Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo Posted on 1/23/2010, 12:28:49 PM by Kevmo Freeper gets a fascinating contract listed on Intrade, bets that the experiment will be replicated, and cashes in. In 2008, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata performed a fascinating experiment with Deuterium Gas loaded onto a Palladium matrix, and without any input power, showed that there was some excess heat. Generating excess heat in cold fusion cell wasn't a new development -- scientists had been replicating the Pons-Fleischman effect for 2 decades. What was a new development was how easily replicable this particular experiment was. It seemed to me that this would be the easiest way to replicate anomalous heat production, removing the tired old standby excuse that the energy input from electrolysis was causing this excess heat, because there was NO energy input in this experiment. So I proposed to Intrade that they open up a contract that this experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed, scientific Journal. I also posted a discussion thread on the Intrade forum http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2239.page "This week, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata demonstrated Cold Fusion in a reproducible environment. I sent in a suggestion to intrade that a contract be opened up that it would be replicated in a peer-reviewed journal by January 1, 2009. I haven't heard yet if there's any interest." AZoNano.com Energy Breakthrough as Japanese Physicist Sucessfully and ... http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6472 To my surprise, Intrade opened up this contract in 2008, where it basically stagnated. Since I was not involved in the peer review process, my assessment was that the experiment would only take several weeks to make it through the grueling process, rather than several months. It was actually someone at Free Republic who set me straight on that: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2022063/posts?page=164#164 The contract closed at the end of 2008 at zero, meaning that anyone who bet that the experiment would be replicated and published had lost their bet. I found the contract fascinating and asked Intrade to open a new contract in 2009, which they did. A few months into 2009, there started to be some replication experiments published by scientists, but the whole process was outshined by Dr. Pamela Mossier-Boss publishing her exciting results where she showed that there were Neutrons being generated in the cold fusion cell at the Navy Space Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). 'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — [Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented March 23 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting. "Our finding is very significant," says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."] And then the CBS TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes chimed in with their report on cold fusion on April 19, 2009, pushing the Arata replication results further into the background. The video and an article describing it are here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml I started posting references to replication of Arata's experiment in the Intrade Forum, saying such things as, "Oh, and the experiment was a replication of Arata's demonstration last May. So it was in quantitative fact proof that Arata's demonstration worked as stated. " >From the PhysOrg article and discussion: 'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html I transferred as much money as I was willing to lose over to Intrade. This was harder that I thought it would be, because Intrade does not accept credit cards. I bought up as many contracts as I could, and posted that I would pay $5-$6 for a contract that would pay out at $100. In reality, it's paying 50-60Cents per contract, and the payout is $10, for some bizarre reasoning that Intrade uses 1/10th of the actual monetary figures. To my surprise, there were still folks at Intrade posting that I was "Mental" , or as BobbyE wrote: "I have trouble getting reality
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
Some rough calculations on Mizuno's R20 reactor from atomic perspective to trigger further thoughts (please, fill in any errors, assumptions and suggestions): (1) Surplus heat @ 3KW: 2700W - Energy release 2700 W/s = 1.7 * 1022 eV (2) Number of Deuterium atoms (n) in the reactor using ideal gas law PV = nRT : n = PV/RT (mol) P = 0.0002 (@ 200 P) V = 5.7 liters (given by R20 cylinder) R = 0.08314 (given constant) T = 673 K ( given by 400 degrees C as an R20 estimate) n = 0.00020374 mol Deuterium = 2.4449 * 1020 free atoms in reactor space. Assuming that absorbed Deuterium atoms do not take part in the energy generation, but serve as a 'gas reserve' that by means of an Deuterium equilibrium will be released in reactor space due to gas pressure and/or gas temperature changes. Let's further assume that 1% of the free space atoms participate in energy release at the surface of the PD/Ni mesh. That would result in 100 *(1)/(2) = 7 KeV per participating atom. Not a fusion result (would require several MeV/atom) if given assumptions would be correct. