Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> It was my perception ( as a non-expert) that excess heat meant Q>1.0. >> I also think this is what your average person would regard as "excess >> heat". This is suppose to be the "promise" of CF is it not? > > With some techniques such as gas loading, cold fusion produces an > infinite ratio: zero input, output only. In hot fusion this would be > called a "fully ignited reaction." You cannot get more promising than that. > > >>> It would be easy to increase >>> the Q by reducing input power, using conventional electrochemical >>> techniques such as moving the anode and cathode closer together. >>> People have not done that because there is no point. >> >> NO POINT???!!!! > > No point. As Martin Fleischmann says this is no better than stamp collecting. > > The purpose of the research is to discover how to control the > reaction and how to produce a large volume of nuclear active material > in the metal. Results from the U.S. Navy and the Spring8 National > Synchrotron lab prove conclusively that only a tiny fraction of the > material in most samples is activated. Once researchers learn how to > activate a larger fraction without blowing themselves to smithereens, > the input output ratio will take care of itself. > > Improving this ratio by changing electrochemical techniques is a > useless, dead-end stunt. It can only improve the ratio to a limited > extent, probably never enough to produce a 1:5 ratio, which is what > you need to make a self-sustaining motor.
I think if such a 'demo' could be built it would attract more money than a hundred well designed experiments. > On the other hand, once you > learn to control the reaction you can easily make the ratio 1:10, or > 1:100 or probably 1:100,00 which is approximately the ratio Mizuno > and Oriani achieved with gas-phase proton conductors. > > I doubt that liquid electrochemistry will ever lead to a useful form > of cold fusion in any case. > > Improving the ratio with electrochemical techniques probably does > little to improve calorimetry, and it complicates the experiment and > interferes with other aspects of it. > > - Jed It probably would not advance the science very much, but I think such a device would do more to pique the interest of engineers and investors. Harry
