In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] >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.
In LENR cells this is true, however for a hydrino fusion reactor this is not at all obscure. If the hydrinos have nowhere to go, then eventually, they will *all* shrink to the point where they undergo fusion, and a "steady state" should be achievable. >High ionizing energy makes hot fusion dangerous, equipment >expensive, and not for domenstic use, and the NRC on your neck. It's not so much ionizing radiation produced during the reaction that makes hot fusion dangerous, as the free neutrons which make the containment radioactive. The free neutrons exist, because the methods employed by hot fusion mean that they need to use D-T fuel (which has the highest fusion cross section). A hydrino based fusion reactor need not necessarily produce any radioisotopes at all because it can use aneutronic fuels. Even if destroyed, it would simply stop working, and not be radioactive (with a bit of luck). (Careful choice of construction materials is mandatory). >It is a >feature of LENR that this does not occur. This you don't know for sure yet. They could be getting alphas inside the cathode, that don't get out. (Alphas only travel a few microns in solids, and not much farther in water). >In BLP's microwave reactors, the >catalyst gas is very throroughly ionized -- and safely --. True, but ionization by microwaves is too energy costly, unless it is only a small addition to a reactor that is almost self sustaining without the microwaves. >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. If one is careful, the "competing" reactions can actually contribute to the process instead of hindering it. An example is Sr + proton -> Sr+ + H the right hand side is both immediately a catalyst and a "ripe" hydrogen atom combined. Furthermore, the reverse reaction is far less likely, which in turn implies that this shrinkage reaction has no competition. I.e. Sr+ + H can only shrink or do nothing. (Which may be the reason that Mills' Sr catalyst worked so well). [snip] >Also don't think that Mills and his staff are stupid in >this matter. It is very complex. I have never thought them stupid. Just stubborn. [snip] >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. All that is necessary, is to keep them together longer, before they react with the walls of the containment vessel. I.e. you need a bigger reactor for starters. I have made other suggestions to Mills in private email. > >> >"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. Granted. Nevertheless, commercial development has to wait at least until the process is self-sustaining, so the sooner that happens, the sooner commercialisation can commence. My point was simply that a fusion component has a good chance of bringing forward the point where it is self-sustaining. > >> 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. I realise that the potential value of contaminants doesn't follow from the argument. That was an addition I made based upon other considerations. >When you have a mix of unknowns, you multiply the things that can go >wrong. ...or right. >We are dealing with a kind of chemistry, and when you mix ingredients >in chemistry, everything that can happen will happen ..which was my point. Some of those things might be useful. >and the jog of the >chemical engineer is to maximize what you want and filter out the rest. Indeed. [snip] >> 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. Hydrinos are much smaller than H atoms, but just as heavy. A small essentially neutral, heavy particle (lots of momentum), will easily penetrate the few sparse electrons of a Li or B atom (see how neutrons behave). How close a hydrino can get depends on its radius. Those that are sufficiently shrunken, will get close enough to fuse (even at room temperature). In fact it's easier at low temperatures, than at high temperatures, because the particles "hang around" longer at low temperatures, and also have longer De Broglie wavelengths[1]. The only reason hot fusion uses high temperatures, is because that's the only way they can get close enough as a consequence of the Coulomb barrier. Hydrinos (essentially neutral) don't have that problem, and hydrinohydride (being negative) is actually attracted to nuclei. You can think of hydrinos as having very strong "electron shielding" (a current LENR theory). [1] Note that for neutrons the absorption cross section goes up, as the temperature goes down - same reasons. >You first have to produce lots of hydrinos. Granted. [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? 1000/4 = 250? As mentioned above, if they can't escape, then eventually all hydrinos in a continuously working reactor must fuse, so the factor 1000 ends up applying to all of them. However it may take a long time to reach the steady state situation (possibly years), but once it is achieved, it should be possible to stop feeding in microwaves, and simply replenish fuel as it is used (very slowly). Then it may continue to operate for decades (or until it breaks down). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
