Dear Jed, Perhaps it would be useful to write about the quality problem for the CF based energy sources , in the light of the teachings of the American classics, Deming, Juran, Crosby. The small, 100W devices need very good reliability- I have two friends using pacemaker and I would not dare to speak them about a cold fusion source feeding their survival apparatus. Batteries are far from perfect but it would be almost impossible compete with them.
Excuse me but what you say about "flexible repeatability" has nothing to do with CF. It is more practical to recognize we have a deadly R-problem and we MUST solve it. Step by step it becomes ethical to realize that the problem cannot be solved for wet CF systems. In some cases the impossible is possible. Reality is a very persistent illusion as Uncle Albert has said. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