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:05 PM H LV wrote: > The battery (or Voltaic pile as it was originally named) proved to be an > incredibley important discovery, but not in the way some people imagined. > So much of our modern world depends on batteries. > > Harry > > On Tue., Jul. 2, 2019, 4:39 p.m. Jed Rothwell, > wrote: > >> H LV wrote: >> >> When the electric battery was first discovered in the early 1800s and >>> little was known about the phenomena, to some people it seemed like it >>> could become the next great source of energy. I think people should temper >>> their commercial and scientific expectations when faced with the mystery of >>> a new phenomena. Harry >>> >> >> I think we now know enough about cold fusion to make informed speculation >> about it. If the recent Mizuno experiment can be replicated, I think it >> proves beyond question that the effect can be scaled up and made into a >> commercially useful source of energy. It is only a matter of >> engineering. It also shows that there is enough palladium in the world to >> generate all the energy we need. I should explain that Mizuno has >> projected that much higher power density is possible. We now know the >> reaction can occur at high temperatures and high power density, and that it >> can be controlled at least as well as a burning pile of coal or a fission >> reactor core. >> >> When I wrote my book, I did not know whether cold fusion would ever >> become a useful source of energy, or even whether it was possible to make >> it practical. The book is predicated on the assumption that it can be made >> practical, but that was speculation. I think we now know for sure that it >> can be. It only has to be proved once, with one experiment, since the >> effect itself has been widely replicated and there is no doubt it exists. >> >> It is possible there is such strong political opposition to cold fusion >> it will never be developed. However we now know that it can be. >> >> It is true that people have sometimes overestimated the potential of new >> technology, but I think more often they have underestimated it. People have >> often underestimated by a gigantic margin. Some of these people were >> experts who should have known better. In the 1970s the top managers at DEC >> and other companies thought that microcomputers would never amount to much. >> In the late 1990s, Paul Krugman thought that the Internet was not >> important. Here is my favorite quote from an expert in transportation who >> should have known better: >> >> Eighty-five percent of the horse-drawn vehicle industry of the country >> is untouched by the automobile. In proof of the foregoing permit me to say >> that in 1906-7, and coincident with an enormous demand for automobiles, the >> demand for buggies reached the highest tide of its history. The man who >> predicts the downfall of the automobile is a fool; the man who denies its >> great necessity and general adoption for many uses is a bigger fool; and >> the man who predicts the general annihilation of the horse and his >> vehicle is the greatest fool of all. >> >> - The keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association >> of Carriage Builders in 1908, the year that Ford introduced the Model T >> >> From D. H. Sanders, "Computers in Business, An Introduction" (1968) >> >> >>
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
The battery (or Voltaic pile as it was originally named) proved to be an incredibley important discovery, but not in the way some people imagined. So much of our modern world depends on batteries. Harry On Tue., Jul. 2, 2019, 4:39 p.m. Jed Rothwell, wrote: > H LV wrote: > > When the electric battery was first discovered in the early 1800s and >> little was known about the phenomena, to some people it seemed like it >> could become the next great source of energy. I think people should temper >> their commercial and scientific expectations when faced with the mystery of >> a new phenomena. Harry >> > > I think we now know enough about cold fusion to make informed speculation > about it. If the recent Mizuno experiment can be replicated, I think it > proves beyond question that the effect can be scaled up and made into a > commercially useful source of energy. It is only a matter of > engineering. It also shows that there is enough palladium in the world to > generate all the energy we need. I should explain that Mizuno has > projected that much higher power density is possible. We now know the > reaction can occur at high temperatures and high power density, and that it > can be controlled at least as well as a burning pile of coal or a fission > reactor core. > > When I wrote my book, I