Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: Cold Fusion is by definition a source of energy > and size matters most. >
No, it does not. Most devices in the world require less than 100 W. The most valuable, and the most expensive energy sources are pacemaker and hearing-aid batteries that produce milliwatts. We have the notion that bigger is better in energy production because our energy system is centralized. It is 19th century technology. It only works on a large scale. This is somewhat similar to saying that power for transportation is only useful at the kilowatt level. That seems true because that's how much power it takes to move a person in a vehicle. However, if you transport goods with automated flying robots the way Amazon.com intends to do, ~200 W of power would be fine. A system which gives > 4kW output for 1kW input is more useful and valuable > than one giving 4mW for zero input. > The main problem with a 4 mW reaction is that it is difficult to detect with ordinary instruments. You need a microcalorimeter. A reliable 4 mWe source of power would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, mainly in medical applications. > Repeatable is a statistic concept . . . > Repeatability is also a flexible concept. When you are working with billions of nanoparticles it makes no difference which ones work and which don't. As long as they keep working the same way for a long time. Regarding the Amazon.com octocopters: I do not think Amazon.com will be able to do this as quickly as they hope to, because of regulatory problems and things like electric wires over streets. But I am sure that in the future most goods will be delivered by small autonomous robots, airborne or on wheels. There will be no reason to make the robots any larger than a dog. Amazon.com estimates that 86% of their packages could be delivered with the small helicopter robots they now have. The range is only about 10 miles but with cold fusion it would be infinite. - Jed
