Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: I do not see that implication. To me, "massive amounts of energy" refers to >> energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For example, 50 MJ >> from a few grams of cathode material plus water. >> > > You may look at it that way . . .
No other interpretation makes sense. The energy is not "massive" by an other standard. In a website like this, they cannot explain this in detail, but I am sure that is what they meant. > , but the site has: > > > this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it >> essentially replaces fire, >> > > High energy density, which is what you are talking about, doesn't replace > fire if that energy density is not reliable. Of course not, but that is a separate issue. It is a fact that both energy density and power density are very high in cold fusion. They are about the same as a fission reactor core. High temperatures should not be a problem either. There is a great deal of evidence that the reaction can be made reliable. > If high energy density can be reliably created and sustained for > substantial periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be > that. It has been sustained for as long as 3 months, at ~100 W, by Fleischmann and Pons. See Roulette et al. If they can keep it stable for 3 months, people can learn to keep it stable indefinitely. > That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about in >> this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry. >> > > High energy density has been confirmed, but transiently. Incorrect. Experiments have run at stable power levels for weeks or months. That is not "transient." Transient would be the longest and biggest plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL, which was 10 MW lasting 0.6 seconds. > To be what this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but > reliable. Obviously. If the reaction were reliable, we would have prototype automobiles by now. We would not need this website. Reliability is the only thing missing. The purpose of this website is to raise money, conduct research, and make the reaction reliable and controllable. > We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and sustained at > adequate levels for commercial application. Incorrect. We do know this, because it has been done, on a scale of 100 W. That is actually big enough for a large fraction of all real-world applications. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that cannot be scaled up. Anything that can be done once in the laboratory, even by accident, can be mastered, controlled and scaled up. The 100 W runs were not accidental. They were repeated many times. > The existence of LENR, scientifically, is only a step toward that further > development. Many other steps have been taken. - Jed
