Peter Heckert <[email protected]> wrote: > I expect he did use it to heat an office. That does not mean he knows how > to do it again. > > He has always given the impression, that he can. >
I do not get that impression. He says he is trying to commercialize as soon as possible. He says that is his principal goal. For some inexplicable reason, he feels that in order to do that, he must make a 1 MW reactor. He says he is bending every effort to accomplish these goals. But I have never heard him say he could be making commercially useful heaters now. He said he made one years ago. I assume it was a fluke, or something he could not reproduce. Such things are common in this kind of research. As I said, Mizuno saw a dramatic reaction and spent years trying to make it happen again. So did Yamaguchi. They both failed. > He has much higher claims and Defkalions claims in their forum, made by an > official are 10 times outperforming him. > I believe Defkalion says they have better ratios and better control. I don't keep track of these ratios however, because they are unimportant. They are irrelevant to the science. Once the science is understood, setting the ratio will be a trivial matter. Rossi's latest input to output ratio is infinity, so I do not see why anyone is discussing this topic anymore. Clearly, the ratio can be set at any convenient level, depending on engineering considerations. Clearly, it is not limited by the physics, and there is no fixed ratio in any sense. The only reason most cold fusion experiments have a low ratio is because the researchers have other priorities and once they get a clear signal they have no reason to improve the ratio. > If he cannot why does he pretend to be on market in november? > He does not pretend, he hopes. > What he presented has no commercial value. > I am sure it is worth trillions of dollars. Your statement is similar to the assertion that the Wright brother's flight on December 17, 1903 had no commercial value because they only flew 852 feet. (Many people said that, by the way. You are not the first in history to say that difficult challenges should not be met, and we should not develop revolutionary new technology, no matter how promising it may be.) > Electric energy is 3 times more expensive than gas energy and coal energy. > That analysis is absurd. The cell ran for 4 hours without any electricity. There is no reason to think it could not run for months or years without electricity. Perhaps not continuously, but the duty cycle is likely to be extremely low. > It is even unclear how to shut the ecat off, when it is not needed. If it > continues to produce energy when it is nopt needed this will cauise > additional costs. > Yes many things are unclear about this. So let's ignore it, shall we? Let's not try to solve any problems or accomplish anything new, because so much is unclear, and there are so many unanswered questions and difficult problems remaining. There are no problems using oil and coal, and fission reactors like the ones at Fukushima, so let's stick with that. - Jed
