct, to even measure much heat. But I don't know yet, it is way too early. Do you really think that building a cold fusion demonstration, say a simple codep cell, is as difficult as building an automobile? Sure. It is roughly as difficult as building an automobile in 1908, just before the Model T went on sale. I'm going to say, horseshit. I think that if I had the funding necessary to build an automobile (analogously to that time), I'd be set on these kits. There are already people who know the technology, we may invent some engineering tricks, but not new science, serious new technology -- unless we get really lucky, and the project doesn't depend on that. I'm just talking about taking a known technology -- say codeposition cells -- and scaling them down. That makes heat measurement more difficult, but it could make other things much easier. As I said, building an automobile was a do it yourself project, like building a microcomputer in 1975. I did that. It was easy. Altair 8800. And I kludged a cassette interface and it was published in Byte magazine. Two parts: a diode and a capacitor, and the wires and a jack to go into the cassette recorder. Sears sold instruction books and you could get a lot of the parts off the shelf. Skilled mechanics and blacksmiths built their own engines, in a couple of months, but I think you could buy ready-made engines. Anyway, it took a great deal of skill. I have a book describing how Charley Taylor built the first airplane engine in 1903, written by a guy I met who replicated the engine using period tools, for a museum. It sounds about as difficult as doing a cold fusion experiment. The engine worked a lot better than most cold fusion experiments, so in that sense it was easier. Jed, your account of how difficult it is to replicate cold fusion experiments would be true for Fleischmann-type cells, probably, though I do assume it is easier now than in 1985-1989! Or 1990, for that matter. In the 1920s, Model-T Fords were shipped as unassembled kits, to dealers. That's the step you want to leapfrog to. No. Those were full functioning automobiles, major masses of metal, not
