Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Basta, signore! The manometer says- no obstacle, steam is condensed.
peter

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
>>
>
> Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator
> (or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take
> much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See:
>
> https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf
>
> Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly
> dirty.
>
>
>
>> You really seem to be in trance.
>> OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
>>
>
> The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical.
> This has been common knowledge for centuries.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
>

Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator
(or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take
much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See:

https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly
dirty.



> You really seem to be in trance.
> OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
>

The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical.
This has been common knowledge for centuries.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
You really seem to be in trance.
OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
peter

PS I have finished this uselesss discussion, I stil prefer logic.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess
>> heat, watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of
>> steam.
>>
>
> At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not
> much. The back pressure from the radiator was more than this.
>
> If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish
> nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he
> demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina.
> They would have paid him $89 million.
>
> Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a
> fraud. That's all there is to it.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat,
> watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam.
>

At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not much.
The back pressure from the radiator was more than this.

If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish
nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he
demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina.
They would have paid him $89 million.

Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a
fraud. That's all there is to it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Excellent, from now on, if I see ads for investing in PD D I will know they
are not by you.

As regarding NiH we willl see. I suppose you have called main author
Nakamura from NISSAN and asked him what he thinks about NiH.

Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat,
watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam.
Not exactly a solid mental construct but you MUST do such things. Your
problem or your prvilege.
Steam pipe still 40 mm Murray style?
Watermeter working fractionary full/empty?
As an partial aside are you familiar with Edwrd de Bono thinking methods/
peter

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
>>
>
> I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on
> controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be
> achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If
> that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized.
>
>
>
>> Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
>> SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?
>>
>
> These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold
> fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi
> claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have
> put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million.
>
>
>
>> Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . .
>>
>
> I do not think so.
>
>
>
>> , you have seen 352 daily reports
>> not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)
>>
>
> I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they
> agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily
> summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The
> hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible,
> and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact
> same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's
> impossible. It is preposterous.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
>

I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on
controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be
achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If
that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized.



> Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
> SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?
>

These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold
fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi
claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have
put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million.



> Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . .
>

I do not think so.



> , you have seen 352 daily reports
> not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)
>

I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they
agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily
summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The
hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible,
and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact
same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's
impossible. It is preposterous.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,

you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?

Re the ERv report it has 60 pages, you have seen 352 daily reports
not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)

When the litigation story will be over and i am still here, I will organize
a course of Technology Awakening for people now on the level of Exhibit 5
of IH.
peter


On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> mre cells with death after (no) heat.
>>
>
> I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D
> does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no
> input power, so the COP is infinite.
>
>
>
>> probably not true for Ti- very abundent element  have worked with it. For
>> CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti.
>> Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs.
>> So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources.
>>
>
> You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be
> commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use
> Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a
> significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and
> you are wrong.
>
>
>
>> Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and
>> the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not
>> pontificate.
>>
>
> As far as I know, there is no hourly data.
>
> Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these
> spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

mre cells with death after (no) heat.
>

I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D
does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no
input power, so the COP is infinite.



> probably not true for Ti- very abundent element  have worked with it. For
> CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti.
> Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs.
> So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources.
>

You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be
commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use
Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a
significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and
you are wrong.



> Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and
> the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not
> pontificate.
>

As far as I know, there is no hourly data.

Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these
spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

mre cells with death after (no) heat.


probably not true for Ti- very abundent element  have worked with it. For
CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti.
Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs.
So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources.


Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and
the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not
pontificate.

good night,
peter




On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is
>> say 1.30 to be optimist . . .
>>
>
> There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is
> a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am
> confident a low COP will be possible.
>
>
>
>> , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100  w power= imagine
>> your generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have  different idea?
>>
>
> F achieved much better COPs than this.
>
>
>
>> For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual
>> stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source.
>>
>
> Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that
> Ni cold fusion exists.
>
>
>
>> You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or
>> not, it is instructive.
>>
>
> You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you
> can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The
> data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself:
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/
> 01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is
> say 1.30 to be optimist . . .
>

There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is
a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am
confident a low COP will be possible.



> , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100  w power= imagine your
> generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have  different idea?
>

F achieved much better COPs than this.



> For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual
> stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source.
>

Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that
Ni cold fusion exists.



> You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or
> not, it is instructive.
>

You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you
can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The
data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Jed
You forget a few details:
a) Your first and probably most correct;evaluation was 300 W/cc palladium
and thi is 25 W/g;
b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is
say 1.30 to be optimist, so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100
 w power= imagine your generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have
 different idea?
For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual
stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source.
You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or not,
it is instructive.
peter

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator --
>
> I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg.
> This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a
> conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much
> more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW
> wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine,
> the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would
> negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower.
>
> The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW
> combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is
> competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind
> costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium
> is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower.
>
> Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It
> will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the
> energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy
> water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ
> of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per
> day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper,
> as I said.
>
> The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here:
>
> http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistr
> ibutedgenerators.pdf
>
> - Jed
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator --

I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg.
This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a
conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much
more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW
wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine,
the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would
negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower.

The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW
combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is
competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind
costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium
is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower.

Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It
will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the
energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy
water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ
of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per
day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper,
as I said.

The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here:

http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistributedgenerators.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
> I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and build
> a theory.
>

Yup.



> Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that Pd
> won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured material...
>

I hope that Pd will not be required. Just in case it is the only thing that
works, I decided to run the numbers to see whether it could produce a
significant fraction of world energy. I think it can.

As I said, Ni or Ti would be a lot better because you could put them in all
machines, including low-duty cycle things like automobiles, or flashlights.
"Low-duty cycle" means the automobile sits in the parking lot most hours of
the day. Really, it is a waste of equipment.

Someone wrote that a computer hard disk and computer RAM have the lowest
duty cycle of any common technology, and they are the biggest waste of
resources. The disk is powered up and spinning, but most of it is not
accessed for years, or never accessed. That is an interesting perspective.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be
> required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold.
>

I think that is probably true. But I kind of took that into account when I
plugged the power density of 200 W/g for Pd into the spreadsheet. For bulk
Pd, ~50 W/g may be close to the limit. I plugged in 200 W, admittedly
arbitrarily, because I figure the Pd could be in small spots that are
quickly cooled by the surrounding material.

I met a fellow who was trying to put Pd spots on synthetic diamond. Diamond
is the best heat sink, he claimed.

For a uranium oxide fuel pellet, 25 W/g is the limit, I think. The
zirconium tubes in pressurized water cannot stand up to much higher
temperatures.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jess Tauber]

I've long been an advocate of mining the planet Mercury (if one can get around the obvious difficulties of such an extreme environment on the surface). Early in the planet's history some unknown cataclysm (possibly similar to that which resulted in the formation of our own moon) blasted off most of the rocky outer crust, leaving the core intact, which means its easier to reach than those of the other rocky planets. The amount of palladium there (not to mention all the other goodies) should tide us over for the foreseeable future.Jess Tauber

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jones Beene]

 Alain Sepeda wrote:


Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and 
build a theory.


Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that 
Pd won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured 
material... other metal, alloys, graphene-like structures, why not 
enzyms, dirty plasmas, could be more performant.


This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be 
required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold.


One major problem is that there is no systematic plan to integrate past 
results and move forward in an optimized and well-funded way. IH could 
have been that vehicle, had Rossigate not happened.


For instance there is good evidence that deuterium loading correlates 
with excess heat, and actual proof that an alloy of 95% nickel and 5% 
palladium loads more deuterium than palladium alone (from Ahern's Arata 
replication). Yet few are aware of this detail - and no supplier offers 
the optimized 95/5 alloy for purchase. I would bet that no one in the 
field is currently using this finding.