did not know whether cold fusion would ever become > a useful source of energy, or even whether it was possible to make it > practical. The book is predicated on the assumption that it can be made > practical, but that was speculation. I think we now know for sure that it > can be. It only has to be proved once, with one experiment, since the > effect itself has been widely replicated and there is no doubt it exists. > > It is possible there is such strong political opposition to cold fusion it > will never be developed. However we now know that it can be. > > It is true that people have sometimes overestimated the potential of new > technology, but I think more often they have underestimated it. People have > often underestimated by a gigantic margin. Some of these people were > experts who should have known better. In the 1970s the top managers at DEC > and other companies thought that microcomputers would never amount to much. > In the late 1990s, Paul Krugman thought that the Internet was not > important. Here is my favorite quote from an expert in transportation who > should have known better: > > Eighty-five percent of the horse-drawn vehicle industry of the country is > untouched by the automobile. In proof of the foregoing permit me to say > that in 1906-7, and coincident with an enormous demand for automobiles, the > demand for buggies reached the highest tide of its history. The man who > predicts the downfall of the automobile is a fool; the man who denies its > great necessity and general adoption for many uses is a bigger fool; and > the man who predicts the general annihilation of the horse and his > vehicle is the greatest fool of all. > > - The keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association of > Carriage Builders in 1908, the year that Ford introduced the Model T > > From D. H. Sanders, "Computers in Business, An Introduction" (1968) > > >
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
JonesBeene wrote: If palladium is being consumed then the economics are much less favorable – > even when the correct price is used… > Yes. That is what I said in the book, on p. 35: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Consumed or transmuted in secondary reactions. If it is transmuted, I hope there is a way to tweak the reaction to prevent that or minimize it. It is possible that some other metal can be substituted for palladium. Ed Storms thanks the palladium works because it expands at a different rate than nickel when it absorbs deuterium. He thinks this creates nanoscale cracks in the nickel, which is where the reaction occurs. Perhaps some other metal has that quality. (The different expansion rates of the two metals that are bound together reminds me of the way a bimetallic thermometer works.)
RE: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
Heat some Japanese homes with it. Electricity and Kerosene must get expensive.
RE: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
From: Arnaud Kodeck ➢ You [Jed} are assuming that D + D gives He4. In the Mizuno reactor, we still don’t know exactly what is the reaction taking place there. It could be Ni + D -> Cu or Pd + D -> Ag. Let’s hope that that the Pd is not consumed in the Mizuno reactor otherwise all you plans in the cost for fuels felt apart. This is perceptive. Mills has done so much work with nickel and at the same time - using the low pressure hydrogen regime - that we can be almost certain that there is NO nuclear fusion going on with the nickel. That narrows the possibilities considerably. If palladium is being consumed then the economics are much less favorable – even when the correct price is used… The best of all worlds and actually the most likely scenario is that palladium is not consumed or consumed very slowly. Deuterium could be involved in some kind of BEC reaction, very much like the scenario of Miley and Hora involving a Coulomb explosion, or else Holmlid’s muons. They have the photon signature for this – and If they are correct, the deuterium is hardly consumed (possibly less than in fusion). It would be easy for Mizuno to look for this signature. Jones
RE: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
You are assuming that D + D gives He4. In the Mizuno reactor, we still don’t know exactly what is the reaction taking place there. It could be Ni + D -> Cu or Pd + D -> Ag. Let’s hope that that the Pd is not consumed in the Mizuno reactor otherwise all you plans in the cost for fuels felt apart. