>From Robin, ...
> >Regarding the hydrino theory, my first impression would be to conclude > >(with absolutely no math to back this conclusion up with) that not > >enough hydrogen was consumed (into hydrinos) that would explain the > >massive amount of heat recorded. I hope someone can clarify whether my > >uneducated assumption on this point is valid or not. (I suspect it's > >incorrect.) > > The maximum amount of energy obtainable from Hydrino formation is, not > coincidentally, exactly half the mass energy of an electron, i.e. 255 keV/H > atom. > > Maximally shrinking 0.11 gm of H2 would therefore yield 752 kWh of energy, > about ~30 times what was actually measured. Furthermore the calculation of the > amount of Hydrogen measured assumes that none was absorbed by the Ni during filling > of the reactor, which probably isn't true. IOW there may actually have been more > than 0.11 gm of H present in the reactor. Woah! "...~30 times what was measured." Did I read that correctly? You're theorizing that hydrino formation can't be entirely ruled out as the source of the heat? I seem to recall that might contradict something Jones theorized in a previous post? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
