Axil--
It’s rare that I agree with you, but I do on this one. Especially if the
E-Cat-X make electricity as Rossi suggests, it is a natural for electric cars,
and maybe even back-fitting the electrics of today...Elon take note!!!!
Bob Cook
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 3:27 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why the automobile market appeals to cold fusion investors
I believe that the LENR reaction can be adjusted to provide an output that is
more well suited for the auto market. Both Mills and Papp generate a large
amount of XUV and x-ray EMF, but papp added xenon (Xe) and other noble gases
to his fuel mixture. These additions convert XUV and x-rays into cluster
explosions to produce a shock wave that can move a piston. These gases also
eliminated the production of waste heat.
Shock wave generation is the best interface for the LENR auto power plant.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of making the device good for a car to justify its rapid
introduction commercially was just a pipe dream for gullible investors in my
mind.
Yes. Cold fusion researchers, "over unity" energy researchers and others are
mesmerized by the automobile market. They have good reasons. The automobile
internal combustion engine (ICE) is probably the second most widely used
machine on earth. Probably space heaters (furnaces) are number one. People
manufacture 60 million cars a year. The ICE market is unified. If you can find
a way to make a good replacement for an ICE, the whole automotive market falls
into your lap. Other major energy markets are split up among many different
machines, such as low temperature ovens, blast furnaces, aerospace engines,
marine engines, generators of vastly different sizes, and so on. Only the
automobile market calls for basically one machine at one power level.
The other reason people are attracted to this is because transportation is
the largest energy sector. People spend more money on transportation energy so
they would flock to a cheaper alternative. See:
Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2014: ~98.4 quads
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2014.png
If you look carefully, however, you see that transportation is large only
because it is hugely inefficient. Compare transportation to the residential
sector. The residential energy sector consumes 11.8 quads, converting 7.66 of
them into useful energy, wasting 4.12. That's 65% efficiency. The
transportation sector consumes 27.1 quads, converting 5.68 into useful energy,
21% efficiency. Actually, as shown in the text at the bottom of the page, that
21% is an estimate made by the authors of this chart. It is accurate as far as
I know.
There are many reasons for this low efficiency, such as the fact that
electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline ones. Transportation could
be made as efficient as other sectors with existing technology such as electric
cars. In this case it would consume 8.7 quads, making it the smallest of the
four sectors. So perhaps it is not such as lucrative target for cold fusion as
it first appears.
It is interesting to compare this Lawrence Livermore chart to the 2000
version, on the last page here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf
Overall estimated energy use is down slightly, from ~98.5 quads. Actual use
in the four sectors has increased slightly from 70 to 73 quads. The overall
reduction of ~3.3 quads is in changes to electricity generation, and in
increased efficiency throughout the system with things like CFL and LED
lighting.
Electricity Generation consumed 40.4 quads in 2000, and it now takes 38.4
quads. It was 30% efficient in 2000 and it is now 32% efficient. This is partly
because wind, solar and hydroelectricity are considered 100% efficient, I
believe. There is no wasted fuel associated with them. That is not say that
wind turbines convert 100% of wind into electricity.
Coal has fallen from 20.5 quads to 17.9 quads.
On this table, nuclear contributes 8.33 quads to electricity. Nuclear power
produces roughly 20% of US electricity, which is 2.48 quads. So this table
shows nuclear power being 30% efficient, which is correct. The 25.8 quads of
"rejected energy" (waste heat) show here must include 5.85 quads of steam
blowing into the sky from nuclear plant cooling towers.
Hydro is shown contributing 2.47 quads to electricity. That would be 20% of
the total 12.4 quads of electricity. That is way too much. Hydro contributes
only about 6%. See:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1
This shows hydro contributed 259,367,000 MWh in 2014. That is a little less
than 1 quad, I believe. I cannot find the discrepancy.
The text at the bottom of the Lawrence Livermore chart says that "distributed
electricity represents only retail electricity sales and does not include self
generation." But I still think the numbers are off.
Here is data for worldwide energy consumption. It has interesting comparisons
between 1973 in 2013 (40 years).
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf
- Jed
