If as I believe Daniel intimated, he has cold (tap temperature) water available behind a water valve and a fan to circulate the oven air through a heat exchanger
I still do not understand what he has. I don't go with intimations. They often turn out to be wrong. Mine do, anyway. Let's discuss this after we see a schematic and description. Perhaps there was one during his presentation but I did not take screen shots, and I don't recall the details.
An ICCF presentation exposed that precious metals can be dispensed with in a Mizuno-style reactor.
Is this presentation somewhere available, since I missed it online?
Is this presentation somewhere available, since I missed it online?
If Daniel_G gives permission, the conference Organizing Committee will upload it sometime after August 7.
I think the videos will be uploaded here, where the Short Course vids are now:
Mine has the most views, because mine got there first, because I turn in my work on time. Let that be a lesson to you!
Link works fine. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for posting this.
What are the axes for the plot on slide 6?
As you heard in the conference they may offer a $100 million Ansari X-prize for cold fusion. If you win, that will give you enough money to buy the precious metals. On the other hand, I believe one of the conditions will be that you must have the device independently replicated by some prestigious lab. Perhaps that can be done while maintaining secrecy, but it still might put you on the horns of a dilemma. It will be an interesting choice. Do you want $100 million with no strings attached, and no need to sell shares? Or do you want to maintain tight confidentiality?
Several cold fusion researchers may agonize over that dilemma.
How many pounds of palladium and other precious metals are anticipated to be necessary?
The stuff isn’t that expensive. Palladium and platinum are used in nearly every automobile made, for decades. Gold is so common it is thrown away in ordinary electronics all the time.
Platinum bowls and cupels such are common in some chemistry laboratories.
strategic IP concerns and fiduciary responsibilities to our shareholders.
Shared science establishes exponential growth in an industry. That is a strategy, found in established industries. All stakeholders should understand this.
What percentage of a multi trillion plus market do you hope to capture? Do you think you will face too much competition or fear you will have trouble selling your product?
Have your stakeholders invested one billion, or five hundred million, or even less?
Thanks for posting this.
What are the axes for the plot on slide 6?
Y is temperature and X is Watts
Shared science establishes exponential growth in an industry. That is a strategy, found in established industries. All stakeholders should understand this.
What percentage of a multi trillion plus market do you hope to capture? Do you think you will face too much competition or fear you will have trouble selling your product?
Have your stakeholders invested one billion, or five hundred million, or even less?
Some things we share. Some things we don’t. It doesn’t matter how much investors invested. If I cowboy with the early stage investors do you seriously think later stage investors will write billion dollar checks?
How many pounds of palladium and other precious metals are anticipated to be necessary?
The stuff isn’t that expensive. Palladium and platinum are used in nearly every automobile made, for decades. Gold is so common it is thrown away in ordinary electronics all the time.
Platinum bowls and cupels such are common in some chemistry laboratories.
You are naysaying our zero precious metal technology? The future is brighter when no country can unilaterally control a resource.
How many pounds of palladium and other precious metals are anticipated to be necessary?
The stuff isn’t that expensive. Palladium and platinum are used in nearly every automobile made, for decades.
This issue is complicated. I discussed it with Nagel recently, and before that with Fleischmann and various other people. There are two, related problems: the total amount of palladium available, and the duty cycle of machines.
Fleischmann was an expert about palladium. He knew how much there is, and how much is mined. As I recall, he estimated that about a third of all the energy in the world could be generated with palladium cold fusion. Others have estimated that more could be generated, perhaps even 100%. But here's the problem: to generate a third of all energy, or all energy, you would have to put the palladium in large, central electric company power generators. They would have to be highly efficient. They would have to be used most hours of the day. In other words, the duty cycle has to be high.
Suppose you have a cold fusion powered automobile, with some amount of palladium sitting in the engine. I have estimated the amount of palladium will be modest, roughly as much as there is in an automobile catalytic converter with thin film Pd. I estimate that because 75% of the heat from the burning gasoline flows through the catalytic converter today, and I assume that when cold fusion is perfected, a thin film CF device will produce about as much heat as the thin film Pd catalyzes. The problem is that automobile converters today use about half the total supply of Pd, but automobiles only generate 5.7 quads of useful energy, which is 18% of total useful energy (not including waste heat or "rejected" energy). So 100% of Pd would produce 36% of the energy we need if it were deployed in things like automobile engines.
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2022-04/Energy_2021_United-States_0.png
There are two big problems. First, a typical automobile is used for an hour a day. The duty cycle is 4%. What is worse, an automobile is never run at full power. No one full-throttles a car because it would go 100 mph. Most of the time, a car operates at 10% or 20% of full power. So, the Pd in a car motor would sit idle 96% of the time, and it would produce only 20% of its full power capacity the rest of the time. This would be a terrific waste of Pd!
A home generator would be somewhat better. A CF flashlight left on the shelf for all but a few hours a year would be much worse. If a flashlight needed Pd, it would resemble one byte of storage in a hard disk. A byte of storage is probably used a few times, or never, in the life of the device. Think of how many files you have on your computer that you have only used a few times. Hard disks are the largest waste of capacity in modern technology. That's unavoidable, and not important now that a terabyte costs $20, but a similar duty cycle for palladium would be a disaster.
