In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] ><[email protected]> wrote: > >The point is that they will need to be manufactured at all, where today >> they are >> not. > > >They what? I have lost track of what you mean. Do you mean cold fusion >cells? They will integrated into generators, the way a combustion heat >engine is now. They will not require more materials than, say, the turbine, >fuel tank, fuel regulator and ignition system in today's gas fired >generator. They will not be more expensive.
True, but where today such generators are a "minor" item, CF generators will be manufactured in their billions ( 7 billion people / 2.7 people per household = 3.6 billion generators.) > >First gen machines will resemble today's generator, except they will take 1 >L of fuel every 10 years, instead of thousands of liters a week. You build >that 1 L of fuel into the cell. The overall complexity and component count >of the machine should be roughly the same as today's generator. The cold >fusion cell replaces the fuel tank and ignition section. > > >This will create some new jobs to replace a portion of those lost, as >> happens when any new technology comes along. E.g. we now have people >> employed >> making iPhone's that didn't exist 50 years ago. >> > >Actually, people do not make iPhones. Robots do. http://www.cnet.com/au/news/low-wages-and-long-hours-still-persist-at-iphone-factory-claims-labor-group/ When did robots start being paid wages? > >Putting aside that issue, what people made 50 years ago were landline >phones, tape recorders, cameras, televisions and many other things that >have now been largely replaced with iPhones. Plus iPhones have reduced the >need for landlines themselves and central office switching systems. Cell >phone towers use far less material and they are much cheaper, which is why >third world countries can afford them. > >Overall, the labor, materials and the physical volume of iPhones are much >smaller than the machines they replaced, and that would be true even if we >did not have robots. True, and a good thing too. That's why our standard of living goes up. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
