Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
[On "cold fusion"]From what I recall, they (and other scientists) have not been able to duplicate the net-positive power output claims from the original experiment. Until they figure that out, they have no place to go with it.
|
That matches my recollection also. I was curious because Harry's statement didn't seem to match that. Which might mean I didn't read/understand correctly, or the he knows something I don't, or... So I asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
"Conventional" fusion research and equipment is pricey... accelerators can span miles... only major governments can afford the cost. The "cold" fusion research is so controversial and unproven that I think few reputable scientists want to risk their rep by getting near it.
|
This is one of the attractions of Bussard's Boron fusion approach. IF it works (a big if, that isn't yet demonstrated one way or the other), it's small-scale and relatively inexpensive to test. See that "Should Google go Nuclear" talk for more information. It looks like they'd need about $20 Million to produce a test article suitable to either prove feasibility or to demonstrate that the approach doesn't work (along with learning
why it doesn't work).
And unlike Pons & Fleishman, Bussard went the normal peer-reviewed publication and research route, thus avoiding the "too controversial to go near" problem.
All of which then begs the question: "Why no closer investigation of Bussard's approach?" I have no clue what the answer might be. Do any of the hordes out there in cyberspace know? If so, please tell!
Xenophon