Jones Beene wrote:
That is because there are a number of untenable assumptions in going from power to energy over the long term, and this makes the figures you are using essentially meaningless to any scientist.
I believe you are overstating your point. The comparison is "rough" as I said, but not meaningless. It proves that cold fusion is a nuclear process and that it can achieve performance comparable to nuclear fission, which is what McKubre said on 60 Minutes.
If LENR depends on surface structure, nano-features and loading, then it is possible that a run of weeks or months, not years, is the maximum time before some kind of "restructuring" - or "regrooving" as Terry's friends call it . . .
There is some evidence for this, but on the other hand this cathode ran for 5 months. It is likely that a cell can be run for at least 3 times longer than this. If it were there remanufactured, that would make cold fusion comparable to fission, which requires reprocessing after 400 days. The only stumbling block might be if the reaction transmutes and consumes the Pd.
- will be needed, which could be as simple as removing the electrode and reprocessing by mechanical means - who knows.
I think there is good evidence that is all that is likely to be needed, and that cathodes may last years before this is called for. I expect gas loaded material will last even longer.
Plus, the possibility of nuclear activation of Pd has never been eliminated in any study.
On the contrary, it is indicated by some studies. Whether it always happens or not, or whether it can be controlled is an open question.
Usually it is glossed over or ignored as if the researcher had blinders on.
All of the researchers I know are aware of this issue.
In figuring the energy of uranium - the "burnup" after ever refueling is often in the range of only 5% - but that assumes that the fuel will not be reprocessed.
Along exactly the same lines, in figuring the energy of palladium (actually deuterium of course), a ~5 year duration run is also probably ~5% of the total that could be extracted from the deuterium present in a typical cell. Both systems have mechanical and engineering limitations that prevent them from producing all potential energy.
I am not talking about the absolute theoretical maximum energy that could be generated from a system of this size ignoring all engineering concerns. I am talking about actual present-day fission reactors versus actual present-day cold fusion experiments. The fact that they are within a factor of 35 of one another, while cold fusion is a factor of 1,857 times above fossil fuels, is remarkable. Compare this to tokamak performance.
- Jed
