Re: Incredible battery and TOE
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] Robin wrote: In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported seeing emission lines he associates with p = 7 hydrinos, and maybe p =16, but I suspect the population is small. Mills has enough problems with the technology he is studying without dissipating his efforts with CF, LENR and CANR. Far from dissipating his efforts, such an approach may just be his saving grace. First, the average nuclear reaction is going to yield about 1000 times the energy (~ 1 MeV) of his best average hydrino yield (i.e. ~1000 eV/ hydrino). Second, the high energy ionising radiation likely to result from a nuclear reaction can create thousands of catalysts ions from each nuclear reaction. That may be just what is needed to close the gap between commercial and non-commercial. The whole thing can still be a clean reactor, if the primary nuclear reaction creates alpha particles. In the above paragraph, it is true that nuclear reactions (fusion, as in LENR) produce more energy *per atom* than does BLP, but the problem in LENR cells is for enough atoms to fuse; the necessary conditions are still very obscure. In LENR cells this is true, however for a hydrino fusion reactor this is not at all obscure. If the hydrinos have nowhere to go, then eventually, they will *all* shrink to the point where they undergo fusion, and a steady state should be achievable. High ionizing energy makes hot fusion dangerous, equipment expensive, and not for domenstic use, and the NRC on your neck. It's not so much ionizing radiation produced during the reaction that makes hot fusion dangerous, as the free neutrons which make the containment radioactive. The free neutrons exist, because the methods employed by hot fusion mean that they need to use D-T fuel (which has the highest fusion cross section). A hydrino based fusion reactor need not necessarily produce any radioisotopes at all because it can use aneutronic fuels. Even if destroyed, it would simply stop working, and not be radioactive (with a bit of luck). (Careful choice of construction materials is mandatory). It is a feature of LENR that this does not occur. This you don't know for sure yet. They could be getting alphas inside the cathode, that don't get out. (Alphas only travel a few microns in solids, and not much farther in water). In BLP's microwave reactors, the catalyst gas is very throroughly ionized -- and safely --. True, but ionization by microwaves is too energy costly, unless it is only a small addition to a reactor that is almost self sustaining without the microwaves. The probem is getting the catalyst ions and the H atoms within reaction distance in the low pressure conditions. Don't suggest high pressure, for there are competing reactions. If one is careful, the competing reactions can actually contribute to the process instead of hindering it. An example is Sr + proton - Sr+ + H the right hand side is both immediately a catalyst and a ripe hydrogen atom combined. Furthermore, the reverse reaction is far less likely, which in turn implies that this shrinkage reaction has no competition. I.e. Sr+ + H can only shrink or do nothing. (Which may be the reason that Mills' Sr catalyst worked so well). [snip] Also don't think that Mills and his staff are stupid in this matter. It is very complex. I have never thought them stupid. Just stubborn. [snip] currently his main problem. IOW making the reaction self sustaining. [snip] Yes, that is part of the problem. You are confusing two matters. 1) There are the reactions of H atoms with primary catalysts, producing hydrinos, and 2) reactions between hydrinos themselves, which can catalyze each other, in which one hydrino goes to a lower state and the other to a higher state. These happen in at about 1/1000 atmosphertic pressure as random encounters. There may be ways to increase the density of these encounters, but I think such are well beyond the present resources of BLP to develop. All that is necessary, is to keep them together longer, before they react with the walls of the containment vessel. I.e. you need a bigger reactor for starters. I have made other suggestions to Mills in private email. authorities as you well know. So if you are CEO of a potential partner are you going to sink big bucks into a project which may not scale up easily and may have serious problems, like requiring ultra pure reagents to work? Of course, if this is used as a path to fusion, then the fuel requirements will be relatively speaking so low, that ultra-purity would be no problem. The path to fusion is spectulation generated within Vortex and HSG. In the LENR plasma electrolysis experiments with light water and potassium carbonate electrolyte, it is conceivable that BLP reactions occur between H atoms and K+ and K+++ and O++ ions,
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In 1917, to promote wartime production, the government stepped in and forced all patent holders to accept a standard fee, so that any manufacturer could get free access to the technology. I imagine something similar would happen with the Mills device. ...and how does that differ from When the amount gets that high, the technology is simply stolen, the theft swept under the rug, and obscured by legal niceties. ? I do not know the details of the 1917 agreement, but the industry leaders did not complain. Orville Wright was retired from active business by that time, but he would have said something in his authorized biography if that agreement had bothered him. He complained endlessly about the actions of the Smithsonian in the years after the war. (The Wrights were famous for holding a grudge.) The standard fee was moderate, but the number of airplanes being manufactured for the wartime emergency was far higher than anyone ever anticipated. Wright later said that in his wildest imagination he never thought that thousands of airplanes would be manufactured in a single year. His business model, and the model of his competitors, anticipated making a few hundred airplanes a year for rich playboys. It had to be radically revised for mass production. Even in the new regulated environment, people continued to make gobs of money with patents for airplane components and innovations. I do not think you can say the patent rights were stolen. They were adjusted to fit reality. Mills and his ideas badly need similar adjustments. - Jed
