Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a
>practical device.
No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields
an excess of
more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why).
That's incorrect on two counts:
1. In recent years devices at Energetics Technology and elsewhere
produce much more than a few percent.
2. They know exactly why this is so. That is to say, control factors
and necessary conditions have been identified.
See the section I appended here the other day:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive
to develop.
Obviously these primitive conditions must be overcome before anything
can be developed. Overcoming them may cost only of $2 million. For
that matter it might cost nothing and be made from some old stuff
lying around in Ed's basement, or Mizuno's soon-to-be-closed
lab-in-a-broom-closet.
But you are missing the main point. Even if you come up with a device
that produces power 100% of the time with perfect control, someone
still has to spend billions of dollars dealing with practical issues
such as redesigning automobiles and other products; ensuring consumer
safety; and setting up production lines. These are minor cost
compared to the benefit. I am sure that if you could demonstrate a
potentially practical device the money to do this sort of Qhing would
quickly be forthcoming. But that money will be needed.
- Jed
