Mike, > > >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. > How? We seem to be talking past each other here. The alternative to a Mills' hydrino plasma cell is not deuterino plasma cell boosted by a D+D nuclear reaction, although that is quite a boost. You seem to be forgetting about the "neutron multiplication ratio" of subcritical uranium fission. In fission, each neutron absorbed in the fuel has the potential to create 2.2 -2.5 or so new neutrons, depending on enrichment. This can continue for many sequential steps or "generations". Losses can keep this under two in a subcritical reactor. A chain reaction occurs when this is over two. In between, in the subcritical zone, there is a multiplication ratio, based on may factors. It can be very high, using even a small amount of natural uranium - when a thick graphite blanket is provided and there is no light water, only heavy water. With a thick blanket of graphite over 99 of every 100 neutrons going out, comes back eventually. All the losses are then in the fuel. A multiplication ratio of 100-to-1 is feasible with a few hundred pounds of U and a thick graphite blanket. Each fission releases 200 MeV of mass/energy. ERGO for each 1/137 neutrino absorbed, which Mills has said in past versions of CQM is the expected end-point of shrinkage, assuming this acts like a regular neutron and there is no reason why it would not, the energy boost, using fission, can be 20,000 to one not 1000 to one. If a deuterino is used, it is double that. If you want to argue that a hydrino might not act that way, then we will assume that we will be using heavy water - and again we are back to the 20,000 to one ratio of energy multiplication using subcritical fission. Mills in early work basically agreed with this premise, and called it CAF or something like that... now he is down-playing it. He can't have it both ways. A deuterino does not act any differently with Uranium than with another deuterino. This **subcritical fission** application is extremely significant. And it is not speculation. Someone will pull it off eventually, and if it is not Mills, then he will probably not benefit, because of the de Geuss patent priority for lithium/beryllium catalyst which is an already granted WPO patent, not a patent applied-for. Jones