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2019 15:22 To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion JonesBeene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote: The first products will be the ones highest in commercial need for portable source of electricity, not heat. I doubt that mining cryptocurrency will be high enough in value as a niche market for any advanced energy generator. They only need cheap - nothing else overrides cheap for most markets. Deuterium and palladium will never be cheap. Deuterium is far cheaper than any other fuel. High-purity heavy water costs about $1000 per kilogram, or $1/g. One gram produces as much energy as 523 gallons of gasoline. At two dollars per gallon, that costs $1,046. See p. 33: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Most of the cost of heavy water is for the energy needed to extract it. It is also expensive because there is no demand for it and techniques for extracting it have not improved much since the 1950s. Extracting large amounts of heavy water with cold fusion energy will lower the cost by at least a factor of 10, so it will be roughly 10,000 times cheaper than gasoline. As of now Pd is $1.40 per milligram but demand could push that up by a factor of 100 or more. Palladium cost $50.27 per gram which is $0.05 per milligram. Roughly half of palladium is used in catalytic converters. These will not be needed with cold fusion, freeing up supplies. Mizuno's projections show that even a large generator will need only a few grams of palladium. https://www.apmex.com/spotprices/palladium-price
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
JonesBeene wrote: > The first products will be the ones highest in commercial need for > portable source of electricity, not heat. I doubt that mining > cryptocurrency will be high enough in value as a niche market for any > advanced energy generator. They only need cheap - nothing else overrides > cheap for most markets. Deuterium and palladium will never be cheap. > Deuterium is far cheaper than any other fuel. High-purity heavy water costs about $1000 per kilogram, or $1/g. One gram produces as much energy as 523 gallons of gasoline. At two dollars per gallon, that costs $1,046. See p. 33: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Most of the cost of heavy water is for the energy needed to extract it. It is also expensive because there is no demand for it and techniques for extracting it have not improved much since the 1950s. Extracting large amounts of heavy water with cold fusion energy will lower the cost by at least a factor of 10, so it will be roughly 10,000 times cheaper than gasoline. > As of now Pd is $1.40 per milligram but demand could push that up by a > factor of 100 or more. > Palladium cost $50.27 per gram which is $0.05 per milligram. Roughly half of palladium is used in catalytic converters. These will not be needed with cold fusion, freeing up supplies. Mizuno's projections show that even a large generator will need only a few grams of palladium. https://www.apmex.com/spotprices/palladium-price
RE: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
With a COP of 10 - if (IF!) that lofty goal is really possible on a continuous level, this is perhaps the first time that it makes sense to look at the potential end markets which can return the most, the soonest; and thereafter to plan ahead with a form factor in mind that suits that particular market – possibly in the range of a few kilowatts of electric power. The first products will be the ones highest in commercial need for portable source of electricity, not heat. I doubt that mining cryptocurrency will be high enough in value as a niche market for any advanced energy generator. They only need cheap - nothing else overrides cheap for most markets. Deuterium and palladium will never be cheap. Palladium being extremely rare (.015 ppm in earth crust) could skyrocket in price with even small increase in demand - so even if deuterium went down, capital cost due to palladium could be an issue. As of now Pd is $1.40 per milligram but demand could push that up by a factor of 100 or more. Diamonds can cost up to $200 per mg (small ones about $5/mg) and yet are ~100 times more plentiful in nature than palladium. Perhaps the highest value applications - and I suspect the first to be commercialized – will be in aerospace. Drone power is a perfect market. Imagine a communication drone which stays aloft for months at a time. The smallest might require a few kilowatts electric and have a solar contribution. If the Mizuno “hearth” unit can be engineered to produce 3 kw continuous heat, and a Stirling or ORC converter can get 33% conversion into electric, then the 1 kw of output would be reduced by the 300 watts input for 700 useful output. The optimal drone for communications use would probably need 2-3 times as much, some of which can come from solar panels on the wings. It is possible that the Mizuno device could engineered rapidly for aerospace drone use with a return on investment which is far greater than any kind of heater. If a continuous high output required 200 mg of palladium per unit, then even a huge price jump in the metal would be tolerable given the value to the market and our insatiable demand for information transfer. With the continued growth in solar and wind in most of the World – having one of these to heat the home just ain’t gonna happen anytime soon - except for maybe Gates and Bezos.