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk Jones, you are no slouch yourself. Why not give Mills a hand, and do your own hydrino reactor design, and send it to him, no strings attached? I would be happy to do this, if he would provide some detail about the rate of hydrino formation for the highly shrunken variety, using the wet Thermacore process. The highest and best use for hydrinos, IF they do undergo shrinkage to 1/137 or thereabouts would certainly be as makeup neutrons in subcritical scheme. I'm sure you recognize this, and at some level Mills must also, but publicly he has marginalized full-shrinkage because of the obvious jeopardy to his marketing goals. In fact, the best reason - that anyone knowledgeable about the circumstances can suggest - as to why the Thermacore technique did not go commercial relates to nuclear activation of the reactor. This problem is actually *to be expected* for the wet process, and is likely why Mills abandoned such - but that problem can be made into an BIG advantage in fission, especially using heavy water and electrodes of zirconium or graphite. It is only common sense, once you remove the layers of rhetoric, political maneuvering and double-talk... inasmuch as the neutron multiplication ratio for even a modest size piece of fully reflected uranium carbide is over 100:1 and the energy available per fission is over 200 MeV. Consequently, for every shrunken hydrino, one can get 20 GeV instead of a total of about 1 MeV or a whopping 20,000-to-one ratio per hydrino for energy multiplication using fission. It's a no-brainer. I have mentioned this more than once on vortex. You are the only one who openly recognizes this potential, other than possible employees of BLP who aren't talking... and possibly a few clever bureaucrats in Asia or Europe. But it is impossible to proceed on a subcritical fission design without important details on the rate of shrinkage, etc. and Mills has offered no help, and it seems clear from Mike's recent post, that Mills will NOT be inclined to ever offer any evidence, not the least bit it seems, which would suggest to the NRC or the Sierra Club that the reaction is ultimately nuclear; nor that it can and should be used as an adjunct to a nuclear fission scheme. This is a *political decision,* on his part, especially in the US. Fortunately, he may not have the last word on this implementation. As mentioned earlier, there is a strong and broad WPO patent issued to Arie de Geuss which precedes Mills and would have worldwide precedence for fission implementation, should anyone want to attempt it - which is for hydrino formation using Lithium or Be as catalyst. And 7Li or Be are the only catalysts which makes sense for use in fission reactor, using a heavy water 'wet electrolysis' process. According to de Geuss's paper, either of them produce hydrinos, but can his research be trusted? He is a loner without resources, and has not been heard from recently. Like Mills, he claims independent verification of hydrinos. Mills does not even acknowledge his existence. Unlike 6Li, the heavier isotope of lithium has a low cross-section for thermal neutrons and is a waste product of weaponry, and 'could be' obtained cheaply in certain regions. Beryllium is not cheap. If you are a nation, such as China, India, South Africa, Russia or France with both a nuclear weapons program and a nuclear power industry, then 7Li is perfect and it can be used in a heavy water based wet electrochemical reaction, ala the Thermacore process (which uses potassium - but K is not suitable for use in a reactor core). Perhaps someone in Europe or Asia will license from de Geuss and by-pass Mills and go for the fission implementation. Perhaps you should promote this for Australia. Perhaps de Geuss will give up and let his patent lapse. In any case, someone outside the US should; and probably will try to do this eventually. It would be right down the alley for Mitsubishi, for instance, except for the extraneous financial problems which they are having. Once again, it seems the US is poised to loose a technological lead that it could have enjoyed, had not extraneous political considerations entered into the picture. I see another post coming through now from Richard with the same conclusion. Hey isn't Wi-Fi great? I'm doing this posting totally wireless while enjoying a cafe latte and lots of highly caffeinated chatter. The US does have magic technology, the only problem is, we also have politicians who have other concerns than the long-term welfare of the average worker, who do need some of the manufacturing jobs we are exporting, some of which pay less than barista here makes, but that is a short -sighted decision based on paper value... which costs Sam almost nothing to print. Jones
