Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[mixent]

In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:40:47 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of 
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively 
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious 
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether 
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?

All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device itself, and
fused on the spot.
However the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy it will
cost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino = 8
MeV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
production efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how many
times I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
Though it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes available that
might consume energy.

Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a few
thousand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is billion/trillions if
it does.
(The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).

(Besides the additional benefit of cheap  easy interplanetary travel.;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Roarty, Francis X]

On June 06, 2012  JOjo said  It seems to me that the first step is to prove 
your theory with a relatively 
cheap Hydrino Generator. 

I disagree, based on Jan Naudts explanation of the hydrino you need a 
relativity cheap hydrino maker :_) 
Fran



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph 
Management (and LENR))

Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of 
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively 
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious 
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether 
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?


Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))


In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800:
Hi Jojo,
[snip]
Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000
that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without
apparent success.  No insult or ridicule intended,  but what makes you 
think
that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what
he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful?

Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult.  I
guenuinely want to know.
[snip]

1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions.

2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having
trouble achieving an acceptable COP.

3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times
more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an
acceptable COP should not be a problem.

4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he
requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very 
large
energy output/Hydrino.

5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, 
leading
to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds).

6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino 
production
rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical 
current.
(In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, 
which
is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs).

7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because 
it
is very clean in a nuclear sense.

8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of
years.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[David Roberson]

I must not understand the hydrino concept very well Robin.  I thought that the 
hydrinos formed by releasing energy into some other catalyst.  Is this in error?

Why do you mention a cost of 4000 eV per hydrino?  How is that number derived?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 2:01 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))


In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:40:47 +0800:
i,
snip]
Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of 
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively 
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious 
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether 
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?
All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device itself, and
used on the spot.
owever the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy it will
ost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino = 8
eV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
roduction efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how many
imes I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
hough it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes available that
ight consume energy.
Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a few
housand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is billion/trillions if
t does.
The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).
(Besides the additional benefit of cheap  easy interplanetary travel.;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:54:53 -0400 (EDT):
Hi Dave,
[snip]

I must not understand the hydrino concept very well Robin.  I thought that the 
hydrinos formed by releasing energy into some other catalyst.  Is this in 
error?

No, that's correct. In fact even in my device if there were no fusion at all,
the Hydrino formation energy should still be achieved, however it's probably not
directly in a form that would be usable within the device itself. IOW it would
need to be extracted in the form of heat then reconverted to electric power
before it could be used.
This provides however for at most a modest COP of about 6 (before electrical
conversion, or only about 2 after conversion). Since this pales by comparison to
the COP of 2000 potentially achievable with fusion I simply left it out of
consideration.


Why do you mention a cost of 4000 eV per hydrino?  How is that number derived?

It's the energy required to split the Hydrino molecules.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Jojo Jaro]

Robin, let me see if I got this right.

1.  Your machine (proposed machine) will take H2 (Hydrogen Molecule) and 
convert it to Hy2 (hydrino molecule.).  Theoritically you can do this in 
copious amounts with an output of energy.


2.  Then, you take the Hy2 molecule and split it into Hy+ and Hy+ molecule. 
This involves an input of 4000eV.


3.  Then you fuse Hy+ with Hy+ to form a hydrino variant of Helium.

4.  Then this hydrino variant of He becomes normal Helium with an input of 
energy.



Did I get this right?

And all this results in a COP of 1000 - 2000?

I think the first step is to prove the existence of the Hydrino to begin 
with.  Do we have any conclusive proof that hydrinos exists?



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))



In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:40:47 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]

Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a 
relatively

cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?


All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device itself, 
and

fused on the spot.
However the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy it 
will
cost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino = 
8

MeV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
production efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how many
times I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
Though it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes available 
that

might consume energy.

Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a few
thousand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is billion/trillions 
if

it does.
(The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).

(Besides the additional benefit of cheap  easy interplanetary travel.;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[David Roberson]

Thanks Robin, I did not realize that you were starting with the molecules.  Now 
it adds up.  

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 3:09 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:54:53 -0400 (EDT):
i Dave,
snip]

I must not understand the hydrino concept very well Robin.  I thought that the 
ydrinos formed by releasing energy into some other catalyst.  Is this in error?
No, that's correct. In fact even in my device if there were no fusion at all,
he Hydrino formation energy should still be achieved, however it's probably not
irectly in a form that would be usable within the device itself. IOW it would
eed to be extracted in the form of heat then reconverted to electric power
efore it could be used.
his provides however for at most a modest COP of about 6 (before electrical
onversion, or only about 2 after conversion). Since this pales by comparison to
he COP of 2000 potentially achievable with fusion I simply left it out of
onsideration.

