On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business. > Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework. > An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil fuels... but it's useless if you don't do your homework. Once you're finished with Plato, Descartes, and Popper, move on to Christensen. When you can pass the exams, maybe you will be allowed to benefit from the amazing new ecats. I think you're hedging your bets now. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any >> changes be an excellent heat source. >> > > That it may be, but we already have excellent heat sources, such as > gas-fired space heaters, heat pumps and solar water heaters. > None of those are excellent compared to an isolated ecat producing 12 kW without fuel. They need in order: gas, electricity or gas, daylight, plumbing, and and energy storage technology. There are many dimensions in which something can be excellent yet still > uncompetitive in some markets. > A ecat that does what Rossi claims now would be competitive in any market. Cold fusion does not need any fuel. You might think that would make it an > unbeatable competitor. But the same can be said for solar water heating, > solar power and wind power, yet these are not competitive in all markets. > Cold fusion does not need fuel and is not intermittent. Check mate. > No, not any cold environment. That depends on the initial cost of > equipment, reliability and many other factors. > What other factors. It depends on capital cost and reliability, but Rossi has already claimed costs that are certainly competitive. Reliability would have to be proven. That's true. Why are you arguing against ecats now? Because you think maybe they're not so great after all, and you're gonna need rationalization. You might as well line it up now.
