David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Jed, I am not sure the cost to certify a device that a mars mission depends > upon would be inexpensive. >
It would cost millions, or hundreds of millions. But of course you would structure the deal to have Uncle Sam pay that part. Uncle is the only one capable of doing it in any case. The idea is to get millions or tens of millions up front for your part of the deal. > If you are thinking that NASA will fund the testing, then maybe this would > be a good approach. > Exactly. They would not consider any other arrangement. I am not confident that they are open to the concept until it has been > shown to be reliable up front. > I am only talking about a reliable device. If it is not reliable, it has no commercial value. For an unreliable device, you need to look for venture capital to develop it. That's different from looking for a market in which to sell it. It would not be difficult to prove you have a reliable device. I know people in NASA. If anyone has such a device, I could arrange tests in a couple of weeks. 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. > True, but you would not want to live in the bad old days. I am sure we can develop cold fusion despite the restrictions. So I am not sure that a small scale proof will be adequate. > It would be adequate if you are building small device to put in places far away, such as Mars or the bottom of the ocean. Start with that, because it can be done soonest and easiest. Prove the reliability and safety of kilowatt and megawatt devices after you make milliwatt devices (AA batteries). > How do we assess the true risk of these things? > By making tens thousands of them and having every safety lab on earth test them exhaustively. No other method would be acceptable in the 21st century. The notion that one or two safety inspectors will certify devices made by Rossi or Defkalion strikes me as preposterous. No sane government on Planet Earth would allow widespread use of a device that apparently works by producing an unknown nuclear reaction. The reaction must be tested tens of thousands of times in thousands of different laboratories until: 1. Someone figures out the physics, and everyone agrees the theory is right; OR 2. Hands-on, practical control developed by Edisonian methods is assured. That is to say, control so good, with so many tests that everyone is fully confident the reaction cannot cause harm. Look what happened in the past when we began to use things like x-rays or radium without proper testing. Do we want to see hundreds of thousands of machines out there, only to discover they sometime irradiate people, causing severe DNA damage? Half measures, or certification by one or two agencies in Italy, Greece or Canada simply is not good enough. I am a leading advocate of cold fusion. I have devoted a large part of my life to that cause. But if any government official asked me whether we should simply allow this now, without tens of thousands of tests, I would say that would be criminal irresponsibility. Any Parliamentary government that would allow that should fall. Any President who allowed it should be impeached. We can *easily* have the thing tested by thousands of labs. It would be unthinkable not to do this. The cost would be trivial compared to the benefits it will produce. It will soon pay back at a rate exceeding a billion dollars a day! In my opinion, people such as Rossi and Defkalion are thinking about doing this on a scale several hundred times too small. People have accused them of overreaching. In my opinion they have little chance of of success because -- as someone here once wrote -- they are treating this like an improved windshield wiper fluid; a business venture you might launch with a warehouse full of product in cardboard boxes. Cold fusion cannot work as a cottage industry. It should be used to power every machine in our civilization, as quickly as possible. If we are going to avoid global warming that is imperative. To accomplish that will take contributions and expertise from hundreds of thousands if not millions of the world's top engineers, product designers, medical researchers, regulators and others. The cost of the transition, spread out over decades, will be billions if not trillions of dollars. But the payoff will be immense, so that should not bother anyone. The cost per capita will be modest. > Some may feel that the risk is worth it because the reward is so great. > The risk can be eliminated easily. It would absurd for anyone to run a risk. It would be like driving without you seatbelt fastened. That is to say: it would be a risk taken for no reason, with no conceivable benefit, that can be avoided with a trivial effort. - Jed
