Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I don't necessarily agree that cold fusion is economically viable,
it's possible that huge sums could be spent with no commercial
result, but at this point, huge sums aren't needed; rather what is
needed is what Kowalski suggests, and what a DoE panel also
recommended in 2004, and even recommended back in 1989, though it
was half-hearted in 1989.
Targeted research to establish more firmly the basic science. Not
hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think tens of millions would be appropriate now, but as soon as
someone demonstrates a 10 W stand alone Arata effect device that
continues for a month, I would recommend hundreds of millions per
year. That could happen within weeks of the present day, if someone
would get serious.
To put things in perspective, the average U.S. highway interchange
costs $9 million to construct.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/Construction/pdf/I-C_Const_Cost.pdf
I think we can afford the cost of one interchange per year to explore
what is probably the most important breakthrough in the history of
technology. And I do not think that overstates the importance. On the
contrary, if cold fusion can be commercialized, it will soon seem far
more important than anyone alive today can imagine.
People think the Internet is a breathtaking breakthrough. It is
nothing compared to cold fusion. It is a trivial, incremental
improvement in comparison. After all, most of the functions of the
Internet were available before it was developed, in places like
public libraries, for example. People have had instantaneous
world-wide electronic communication since the transatlantic cable was
laid in 1866. The cost was much higher, of course.
I am sick of hearing that we should not "overstate" the potential
benefits. As I said, you could not overstate them in your wildest
dreams. There was a big discussion of this at ICCF-15. Mike McKubre
and I said we should tell people the potential benefits are
tremendous, while others said we should downplay them.
- Jed
