Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:09:09 PM > > > A small army, navy or airforce with cold fusion powered weapons and > > equipment could easily wipe out the U.S. military in a few weeks, > > the way the Germans destroyed Poland and France in 1939 and 1940. > >
> They had enough gas and supplies for the initial blitzkrieg. > That is true. But as you see in the chapter of my book, that hardly begins to describe the differences. Cold fusion powered weapons systems and conventional technology are not simply today's systems with unlimited mileage. They will be enhanced in countless ways. Think of the difference between wind-powered ship and oil powered ships. Think of the materials, size and speed differences. You could never make a 157,000 ton container ship driven by wind. > > But both Patton and Rommel ran out of gas in longer engagements. A 6:1 > advantage would be critical then. > I do not know what you mean by a 6:1 advantage. A 1-liter cold fusion fuel supply will have enough fuel to drive a 157,000 ton vessel past Mars "at a fair fraction of the speed of light" as Arthur Clarke once put it. We are talking about the energy density of thermonuclear bombs. It isn't as if cold fusion reactors have to be driven by oil-fired generators! The 6:1 ratio of Rossi's reactors are a limitation of the present implementation. They are not relevant to what we will see a few years into the development of the technology. You might as well look at the limitations of the Newcomen steam engine and try to extrapolate the capabilities of a modern steam turbine engine from it. Rossi's reactors are primitive prototypes that will be obsolete within months after the start of serious R&D. They will be obsolete as quickly as Wright brothers airplanes were by 1910. - Jed
