Edmund Storms wrote:
At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, "we are one breakthrough away
from a practical device." . . .
No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is
understood.
Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's
neutrons or something like that may break ground for theory. That is,
a breakthrough may illuminate the mechanism. I can imagine they are
"one breakthrough away" from that (but of course it is impossible to
know they are). It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead
directly to a practical device.
I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people
such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that
it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the
one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the
materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even
today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I
expect it is better than cold fusion theory.)
Simply replicating a process that works is only the first
step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process
that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is
understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device
is safe and will last long enough to be practical.
Right. Plus you have to design practical products and set up
production lines and so on. I am sure in the end it will cost
billions. But the costs are trivial compared to the benefits.
The first essential steps -- the physics breakthrough -- may well be
doable with a few million dollars, as Robin van Spaandonk claims.
Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough.
- Jed
