In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 10 May 2005 15:43:39 -0400: Hi, [snip] >> 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.
When a hydrino gets very small, sooner or later it will undergo a fusion reaction with another nucleus. Because of the extreme sensitivity of fusion tunneling time to distance, the time required for tunneling to take place can shrink drastically during a single shrinkage event. This may well mean that the hydrino fuses with the catalyst atom responsible for the current shrinkage event (if the hydrino was already very small before the event). If that catalyst was O++, then the fusion reaction could be either of: O16 + Hy -> F17 + e- or O16 + Hy -> O17 (electron capture of the shrunken hydrino electron). In either case, gamma rays are likely to ensue, so that use of this reaction should be limited to well shielded reactors. A better catalyst for reactors where little or no shielding would be required, would be Li, possibly combined with He. Fusion reactions with Li will most likely produce a mixture of He4 and He3. [snip] >> 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. This is the path currently being followed, which doesn't *appear* to be leading to a commercial device. I respectfully suggest that a somewhat higher density and higher operating temperature may yield better power density, because the catalyst ion density will be greater at higher temperatures. >> >> >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. The obvious way, is direct use of water as fuel, however the previous experiment carried out using this approach shows that the density of shrinkage reactions is still too low, implying insufficient O++ present. That in turn implies that higher operating temperatures are required. I would suggest a gas cooling system rather than a water bath, or a much larger reactor that has larger volume to surface area ratio, ensuring that less contact with the walls occurs to reduce the temperature of the plasma before it can catalyze further reactions. > >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. Well this peanut is being entertained anyway. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
