StifflerScientific wrote: >Okay, but if we had a good way to use Heat, then why not apply it to the >waste Heat from for example an ICE engine?
If you could use it, it would not be waste heat. Waste heat is too cool for the heat engine to make use of. Some heat engines, such as triple expansion steam engines, use heat more than once. That is to say, the output from one stage of the engine is the input to the next. Cold fusion can produce heat at high temperatures, enough for a conventional heat engine to use with good efficiency. Waste heat can often be used for space heating, air conditioning, kilns and other purposes. >This would be great, but someplace it all falls apart? For most of my career >I have read of the promise of a better PV cell. Every time this is stated it >is stated as; 'By Next Year', 'Pending Funding', 'Baring Manufacturing >Problems', and you name it excuse. These are not excuses. They are facts. People are omniscient and they cannot know for certain that R&D will work out as hoped. >Seems to me we have enough Heat and 99% of it is waste, in other words not >worth the cost of recovery. 60% is wasted, not 99%. The cost is an issue in some cases, but more often it is physically impossible to make use of the waste heat. >I still think we have the Cart before the Horse. If we could use Heat in an >efficient way, we would have problem solved . . . We still have to produce the heat, and that means burning coal, fissioning uranium, or focussing sunlight. Cold fusion is potentially far cheaper than these methods. - Jed
