Dear Ing Rossi
I agree with Francesco
Your rather pessimistic comment that we should forget using the ecat for air travel for 50 years is way off the mark. In his book “The Singularity is Near”, Ray Kurzweil discusses how just about everybody tends to underestimate short term targets and badly overestimate long term targets, especially when talking about technology which improves exponentially. This comes about because everyone instinctively extrapolates in a linear fashion. In your case your history tells you it took you 25 years to get where you are now so in another 25 years you should have advanced twice as far. What you forget is the tendency of information based technologies to follow Moore’s Law (
) which generally states that integrated circuits halve in size and double in power every 18 to 24 months.
The ecat is not an integrated circuit but its advancement is directly related to scientific research which makes it an exponentially improving information technology. If the ecat were to roughly follow Moore’s law as other science based technologies do then it could reasonably be expected to halve in size and double in power approximately every two years. In 10 years that would be 5 halvings in size and 5 doublings in power. The current inefficiency in thermoelectric conversion, which is about 70% waste heat could also halve every two years. If these figures are anywhere close to true then your 10 KW home ecat in 10 years will be 3% of its current size, generate 300 KW of power which will be converted to electricity at about 97% efficiency. The ecat would effectively evolve into a nuclear battery about the size of a “D” flashlight battery, generate about 300 KW of electricity and produce waste heat at about 10 KW. Now we be flying.
It may sound like science fiction but imagine the resources that this invention will free up and the scale of the financial and human resources that will be brought to bear on this technology once it’s proven and accepted. It could well create a renaissance in science.
It’s going to be a long summer.
Mr. Jameson, I didn’t have contact information for you, so I took this without your permission. If you’re mad at me, let me know and I’ll happily remove it promptly.
I think your perspective holds a lot of validity, albeit I think your perspective is as exaggerated as Ing. Rossi’s perspective is muted. Some things certainly have done a good job of following Moore’s law, such as computers. However, batteries have been hot research lately, but have not succumb to Moore’s law. I expect unprecedented growth in LENR once the secret gets out. However, I don’t expect to see a “D” sized nuclear battery in my lifetime.