Hello Ed and fellow Vortexians,
I might call to your attention an analysis I created titled "Comparison of
Hot and Cold Fusion," presented at the March, 2005 APS meeting.
It is slide #16 in this document:
http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-AJournalisticInvestigation.pdf .
If anyone questions the max Q value of HF I have depicted (0.67 at JET),
please note that this information was given to me by the spokesperson from
PPPL and also confirmed by an expert at General Atomics.
In regard to your item #2, Ed, I believe they have identified that
material. It is called unobtainium.
Also, coincidentally, I have a short news update on ITER, coming out in New
Energy Times issue #11 on July 10.
Cheers,
Steve
At 08:12 AM 6/24/2005, you wrote:
Well Thomas, I give "hot fusion" a 0 chance for success for the following
reasons:
1. 40 years and about 30 billion dollars have been required to get to
about 0.85 energy amplification for a few seconds. To be practical, an
energy amplification of at least 1000 for years will be needed. Better
methods will be found before this problem can be solved.
2. The process produces products that degrade the container. This
container must separate an active plasma that emits intense neutrons and
other kinds of radiation from liquid lithium where heat and neutrons are
absorbed. So far no material has been found to have the ability to
survive this environment for sufficient time.
3. To be practical, the generating plant will have to be huge. Because
the process is inefficient, large amounts of energy will have to be
dissipated at the site. This will produce serious environmental
problems. Increasing the efficiency of such a complex operation will
create serious engineering problems that have not been addressed.
4. No power company wants to invest in the method because of the large
liability and their bad experience with fission energy. The plants will
have to be so big that even a short interruption would be very expensive.