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Mike, The last time I talked to Mills, several years ago, he said he was about a factor of 4 away from a closed loop. ...and a 1000 fold improvement from fusion would put him over the top by a factor of 250. How? We seem to be talking past each other here. The alternative to a Mills' hydrino plasma cell is not deuterino plasma cell boosted by a D+D nuclear reaction, although that is quite a boost. You seem to be forgetting about the neutron multiplication ratio of subcritical uranium fission. In fission, each neutron absorbed in the fuel has the potential to create 2.2 -2.5 or so new neutrons, depending on enrichment. This can continue for many sequential steps or generations. Losses can keep this under two in a subcritical reactor. A chain reaction occurs when this is over two. In between, in the subcritical zone, there is a multiplication ratio, based on may factors. It can be very high, using even a small amount of natural uranium - when a thick graphite blanket is provided and there is no light water, only heavy water. With a thick blanket of graphite over 99 of every 100 neutrons going out, comes back eventually. All the losses are then in the fuel. A multiplication ratio of 100-to-1 is feasible with a few hundred pounds of U and a thick graphite blanket. Each fission releases 200 MeV of mass/energy. ERGO for each 1/137 neutrino absorbed, which Mills has said in past versions of CQM is the expected end-point of shrinkage, assuming this acts like a regular neutron and there is no reason why it would not, the energy boost, using fission, can be 20,000 to one not 1000 to one. If a deuterino is used, it is double that. If you want to argue that a hydrino might not act that way, then we will assume that we will be using heavy water - and again we are back to the 20,000 to one ratio of energy multiplication using subcritical fission. Mills in early work basically agreed with this premise, and called it CAF or something like that... now he is down-playing it. He can't have it both ways. A deuterino does not act any differently with Uranium than with another deuterino. This **subcritical fission** application is extremely significant. And it is not speculation. Someone will pull it off eventually, and if it is not Mills, then he will probably not benefit, because of the de Geuss patent priority for lithium/beryllium catalyst which is an already granted WPO patent, not a patent applied-for. Jones
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
thomas malloy wrote: All Randall would have to do is demonstrate a working model of any of the above, and I'll hold my piece. Peace! I do not even what to think about what holding your piece might mean. - Jed Holding a gun, er I mean a weapon, I would expect. Thanks for the correction.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Mike Carrell wrote: Jed is terminally pessimistic about Mills' business prospects, since Mills is not following Jed's favorite buisness model, but neither is anyone in the CF community. And no one in the CF community is getting anywhere either! I rest my case. Seriously, I think it is too early to talk about business opportunities in CF. The research is still at the basic physics level. I have no idea whether this is also true of Mills or not. - Jed
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported seeing emission lines he associates with p = 7 hydrinos, and maybe p =16, but I suspect the population is small. Mills has enough problems with the technology he is studying without dissipating his efforts with CF, LENR and CANR. Far from dissipating his efforts, such an approach may just be his saving grace. First, the average nuclear reaction is going to yield about 1000 times the energy (~ 1 MeV) of his best average hydrino yield (i.e. ~1000 eV/ hydrino). Second, the high energy ionising radiation likely to result from a nuclear reaction can create thousands of catalysts ions from each nuclear reaction. That may be just what is needed to close the gap between commercial and non-commercial. The whole thing can still be a clean reactor, if the primary nuclear reaction creates alpha particles. Without nuclear reactions, he must depend on hydrino reactions themselves creating sufficient ions to catalyze further reactions. That is probably currently his main problem. IOW making the reaction self sustaining. [snip] authorities as you well know. So if you are CEO of a potential partner are you going to sink big bucks into a project which may not scale up easily and may have serious problems, like requiring ultra pure reagents to work? Of course, if this is used as a path to fusion, then the fuel requirements will be relatively speaking so low, that ultra-purity would be no problem. However I doubt that ultra purity really is a problem in the first place. In fact I suspect that quite the opposite is true, it may work better if its dirtier (i.e. lots of different elements thrown in). [snip] JB: If it requires BLP to use deuterium, then you bite the bullet and use deuterium. If it requires you to deal with the NRC, then you deal with the NRC. It is as simple as that. He has been using nuclear materials, and dealing with NRC in his medical research for 20 years. This no-NRC excuse is a big pile of stinking crapola, IMHO. It probably doesn't actually. The dependence of fusion time on separation distance is so strong that hydrinos should be able to make a reality of reactions such as Li7 + H - 2 He4, and B11 + H - 3 He4. Furthermore this dependence is largely concentrated at the high end of the distance, i.e. one doesn't need much reduction to get a large improvement. [snip] water. The last time I talked to Mills, several years ago, he said he was about a factor of 4 away from a closed loop. ...and a 1000 fold improvement from fusion would put him over the top by a factor of 250. [snip] JB: Artic warming is a gigantic risk, a risk of extinction threatening all life on earth, unless something is done soon. This artic methane-release connection is a ticking-time-bomb, and if genius-level people like Mills cannot appreciate that, then our grandchildren, and his, will have no real future, maybe even no survival. [snip] Jones, you are no slouch yourself. Why not give Mills a hand, and do your own hydrino reactor design, and send it to him, no strings attached? