Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).
side by side:
cold fusion
2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications /
$300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$
Hot fusion
0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3K joules (max) * 20 replications /
$2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$
That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.
So... we should fund fusion research dollars on the basis of how many MJouleSamples/$ bang-for-the-buck. There is likely to be a "special consideration" that those hot fusion boys are also researching nukular weapons that bill blow the hell out of our enemies. That's worth ... uhh.... something. Maybe grant them 5 orders of magnitude?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg90393.html
Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered
Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered
Kevin O'Malley Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:24:59 -0800
I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity
Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion
(CHF) experiments haven't even broken overunity, let alone ignition.
*Nuclear fusion hits energy
milestone*<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol…nergy-milestone-1.2534140
"The final reaction took place in a tiny "hot spot" about half the width of
a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It
released 17.3 kilojoules - almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel."
look again at the two side by side:
cold fusion
2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications /
$300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$
Hot fusion
0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications /
$2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$
That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it
> depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of
> it. So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation
> into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is
> 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order
> of magnitude here or there. That doesn't change the fact that LENR is 12
> orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion.
>
> look at the two side by side:
> cold fusion
> 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k
> average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$
>
> Hot fusion
> 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion
> average = 0.00000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$
> That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
>>> periods.
>>>
>>
>> Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6
>> s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I
>> am not sure.
>>
>>
>> ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred
>>> megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k.
>>>
>>
>> No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a
>> few have generated 10 to 300 MJ.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------