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.