Why do you mention a cost of 4000 eV per hydrino?  How is that number derived?
It's the energy required to split the Hydrino molecules.
egards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Mike Carrell]

The simple, and correct thing to do is *study*the current BLP website,
particularly the 'technical presentation', the FAQ, etc. There is more than
ample proof of the physical existence of the hydrino state listed. There is
no point in trying to create a HE version of a hydrino, although such might
be possible. There is a strong likelihood that the 'excess heat' seen in
LENR?CF experiments is due to hydrino formation at the cathodes of
electrolytic cells as discussed by  Mills in the 'technical presentation'.
In other words, do your homework.

Mike Carrell

-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and
LENR))

Robin, let me see if I got this right.

1.  Your machine (proposed machine) will take H2 (Hydrogen Molecule) and
convert it to Hy2 (hydrino molecule.).  Theoritically you can do this in
copious amounts with an output of energy.

2.  Then, you take the Hy2 molecule and split it into Hy+ and Hy+ molecule. 
This involves an input of 4000eV.

3.  Then you fuse Hy+ with Hy+ to form a hydrino variant of Helium.

4.  Then this hydrino variant of He becomes normal Helium with an input of
energy.


Did I get this right?

And all this results in a COP of 1000 - 2000?

I think the first step is to prove the existence of the Hydrino to begin 
with.  Do we have any conclusive proof that hydrinos exists?


Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and

LENR))


In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:40:47 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a 
relatively
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?

All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device itself, 
and
fused on the spot.
However the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy it 
will
cost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino = 
8
MeV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
production efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how many
times I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
Though it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes available 
that
might consume energy.

Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a few
thousand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is billion/trillions 
if
it does.
(The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).

(Besides the additional benefit of cheap  easy interplanetary travel.;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html




This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

RE: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Mike Carrell]

The basic problem that Mills has had is in producing an attractive COP in a
commercial package. He probably has achieved this with CUHT as described on
the current website. Robin appears to seek the fusion path with a H[1/127]
pseudo-neutron. While Mills has reported spectroscopic evidence of H[1/16]
hydrinos, such are rare by the methods mills has used. It is a new world,
largely unexplored.

Mike Carrell


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and
LENR))

In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800:
Hi Jojo,
[snip]
Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than 
$100,000 that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to 
fruition without apparent success.  No insult or ridicule intended,  
but what makes you think that you can build a reactor based on his 
theory that will outperform what he has produced so far, when the maestro
himself has been unsuccessful?

Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to 
insult.  I guenuinely want to know.
[snip]

1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions.

2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having
trouble achieving an acceptable COP.

3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times
more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an
acceptable COP should not be a problem.

4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he
requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very
large energy output/Hydrino.

5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly,
leading to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds).

6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino
production rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an
electrical current.
(In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube,
which is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power
outputs).

7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because
it is very clean in a nuclear sense.

8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of
years.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[mixent]

In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:46:06 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin, let me see if I got this right.

Sorry, no.


1.  Your machine (proposed machine) will take H2 (Hydrogen Molecule) and 
convert it to Hy2 (hydrino molecule.).  Theoritically you can do this in 
copious amounts with an output of energy.

Yes.

2.  Then, you take the Hy2 molecule and split it into Hy+ and Hy+ molecule. 

No.

There are two paths. One involves a simple split of the molecule into two
Hydrinos, the other involves the creation of a Hydrino and a Hydrino molecular
ion.

This involves an input of 4000eV.

Approximately yes. However the actual amount varies with Hydrino size.


3.  Then you fuse Hy+ with Hy+ to form a hydrino variant of Helium.

No.

I would prefer to fuse a Hydrino with B+ to create 3 alpha particles.
However since there is a small amount of D in natural Hydrogen, the 

p+D=He3 reaction is also going to happen, which will (at least initially)
produce gamma rays.


4.  Then this hydrino variant of He becomes normal Helium with an input of 
energy.


Did I get this right?

No.


And all this results in a COP of 1000 - 2000?

At best yes. What one might actually get in practice remains to be seen.


I think the first step is to prove the existence of the Hydrino to begin 
with.  Do we have any conclusive proof that hydrinos exists?

As Mike Carrell says: Check out the BLP website. However your suggested approach
is just the conventional cautious approach to doing everything. In small
increments. That approach is unnecessary in this case because the investment
required for going the whole hog is so small.

It's kind of like building the very first refrigerator. You just do it and see
if it works. (BTW the analogy is not bad. The complexity is about on a par.)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Jojo Jaro]

I will study the BLP website and hydrino proof that you are alluding to, 
although my reading list is quite long at this time.  I am concentrating my 
study on theoritical avenues that are more promising and my actual 
replication attempts.  Axil's charge accumulation ideas are much more 
promising than Mill's hydrino miracles, so that is where my current 
interest is right now.


Maybe I am more skeptical of Mills that you appear to be, but the guy has 
had decades to provide proof or to build something.  Thus far, it's mostly 
talk.  Rossi has had less time and money and he appears to have a valid 
Military customer.  Where are BLP's custormers?  While I acknowledge that 
people endorsing the CIHT process/reactors are impressive, we are yet to see 
one of  his CIHT reactor.  If Mills delivers good on his CIHT promises, I 
will eat my words, apologize publicly for my skepticism and invest a huge 
fortune on his company, and will be the first person to buy his reactors, 
because I am sorely in need of such a device.


