At 02:47 PM 10/11/2012, Peter Gluck wrote:
My dear Friends,
I have a special professional relationship with
effectiveness and efficiency and as you know, with LENR.
In my paper:
<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html>http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html
you will find a few ideas about how these can work together.
Well, Peter, palladium deuteride may well be a dead end for energy
production. Tossing billions of research dollars at it makes no
sense. Rather, palladium deuteride needs probably a few million
dollars, carefully spent to investigate and elucidate the mechanism.
I'd be astonished if it took a billion dollars.
Essentially, what is needed is what both U.S. Department of Energy
reviews of the field recommended. Basic research to answer basic questions.
Where the big money will go, then, would be into the design and
engineering of whatever approach can be created once the basic
physics and materials science are understood. That might be
nickel-hydrogen, though Storms seems to think not. Deuterium is still
an attractive fuel. It's the palladium that is crazy expensive, and
palladium catalysis that is so unreliable, so far.
We really won't know where to go until that basic scientific research
is done. We need the physics community to stop pretending that cold
fusion will just go away if they ignore it, to roll up their sleeves
and use their theoretical tools, as well as improved experiments, to
figure how what's actually happening in palladium deuteride to
convert deuterium to helium. (And whatever else is going on in there.)
It's a difficult problem. I wonder if the physicists are up to the challenge.