So, the Pd would have to be in high duty cycle central generators, which means we lose most of the cost savings we might get from cold fusion. We have to pay for the power company generators and the grid. We would have to make generators highly efficient, which greatly increases the cost per kilowatt of capacity.
As I showed in my Short Course presentation (below), decentralization, doing away with the grid, and optimizing for cost instead of efficiency would make energy 20 times cheaper. Cold fusion in central generators would only be a little cheaper than wind or solar.
Fortunately, if you can use Ni, Ti, or some other cheap, abundant metal, then you can make every device decentralized like a home generator, or even stand-alone, like an automobile engine or a flashlight. The cost of the metal does not matter. The duty cycle does not matter. An LED cold fusion flashlight used for 30 minutes a year would be nearly as cheap as today's battery powered flashlight.
There is one other problem I only have time to mention in passing. If the palladium is transmuted by the reaction, that means it is "used up." That would severely limit the amount of energy you can generate with cold fusion. There are indications of palladium and other host metals transmuting. It would not matter with nickel or titanium, but it would put the kibosh on cold fusion with palladium.
write billion dollar checks?
Yes! Well over thousand (1.9T) billion dollar checks in 2021 alone, by late stage investors. (as an analogy)
Not including checks written for ITER etc.
Quote
In 2021, annual global energy investment is set to rise to USD 1.9 trillion, rebounding nearly 10% from 2020.
Source
The International Energy Agency is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organisation established in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1974 in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis.
Your connection to this site is secure
If I cowboy with the early stage investors do you seriously think later stage investors will write billion dollar checks?
Yes, I am certain they will. If your intellectual property is secured, you should tell the whole world what you have, and distribute working reactors. Do that as soon as possible. Because the sooner you do it, the sooner you will get billions of dollars of investment money. And because your rivals such as Clean Planet may do it first. If their collaboration with Miura works out, they will get the jump on you, and they will get some of the first billions in highly favorable terms.
Perhaps you do not understand the likely scale of cold fusion technology. It will be worth trillions of dollars per year. A billion dollar investment will be a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, it is not as if you, or anyone else, in this field can dominate the whole market. The largest industrial companies cannot dominate it. None of you will run out of cold fusion related technology to invent. Not for the next 500 years at least. Consider semiconductor patents. The first one was issued in 1950. That was not the end; it was the very beginning. There were 53,000 more patents after that, in 31,200 categories.
If you stay in the cold fusion business, there will be countless other opportunities to invent things, and reasons for investors to hand you large sums of money.
Furthermore, the first implementation you come up with will be obsolete within a few years. That was true of all technology, from automobiles, to airplanes, mainframe computers, semiconductors to personal computers, cell phones and so on. Semiconductor designs and manufacturing techniques changed several times in the first decade of development, going from germanium to silicon. If you are lucky, and you are skilled at writing patents, your initial implementation may still bring in patent revenue even after it obsoleted. But it will be obsolete, probably before you ship the first commercial units.
Fire is the oldest human technology there is. Today it is called combustion engineering. There is probably more R&D in combustion technology than ever before. 442 patents in it have been granted in recent years. However many centuries into the future people use fire, we will invent new and better ways to use it.
You are naysaying our zero precious metal technology? The future is brighter when no country can unilaterally control a resource.
Ok.
Some people are able to invent several distinctly different"overunity" devices over the course of their careers. Simply amazing.
But I don't see the problem that was so big it needed to be solved in the middle of successful tests using PGEs.
Daniel,
Thanks for sharing....
Will be interesting to see how your approach evolves.
However it is my understanding that LENR is dependant on multiple variables, besides temperature also magnetic field.
If all the cold fusion companies entering the market succeed in offering energy at significant cost savings they could, theoretical, split the energy markets up amongst themselves.
I'd like to see this be the most successful industry ever created.
Sharing science, intellectual property and trade secrets? This does not mean sharing without negotiation or consideration and mutual cooperation.
CMNS energy tech solves our most daunting problems. Money will be made hands over fists. Mega Money
Winner takes all mentality is way out of line here.
This nascent industry needs shared science in order to be the most successful industry ever created.
https://www.iea.org › global-end-us...
Global end-use spending on energy, 2000-2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
https://www.iea.org › global-end-us...
Global end-use spending on energy, 2000-2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
That IEA graph baffles me. I wish it had more information. I wrestled with it for hours. I am pretty sure it shows the cost of "Gas" and "Coal" excluding gas and coal used to generate electricity. It folds all fuel costs for electricity into the "Power sector" category. The Gas and Coal costs in the graph are only for things like gas used for space heating, or coal used in steel production. Non-electric power applications. There are not many of these for coal nowadays.
That is what I concluded after comparing these numbers to other sources. But I could be wrong.
Money will be made hands over fists. Mega Money
JedRothwell This is older, yet answers this question better. How much does the world pay for energy used in a year?
https://www.enerdata.net › world-en...
World Energy Expenditures - Enerdata
Nov 28, 2011 — More than US$6,000bn1 -10% of the world Gross Domestic Product (GDP)- is spent each year in the world for energy purposes.
10 percent of World GDP IS MEGA X MEGA MONEY
This nascent industry should work together. Strategic planning. Prepare in force for a rapid takeover of all energy markets. Cooperate as an industry for rapid application, productivity and continuous improvements. Investors will benefit.