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:34:20 -0500: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Not at all, and that isn't what I said. This technology is conservatively worth trillions. JB suggested that it be taken by the government, and Mills be paid what it's worth. I am simply pointing out that no one has ever paid trillions for a technology. When the amount gets that high, the technology is simply stolen, the theft swept under the rug, and obscured by legal niceties. I disagree. [snip] Airplanes are another major technology that was patented. The first patent held up, and so did subsequent patents filed by others. In 1917, to promote wartime production, the government stepped in and forced all patent holders to accept a standard fee, so that any manufacturer could get free access to the technology. I imagine something similar would happen with the Mills device. ...and how does that differ from When the amount gets that high, the technology is simply stolen, the theft swept under the rug, and obscured by legal niceties. ? In this case, the theft is in the word forced and the legal niceties being accept a standard fee. What it boils down to, is that when the need is great, society simply takes what it wants. I can see the same thing happening as a consequence of global warming. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Jones wrote: Mike, Mills' is reluctant to have any association with CF, LENR, CANR and nuclear phenomena. Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like the well-considered logic of a person committed to solving our looming ecological crisis? I gave reasons from his earliest days. At that time, and still, CF, LENR, and CANR are popular poison, ridiculed in the press, and now even Scientific American in a fairly balanced article, has a bottom line of nothing changed. Mills has courted business and wealthy investors and so he has to present a face of a businessman. The looming ecological crisis will be solved only by focused industrial development to make zillions of devices. You have been aware of the technology for some time, I assume you can read the posted technical reports, which show steady progress, and have read my commentaries on HSG about the major engineering problems remaining. Both CF and BLP face major engineering problems before there will be **any** impact on the environmental crisis. Mills has shown several key reactions with high energy density and has done so repeatedly, and reproduction has occurred. Scaling these up to kilowatt levels, and simplifying the support equipment is another matter, as using source gases or water of commercial purity instead of laboratory grade stuff. I don't know what you mean by an association with CF, LENR, and CANR mean. These are nuclear phenomena, and the BLP reactions deal with the electron, and so are chemical phenomena. You, and others, have speculated that a highly shrunken hydrino takes on a neutron-like character and may be a factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported seeing emission lines he associates with p = 7 hydrinos, and maybe p =16, but I suspect the population is small. Mills has enough problems with the technology he is studying without dissipating his efforts with CF, LENR and CANR. The cynic might say that it sounds more like an egoist being either selfish, or very deceptive. Does not any executive's responsibilities go beyond the stockholders to society at large? Just what do you expect? He is working hard along the lines his investors expect, and if he succeeds, the society at large will benefit in a major way, as will his stockholders. MC: His path is alliances with large corporations where he appears as the consummate businessman with valuable patents which he can and will defend. OK. What large corporation has signed-on to develop, or to produce, a BLP product? That is in negotiation at this stage and I have no certain information. What I do have suggests that the technical staff of candidate corporations have to convince themselves that Mills' work is valid before they recommend to their management to make a major bet-your-company commitment. A while back I heard that at company X they saw the Doppler line broadening in a plasma and were arguing among themselves about the source of it. That observation in part supports the orbitsphere model, which is condemned by various authorities as you well know. So if you are CEO of a potential partner are you going to sink big bucks into a project which may not scale up easily and may have serious problems, like requiring ultra pure reagents to work? Ask the same question about the CF world and the situation is worse. Nobody is offering reliable cathodes for sale. The interesting high energy experiments are rare accidents, not reproducible. Contamination may be a pervasive and hidden variable, but contamination by what? Jed has railed at the CF investigators for years now for not coming out with demo units so the forces of competitive entrepreneurship will solve the ecological crises in the developing world. Further, CF requires deuterium, found in 0.7% of all water. It's a small percentage, but there is a lot of water, so an effectively unlimited supply. But what is the energy cost of extraction? I'm told it costs about as much as beer on the open market. Great, if it is used efficiently, but what percentage of D atoms really get used? He need convince only CEOs and their immediate technical staffs, not the public, nor members of vortex or HSG. Has he convinced any CEO to become a manufacturing partner? Not yet, in negotiation. Some of the early investors in BLP were major utilities. Before you can get a commitment from a manufacturing partner, there must be confidence in patent protection. When BLP gets publicly real there will be a rush of imitators and the investors want to be in a position to collect royalties. The USPTO has pulled back one basic patent because it 'violates known principles' or some such thing. The latest applicaiton is massive, not basic, but covering virtually every variation on what has been published. Mills is producing more and more documentation. This is not just theoretical preening -- it builds a formidable defense in what may be an epic patent battle. Industrial partners have to be confident