In my opinion, we should concentrate more of our attention on LENR+ systems 
like Rossi, DGT or Flat Plate propane systems, not the dead end technologies 
like Pd-D electrolytic cells and hydrinos.  BUT  I am willing to be 
wrong about this, so don't get into a knot.



In peace,
Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))




The simple, and correct thing to do is *study*the current BLP website,
particularly the 'technical presentation', the FAQ, etc. There is more 
than
ample proof of the physical existence of the hydrino state listed. There 
is
no point in trying to create a HE version of a hydrino, although such 
might

be possible. There is a strong likelihood that the 'excess heat' seen in
LENR?CF experiments is due to hydrino formation at the cathodes of
electrolytic cells as discussed by  Mills in the 'technical presentation'.
In other words, do your homework.

Mike Carrell

-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management 
(and

LENR))

Robin, let me see if I got this right.

1.  Your machine (proposed machine) will take H2 (Hydrogen Molecule) and
convert it to Hy2 (hydrino molecule.).  Theoritically you can do this in
copious amounts with an output of energy.

2.  Then, you take the Hy2 molecule and split it into Hy+ and Hy+ 
molecule.

This involves an input of 4000eV.

3.  Then you fuse Hy+ with Hy+ to form a hydrino variant of Helium.

4.  Then this hydrino variant of He becomes normal Helium with an input of
energy.


Did I get this right?

And all this results in a COP of 1000 - 2000?

I think the first step is to prove the existence of the Hydrino to begin
with.  Do we have any conclusive proof that hydrinos exists?


Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management 
(and


LENR))


In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:40:47 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]

Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of
energy.)?

It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a
relatively
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?


All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device 
itself,

and
fused on the spot.
However the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy 
it

will
cost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino 
=

8
MeV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
production efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how 
many

times I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
Though it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes 
available

that
might consume energy.

Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a 
few
thousand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is 
billion/trillions

if
it does.
(The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).

(Besides the additional benefit of cheap  easy interplanetary travel.;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html




This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. 
Department.

[Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Jojo Jaro]

Robin,

I read your webpage regarding this potential Fusion Project, although I 
found it rather lacking in detail and I am still unsure what you are trying 
to achieve or how to achieve it.  Are you in a position to reveal more of 
your theory in terms an Engineer amd a businessman can understand, not a 
physicist trained in Quantum Mechanics.  I'm sure I'm not alone in this 
forum that is eager to hear a comprehensive and clear presentation of your 
ideas just as Axil has superbly done.  Please gather your ideas into one 
comprehensive narrative and post them here or at your site.


Anyways, I am prepared to spend a small fortune in getting a commercial cold 
fusion reactor to the market, if (a big IF) I am convinced of the 
theoritical viability of the project.  I have been looking for such an 
opportunity as well as pursuing this goal myself.  Despite my obvious lack 
of success thus far, many times, I feel that I am closer to 
commericialization than Mill's endless hydrino pronounciations.


Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 
that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without 
apparent success.  No insult or ridicule intended,  but what makes you think 
that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what 
he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful?


Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult.  I 
guenuinely want to know.



Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)


I've already found it (in theory), I just need a bit of technical 
(engineering)
help, and the finances to do it. Depending on what has to be paid for and 
how

much it costs, the cost could vary anywhere from nothing to say 100 grand.
Any university with an engineering department and a few willing grad 
students

could probably do it for nothing. The device is quite simple.
Testing it however could be a bit dicey, as it *might* produce copious gamma
rays.
It should produce power at the (multi)kilowatt level.
(Consistently and controllably over a wide range).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[mixent]

In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800:
Hi Jojo,
[snip]
Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 
that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without 
apparent success.  No insult or ridicule intended,  but what makes you think 
that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what 
he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful?

Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult.  I 
guenuinely want to know.
[snip]

1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions.

2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having
trouble achieving an acceptable COP.

3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times
more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an
acceptable COP should not be a problem.

4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he
requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very large
energy output/Hydrino.

5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, leading
to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds).

6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino production
rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical current.
(In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, which
is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs).

7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because it
is very clean in a nuclear sense.

8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of
years.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))

[Jojo Jaro]

Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of 
energy.)?


It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively 
cheap Hydrino Generator.  I guess once you are able to create copious 
amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether 
there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly?



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and 
LENR))



In reply to  Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800:
Hi Jojo,
[snip]

Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000
that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without
apparent success.  No insult or ridicule intended,  but what makes you 
think

that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what
he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful?

Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult.  I
guenuinely want to know.

[snip]

1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions.

2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having
trouble achieving an acceptable COP.

3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times
more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an
acceptable COP should not be a problem.

4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he
requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very 
large

energy output/Hydrino.

5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, 
leading

to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds).

6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino 
production
rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical 
current.
(In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, 
which

is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs).

7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because 
it

is very clean in a nuclear sense.

8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of
years.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html