Dear Robin, The reason is first of all historical- for 21.85 years and 15 ICCFs we have tried to explore, understand and make use of the palladium- deuterium systems,first of all. Scientifically these are OK, but it is a problem of principle is POSSIBLE to use them as an energy source? A reliable energy source? The progress was painfully slow, the quantity of disillusions huge, the efforts heroic. But we are very far from a solution.
I remember that in 1997 (?) at Cambridge, at a conference organized by Gene Mallove I had a kind of intellectual revelation- palladium is bad at it was a very negative chance that Fleischmann and Pons have discovered CF in this metal. A very unlucky choice. Heretical idea! In a short speech I told that for CF to be discovered in/with palladium was like for a lion to be born at the North Pole. Nobody has understood the idea, including me - but later I became increasingly aware that it is not such an idiocy as it seems at a first sight. What if Pd-D based energy source will not ever fulfill the conditions of intensity, reproducibility, continuity, safety, upscalability? Pd- D CF is science, but not technology.I know a few reasons for that. Other - I bet that Rossi's nickel is NOt isotopically enriched in any way, in order to separate isotopes you have to bring the metal in a fluid form liquid or gaseous. peter On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:41 +0300: > Hi, > [snip] > >And, in principle. will we ever have a technologizable Pd-D cold fusion? > > Why would we want a technology based upon scarce (& expensive) substances > (Pd & > D) when we can have one based on cheap and readily available ones (Ni & H)? > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