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Jones Beene posted One of the most frustrating things about the internet, especially to any alternative energy advocate who seeks to find, weed-out and support, in every reasonable way, Having seen one after another scam artist come and go over the past 1/3 century, I know what you mean Jones. 1) No, it is not the plethora of fly-by-night scam artists like GWE (Genesis) Dennis Lee, Gardner Watts, Tilley, Lutec, and the others documented by the (always Caveat emptor. I've received several emails for people I know, asking me what I think of GWE. 18 months ago I submitted a proposal to market their Edison electrical generator. I presented myself as an electrical contractor. I signed an NDNC, and returned it. I also told them that I wasn't going to give them any money until I tested the machine, I haven't heard from them sense. 2) No, it is not well-meaning, sometimes brilliant but often self-deceived or at least hard-to-comprehend experimenters and theorists, who are not seeking financial gain, I've yet to come across anyone who wasn't interested in financial renumeration. . It is well-documented that many of the greatest inventors, visionaries and creators throughout history have been borderline psychotic and see things that more focused scientists will miss. good point. 3) No, its not the web sites which specialize in rehashing old scams, alien technology, missed-opportunity-nostalgia, suppressed inventions and failed ventures like those These can be mildly humorous. I don't know Jones, we watched a CD of a man explaining how standard EM theory could produce flying disks, I would have taken a nap, but they kept nudging me, it was boring. Instead the really frustrating information is the tantalizing stuff which appears from brilliant, well funded, probably genius-level researchers like Mills/BLP who will It makes you wonder, doesn't it Immodest Conclusion: all from this TOE by Randall Mills Maxwell's equations, Planck's equation, the de Broglie equation, Newton's laws, and Special, and General Relativity are now Unified.. No vanity in the Mills family The energy density projection for BLP's battery is as high as 10,000+ watt-hours per kilogram. The voltage of BLP's battery may be 70 volts compared to the average Wow, with that kind of energy density, I'd think that thing would glow in the dark! Hay Jones, you missed one, the BLP reactor (motor) that was going to produce as much energy per CC as an internal combustion engine. If Mills could better document this, as well as many other of his claims, of if anyone could reproduce them? More fancy papers and more vacuous claims. Reproduce is the critical word, eh. At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that these things always take longer to develop then people realize, and Randall must have shown something to his board, OTOH, see my humor posting on Math. of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project. I refer to my previous post about building a giant refrigeration project to refreeze the arctic. If Mills claims were true, and there are growing doubts from many former All Randall would have to do is demonstrate a working model of any of the above, and I'll hold my piece.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
thomas malloy wrote: All Randall would have to do is demonstrate a working model of any of the above, and I'll hold my piece. Peace! I do not even what to think about what holding your piece might mean. - Jed
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:36:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] Robin wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800: [snip] Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time IMO, you get fusion instead, so there aren't going to be a whole lot of n=1/16 hydrinos lying around. Furthermore, the energy density is based on 70 V and the mass of the hydrino, if I don't miss my guess, but this appears to ignore the mass of the structural materials of the battery (but you may be able to make a battery that is qua volume and mass largely fuel). Besides, with disproportionation reactions probably taking place in any such battery, it's likely to overheat, and eventually, possibly explode. There is also the difficulty of working with hydrinos at multiple different levels of shrinkage concurrently, and the consequences this would have for battery voltage. MC: A few years back, I had a visit with Mills in his conference room to introduce an overseas visitor who wanted to meet him. In the course of the conversation he said he would be happy with a battery that is twice as good as the popular lithium-ion cell. A long shot from the p=16 battery. I think there have been a few chemical demosntrations along the way. But before any of this can be remotely feasible there has to be a source of lots of pure hydrinos. You get that when hundreds or thousands of BLP reactors are running and hydrino hydrides are collected as byproducts. There is no point in pounding the drum for the BLP battery when the necessary ingredients are not available. There is no point on dwelling on P=16, P=2,3,4,5,6,7 will do just fine as well, and these have been seen in the spectra of reactors. Mills has reported that the reactor gas can be liquefied at liquid nitrogen temperatures, so fractionl distillation is available as a means of purification. There may be a family of batteries with different terminal voltages. If any of this comes to pass, it could make an immense difference in the performance of hybrid cars and lots of other systems as well. The problem lies not in the initial separation of hydrinos, but in the fact that disproportionation reactions will continue in the battery itself, leading (through entropy) to an inevitable mix of hydrino levels within each individual battery. [snip] JB: