Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Most chemists have no training in nuclear physics and most physicists have > no training in chemistry. > That is an exaggeration. They have *some* training. Unfortunately, many physicists believe they understand all aspects of > Nature. > That they do! That's a big problem. > Consequently, I see no solution to the general rejection until a device > having a demonstrated level of commercial power has been achieved. > That would be great. But I do not think we need a "commercial level." 50 to 100 W would be fine, as long as it can be turned on and demonstrated on demand most of the time. Actually, I would be thrilled with a reliable 10 W, and I am pretty sure I could get a lot of venture capital with that. The term "commercial level" is somewhat ambiguous. How much heat is that? Most heat sources used in today's energy systems are huge, typically hundreds of megawatts. However, in the future I predict that very small heat sources will be combined with thermoelectric batteries to power devices directly. A 10 mW heat source may well be "commercial" in 20 years. It would be enough to drive a cell phone. Eventually, tiny heat sources may produce more net energy than big ones do. I think the majority of machines use less 1,000 W, when you count things like individual light bulbs as machines (or devices). I think most energy is consumed by machines that use less than 1,000 W. I read that somewhere. U.S. 120 VAC household electric outlets supply 1.5 kW maximum, so most machines consume less than that. I mean coffee pots, dishwashers, refrigerators, televisions and so on. Air conditioners, clothes washers and dryers need heavier circuits. I do not think anything else in my house does. - Jed