In the case of an alloy containing only a small Pd percentage, the 
rarity and high cost of palladium is marginalized.

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Alain Sepeda]

Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and build a
theory.

Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that Pd
won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured material...
other metal, alloys, graphene-like structures, why not enzyms, dirty
plasmas, could be more performant.

I compare the situation to the one on semiconductors before we have a
theory.
Germanium, lead oxydes, were the first PN/shottky junctions to works, but
we evolved quickly from germanium, to silicon, then III-V cmpounds
(AsGa,InAs, GaN,...) then SiGe, diamonds...
and technology from junction transitors, to planar, ICs, bipolar to JFET,
MOSFET, VMOS, IGBT... (I'm mixing applications)

just expect the same for LENR

When I was kid I was playing with LED less efficient than incandescent
lamps, no blue... My firs blue les when young adult were so expensive and
weak...
White was pipedream for long.



2017-03-10 0:07 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Someone told me those are Troy ounces, which are heavier than garden
> variety ounce-ounces. Perhaps they also launch a thousand ships. See also
> the millihelen:
>
> "A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty
> required to launch one ship."
>
>
> Note: this is not included in the Système International d'unités, even
> though that is French.
>
> Okay, let me add there are several conservative assumptions in my estimate
> which I did not enumerate. I am assuming there is practically no
> improvement in related technology, which is silly. For example:
>
> Even with cold fusion central generators, we could have small ones, in 1
> MW range. They could be close to population centers, or in population
> centers where there are now transformers. This would greatly reduce
> transmission and distribution losses (T).
>
> It is unreasonable to assume that thermal conversion efficiency will not
> improve.
>
> The 60% duty cycle may be too conservative. I estimated that from the
> demand for electricity, which falls at night. You cannot turn off a fission
> nuclear plant, but you can turn off natural gas or -- probably -- cold
> fusion, so you probably would. So it would only run 16 hours a day (60%
> duty cycle). However, Elon Musk is now trying to make tremendous numbers of
> batteries very cheaply. If he succeeds, we can leave the cold fusion
> generator on 24-hours a day and store up the electricity. The duty cycle is
> close to 100% and the spreadsheet tells me that's . . . 15% of today's
> electricity in Scenario 1, and 150% in Scenario 2.
>
> Musk is trying to do this so that we can use solar power, or wind power.
> It works out better and cheaper for Pd-D cold fusion power. With Ni or Ti,
> you would not need batteries at all, except for a transient increases in
> demand.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Someone told me those are Troy ounces, which are heavier than garden
variety ounce-ounces. Perhaps they also launch a thousand ships. See also
the millihelen:

"A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty
required to launch one ship."


Note: this is not included in the Système International d'unités, even
though that is French.

Okay, let me add there are several conservative assumptions in my estimate
which I did not enumerate. I am assuming there is practically no
improvement in related technology, which is silly. For example:

Even with cold fusion central generators, we could have small ones, in 1 MW
range. They could be close to population centers, or in population centers
where there are now transformers. This would greatly reduce transmission
and distribution losses (T).

It is unreasonable to assume that thermal conversion efficiency will not
improve.

The 60% duty cycle may be too conservative. I estimated that from the
demand for electricity, which falls at night. You cannot turn off a fission
nuclear plant, but you can turn off natural gas or -- probably -- cold
fusion, so you probably would. So it would only run 16 hours a day (60%
duty cycle). However, Elon Musk is now trying to make tremendous numbers of
batteries very cheaply. If he succeeds, we can leave the cold fusion
generator on 24-hours a day and store up the electricity. The duty cycle is
close to 100% and the spreadsheet tells me that's . . . 15% of today's
electricity in Scenario 1, and 150% in Scenario 2.

Musk is trying to do this so that we can use solar power, or wind power. It
works out better and cheaper for Pd-D cold fusion power. With Ni or Ti, you
would not need batteries at all, except for a transient increases in demand.

