​Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).

  • 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

    >>

    >>

    >


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…122281/posts?q=1&;page=21

  • Cold fusion is way better than that - just consider the lack of neutrons, gamma rays which are destroying wall of reactors and make the radioactive. Also the heat released is in spectrum of energies which can be utilized more effectively.

  • Cold fusion is way better than that - just consider the lack of neutrons, gamma rays which are destroying wall of reactors and make the radioactive. Also the heat released is in spectrum of energies which can be utilized more effectively.

    That would be in the 'bang' term of the bang-for-the-buck expression. We would need some kind of average figure for #of Neutrons above background for Cold Fusion vs. Controlled Hot Fusion. And since this is an undesirable trait, the #Neutrons would be in the denominator. You want (Lotsa stuff we like/not lotsa stuff we dislike).



    I don't think that such information is all that accessible. But I like where you're going with this.


    I suppose you could use an expression akin to "Number of dead grad students". Or just, number of dead. But it would have to be (1+Number of dead) because you can't divide by zero and you want the smallest number possible & put it in the denominator. For grins, we could count Hiroshima and Nagasaki against them (even though it's a logical fallacy -- it's not like they would figure it out!) so we could count something like 100k +150k for HF vs. 1 for CF.


    That would add 5 orders of magnitude to the difference...