At 08:09 PM 9/14/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed,
if by "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication.
I do not see that implication. To me, "massive amounts of energy"
refers to energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For
example, 50 MJ from a few grams of cathode material plus water.
You may look at it that way, but the site has:
this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since
it essentially replaces fire,
High energy density, which is what you are talking about, doesn't
replace fire if that energy density is not reliable. If high energy
density can be reliably created and sustained for substantial
periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be that.
That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about
in this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry.
High energy density has been confirmed, but transiently. To be what
this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but
reliable. We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and
sustained at adequate levels for commercial application. The
existence of LENR, scientifically, is only a step toward that further
development.
The "commercial" levels of heat reportedly produced by Rossi are not
massive. Not by commercial standards. They are ordinary: 12 kW
continuing for several hours, or 500 kW running for about a day. If
Rossi had produced 200 MW, that would be massive.
Indeed. None of the Rossi demonstrations have shown what would be necessary.
I quibble with some of the other assertions in this message, but I
will not go into detail. I think many claims are better established
than Lomax thinks they are.
Perhaps. However, I'm taking a strong stand for supporting what is
confirmed, as distinct from what has merely been claimed or that is
the subject of isolated reports. LENR is confirmed, and that includes
confirmation of high energy density, but not reliable high energy
density. Know of any exceptions?
The claims of Rossi et al are not even confirmed as to high power
output for short periods, much less long periods. Imagine a 1 MW
plant that actually works. But, uh, it only works for a day. Then the
modules fail. How long is enough?
I've claimed that Rossi could have applied for patents, and
immediately started selling E-Cats for investigational use. If those
worked for a day, it would be great! He'd also sell the fuel. For
investigational use, reliability is actually not necessary, as long
as one discloses what one is actually selling and does not misrepresent it.
The same would be true for any of Rossi's competitors, if they
actually have something. Sell it!
But greed does have a way of trumping other approaches. Secrecy is
believed to be necessary. Selling an investigational product would
allow others to investigate the field! Somebody else might come up
with something better!
And that possibility is actually why patents are issued. To allow
others to improve products, to build on them, to encourage inventors
to share what they have invented.