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
H LV wrote: When the electric battery was first discovered in the early 1800s and > little was known about the phenomena, to some people it seemed like it > could become the next great source of energy. I think people should temper > their commercial and scientific expectations when faced with the mystery of > a new phenomena. Harry > I think we now know enough about cold fusion to make informed speculation about it. If the recent Mizuno experiment can be replicated, I think it proves beyond question that the effect can be scaled up and made into a commercially useful source of energy. It is only a matter of engineering. It also shows that there is enough palladium in the world to generate all the energy we need. I should explain that Mizuno has projected that much higher power density is possible. We now know the reaction can occur at high temperatures and high power density, and that it can be controlled at least as well as a burning pile of coal or a fission reactor core. When I wrote my book, I did not know whether cold fusion would ever become a useful source of energy, or even whether it was possible to make it practical. The book is predicated on the assumption that it can be made practical, but that was speculation. I think we now know for sure that it can be. It only has to be proved once, with one experiment, since the effect itself has been widely replicated and there is no doubt it exists. It is possible there is such strong political opposition to cold fusion it will never be developed. However we now know that it can be. It is true that people have sometimes overestimated the potential of new technology, but I think more often they have underestimated it. People have often underestimated by a gigantic margin. Some of these people were experts who should have known better. In the 1970s the top managers at DEC and other companies thought that microcomputers would never amount to much. In the late 1990s, Paul Krugman thought that the Internet was not important. Here is my favorite quote from an expert in transportation who should have known better: Eighty-five percent of the horse-drawn vehicle industry of the country is untouched by the automobile. In proof of the foregoing permit me to say that in 1906-7, and coincident with an enormous demand for automobiles, the demand for buggies reached the highest tide of its history. The man who predicts the downfall of the automobile is a fool; the man who denies its great necessity and general adoption for many uses is a bigger fool; and the man who predicts the general annihilation of the horse and his vehicle is the greatest fool of all. - The keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association of Carriage Builders in 1908, the year that Ford introduced the Model T >From D. H. Sanders, "Computers in Business, An Introduction" (1968)
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
When the electric battery was first discovered in the early 1800s and little was known about the phenomena, to some people it seemed like it could become the next great source of energy. I think people should temper their commercial and scientific expectations when faced with the mystery of a new phenomena. Harry >
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
Esa Ruoho wrote: You could always sell/rent a cold fusion-based diesel-aggregator > replacement to a bunch of electronic music hippies. or other types of > festivals, too. > Seriously, that kind of thing would never make any money. I am sure it will take billions of dollars to develop cold fusion into a practical source of energy. Maybe tens of billions. It took $1 billion to develop the Prius. Compared to cold fusion that was a minor incremental improvement to existing technology. I am sure that only major industrial corporations can develop cold fusion into a practical and safe form of energy. They will have to find ways to earn back that investment. Tapping into a $6 trillion per year market will eventually earn them hundreds of billions of dollars a year, possibly trillions of dollars. That is the only way to make a reasonable return on the investment. Some of the cold fusion researchers have thought about how to make money. They often come up with penny ante plans similar to this one. They have no concept of how difficult it will be to develop, and on the other side they have no concept of how much money can be earned with it. I recall that Les Case wanted to keep cold fusion secret. He had a ridiculous scheme that involved land in Australia. As I recall he wanted to irrigate it, grow grapes, make wine, and sell the wine to make a profit. Something like that. He would have an edge because he was irrigating with cold fusion. Why he would want to hide the cold fusion aspect of it I do not know. It was crazy. Patterson wanted a 100% market share. That's crazy too. Why would anyone insist on getting 100% of a $6 trillion market? He died with 100% of nothing. That was inevitable. I am sure that large corporations will spend the money to develop this, no matter what it costs. Even $100 billion would be a small amount compared to the profits they will make. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
You could always sell/rent a cold fusion-based diesel-aggregator replacement to a bunch of electronic music hippies. or other types of festivals, too. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to power their festivals with non-polluting electricity production methods. On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 18:02, Robert McKay wrote: > On 2019-07-02 02:28, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > So, how do you make this money? Not by trying to sell energy! That is > > a highly regulated industry. It is a difficult and complex business. > > Mine cryptocurrency.. if someone can figure out how to generate > electricity, mining machines can consume as much of it as can be > produced.. not $1000/mo but $millions per month, actually the only limit > would be obtaining enough mining hardware. > > If you generate electricity in-house and burn it on crypto, you're also > avoiding paying any VAT on the electricity, which might be beneficial.. > > Rob > > -- http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage esaru...@gmail.com // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
Robert McKay wrote: > > So, how do you make this money? Not by trying to sell energy! That is > > a highly regulated industry. It is a difficult and complex business. > > > Mine cryptocurrency.. I *hate* that stuff! You may have a good point. That might be a good way to make money with cold fusion. But I still hate that stuff!
