----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > 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?
I would be happy to do this, if he would provide some detail about the rate of hydrino formation for the highly shrunken variety, using the "wet" Thermacore process. The highest and best use for hydrinos, IF they do undergo shrinkage to 1/137 or thereabouts would certainly be as makeup "neutrons" in subcritical scheme. I'm sure you recognize this, and at some level Mills must also, but publicly he has marginalized full-shrinkage because of the obvious jeopardy to his marketing goals. In fact, the best reason - that anyone knowledgeable about the circumstances can suggest - as to why the Thermacore technique did not "go commercial" relates to nuclear activation of the reactor. This problem is actually *to be expected* for the "wet process," and is likely why Mills abandoned such - but that problem can be made into an BIG advantage in fission, especially using heavy water and electrodes of zirconium or graphite. It is only common sense, once you remove the layers of rhetoric, political maneuvering and double-talk... inasmuch as the neutron multiplication ratio for even a modest size piece of fully reflected uranium carbide is over 100:1 and the energy available per fission is over 200 MeV. Consequently, for every shrunken hydrino, one can get 20 GeV instead of a total of about 1 MeV or a whopping 20,000-to-one ratio per hydrino for energy multiplication using fission. It's a no-brainer. I have mentioned this more than once on vortex. You are the only one who openly recognizes this potential, other than possible employees of BLP who aren't talking... and possibly a few clever bureaucrats in Asia or Europe. But it is impossible to proceed on a subcritical fission design without important details on the rate of shrinkage, etc. and Mills has offered no help, and it seems clear from Mike's recent post, that Mills will NOT be inclined to ever offer any evidence, not the least bit it seems, which would suggest to the NRC or the Sierra Club that the reaction is ultimately nuclear; nor that it can and should be used as an adjunct to a nuclear fission scheme. This is a *political decision,* on his part, especially in the US. Fortunately, he may not have the last word on this implementation. As mentioned earlier, there is a strong and broad WPO patent issued to Arie de Geuss which precedes Mills and would have worldwide precedence for fission implementation, should anyone want to attempt it - which is for hydrino formation using Lithium or Be as catalyst. And 7Li or Be are the only catalysts which makes sense for use in fission reactor, using a heavy water 'wet electrolysis' process. According to de Geuss's paper, either of them produce hydrinos, but can his research be trusted? He is a loner without resources, and has not been heard from recently. Like Mills, he claims independent verification of hydrinos. Mills does not even acknowledge his existence. Unlike 6Li, the heavier isotope of lithium has a low cross-section for thermal neutrons and is a waste product of weaponry, and 'could be' obtained cheaply in certain regions. Beryllium is not cheap. If you are a nation, such as China, India, South Africa, Russia or France with both a nuclear weapons program and a nuclear power industry, then 7Li is perfect and it can be used in a heavy water based wet electrochemical reaction, ala the Thermacore process (which uses potassium - but K is not suitable for use in a reactor core). Perhaps someone in Europe or Asia will license from de Geuss and by-pass Mills and go for the fission implementation. Perhaps you should promote this for Australia. Perhaps de Geuss will give up and let his patent lapse. In any case, someone outside the US should; and probably will try to do this eventually. It would be right "down the alley" for Mitsubishi, for instance, except for the extraneous financial problems which they are having. Once again, it seems the US is poised to loose a technological lead that it could have enjoyed, had not extraneous political considerations entered into the picture. I see another post coming through now from Richard with the same conclusion. Hey isn't Wi-Fi great? I'm doing this posting totally wireless while enjoying a cafe latte and lots of highly caffeinated chatter. The US does have "magic" technology, the only problem is, we also have politicians who have other concerns than the long-term welfare of the average worker, who do need some of the manufacturing jobs we are exporting, some of which pay less than barista here makes, but that is a short -sighted decision based on "paper" value... which costs Sam almost nothing to print. Jones
