Hi Ed. Here's another thought.
Let's assume a small quantity of gas ignites, sufficient to create an ionized bridge between anode and cathode. Would you have an arc discharge due to the power supply capacity in addition to the H2 and O2 gas recombination? Certainly if the supply is operating in constant current mode and voltage limiting is not set properly, I could see that happening. That would add more energy than the initial ~10 joules cemical energy in the gas. Would 10J be sufficient to see these effects alone? I think so, but I'm open to hearing more to the contrary. Perhaps Dr. M should make up some dummy resistive loads with a switch, and stress test his power supply before resuming experimentation. The power supply I used for this kind of work has crowbar features to handle such extreme conditions. But of course you have to set them to work...and I don't always do that (grin). I suspect I'm not alone in this regard. K. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion? Hi Jones, Granted that an autocatalytic reaction is possible, several more facts have to be considered. 1. First of all, a destructive explosion occurs as a shock wave that is suddenly formed by release of energy and gas. A slow release of energy that does not produce a shock wave will dissipate without shattering the vessel, unless a pressure in excess of the bust strength of the container is maintained for a significant time, say several seconds. At which time, the container will separate at its weakest point, rather than shatter. Glass usually is found in pieces after such an event because the few large parts shatter upon hitting the nearest hard object. 2. Normal explosives form a shock wave because they produce a greater volume of gas than they initially occupy. The moving shock wave causes the chemical reaction (decomposition) within its region and grows in strength. For example, a natural gas explosion results in the reaction 2CH4 + 5O2 = 2CO + 8H2O where 7 moles of gas turns into 10 moles. In contrast, the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O reaction actually shrinks in volume, from 3 to 2 moles. The shock wave is very brief and is only maintained by the expanded volume resulting from heating the gas. Even if the H = H* reaction were to occur, the energy has to go somewhere. Presumably, the energy goes into the O-- ion, which is a catalyst. As a result, the normal H2+O2 reaction energy is augmented by a small contribution from hydrino formation. This causes the normal shock wave to be sufficiently strong to break the container. How does this sound? Ed Jones Beene wrote: > Hi Ed, > > > >>I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when > > proposing the hydrino > >>explanation. > > >>1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not > > when > >>accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". > > > > That, of course, is part of Mills' explanation. But we > should keep in mind two things: > > 1) that he could very easily have discovered the process; > but yet he still got many of the details in his theory > wrong, or half-right. > > 2) there could be an autocatalytic stage, following build-up > of hydrinos over time. > > Some of us have been saying for some time that it appears > from analyzing many of the past results, that the first few > redundant ground states of hydrino formation (at least the > first) could be endothermic, not exothermic. > > Moreover, If at a certain stage in the ongoing process, the > shrinkage below ground state does continue and becomes > atuocatalytic - all the way down to n = 1/137 then of course > those last 100+ steps would shed tremendous energy very > rapidly. Had Mizuno been using a G-M monitor at the time, > there would have been a big spike at the time of the > explosion, as the lower stages are all soft x-rays, in > theory. > > Jones > > >
