Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Cold Fusion
Summary: My 2 cents.
Message-ID: <5273@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 89 01:52:44 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert)


Few minor problems with this new fusion, and what appear to be clarifications
(plus how I feel they can work on the battlefield)

First: power density is horrible.  For anything of size, use a Fission plant.
It's more weight and size effecient.  (Note: i'm going by the initial figures.
one thing that might change this is whether the electricity in the electrode
makes the fusion go:  if so, then the power density can probably go way up and
also we can leave the thing fueled constantly and turn it on at will, both
if voltage/current increase.  My physics profs and TA's won't talk about it,
so I don't know.)

Second: They still don't provide limitless power.  Smaller, maybe.            
Those of you saying all the small 'what if' stuff are reccomended to look to 
small gas-turbine/generator based sources of electricity. It works, lots'o
current out of even a small backpack unit.

Third: Just as a warning:  remember high temperature superconductors?...

This should not be taken to mean that these have no potential.  But  i would
like to point out that most successes in life are evolutionary, not revolutionary.  

And as for putting them in destroyers:  Oh Great.  Let's run the cost up to   
make them as expensive as Nuclear Carriers.  Wonderful economic sense.

george william herbert
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu