My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on
Usenet back in the P&F days and made some money off palladium futures - I
mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so
very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I
certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some
general comments:
1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed,
especially with continuous run times of over 100 days.
2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's
facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and
reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive
waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a "pure" third party verification.
3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously
swapped.
4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new
cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition.
Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources.
5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future
intrasolar space drive.
6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as
with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity.
Andrew Palfreyman
- [Vo]:E-Cat general observations Andrew
-
