I agree with Jed on safety. In the US these devices would need to pass ASME, NFPA, OSHA, UL certifications as well as NRC guidelines which I have no familiarity with but I am sure will apply based upon the preliminary results DGT is showing of transmutations, low level radiation, heat & operating pressures and temperatures.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > James Bowery has it wrong. I am not actually making fun of Caproni and his > Ca-60 Transaereo. This was tragic case. Caproni was a gifted aircraft > designer. During WWI he made over 400 heavy bombers; the largest aircraft > outside of Russia. The biggest one was the Ca-43 triplane, 7 tons, 100 foot > wingspan. The thing is, with the Ca-60 he overreached. He did not know his > own limitations, or the limitations of the technology in 1918. As Bill > Yenne wrote: "It was a true case of an airplane company that clearly should > have known better . . ." > > There is a lesson here, and in other grandiose projects such as IBM's > ill-fated "Future Systems" initiative in the 1970s. Don't overreach! > > Andre Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Where you say: "equally close to commercialization", this of course is >> not true. The 1 MW reactor is for sale now and has industrial certification. >> > > I did not know it has industrial certification. I regard this as > gross negligence on the part of the authorities who issued the certificate. > I would not *think* of certifying that machine without 10,000 hours of > intense testing in several different independent safety labs. I think it is > lunacy to start using a nuclear fusion reactor that works by unknown > principles without first testing it extensively. > > Anyway, the fact that it is for sale does not mean much, because evidently > no one has bought it. > > > (unless -- the usual caveat -- it is all a lie. > > > Even if it is the truth, I regard this product as a useless white elephant > that no sane customer would buy except to reverse engineer. > > > >> The comparision with the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo is unfair. That was an >> early attempt to scale up a working product. > > > It was an inept attempt. Totally hopeless. It contributed nothing to > progress in aviation. > > If it had been done by amateurs it would be forgivable, but Caproni and > his colleagues at the company had a track record of success. They were > experts. They built 400 successful airplanes! Aviation was advanced enough > by 1918 that any expert should have been able to look at that design and > see it would not work. > > > Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too. It is a pretty sound, safe >> and useful idea to scale up energy devices by running my of them in >> parallel. > > > I disagree! > > > >> This idea helped him to (1) lend more credibility to his invention; . . . > > > How can that be?!? No one has any idea whether the thing actually worked > or not! He did not allow anyone to make independent measurements. For all > we know it was a lot of noise and hot water from the generator. > > > >> (2) come up with a useful product for the market which can be tapped >> soonest, because of lighter certification requirements. > > > This is about as far from a "useful product" as the Ca-60 Transaereo was. > Lighter certification for any cold fusion device would 9,800 hours of > intense testing in 50 laboratories, instead of 10,000 hours in 60 > laboratories. > > In my opinion we should not even consider using cold fusion for commercial > or practical purposes before we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it can be fully > controlled, and it does not produce dangerous radiation. Not at start up, > not in an accident, not ever. Until that has been PROVED by hundreds of > experts it would be crazy to sell reactors. What will happen if a reactor > blows up, or irradiates someone? It could set back the field for years. An > accident might even lead overzealous regulators and people opposed to > technology to ban the use of cold fusion. And for what?!? What possible > benefit could there be to selling the thing now? If Rossi needs money, I am > sure I could raise a hundred million dollars for him practically overnight. > All he has to do is start acting like a sane businessman. > > - Jed > >
