In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:15:05 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin has a proprietary version of a "hot" nuclear reactor, presumably >employing U, which builds on hydrino-tech -- and this concept does also.
No, my device has nothing to do with fission. It's a pure fusion device. However I have speculated in the past on the use of fast neutrons from the DT reaction to fission U238 directly. I am not the only one to have done this. > do not know the details of Robin's concept, but I'm fairly sure that this is > not the same thing. This concept is for a beam-line, i.e. an mildly > accelerated beam of hydrinos (the so-called "table-top acceleartor) ... > which will cause thorium or U targets to fission or to spall, and that > integrated subsystem (beam+traget) will serve as a very low cost > makeup-neutron source for a subcritical fission reactor using natural > unenriched fuel. > >AFAIK, R. Mills has not modified this viewpoint on "hydrino hydride" although >we do not hear much about this ion any more. This stable-charged species HH is >Mills' (misleading) name for (Hy-) which is a proton with one reduced radius >orbit electron and one normal orbit electron. No, actually both electrons have the same orbit, but their common orbit is sqrt(2) (if I'm not mistaken) larger than that of the electron in Hy. >Others have commented that this species makes more sense from a QM perspective >if both eletrons have the same reduced orbital, but I am not sure if that >refined version of HH has been 'borrowed' by RM yet. Not borrowed at all. It has always been that way. You can find it even in the 1996 version of his book (IIRC). > >At any rate, lets say that the HH - "hydrino hydride" - is a stable charged >ion and that the hydrino which forms it can be derived rather simply from the >"geometric hole" of charged Raney catalyst alone, along with a source of >hydrogen (and that this is what has provided the spike which is seen by >Jansson in the video). > >OK - sorry to take so long to 'set the table' for this alternative use for >hydrinos, but it is not a simple thing to verbalize for the first time. > >The idea is that pressurized hydrogen gas would pass through a four-layer >arrangemeent (thin layers) composed of: > >1) a non-conducting (for electrons) ceramic proton conductor >2) which is sandwiched with a layer of Raney catalyst charged + >3) which will then has a layer of hydrino conducting ceramic or plastic (which >is semi-conducting for electrons) >4) and finally through a negatively charged open pore metal which converts the >hydrinos into HH. > >From there-on: the HH can be accelerated easily, due to its inherent stable >charge, and in a simple RF driven linear accelerator, up to the threshold >enegy for creating fission or spallation of a thorium target. We do not know >how low that threshold would be for a fast hydrino, of course; yet for this >concept to work well - it would need to be low. > >It is assumed by me now that this threshold will be a much lower energy than >for a proton beam, since the high speed hydrino which results when the HH is >stripped of the first electron will be poised to occasionally get close to a >large nucleus before the second electron is stripped away.These things always >reduce to statistical probability. If you are counting on the Hydrino undergoing a nuclear reaction, then you don't need to accelerate it to spallation energies. In fact that would be counterproductive, because a collision at that energy would easily remove the Hydrino electron (and thus the shielding you are counting on). I assume you are considering higher energies in order to get the Hydrino closer to the nucleus. However the only thing preventing even a thermal Hydrino from getting close, is it's own size. Speeding it up won't make any difference. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
