Randy Mills said: > "*A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to > being a commercial device.*" > I do not like to be dismissive, but that is ridiculous. That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Here is a famous photo of the first transistor:
http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/transistor1.jpg Does that look like it has the sophistication equivalent to a commercial device? Here is the first airplane flight in history. The machine barely got off the ground, and was incredibly unstable and difficult to fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#mediaviewer/File:First_flight2.jpg In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not get it off the ground. Here is the same machine three days earlier, after an unsuccessful attempt to fly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wilbur_Wright_after_unsuccessful_flight_trial.jpg Does that look like a commercial device to Mills? There are several stages to developing a commercial product: Proof of existence. A device proves that an effect is real. Any cold fusion reactor that produces measurable anomalous heat does this. Proof of principle. A device proves that in principle the effect can be useful. A cold fusion device that produces high temperatures and high power density does this. A cold fusion device that produces three times input power, or output with no input power, proves that in principle you might generate electricity with cold fusion. Further proof of principle. A cold fusion device powering a thermoelectric device is additional proof of principle that cold fusion generators are possible. This is true even when the cold fusion device consumes more power than the thermoelectric device outputs. Prototype. For space heating applications, this would be a device that actually produces fairly stable palpable heat. Note that the smallest space heaters produce about 500 W. For electric power this would be a device that produces electricity with no external input power (a self powered unit). This may be a crude prototype similar to the first transistor, which could not possibly be of any practical use. It is a step beyond "proof of principle" because it actually does the full application. Commercial prototype. A device that can be mass-produced in principle, and that can be submitted to safety agencies for testing. Commercial device. Something that has actually been produced in some reasonable quantity, such as 100 units, and that has passed safety licensing and inspection. It may require intense handholding and babysitting by the company that manufactures it. The first commercial computers were like this. The first 100 Tesla automobiles probably fit this description. They were very expensive and impractical for most people. Mass-produced commercial device. Something that can be made in the thousands or millions, and that can be sold for a profit. A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this type. Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not produced irrefutable proof of existence. Between the first proof of existence and the initial proof of principle devices, all the way up to a mass-produced commercial device, you may have to spend billions of dollars. The first hybrid automobiles were made around 1912. The first practical commercial hybrid automobile was the Toyota Prius, which cost about $1 billion for R&D. Compared to cold fusion this was a minor incremental improvement to an existing technology. I expect the first commercial cold fusion device of any type will also cost about $1 billion, or more. It will cost huge sums just to ensure the thing is perfectly safe. Modern society demands very high levels of assurance that a product is safe before it can be used. We demand that a new product be far safer than the older product it replaces. I expect that self driving automobiles will have to pass far more rigorous safety standards than human driven cars do. This is not rational, but it is what society demands. - Jed
