--- Terry Blanton wrote: > While I admire your open treatment of this idea, I am compelled to inject a variation on the Fermi Paradox. If life could tap either Randell's hydrino or Paul's sea would they not evolve to the point that the sugars of nature are no longer required?
Good point. And let me re-affirm that this was pure speculation from the git-go, and the chances of this alternative-energy-route being accurate for any form of earthly life are extremely slim... nevertheless... There are a couple of rationalizations that would answer this paradox - one is the work-in-process scenario, which would involve consideration of the "slice of time" in which we are stuck. IOW... IF this methodology can be used, but evolving life is only just now to the stage of "learning" this new trick, then it hasn't yet had time enough to spread very far... or perhaps is stuck into a niche role because of other considerations (such as "cheaper" alternatives). This "cheaper" alternatives" rationalization being the determinative issue could conceivably have existed in perhaps our own recent history - say having a cold fusion engine (or ZPE, etc) available for cars in 1935, shortly after Langmuir's torch demonstrated that OU from hydrogen was possible ;-} Yes, it might have been possible then, but with gasoline at 15 cents a gallon, nobody would have bought it then if the engine was so expensive that it could never pay back its zero fuel cost in net savings - and consequently the technology would have languished or be relegated to "niche" markets, such as long-range aircraft - and in fact just having the alternative could have keep the price of gasoline artificially low for decades. That idea of "cheaper" goes beyond monetary currency to "evolutionary currency," it would seem. The other rationalization was hinted at earlier - and that is the *negatives* out-weighing the positive advantages for all but a select group of high metabolizers. The "negative" in this case being having to deal with ionizing radiation from UV. This UV as we are all aware is damaging to cells and will cause cancer eventually, but if your have the overpowering "need" which hummingbirds have and your lifespan is only 1.5-2 years, which is less time than cancer takes to develop, then it could conceivably to be implemented an alternative. As mentioned, 'iridescence' itself could be protective for UV and could be required for it to be useful, as well. In short, it would seem that a super-efficient form of metabolism which is far riskier health-wise could co-exist with the "cheaper" but less efficient alternative and not displace it over time IF there were a number of severe negative issues involved (some of which may not even be apparent). Jones
