Jed, I am not sure the cost to certify a device that a mars mission depends upon would be inexpensive. They have too much riding upon the success of the mission which will cost billions if it fails.
If you are thinking that NASA will fund the testing, then maybe this would be a good approach. I am not confident that they are open to the concept until it has been shown to be reliable up front. In the good old days it was much easier to put a potentially dangerous machine into the world for testing. The protection of the public once was secondary. Now, developing a drug for example is outrageously expensive and puts a damper upon many new ideas. If LENR is to be treated the same as a new reactor, which might make sense, then the cost may well be out of reach to anyone but a major player such as GE. Who should decide this issue? If radiation is not significant, then why force these devices into that bottomless pit? Of course if nuclear explosions are possible by some unfortunate circumstance, then there is no alternative but extensive proof of safety. So I am not sure that a small scale proof will be adequate. How do we assess the true risk of these things? Is the pain and suffering of the poor of the world enough negative impact to push forward and begin production to alleviate these problems? Some may feel that the risk is worth it because the reward is so great. Where would we be if the first vaccines were not pursued because the risk of catching the disease from the initial offerings kept them out of circulation? How would hand held cell phones been offered for sale had the potential dangers that are now suggested kept them in testing forever? Why would anyone eat genetically altered foods since no one can be certain that they are safe for both our bodies as well as the environment? Perhaps the LENR mechanisms are important enough to the world for many reasons and therefore must be allowed in some carefully chosen locations. The military seems to be safe under almost all situations since our lives depend upon their success. Rossi is apparently pursuing this path as he is stalled in certification for public uses. In my opinion the world is in dire conditions now and some reasonable risk is required if we are to survive as a species. Some of us might be willing to take a chance and become the first guinea pigs to get this technology off the ground as quickly as possible. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Sep 7, 2012 8:23 pm Subject: [Vo]:Start with a niche market where you can charge a large premium When I wrote that it might take $1 billion to develop a cold fusion machine, I meant things like first generation boilers, generators, automobiles and so on. Not small things such as thermoelectric cell phone batteries. Still, I expect you need on the order of $100 million to design one, have it certified for safety, and to set up a factory. It seems to me, to commercialize you need a strategy that calls for: Investing the least amount of capital you can Producing an income stream as quickly as possible Lowest risk for you, and for the customer The smallest, cheapest device you can come up with that has market value The biggest premium you can find (that is, a large markup, or a large profit) People such as Rossi often get the last two criteria completely backwards. You can make a lot more money per watt selling AA batteries than you can selling megawatt reactors. You want a niche market that has: Few regulations, or no regulations No competition The biggest premium Where should you look for such a thing? I say look far afield. Very far: Mars. I would begin by contacting NASA to develop a replacement for the plutonium powered thermoelectric batteries they use. You could sell that at a gigantic premium: millions of dollars per kilogram. There are no pesky regulations on Mars. Naturally, you could not actually ship a product that could be used on Mars for a long time. But the research dollar revenue stream might start very soon. There are probably other similar applications for things in the military, such UAVs, and for things like remote telephone repeaters. Once you start making money from these things, you would be developing expertise. You would gain credibility. You would attract capital. In shorty, you would have the tools you need to approach a billion dollar market such as small generators or AA battery replacements. Start with the easiest place to make a huge profit, which is not necessarily the easiest product. Go from there to other markets. Do not begin by competing with conventional natural gas in the 50 MW generator market. That's the worst possible place to begin, in my opinion. Many of the business strategies I have seen proposed in this field seem naive to me. They seem impractical. They seem to be devised by people who have little knowledge of business, or of the history of technology. - Jed
