I believe that the LENR reaction can be adjusted to provide an output that is more well suited for the auto market. Both Mills and Papp generate a large amount of XUV and x-ray EMF, but papp added xenon (Xe) and other noble gases to his fuel mixture. These additions convert XUV and x-rays into cluster explosions to produce a shock wave that can move a piston. These gases also eliminated the production of waste heat.
Shock wave generation is the best interface for the LENR auto power plant. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The idea of making the device good for a car to justify its rapid >> introduction commercially was just a pipe dream for gullible investors in >> my mind. >> > Yes. Cold fusion researchers, "over unity" energy researchers and others > are mesmerized by the automobile market. They have good reasons. The > automobile internal combustion engine (ICE) is probably the second most > widely used machine on earth. Probably space heaters (furnaces) are number > one. People manufacture 60 million cars a year. The ICE market is unified. > If you can find a way to make a good replacement for an ICE, the whole > automotive market falls into your lap. Other major energy markets are split > up among many different machines, such as low temperature ovens, blast > furnaces, aerospace engines, marine engines, generators of vastly different > sizes, and so on. Only the automobile market calls for basically one > machine at one power level. > > The other reason people are attracted to this is because transportation is > the largest energy sector. People spend more money on transportation energy > so they would flock to a cheaper alternative. See: > > Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2014: ~98.4 quads > > > https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2014.png > > If you look carefully, however, you see that transportation is large only > because it is hugely inefficient. Compare transportation to the residential > sector. The residential energy sector consumes 11.8 quads, converting 7.66 > of them into useful energy, wasting 4.12. That's 65% efficiency. The > transportation sector consumes 27.1 quads, converting 5.68 into useful > energy, 21% efficiency. Actually, as shown in the text at the bottom of the > page, that 21% is an estimate made by the authors of this chart. It is > accurate as far as I know. > > There are many reasons for this low efficiency, such as the fact that > electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline ones. Transportation > could be made as efficient as other sectors with existing technology such > as electric cars. In this case it would consume 8.7 quads, making it the > smallest of the four sectors. So perhaps it is not such as lucrative target > for cold fusion as it first appears. > > It is interesting to compare this Lawrence Livermore chart to the 2000 > version, on the last page here: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf > > Overall estimated energy use is down slightly, from ~98.5 quads. Actual > use in the four sectors has increased slightly from 70 to 73 quads. The > overall reduction of ~3.3 quads is in changes to electricity generation, > and in increased efficiency throughout the system with things like CFL and > LED lighting. > > Electricity Generation consumed 40.4 quads in 2000, and it now takes 38.4 > quads. It was 30% efficient in 2000 and it is now 32% efficient. This is > partly because wind, solar and hydroelectricity are considered 100% > efficient, I believe. There is no wasted fuel associated with them. That is > not say that wind turbines convert 100% of wind into electricity. > > Coal has fallen from 20.5 quads to 17.9 quads. > > On this table, nuclear contributes 8.33 quads to electricity. Nuclear > power produces roughly 20% of US electricity, which is 2.48 quads. So this > table shows nuclear power being 30% efficient, which is correct. The 25.8 > quads of "rejected energy" (waste heat) show here must include 5.85 quads > of steam blowing into the sky from nuclear plant cooling towers. > > Hydro is shown contributing 2.47 quads to electricity. That would be 20% > of the total 12.4 quads of electricity. That is way too much. Hydro > contributes only about 6%. See: > > http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 > > This shows hydro contributed 259,367,000 MWh in 2014. That is a little > less than 1 quad, I believe. I cannot find the discrepancy. > > The text at the bottom of the Lawrence Livermore chart says that > "distributed electricity represents only retail electricity sales and does > not include self generation." But I still think the numbers are off. > > Here is data for worldwide energy consumption. It has interesting > comparisons between 1973 in 2013 (40 years). > > > https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf > > - Jed > >