At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that these things always take longer to develop then people realize, and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project. MC: And just how will this hasten the day, when people like Zimmerman, Baron, Pibel, and Rabitt all agree that the orbitsphere model is terminally faulty [despite the computer animations now on the website]? I am an unabashed apologist for Mills, having paid close attention to his work and noted repreatedly that there is a big gap between his reports and viable commercial systems. If you pay close attention you will see that Mills is systematically building a fortress of patents and papers that will protect his investors and partners when the rush begins. He could still fail. RvS: The public rarely demands action on matters so esoteric (to them). In fact 99% (at least) of the public, has never even heard of Mills. Most of those that have, are sitting back and waiting for him to do the hard work, then when he's got something that works well, someone will steal it. MC: So Robin wants the US governemnt to steal it? RvS: Not at all, and that isn't what I said. This technology is conservatively worth trillions. JB suggested that it be taken by the government, and Mills be paid what it's worth. I am simply pointing out that no one has ever paid trillions for a technology. When the amount gets that high, the technology is simply stolen, the theft swept under the rug, and obscured by legal niceties. The fact that this happens, doesn't mean that I support it. However it does mean that Mills should watch his back (this is a warning, not a threat). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800: Hi, [snip] here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if you do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the extra fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps keep you 'regular'...this is mostly new from the BLP site. http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Theory%20Pres%20020905%20std%202.pdf The date forms part of the title. This is 2 1/2 years old. [snip] Here is the tantalizing bit (not new, but certainly relevant to current threads on vortex about how to best way to store energy, especially wind and solar), for which Mills appears to be claiming as fact certain evidence which he has not produced, despite many appeals, and therefore likely cannot produce any time soon... but he hasn't removed or qualified the claims: Battery Comparison (from the BLP site) The energy density projection for BLP's battery is as high as 10,000+ watt-hours per kilogram. The voltage of BLP's battery may be 70 volts compared to the average voltage for a lithium-ion battery of 3.6 volts. BLP's battery compound may release about 100 times the energy and 1,000 plus times the power of any other conventional chemical used in batteries. Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time IMO, you get fusion instead, so there aren't going to be a whole lot of n=1/16 hydrinos lying around. Furthermore, the energy density is based on 70 V and the mass of the hydrino, if I don't miss my guess, but this appears to ignore the mass of the structural materials of the battery (but you may be able to make a battery that is qua volume and mass largely fuel). Besides, with disproportionation reactions probably taking place in any such battery, it's likely to overheat, and eventually, possibly explode. There is also the difficulty of working with hydrinos at multiple different levels of shrinkage concurrently, and the consequences this would have for battery voltage. If Mills could better document this, as well as many other of his claims, of if anyone could reproduce them independently there would be... not millions, not even a few billion, but tens of billions of dollars available to develop the whole works. Instead, what do we have? More fancy papers and more vacuous claims. The claim is years old. As time passes, Mills tends to leave these things on the back burner, and concentrate on what he believes is most likely to work best. If you want to benefit from his experience, then concentrate on what he is currently working on. At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that these things always take longer to develop then people realize, and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project. The public rarely demands action on matters so esoteric (to them). In fact 99% (at least) of the public, has never even heard of Mills. Most of those that have, are sitting back and waiting for him to do the hard work, then when he's got something that works well, someone will steal it. If Mills claims were true, and there are growing doubts from many former supporters, then the impending environmental crisis makes it that important... that we by-pass the reluctant inventor and get some real action going, rather than just more rhetoric and fancier papers and pdf presentations. There is nothing to stop others from doing development work. In fact there are a number of others who's work may well at least in part depend on hydrino formation (e.g. Betavolt), even if they are not aware of it (or in some cases don't believe it). The bottom line is that in the long run, hydrinos are going to be important primarily as a workable path to fusion and transmutation, the only direction in which Mills is loath to go (and possibly in some new materials). