Response to Jed. If the COP is less than one, I guess it will be VERY difficult to get funding for future development. Us with the limited imagination can hardly come to a decision to invest in new technology that hold no promises. Unfortunately, the type of education / experience people have is not a good base for to judge the level of creativity and risk willingness they have. The problem is that the willingness to take calculated risk is suppressed by the fact that decisions about investment in new technology often is determined by a 'committee'. That is the basic reason that LENR development is spearheaded by one entrepreneurial guy. Without his vision - believe - etc. I think we would have to wait another 25 years for LENR investment. Universities and the big community of scientist, which are employed there are ill equipped to take risks. I can elaborate about that but I think we already been there. .
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, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come. >> > I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too] >> attractive. >> > > I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in > 1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor. > > (André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one > year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of > early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are > today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php) > > > Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity > in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not > such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The > World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as > miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather > than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy > release and destructive power.) > > > >> It's better be over 1. >> > > Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history > of technology. > > Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them > are in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is > well taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science & > technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already. > > - Jed > >
