I agree with Jed's ideas. We may find @ low power levels any/all radiation/emissions are easily absorbed locally and at higher levels it requires more shielding, etc. Or that some reactants have "dirtier" emissions than others.
It is pretty obvious to me the effect is real and appears to be scalable although possibly not yet reliable at the higher levels. I became somewhat concerned recently based upon the health of some of the scientists and related people involved with various devices over the years as I read back through old documents. This may be unfounded but who knows at this point. This effect, if more common in nature than we think, might actually help expand medical knowledge if there are some emissions and potential health impacts at certain levels. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Saturday, September 8, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Let me describe the sort of Edisonian safety testing I have in mind. > > There are indications that Ni-H cells produce a burst of radiation when > they first turn on. We need to test for that. Assume the following: > > * We can make thousands of prototype devices the size of an AA battery, > without about the same power output. > > * The devices can be cycled on and off in 1 minute. > > Okay, I would suggest these should be tested by this method: > > Make an array of 100 by 100 devices (10,000). It would not be large. Have > each device monitored with round-robin sensors. > > Install the array in a place like the Kamiokande underground lab, with > every kind of particle detector and sensor money can buy. > > Cycle all of the devices on and off, every minute, for a year or two. > That's 5.3 billion cycles per year. > > See if you detect any radiation above background. > > In the meanwhile, have 10 other labs do similar tests, some with larger > devices. At the end of a year you have 10 to 50 billion cycles. If no > evidence of radiation is detected, I think everyone would agree there is no > radiation. Despite this, I would recommend we install radiation alarms in > first-generation cold fusion devices. These would be no more expensive than > smoke detectors. These are, in fact, californium radiation detectors. > > Some labs should expose lab rats and plants to the devices in case it > turns out there is some radiation or other effect we do not know about that > causes harm to living things. I think that is extremely unlikely, but we > should make sure. > > Have 100 other labs test for various other safety aspects, such as > destructive testing from overheating. > > > I suppose the cost of the program I have outlined here might be in the > hundreds of millions. It will surely be more than $20 million. I think it > would be far more than Defkalion has budgeted for safety checks. I repeat > that I personally would be opposed to allowing any devices to be used > anywhere outside the lab until tests of this nature are complete. This may > seem harsh. I realize this policy would put the kibosh on the near-term > commercial development of cold fusion. It would cancel these wonderful > fantasies entertained by Rossi and others, in which cheap, cottage industry > cold fusion heaters rolling off production lines in defiance of government > regulators. In my opinion, it is not worth risking a single human life to > fulfill these fantasies. Moreover, we must face the fact that cold fusion > might actually cause harm. We must deal with this. If we discover it causes > harm after thousands of units are shipped out and installed, that would be > a public relations disaster. It might even destroy the entire industry, and > prevent the use of this energy source. That is a risk we do not need to > take. > > These tests would probably cost more than all the money spent on cold > fusion so far. However, as I said, cold fusion will pay back at a rate of > $1 or $2 billion per day, so this program would be paid for in a few hours > after cold fusion becomes prevalent. The cost is utterly trivial compared > to the benefits. Arguing that it is not worth it would be lunacy. It would > be like disputing the cost-benefits of polio vaccines, or air-traffic > control. > > A series of tests along these lines would eliminate any rational fear of > harm from cold fusion. Or, these tests would reveal that the effect *can > actually cause harm*, so it should only be used in carefully monitored > central generators. Either way, we would eliminate uncertainty. > > A great deal of irrational fear would remain. There is no cure for that. > > It would be simpler to accomplish this by first establishing a theory that > everyone agrees is correct, and then show based on that theory that cold > fusion cannot cause harm. Or that it can cause harm, under conditions we > need to watch out for. This would be simpler, but even if we manage to do > this, I think it would be prudent to perform the kind of safety tests I > described here. I think the public would demand it, and the public would be > right to demand it. > > - Jed > >