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Robin wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800: Hi, [snip] here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if you do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the extra fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps keep you 'regular'...this is mostly new from the BLP site. http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Theory%20Pres%20020905%20std%202.pdf The date forms part of the title. This is 2 1/2 years old. [snip] Here is the tantalizing bit (not new, but certainly relevant to current threads on vortex about how to best way to store energy, especially wind and solar), for which Mills appears to be claiming as fact certain evidence which he has not produced, despite many appeals, and therefore likely cannot produce any time soon... but he hasn't removed or qualified the claims: Battery Comparison (from the BLP site) The energy density projection for BLP's battery is as high as 10,000+ watt-hours per kilogram. The voltage of BLP's battery may be 70 volts compared to the average voltage for a lithium-ion battery of 3.6 volts. BLP's battery compound may release about 100 times the energy and 1,000 plus times the power of any other conventional chemical used in batteries. Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time IMO, you get fusion instead, so there aren't going to be a whole lot of n=1/16 hydrinos lying around. Furthermore, the energy density is based on 70 V and the mass of the hydrino, if I don't miss my guess, but this appears to ignore the mass of the structural materials of the battery (but you may be able to make a battery that is qua volume and mass largely fuel). Besides, with disproportionation reactions probably taking place in any such battery, it's likely to overheat, and eventually, possibly explode. There is also the difficulty of working with hydrinos at multiple different levels of shrinkage concurrently, and the consequences this would have for battery voltage. MC: A few years back, I had a visit with Mills in his conference room to introduce an overseas visitor who wanted to meet him. In the course of the conversation he said he would be happy with a battery that is twice as good as the popular lithium-ion cell. A long shot from the p=16 battery. I think there have been a few chemical demosntrations along the way. But before any of this can be remotely feasible there has to be a source of lots of pure hydrinos. You get that when hundreds or thousands of BLP reactors are running and hydrino hydrides are collected as byproducts. There is no point in pounding the drum for the BLP battery when the necessary ingredients are not available. There is no point on dwelling on P=16, P=2,3,4,5,6,7 will do just fine as well, and these have been seen in the spectra of reactors. Mills has reported that the reactor gas can be liquefied at liquid nitrogen temperatures, so fractionl distillation is available as a means of purification. There may be a family of batteries with different terminal voltages. If any of this comes to pass, it could make an immense difference in the performance of hybrid cars and lots of other systems as well. If Mills could better document this, as well as many other of his claims, of if anyone could reproduce them independently there would be... not millions, not even a few billion, but tens of billions of dollars available to develop the whole works. Instead, what do we have? More fancy papers and more vacuous claims. If one is not allergic to Mills' name on a paper, independent reproduction will be found in papers by Phillips and Conrads, in New Mexico and Germany, respectively. The claim is years old. As time passes, Mills tends to leave these things on the back burner, and concentrate on what he believes is most likely to work best. If you want to benefit from his experience, then concentrate on what he is currently working on. At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that these things always take longer to develop then people realize, and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project. And just how will this hasten the day, when people like Zimmerman, Baron, Pibel, and Rabitt all agree that the orbitsphere model is terminally faulty [despite the computer animations now on the website]? I am an unabashed apologist for Mills, having paid close attention to his work and noted repreatedly that there is a big gap between his reports and viable commercial systems. If you pay close attention you will see that Mills is systematically building a fortress of patents
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
I just finished with Robin and I find some of the same ideas here form Jones. (Deep breath) here we go again: snip Instead the really frustrating information is the tantalizing stuff which appears from brilliant, well funded, probably genius-level researchers like Mills/BLP who will publish tantalizing bits of apparently apocryphal (at least certainly unattainable in the short run) speculation, but cannot produce any real evidence to back it up, and then have the gall to claim independent verification when everyone who tries to duplicate it fails. MC: Jones, I thought you were more perceptive than everyone who tries to duplicate it fails Who, precisely? Are you referring to the JAP paper the purportedly repeated Mills' H-Ar plasma runs without seeing the Balmer line broadening? Did you not follow my discussion of this on HSG,wherein I quoted Mills that conditions cited (pulsed high power exicitation) had not worked for him either. What Mills used was lower CW excitation, which did work, but that is not what the others did. They failed by not actually duplicating what Mills did, which is clearly spelled out in his own paper. MC: Duplication of Mills work is found in the Phillips papers and that of Conrads in Germany. Mills' name is on these papers as junior author as courtesy. That does not invalidate the work. I have also read the Master's thesis of Dr, Jansson, of Rowan University, which consisted of his own test of the BLP phenomenon using a calorimater from BLP. More on the hydrino battery at the end. But first, to consolidate two postings on Mills into one: In case you were wondering: How heavy is everything: The initial mass of the Universe based on the size, age, Hubble constant, temperature, density of matter, and power spectrum is 2 X 10^54 kg... give or take a few ounces How old is the universe? Infinitely