OrionWorks wrote:
It makes me wonder if you and Jed possess different interpretations
concerning what is considered "practical."
Good point. This is a complicated issue but let me list a few things that I
consider necessary for a practical device. None of these have been achieved
as far as I know.
Control. The device has to turn on reliably in an hour or less, and
fluctuate no more than 10% or so. I have never seen a cell do this. Some
energy devices, such as burning coal, cannot be turned off once they are
on, but I hope that cold fusion cells can turn off, perhaps with some heat
after death.
Scale. The device should produce at least 100 Watts of heat or 10 Watts of
thermoelectric power. A few cold fusion cells have produced this much, but
never under controlled conditions as far as I know. Most produce under a
watt, because if you tried to increase them to 100 Watts, the cell would
either do nothing or explode.
Operating range. The only cells I know of that operated at a useful
temperature and power density were the last set of boiling cells
constructed by Fleischmann and Pons, using Johnson-Matthey "special"
palladium. The cell design and the palladium are both no longer available.
Safety. Cold fusion cells are probably safe, but we do not know this yet.
Extensive testing under the widest possible range of conditions is called
for, with laboratory rats and other species.
Durability. I have never seen a cell that could survive practical use for
more than a few days. Most of the glow discharge cathodes disintegrate
after 10 minutes of use.
Cost-effectiveness. If platinum group metals are required, cold fusion may
not be cost-effective. It certainly will not be if the cathode material is
transmuted.
Someone, perhaps Swartz, iESi, or Mills, may have reached these goals. But
I have no knowledge of any such development. Believe me, I would tell the
world about something like this!
- Jed
- Definition of "practical" Jed Rothwell
-
