----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95


John Coviello wrote:

My greatest fear vis a vis cold fusion is that it will die when the researchers all die.
That's not going to happen Jed. If cold fusion is indeed a real and viable scientific discovery, the death of researchers will not end its development. Perhaps their deaths will slow cold fusion research down, but if something is real in nature it will eventually be developed by someone. The only way cold fusion will totally die is if it has been an artifact all along, gross experimental error, noise.

How do you know that? People often say things like: "Science always works in the end; valuable data is never truly lost." In other fields, valuable data and important techniques are lost all the time. - Jed

You make a valid point Jed. What you say is indeed true in some other fields. But cold fusion, if it is indeed real beyond any doubts, will prevail. Especially now in 2005/2006, there are just too many people following cold fusion these days for it to die an unnatural death. The U.S. DOE just reviewed cold fusion a few years ago. The governments of Japan and Italy are investigating cold fusion to remediate nuclear waste. Technologies that are near death don't receive that kind of official attention. Also, because oil is nearing peak production and the price of oil appears to have started a sustain rise higher, there will be a real need for alternative energy technologies in coming decades, so the pressure will be on to find alternatives, one of which is cold fusion.

Actually, I would propose that cold fusion might die from another cause of death, irrelevency. For one thing cold fusion might be provable beyond a doubt in coming years, but it might not be scalable to be useful in energy production and might just remain a useless laboratory curiosity for decades that may or may not one day be applied to some useful purpose. For two, back when cold fusion was originally discovered in 1989, the options for alternative energy were rather limited (mainly by price, but also by a lack of workable technologies). All that has changed in 2005/2006. Mainstream alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar have dropped significantly in price and have grown more efficient. Other alternatives are making gains such as fuel cells, waste-to-energy, wave/tidal power, etc. When the world needs to shift to new energy sources as fossil fuels dwindel in coming decades, they might not be looking for cold fusion or some exotic form of energy when proven mainstream alternative energy technologies are suitable to fill the gap.

Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. But as we know, the auto companies are dragging their feet on implementing such cost saving technologies as plug-in hybrid cars, so what hope does a truly revolutionary technology like cold fusion have in this world? Let's face it our government and corporate leaders make their decisions based on the bottom line. Other considerations such as the public good, environment, cost savings, safety all take a back seat to profits.

Reply via email to