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
On 2019-07-02 02:28, Jed Rothwell wrote: So, how do you make this money? Not by trying to sell energy! That is a highly regulated industry. It is a difficult and complex business. Mine cryptocurrency.. if someone can figure out how to generate electricity, mining machines can consume as much of it as can be produced.. not $1000/mo but $millions per month, actually the only limit would be obtaining enough mining hardware. If you generate electricity in-house and burn it on crypto, you're also avoiding paying any VAT on the electricity, which might be beneficial.. Rob
Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion
After reading the recipe for how to make money, I better understand how difficult it is. Business is not predictable this way. There are many more ingredients before this money dish is consumable. Lennart On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 21:29 Jed Rothwell wrote: > The world energy market is roughly $6 trillion per year: > > > https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/world-energy-expenditures.html > > $1.8 trillion per year is invested in energy, in things like digging > wells, R, erecting wind towers and so on. > > That is the pot of money you can tap into with cold fusion. $1.8 trillion > is the amount people will be willing to invest in cold fusion R per year, > once it becomes clear that cold fusion will become a practical source of > energy. $6 trillion per year is how much money you can divert from the oil, > gas and coal companies earnings into your own pocket if you succeed in > commercializing it. Not overnight, but in a remarkably short time. Roughly > the time it took automobiles to replace most horses, which was from 1908 > when the Model T was introduced, to 1928. > > So, how do you make this money? Not by trying to sell energy! That is a > highly regulated industry. It is a difficult and complex business. The way > to make money is to sell equipment. You gradually divert the earnings of > energy industry into earnings by you. Many companies are already doing > this, by selling machines with improved efficiency. Suppose you make an > efficient water heater. You can sell it at a premium, and make more > profit. The customer is willing to pay more because it reduces the natural > gas bill and saves money overall. > > The average water heater costs $55 a month in gas. Suppose the customer > ends up paying you $10 month more for your heater, but he saves $20 a month > in gas. In effect, you are reducing the gas company's earnings by $20, and > splitting the money between you and your customer. > > The potential is greater with cold fusion, because you eliminate the > entire cost of fuel. You and the customer spit the $55; the gas company > loses the whole amount. > > It is even more attractive for big ticket equipment. If an apartment > complex pays $1000 a month for the gas space heating, you sell them a > heater that costs about $500 a month more than a gas heater. The natural > gas company loses $1000, you and the customer each make $500. After 20 > years the equipment wears out and you sell a replacement. It is a steady > stream of income. It is siphoned off from a $6 trillion pot of money, so > there is plenty more money to grab. There is no way the energy companies > can compete or under-price you. > > This is not a one-time profit. It is a steady stream of income, because > the equipment wears out and must be replaced. > > In real life you have competition, and as you gradually wear away at gas, > oil and coal company earnings, they lower their costs, and the amount left > on the table decreases. But in principle, that is how it works. > > This only works out well if the cold fusion apartment complex space heater > costs roughly as much to manufacture as a gas-fired heater. I think it > will, because it is not particularly complicated and the materials are not > rare. For the most part, it consists of pumps, thermostats and whatnot that > are the same as the ones in a gas-fired or electric heater. Once the > technology matures, there is no reason to think it will cost more. But you > can *sell it* for much more, with much larger profits. The customer will > be happy to pay more, because it eliminates the cost of fuel. Over the life > of the machine, the fuel costs more than the equipment. So you have a > tremendous potential profit margin. If the customer cannot afford the > up-front cost, you can arrange for leasing. As long as it ends up costing > substantially less per month, the customer will be happy. As old gas-fired > equipment wears out, your equipment gradually replaces gas fired heaters. > Then as your equipment wears out, you keep selling cold fusion heaters. > > To reiterate, the money goes from the natural gas company into your > pocket, and into the customer's pocket, even though you are not selling > energy *per se*. The amount of money waiting for you to tap into and > transfer is $6 trillion per year. That is the most lucrative business > opportunity in history. Every industrial company will understand that the > first day it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real. They will > soon be spending billions of dollars per year to develop it, just as they > are now spending billions to develop self-driving cars. > >
