Robin wrote:
> In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 8 May 2005 11:01:46 > -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >3) Identified catalysts include K+, K+++, Rb+, Sr+, He+, Ar+, Ne+, O+++, and > > O+++ is also not a catalyst. O++ however is. Correction noted. Got carried away with K+++ [see related reply]. > [snip] > >The catch is that these reactions occur between isolated atoms. In the early electrolytic cells, at the cathode interface, K+ ions and H atoms are both produced and can interact to produce heat. But lots of other things are also going on. The K+ state is transitory, H atoms combine to H2, and so do not participate. > > Under these conditions, K (metal) atoms are also produced (these > are catalysts), though they are also transitory, rapidly reacting > with water molecules to produce K+ ions. > [snip] > > > > >Mills primarly works with dilute gases, at about 1 Torr. Here the mean free path is large enough that atoms are isolated. A typical gas mix is 95% catalyst and 5% H, to increase the probalility of H and catalyst atoms coming close enough for the energy transfer to take place. Even with the dilute gases, substantial, tangible heat output is seen. > > The chance of this happening increases with a *decrease* in mean > free path. More properly, it happens more frequently at higher > pressures, because the collision rate is higher at higher > pressures (for collisions of every type). I would seem so, but the studies by Phillips indicate an optimal pressure. It does not necessarily get better at higher pressures and lower MFP. Mills has commented to me that the inetractions are very complex and must be empirically determined. I'm sure the BLP crew have explored parameter space, but are not telling all they found. BTW atoms (molecules) > are always isolated in any gas or plasma, at any pressure. The > only importance of changing the mean free path can be in the > extent to which the walls of the chamber, or the exhaust system - > if present, play a role. > What primarily determines the chances of a catalytic couple coming > together is the ratio of the gasses. Which is why the gas reactors use a 20:1 ratio of catalyst gas to hydrogen. > > > > >As noted above, there are competing processes. The catalyst atoms have to be ionized, in some cases by microwaves, and react before they capture electrons and have to be ionized again [more energy]. The H atoms can form H2, which will not react. Optimizing these parameters is empirical; twice as big may not work twice as well. > > H atoms form H2 in a three body collision. These are rare, and > thus can be ignored when engineering for energy output. True, so the 2H>H2 is not significant. More > important is that the catalysts ions not get a chance to recombine > with free electrons. This chance is reduced as the number of free > electrons is reduced. Thus optimal catalysis would take place if > separate streams of catalyst ions (without electrons) and hydrogen > _atoms_ were combined into a single stream. Of course the > resultant stream would be positively charged, and would later need > to be neutralised with the missing electrons from the catalyst > ions. > Perhaps with clever engineering this could be put to use as part > of a heat powered electrical generator. All of this is part of the "exercises to be left to the student". One can think of an ion gun firing ionized catalyst into an atmosphere of neutral H atoms. Such might be done on a micro or macroscopic scale. Such projects can swallow lots of resources, whihc is why Mills seeks partners. > > > > >A practical system must conserve the catalyst. One has to add hydrogen fuel and collect hydrino byproducts while conserving the catalyst. This is not easy in a gas system using, say, argon. it can be liquified and distilled, but this takes energy somewhere, either at a remote facility or in the BLP generator system. Otherwise the catalyst is an expensive consumable. > > It is easy if one lets go of the inherent assumption that one > needs a flowing system. Of course: The flowing system is fine for studying the effect. On the contrary, one needs either a closed > circulatory system, of a completely stationary system (i.e. a > bottle), into which occasionally a small quantity of H2 is added. > As the reaction proceeds, hydrinohydride compounds will form on > the walls of the "bottle", removing them from the plasma, and > necessitating the addition of more H2. > Eventually, the hydrino hydride on the walls will be consumed, > after the hydrinos shrink to the point that fusion reactions > become possible. These are but beginning examples of things to be tried by Jed's hordes of experimenters which may be unleased by the realization that the BLP reactions are "real". > [snip] > >A practical system has to get hydrogen fuel from somewhere. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it can be from electrolysis powered by a local BLP reactor, or from wind or solar farms. To do it locally, the BLP reactor must supply enough energy to run a thermal electrical generator [with its losses] and support ancillary equipment, and have useful power left over. This is a formidible engineering challenge. > > An alternative possibility is use of one of the various thermal > methods of hydrogen production, using thermal energy from a BLP > reaction directly. An interesting twist might be to incorporate > all the necessary chemicals in a BLP reactor, where different > temperatures reign in different parts of the reactor, and simply > let nature take its course. OTOH, none of this is actually likely > to be necessary, since a BLP reactor that is producing well Over > Unity, should be able to accept water as a fuel directly. The > energetic particles and UV in the reactor would soon split the > water, and even oxidize the O to O++ turning it into a catalyst. I agree. This has occurred to me as well. > > > > > >Water is the ideal fuel, cheap, and the oxygen catalyst need not be conserved. > > Agreed. However this has the disadvantage that O17 may be > produced, necessitating shielding the reactor because of the > likely gammas. Why should O17 be produced? so far we are dealing with 'hyperchemistry', not nuclear reactions. But it si possible that when the presently-obvious BLP reactions are scaled up, other reactions of lower probability will be seen. It's new territory. > > >The reaction occurs at low pressure, so the system has to do the work of maintining that vacuum against air pressure. > > I suspect that is simply a result of running it at too low a > temperature. At temperatures of 10s of thousands of degrees, it > would probably run well at pressures well above atmospheric > pressure. I suspect that BLP reactions are contributing to the excess heat seen in the plasma electrolyssis cells. > However containment them becomes more problematic - lessons to be > learned from hot fusion perhaps? Wrong track. Spectroscopy of the Hydrogen alpha line already indicates H at 100,000 C or so, but it is attentuated. If you get the reaction going enough to produce kilowatts of power, you drain the heat off as fast as possible to do useful work. > > >The heat of evaporation of the water would come fromz the environment. > > This is minuscule compared to the energy release from the > reaction, hence can be ignored. > The minimum energy release from a molecule of water (containing > two hydrogen atoms) would be 2*40.8 = 81.6 eV. The energy required > to evaporate a molecule of water ~= 0.47 eV, or only 1 part in 174 > of the minimal energy release. A further 2.96 eV is required to > split the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, still trivial > compared to the minimal energy release. Which is very encouraging, except thatere is still no [visible] efficient way to get that energy into useful form except a lossy thermal cycle. All of which is an outline of why there has not been a rush of product out the door of BLP to entertain the peanut gallery. Mike Carrell
