In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:05:21 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Robin, > >> If you consider the properties of severely shrunken hydrinos, >> you >> will see that they have much in common with "orgone", including >> coming from the sun, being "conducted" by various solids, and >> possibly "turning radioactive" if "kept" too long. > >Yes, but the fly in the ointment is that the cell reportedly turns >cold during operation...
I wonder if it really "turns cold", or just doesn't get hot? If the energy released in the cell were only a tiny fraction of the energy released in the engine, as might be the case if e.g. fusion with Nitrogen were taking place, then the tiny quantity of hydrinos required might not be enough to heat the cell noticeably. e.g. Hy + N14 -> O15 + 7.3 MeV. In getting to shrinkage level 25, the hydrino would release (25^2) x 13.6 eV ~= 8500 eV. 8500/7,300,000 ~= 0.1% so 100 hp of thermal energy in the engine would mean 86 W of thermal power in the cell. Given the amount of water present and the size of the cell, evaporation in the cell and condensation in the connector leading to the carburetor may keep it cool, with air flow through the carburetor cooling the condensate, and carrying the excess heat through into the engine where it wouldn't be noticed anyway. As to the engine itself running cool, perhaps most of the pressure comes from the increase in the number of particles present in the engine, due to ionization, rather than due to heat. If the resultant plasma is blown out the exhaust, then the heat may only show up either there, or in the atmosphere behind the vehicle, depending on how long it takes the plasma to recombine. (How's that for hand waving? ;) BTW I hope that the Nitrogen reaction isn't taking place, because O15 is radioactive with a half life of about 2 minutes, so the exhaust would be radioactive, and dangerous to anyone breathing it. This would be especially true if use were widespread. Definitely something to check. > >If one can suspend disbelief long enough - that problem can be >rationalized by saying they [hydrini] are created in the >"charging" process and not in the cell itself - and instead cool >the cell when they are rejected by the much lower current there >and by vacuum from the intake. > >This actually fits into my belief about the thermodynamics of >hydrino formation. I have always felt that making then is >endothermic and the excess energy comes only when they are >re-expanded back to ground state - and only then do they take that >energy from ZPE. I am in a distinct minority on that - as Mills >poo-poohs ZPE but nothing he has done in the Lab cannot be >explained as well or better by ZPE than by his own theory. > >Anyway as to the hydrino at higher energies, I posted some of the >following to the HSG group but it never seemed to show up. The >more I think about it - the more this seems like the best evidence >in all of the literature for hydrini - unless I am misinterpreting >it: >http://www.energystorm.us/_time_Resolved_Plasma_Spectroscopy_Of_Imploded_Gas_filled_Microballoons_The_Next_Generation_Final_Technical_Report_17_April_1995_30_September_1997-r128251.html I agree, and specifically avoided pointing it out to Sandia labs because they use the knowledge for bomb development. >yes.. it involves a hot-dense plasma rather than a warm-thin >plasma (typical of Mills) but it is actually very similar in >density and energy to a layer in the Sun's corona where flares >originate. ...and the energy is about right too. > >There are curious details - and there are a number of these >laser implosion papers in the online literature by researchers >where deuterium and other gases are irradiated with lasers, >presumably for purposes of obtaining data for ICF/Nova etc. Many >of them result in a hot dense plasma with an average mass/energy >of ~ 1keV per ion but with a massive bump in the spectra. If you look at my web page, you will see that the maximum energy released by any given shrinkage with a Mills catalyst with m=1 (Argon or D itself) is about 1 keV. > >That "bump" is the problem as I see it. Two possible hydino >inferences come from it. > >The plasmas, in general, are much hotter with some argon (few >percent) instead of all D2 or D2 and other gases. And Lo and >behold: Recently Argon has turned up in solar flares - huge spike: >http://www.cbk.pan.wroc.pl/publications/2002/Praga_paper_htm.htm > >Ar is claimed to be a strong hydrino catalyst, of course, and >spectrograph show pronounced peaks at what would be near the >maximum shrinkage level n=135. >27.2*135 = 3672 eV. The correct calculation is (135^2 x 13.598) - 13.598, for the total energy release starting from H and ending up at n=1/135. i.e. 247800 eV, not 3672 eV. A peak at 3672 would equate to a shrinkage level of 16.43 (16-17), which just happens to be the level at which hydrinohydride formation enthalpy is at a maximum. (I.e. due to formation of the hydride, the hydrinos are removed from the process?). > >This is attributed by the authors of the first paper to the >K-shell of Ar - as naturally it seems to fit there - but given the >steepness of this >spectral region from the implosions, one wonders *why* the k-shell >was preferentially effected... unless it has something to do with >being an energy "hole" for the hydrino. I think it's just a coincidence. >Obviously these researchers never heard of Mills or the hydrino, >so they assigned this energy level to what they knew best. Is >there more to the story ....? Note that they have been experimenting with this for 20 years, i.e. since 1986 when Mills first published his theory. I doubt it's a coincidence. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
