On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, "we are one breakthrough away
from a practical device." . . .
No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is
understood.
Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's
neutrons or something like that may break ground for theory. That
is, a breakthrough may illuminate the mechanism. I can imagine they
are "one breakthrough away" from that (but of course it is
impossible to know they are). It is not necessary for the
breakthrough to lead directly to a practical device.
I wish the Boss work were a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the process
that makes apparent neutron emission during co-deposition cannot be
operating in a heat-producing cell. Otherwise, the neutrons would have
been easily detected. Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be
operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without
neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium.
In any case, this process does not make helium, the source of the
heat, and transmutation. Even tis observation opens all kinds of
possible process that so far have not been demonstrated to be
consistent with other expectations and with normal science.
I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people
such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that
it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the
one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the
materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even
today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I
expect it is better than cold fusion theory.)
Radar was not a nuclear reaction that might be put in homes. No one
will permit a device that might blow up unexpectedly to be put into
use. We all know this doesn't happen, but this must be proven beyond
any doubt to the regulators. Only a complete understanding of the
process will be believed.
Simply replicating a process that works is only the first
step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process
that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is
understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device
is safe and will last long enough to be practical.
Right. Plus you have to design practical products and set up
production lines and so on. I am sure in the end it will cost
billions. But the costs are trivial compared to the benefits.
The first essential steps -- the physics breakthrough -- may well be
doable with a few million dollars, as Robin van Spaandonk claims.
Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a
breakthrough.
Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other
people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the
best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy
the process but don't quit your day job.
Ed
- Jed
