Dear Jones, would you agree to publish this idea on EGO OUT? I will give the link to Vo anyway- I like the idea. Peter
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > There are a few possible ways in which the findings and the techniques > used to make dense deuterium for Holmlid could find a direct and easy > applicability in a glow-tube type of experiment – using the same type of > alumina tube (or mullite) used by Parkhomov. > > To be safe, this kind of hybrid should be done without a laser, using as > a substitute, a monochromatic light source. As for the fuel - I agree > with Robin that deuterium probably works better – after all, the nucleus > is bosonic and the proton is not, but Holmlid clearly indicates that > either will densify. Monatomic H, in contrast to the proton - is an > atomic boson, so maybe that is the feature which lets either isotope work. > > This hybrid version will be a two stage system – an activation stage and > a conversion stage. Both will use only photonic energy input, NO > resistance wire, which is a big departure from Parkhomov. There is no > resistance heater to burn out and the net gain should improve due to > efficiency of SPP formation. Both of the stages can be referred to as “ > mini-tanning-booths”. J > > The underlying concept is premised on SPP formation, both in the > activation stage and in the conversion stage. This requires a light source > and a magnetic field to optimize. The further assumption is that the > laser is effective for both Holmlid and Letts/Cravens because it is > coherent light, but that monochromatic photons will also work. The > magnetic field does not need to be strong, and can be provided by loudspeaker > magnets placed outside the hot zone. > > Holmlid is apparently seeing large amounts nucleon disintegration – which > we definitely need to avoid in a kilowatt level systems due to gamma > radiation; and therefore, it would be better to avoid the laser in favor > of monochromatic light. As fate would have it, there is an ideal light > emitter device in the sodium vapor lamp, which is the small version of the > common street lamp. It is the most efficient photon source known – better > than the best LEDs and single frequency. > > Sodium is naturally monochromatic at 580 nm, and not only that, mass > production has brought the cost of the bulbs way down - such that the 400 > watt bulbs are particularly cheap (this is apparently due to the > widespread hydroponic farming of a certain cash crop). Anyway, an > efficient light source makes much more sense than powering a ceramic tube > with resistance heaters, since it is the incandescence (photons) which > you need for SPP – and not the heat, per se. > > Obviously, one must buy into the SPP hypothesis for the operative > modality before any of this makes sense. But once you do buy into it – > the absurdity of using resistance heat to get surface plasmons is obvious. > It is a no brainer to start with photons, not electricity. > > 400 Watts should be an ideal size for the conversion stage but the > activation stage could best use a lamp in the range of 75 watts. The > activation stage will last for an extended time frame – say 100 hours of > continuous irradiation of the fuel-tube. This can be done safely with a > lamp. The alumina or mullite tubes being used are translucent, and will > downshift the 580 nm yellow light of the sodium bulb down to IR – which is > ideal for SPP. Once activated, the fuel is not removed from the tube – > instead the same ceramic tube is used in the conversion stage, as is. The > conversion stage looks the same but has a larger lamp for input triggering > . > > The fuel mix which would work best, according to Holmlid would be mostly > Shell 105 catalyst. The rest of the fuel mix could include LAH as the > hydrogen source, and nickel powder. The idea is that two reflective and > insulated mirrored troughs are fabricated from aluminum foil or equivalent, > such that the loaded ceramic tube is irradiated all around by monochromatic > light and also heated to a modest level where hydrogen pressure is minimal > . Some insulation will be required. Magnets are outside the “tanning > booth” so they can be kept cool, but the net effect is that SPP should > form more readily than with Parkhomov – and over time, a population of > dense hydrogen will accumulate. This activate fuel will be converted in > the adjoining “booth” (actually bulbs could be swapped out in the same > booth). > > Once activated, the fuel tube needs only the addition of thermocouples > before it is ready to be irradiated (at a much higher level) in the > conversion stage, where the monochromatic trigger, from the sodium vapor > light is 3-6 times more intense than in the activation stage. > > If the SPP theory/modality is correct, and if the Holmlid dense hydrogen > modality is also involved, then the end result is that the COP of this system > should be higher than the Parkhomov system, where incandescence provides > the photons at perhaps 3-5 % efficiency. Sodium is a factor of 10x more > efficient for photons. > > Jones > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
