I posted it as a test, but I should have removed the END at the bottom as I assume that was not in the rejected post.
Looks like it got through, so not idea why it didn't post from Jed's account. Maybe some funny encoding got put in the original that did not survive copy and paste? On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:49 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Your vision of the LENR future is too limited. >> > > I am not talking about LENR. I am talking about the economics and cost > efficiency of different energy systems, such as central generation, PV and > -- in the future -- LENR. Every technology has built-in imperatives, and a > built-in way in which it can be used to greatest advantage, at the least > cost. > > When a new technology is developed there are usually many competing > standards and implementations. These are quickly narrowed down to one or > two. Examples: > > Long-play vinyl records after WWII settled on 33 rpm and 45 rpm, replacing > 70 rpm and other proposed standards. > > There were some 6 different kinds of RAM memory circa 1970. By 1980, only > semiconductor memory survived. Things like bubble memory never had a > chance. > > After 1980 personal computers quickly settled on the PC or Mac standard. > At this time, the Intel processor pushed other designs out out of the main > market. They survive only in niche applications. . . . > > Standards are narrowed down to one or two for many reasons, primarily > because the design engineers, tech support people, service people and > others can only master one or two techniques, and there is a limited amount > of R&D money. Once a good method -- or a good-enough method -- emerges, > others tend to fall by the wayside. > > This is why cold fusion electricity is likely to be used by one method, > and only one method, after the technology matures. It is not because cold > fusion itself is limited to one method. It is because manufacturers, > people, and society as a whole are not inclined to test many different > implementations after a reasonably good one is found. We find something > that works and we stick to it. This is why many sub-optimal technologies > continue in use for a long time, even after better ones have been invented. > > This is also a matter of economics. All else being equal, the lowest-price > method prevails in the end. Individual generators will be cheaper than a > combination of grid plus generators and for that reason alone, grid > distribution cannot compete and will not survive. > > END >