old, as it oscillates on a long cycle but never collapses all the way: Thus, the observed Universe will expand as mass is released as photons for ~500,000,000,000 years to its maximum radius of 2x10^12 light years.. At that point in its world-line, the Universe will obtain its maximum size and begin to contract to its minimum radius of ~3x10^11 light years Immodest Conclusion: all from this TOE by Randall Mills Maxwell's equations, Planck's equation, the de Broglie equation, Newton's laws, and Special, and General Relativity are now Unified.. If you have the time to download this amazing document, along with some very nice visualizations, over 100 pages and a tasty mixed-grill... then by all means, indulge yourself. There is a lot of potentially brilliant information here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if you do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the extra fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps keep you 'regular'...this is mostly new from the BLP site. MC: One can make a clear distiction, as I have, from Mills' TOE and the body of experimental work based on the so-called sub quantum stae of the hydrogen atom. Mills' papers in senior journals, and his latest patent application, do not depend on the orbitsphere model, now well illustrated on the website. http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Theory%20Pres%20020905%20std%202.pdf To me, one of the more interesting images in this new material is the OS (orbitsphere) which now looks like a truncated sphere with both ends missing. Not what I had been thinking. Here is the tantalizing bit (not new, but certainly relevant to current threads on vortex about how to best way to store energy, especially wind and solar), for which Mills appears to be claiming as fact certain evidence which he has not produced, despite many appeals, and therefore likely cannot produce any time soon... but he hasn't removed or qualified the claims: Battery Comparison (from the BLP site) The energy density projection for BLP's battery is as high as 10,000+ watt-hours per kilogram. The voltage of BLP's battery may be 70 volts compared to the average voltage for a lithium-ion battery of 3.6 volts. BLP's battery compound may release about 100 times the energy and 1,000 plus times the power of any other conventional chemical used in batteries. If Mills could better document this, as well as many other of his claims, of if anyone could reproduce them independently there would be... not millions, not even a few billion, but tens of billions of dollars available to develop the whole works. Instead, what do we have? More fancy papers and more vacuous claims. At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that these things always take longer to develop then people realize, and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been
Re: Incredible battery and TOE
Mike, Mills' is reluctant to have any association with CF, LENR, CANR and nuclear phenomena. Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like the well-considered logic of a person committed to solving our looming ecological crisis? The cynic might say that it sounds more like an egoist being either selfish, or very deceptive. Does not any executive's responsibilities go beyond the stockholders to society at large? MC: His path is alliances with large corporations where he appears as the consummate businessman with valuable patents which he can and will defend. OK. What large corporation has signed-on to develop, or to produce, a BLP product? He need convince only CEOs and their immediate technical staffs, not the public, nor members of vortex or HSG. Has he convinced any CEO to become a manufacturing partner? He tried successfully to convince Capstone, the cutting-edge manufacturer of micro-turbines, and they were ready willing and able, but Mills could not deliver on his end - after saying publicly in 1998 that he expected a commercial product in 18 months. He also said in interviews 8 years ago that he was going public soon. The problem is, if you go public, then you can no longer hide behind a veil of secrecy. Isn't that the real reason why he has not done so? And BTW, has BLP not had at least one major defection from the board of directors? MC: No doubt when it becomes real there will be a rush of imitators. But how many years of patent protection will be left by then? I think the point that you are minimizing here, is not the plodding pace of progress from BLP, but the urgency of doing something meaningful in a national or worldwide effort to begin to eliminate CO2 before it, in effect, eliminates us. If it requires BLP to use deuterium, then you bite the bullet and use deuterium. If it requires you to deal with the NRC, then you deal with the NRC. It is as simple as that. He has been using nuclear materials, and dealing with NRC in his medical research for 20 years. This no-NRC excuse is a big pile of stinking crapola, IMHO. The real point is that if it requires another 15 years for BLP to get a hydrogen-only product to market, then there may be no market left to buy it. OTOH, if it turns out that BLP *could have had* a Capstone turbine product on the market in 2000, one that did use deuterium and did require a license form the NRC, but that Mills did not do this for ego-reasons, then he could share real moral culpability for that little ego-trip. Especially if it turns out that a hydrogen-only product is not do-able at all but that a deuterium-fueled product would have staved-off what will, without question, be a global catastrophe if we delay progress into the next generation. Artic warming is a gigantic risk, a risk of extinction threatening all life on earth, unless something is done soon. This artic methane-release connection is a ticking-time-bomb, and if genius-level people like Mills cannot appreciate that, then our grandchildren, and his, will have no real future, maybe even no survival. Jones
