I think the car examples are because they are easy to communicate. No serious investor will make that in itself a major factor in an investment decision, We are talking millions and that is a lot of money even for the super rich.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe that the LENR reaction can be adjusted to provide an output that > is more well suited for the auto market. Both Mills and Papp generate a > large amount of XUV and x-ray EMF, but papp added xenon (Xe) and other > noble gases to his fuel mixture. These additions convert XUV and x-rays > into cluster explosions to produce a shock wave that can move a piston. > These gases also eliminated the production of waste heat. > > Shock wave generation is the best interface for the LENR auto power plant. > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> The idea of making the device good for a car to justify its rapid >>> introduction commercially was just a pipe dream for gullible investors in >>> my mind. >>> >> Yes. Cold fusion researchers, "over unity" energy researchers and others >> are mesmerized by the automobile market. They have good reasons. The >> automobile internal combustion engine (ICE) is probably the second most >> widely used machine on earth. Probably space heaters (furnaces) are number >> one. People manufacture 60 million cars a year. The ICE market is unified. >> If you can find a way to make a good replacement for an ICE, the whole >> automotive market falls into your lap. Other major energy markets are split >> up among many different machines, such as low temperature ovens, blast >> furnaces, aerospace engines, marine engines, generators of vastly different >> sizes, and so on. Only the automobile market calls for basically one >> machine at one power level. >> >> The other reason people are attracted to this is because transportation >> is the largest energy sector. People spend more money on transportation >> energy so they would flock to a cheaper alternative. See: >> >> Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2014: ~98.4 quads >> >> >> https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2014.png >> >> If you look carefully, however, you see that transportation is large only >> because it is hugely inefficient. Compare transportation to the residential >> sector. The residential energy sector consumes 11.8 quads, converting 7.66 >> of them into useful energy, wasting 4.12. That's 65% efficiency. The >> transportation sector consumes 27.1 quads, converting 5.68 into useful >> energy, 21% efficiency. Actually, as shown in the text at the bottom of the >> page, that 21% is an estimate made by the authors of this chart. It is >> accurate as far as I know. >> >> There are many reasons for this low efficiency, such as the fact that >> electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline ones. Transportation >> could be made as efficient as other sectors with existing technology such >> as electric cars. In this case it would consume 8.7 quads, making it the >> smallest of the four sectors. So perhaps it is not such as lucrative target >> for cold fusion as it first appears. >> >> It is interesting to compare this Lawrence Livermore chart to the 2000 >> version, on the last page here: >> >> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf >> >> Overall estimated energy use is down slightly, from ~98.5 quads. Actual >> use in the four sectors has increased slightly from 70 to 73 quads. The >> overall reduction of ~3.3 quads is in changes to electricity generation, >> and in increased efficiency throughout the system with things like CFL and >> LED lighting. >> >> Electricity Generation consumed 40.4 quads in 2000, and it now takes 38.4 >> quads. It was 30% efficient in 2000 and it is now 32% efficient. This is >> partly because wind, solar and hydroelectricity are considered 100% >> efficient, I believe. There is no wasted fuel associated with them. That is >> not say that wind turbines convert 100% of wind into electricity. >> >> Coal has fallen from 20.5 quads to 17.9 quads. >> >> On this table, nuclear contributes 8.33 quads to electricity. Nuclear >> power produces roughly 20% of US electricity, which is 2.48 quads. So this >> table shows nuclear power being 30% efficient, which is correct. The 25.8 >> quads of "rejected energy" (waste heat) show here must include 5.85 quads >> of steam blowing into the sky from nuclear plant cooling towers. >> >> Hydro is shown contributing 2.47 quads to electricity. That would be 20% >> of the total 12.4 quads of electricity. That is way too much. Hydro >> contributes only about 6%. See: >> >> http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 >> >> This shows hydro contributed 259,367,000 MWh in 2014. That is a little >> less than 1 quad, I believe. I cannot find the discrepancy. >> >> The text at the bottom of the Lawrence Livermore chart says that >> "distributed electricity represents only retail electricity sales and does >> not include self generation." But I still think the numbers are off. >> >> Here is data for worldwide energy consumption. It has interesting >> comparisons between 1973 in 2013 (40 years). >> >> >> https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf >> >> - Jed >> >> >
