Robin wrote: > In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:11 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported > >seeing emission lines he associates with p = 7 hydrinos, and maybe p =16, > >but I suspect the population is small. Mills has enough problems with the > >technology he is studying without dissipating his efforts with CF, LENR and > >CANR. > > Far from dissipating his efforts, such an approach may just be his saving grace. First, the average nuclear reaction is going to yield about 1000 times the energy (~ 1 MeV) of his best average hydrino yield (i.e. ~1000 eV/ hydrino). Second, the high energy ionising radiation likely to result from a nuclear reaction can create thousands of catalysts ions from each nuclear reaction. That may be just what is needed to close the gap between commercial and non-commercial. The whole thing can still be a clean reactor, if the primary nuclear reaction creates alpha particles.
In the above paragraph, it is true that nuclear reactions (fusion, as in LENR) produce more energy *per atom* than does BLP, but the problem in LENR cells is for enough atoms to fuse; the necessary conditions are still very obscure. High ionizing energy makes hot fusion dangerous, equipment expensive, and not for domenstic use, and the NRC on your neck. It is a feature of LENR that this does not occur. In BLP's microwave reactors, the catalyst gas is very throroughly ionized -- and safely --. The probem is getting the catalyst ions and the H atoms within reaction distance in the low pressure conditions. Don't suggest high pressure, for there are competing reactions. Also don't think that Mills and his staff are stupid in this matter. It is very complex. > > Without nuclear reactions, he must depend on hydrino reactions themselves creating sufficient ions to catalyze further reactions. That is probably currently his main problem. IOW making the reaction self sustaining. > [snip] Yes, that is part of the problem. You are confusing two matters. 1) There are the reactions of H atoms with primary catalysts, producing hydrinos, and 2) reactions between hydrinos themselves, which can catalyze each other, in which one hydrino goes to a lower state and the other to a higher state. These happen in at about 1/1000 atmosphertic pressure as random encounters. There may be ways to increase the density of these encounters, but I think such are well beyond the present resources of BLP to develop. > >"authorities" as you well know. So if you are CEO of a potential partner are > >you going to sink big bucks into a project which may not scale up easily and > >may have serious problems, like requiring ultra pure reagents to work? > > Of course, if this is used as a path to fusion, then the fuel requirements will be relatively speaking so low, that ultra-purity would be no problem. The "path to fusion" is spectulation generated within Vortex and HSG. In the LENR plasma electrolysis experiments with light water and potassium carbonate electrolyte, it is conceivable that BLP reactions occur between H atoms and K+ and K+++ and O++ ions, all of which may exist there. Mills' first experiments were an electrolytic cell using potassium carbonate and light water. There is also evidence of nuclear activity in such cells by reports of erosionof a tungsten cathode. Both may be happening, and it is very interesting, and puzzling, for D is not used. There is much to be learned here, but controlling it all and commercial development are a very long road. > However I doubt that ultra purity really is a problem in the first place. In fact I suspect that quite the opposite is true, it may work better if its dirtier (i.e. lots of different elements thrown in). I don't know for sure; I just used the pure reagents as an illustration of possible surprises. But it definitely does not follow that contaminants are good. When you have a mix of unknowns, you multiply the things that can go wrong. We are dealing with a kind of chemistry, and when you mix ingredients in chemistry, everything that can happen will happen and the jog of the chemical engineer is to maximize what you want and filter out the rest. > [snip] > JB: > >> If it requires BLP to use deuterium, then you bite the > >> bullet and use deuterium. If it requires you to deal with > >> the NRC, then you deal with the NRC. It is as simple as > >> that. He has been using nuclear materials, and dealing with > >> NRC in his medical research for 20 years. This no-NRC excuse > >> is a big pile of stinking crapola, IMHO. > > It probably doesn't actually. The dependence of fusion time on separation distance is so strong that hydrinos should be able to make a reality of reactions such as Li7 + H -> 2 He4, and B11 + H -> 3 He4. Furthermore this dependence is largely concentrated at the high end of the distance, i.e. one doesn't need much reduction to get a large improvement. So you are proposing that hydrinos will carry protons to Li nuclei? How? You have the same problem as in all LENR: how to get past the Coulomb barrier. You first have to produce lots of hydrinos. > [snip] > >water. The last time I talked to Mills, several years ago, he said he was > >about a factor of 4 away from a closed loop. > > ...and a 1000 fold improvement from fusion would put him over the top by a factor of 250. > [snip] How? <snip> Mike Carrell
