James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > So paraphrasing your answer to my question: > > If the certifying institution (say UL) is "aware" that they are dealing > with a nuclear device, 2 years would be "lightning fast". Even if they > treated it as an ordinary water boiler (operating around 100C as were the > modules in the 1MW plant) 2 years would be "fast". >
Yes. It is just my opinion that a nuclear device would take much longer. I have heard that certification for any boiler takes a long time. I assume that a boiler based on an unknown aneutronic nuclear reaction would take even longer. Frankly, if I were a regulator, I would not pass it no matter what. I would insist that just about every major nuclear research laboratory in the world should first spend a year or two investigating it intensely, and that meetings of thousands of experts should be held to confirm that it is nuclear and that it causes no harm. I think it is crazy to waltz ahead putting these things into a few factories now, without first getting world-wide confirmation that the reaction causes no harm. Celani measured a burst of intense radiation from an earlier Rossi reactor. What if that starts happening again after a few thousand are installed? What if it kills people? That would be a disaster for cold fusion and -- by extension -- for the future of the world. When x-rays were first discovered, Edison and others used them freely, without checking for harm. Some poor man was shot. They used so many x-rays to look for the bullet, they killed him. When you have something totally new and unknown to science, the prudent thing to do is to investigate it thoroughly, and to subject lab rats and other species to the reaction for millions of hours before using it for practical applications. - Jed
