Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion.
This attitude worries and saddens me. There is no doubt; no exceptions will be made in the licensing requirements of the Rossi Cat-E as a nuclear reactor. This is the main reason why fusion reactor designers want to avoid the production of neutrons in their designs; to avoid nuclear regulations via boron fusion. The tritium exfiltration nuclear limits are so strict, only heroic efforts by expert engineers can meet them. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This > seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than > chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more > energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. > > > The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing > energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or years. > Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw any > conclusions about the limits of the potential energy from any of these > tests. Even if it is "consuming" 1 g of H2 per day, as I pointed out, most > of that is probably leaking out. > > It will take much better, more leak-proof equipment to determine whether > the fuel uses up in the Mills' range (200 times chemistry?) or the nuclear > range (~1 million times chemistry). The present test is analogous to driving > a car around the block, parking it, and declaring that the maximum range of > the gas tank is 0.5 km. We have no idea how much gas is left in the tank. > > Actually you can never measure a nuclear effect by detecting a decrease in > the available fuel if the fuel is H2. Maybe you could if the fuel is one or > two Ni isotopes. For anything involving H2, you have to find a product, such > as helium. This experimental apparatus cannot possibly contain helium. > > A commercial unit will surely be a lot more leakproof than this, as Beene > points out. > > - Jed > >
