Just like Proton-21, SF-CIHT must use a huge arc discharge to produce copper nano-particles from condensing copper plasma. A LENR reaction happens based on these nano-particles as residual EUV copper ion afterglow will explode them after nano-particle condensation out of the condensing copper plasma.
Joe Papp used a weak high voltage spark to explode his water clusters since he somehow pre-formed these water clusters as a fuel preparation step. This mystery of how he preprocessed his fuel is what stops PAPP replication efforts. This is why the COP of the Papp engine is infinite and that of the SF-CIHT system is marginal. It is important to provide these water clusters through fuel preprocessing before the spark is triggered not after. By the way, experiments on exploding atomic clusters show that the energy release per atom is 2500 electron volts. This is where the energy gain comes from on these arc based atomic cluster exploding systems. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The > only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button > encloses. > > > > The Proton-21 system produces lots of gamma rays. It goes to reason the > the SF-CIHT system will produce a ton of gamma rays. > > > > The proton-21 system also produces transmutation so it is a good bet the > the SF-CIHT system will produce nuclear reactions. > > > > If Mills goes forward with the commercial development of the SF-CIHT > system, the jig will be up on the hydrino. This means that Mills is using > this demo to bring in "staying alive" money from investors just like Joe > Papp did back in the old days. > > > > It is as plain as day, the SF-CIHT system will never be commercialized. It > is too dangerous to do so, because it contains the seeds of the destruction > of the hydrino fantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Mike Carrell <mi...@medleas.com> wrote: > >> Two readers of CMNS have objected to my posting of a non-nuclear energy >> technology, so this will be my last message to CMNS, at least for a while. >> >> >> >> The demo was of effects, not working systems. Expectations of energy gain >> ratios are premature, for the power requirements of necessary support >> systems were not included. Useful detains are given in the updated >> Technical Presentation, available on the website. Disappointments that >> Mills did not show a plug-and-play commercial system are **very** >> premature. I have log personal experience with the rough road between a >> laboratory 'effect' and a commercial product in my 38 years as a senior >> engineer at the former RCA corporation. It is much more difficult than >> expected, full of nasty surprises. I suspect that few members of the >> Vo/CMNS audience have any real conception of that world. >> >> >> >> Mills postulates a compact machine that positions pellets of fuel between >> the interlocking teeth of two meshing gears, electrically charged, which >> heat the pellet to its activation temperature in less than a millisecond. >> The resulting plasma explodes into two MHD converters, on either face of >> the meshing gr=ears. Residue of the pellets is collected and transported to >> a module which reconstructs and re-hydrates the pellets for re-use >> [reusable firecrackers, anyone? J]. Personally, I doubt that this >> function will be flawless, which implies a maintenance function: such is >> not a show-stopper, for even machine guns need cleaning. Activating the >> pellets at a rate of 1000 per second requires significant peak power, which >> can be achieved by known means, but must come out of the energy budget. >> >> >> >> Mike Carrell >> > >