- Jed

[Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Palladium is expensive and rare. If it turns out we can only generate cold
fusion energy from palladium, and not some other metal such as nickel or
titanium, this will probably limit the use of cold fusion to things like
central generators which have a high duty cycle, making maximum use of the
metal. However, palladium is not so rare that a Pd-D energy source would
make only minimal contributions to overall energy production. It could
generate more than coal, or natural gas, or any other single source today.
Martin Fleischmann once estimated that it could produce about one-third to
half of all electricity. I believe that is reasonable.

In other words, Ni or Ti would make cold fusion cheap and ubiquitous, but
even with Pd we could supply a large fraction of today's energy, and it
would be cheaper than any other energy source.

Here are three very rough estimates, with different assumptions.

CONSERVATIVE

The palladium supply in 2015 was 6.7 million ounces mined, 2.6 million from
"secondary recovery" (recycling). That is 190 million grams mined, 74
million recycled.

http://www.napalladium.com/palladium/supply-and-demand/default.aspx

Assumptions

No increase in production despite increased demand. Production from mines
continues to be ~190 million grams per year, indefinitely. I think this is
unrealistic. When demand increases, more mines are opened and extraction
techniques improve.

The main use of Pd today is in catalytic converters. Assume that
eventually, all cars are electric and no more use of Pd is needed for
catalytic converters; nearly all Pd used for cold fusion.

No transmutation of Pd. The Pd is in sealed cells, so little is lost. 95%
is recycled; 5% lost.

This means that after 20 years, annual losses would equal production and
the supply would not increase. The total supply would then be 3.8 billion
grams. (I ignore today's existing stocks.)

Additional assumptions regarding energy production

With Pd-D 200 W/g can be achieved, at any desired temperature up to the
melting point of Pd. I believe the current record is 25 W/g, which is
approximately the same power density as a uranium oxide fuel pellet in a
conventional reactor. See "Power density is compared by volume or by
surface area:"

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

(Note that Pd weights 14 g/cm^3.)

I think higher power density might be possible with nanoparticle Pd.

The Pd would mainly be used for applications with a high duty cycle, such
as centralized electric power generation, railroad locomotives, and
pacemakers. (Pacemakers have very low power but they must maintain a 100%
duty cycle or the patient may die.) Assume the Pd is active 60% of the time.

With 3.8 billion g, that comes to 0.456 TW thermal output. Electricity
requires 5 TW thermal to produce 2.3 TW electricity. Assume thermal
conversion efficiency does not improve. In this case, 0.456 TW would
produce 9% of electricity.


OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE

Cold fusion would make Pd quite valuable, so let us assume production
doubles to 380 million grams.

Lead-acid batteries resemble cold fusion cells in that they are sealed and
none of the metal is used up or lost. Nearly 100% of the lead is recycled.
Assume that only 1% of Pd is lost every year, because most Pd generators
are large, central units that are carefully recycled. After 100 years we
would have 37.6 billion grams.

http://www.ila-lead.org/lead-facts/lead-recycling

Assume no increase in the thermal efficiency of conversion, and the same
200 W/g and 60% duty cycle.

Total thermal output is then 4.5 TW which produces 90% of today’s
electricity. However, there is no doubt demand will grow, so perhaps it
would be about half of total electricity.


HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE

Assume Pd can be extracted from seawater, or from mining asteroids.
Asteroids are 80% iron and “20% a mixture of nickel, iridium, palladium,
platinum, gold, magnesium and other precious metals such as osmium,
ruthenium and rhodium.”

Quote:

“The platinum group metals are some of the most rare and useful elements on
Earth. According to Planetary Resources, a company that hopes to mine
asteroids in space, those metals exist in such high concentrations on
asteroids that a single 500-meter platinum-rich asteroid can contain more
platinum group metals than have ever been mined on Earth throughout human
history.”

This would give us enough Pd to produce all of the energy on earth and in
the solar system.

http://www.universetoday.com/37425/what-are-asteroids-made-of/

- Jed