In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >The point worth a critical appraisal is this: > >The most effective combination BY FAR (for gain) >clearly involves strontium - either with argon + H2 or >with only H2. That is a most important point. There is >simply no other useful catalyst at low temperature, >except K (not listed here). > >Look carefully at the table. Assuming that the >well-known electrical discharge in hydrogen is not >efficient for visible light flux (according to >mainstream ~10%) although it could be more if hydrogen >were self-catalyzing, then the same discharge in Ar + >Sr + H2 is about 600 times more gainful in terms of >visible radiation flux!
Assuming 10%, then the light output would be 2.46 W for pure H2 (taken from the table). To get a flux of 2 microwatt/cm^2, one would have to measure at a distance of about 3 m from the reaction. This seems a bit excessive to me. I would think he probably measured at a distance more like 20-30 cm. In short, I doubt that the efficiency for pure H2 was anywhere near 10% in this case. > >This would be as much as COP = 60 for light photons >alone, which is within the range, but lower than what >Mills has claimed in prior releases for net energy >from hydrinos. > >This one finding of gainfulness would literally be >worth billions of dollars of investment capital, if it >could be believed. > >Yet, the upcoming reactor from BLP is said to use >sodium hydride and hydroxide as fuel. Na + H2 - which >you can see from the table can have *less light >output* than H2 alone. In the gas phase, NaH *costs* 124.27 kJ/mole to make (according to NIST). That means that in a plasma of Na and H2 it will not form spontaneously (if I'm not mistaken). In the original experiment that Mills did, from which the table is taken, there was thus probably very little NaH. It is NaH which is catalytic, not Na + H. In short one would not expect the same results from the earlier experiment that he claims from the "solid fuel" experiment (where NaH is produced following a different path). [snip] >Perhaps there is strontium or potassium involved, and >BLP wanted to keep that as a poorly disguised trade >secret by focusing on the Na, which clearly is NOT >gainful except at extraordinarily high energies. Indeed Na is not, but NaH is (according to Mills). > >Mills is tossing around mass/energy levels of 60 eV >and higher in this paper, as if they were routine! >They would melt a reactor in seconds if routine! Not necessarily. It depends on how many such reactions take place in any given time period. IOW melting depends on temperature, and the temperature achieved is a balance between input and output power. Just a few very energetic reactions will not melt the container. Perhaps one of the most extreme examples of this is the alpha decay on Am241 (smoke detector pellets), which obviously don't melt, yet the reaction energy of each individual reaction is on the order of MeV, not a mere 60 eV. >It is >little wonder to me that he receives such strong and >harsh criticism from those experts who do not believe >his experimental data. *Experiment* not theory, is his >most redeeming asset; and if it was not competently >performed ...? > >As Robin and others have mentioned, there could be >doubly ionized oxygen, which is catalytic at lower >levels than Na. Or self-catalyzed H2. Yet, an O++ >catalyst is hardly mentioned in the paper nor by >Mills, and apparently not of enough interest to >include in the table above for cross comparison. Obviously he is getting better results with NaH. > >All of this is assuming that the table in question is >not a total fiction which has put together by PR men >and investment fund-raisers. There are a few critics >who say that BLP is "on the rocks" due to the high >burn-rate, and is very desperate to raise new funds; >making all of this new material little more than a PR >charade (according to critics). > >I think not! or rather hope not; but BLP has put >itself in the horrible position where that dreaded >possibility (near-scam) cannot be written-off - due to >silence on all these glaring inconsistencies and other >problems. These beg for clarification. I hope to have provided at least some. [snip] >IOW this table is SOOO very relevant to everything >they claim, and yet ultimately so damning to the rest >of the information on the reactor in the Press >Release, that one wonders why it is even included. I think it's included because it provides a clear and strong indication that *something* extraordinary is taking place. It is one of the few results that speaks for itself, without having to do calorimetry, or rely upon sophisticated analysis techniques. > >Look at it another way. What would any "logical" >business plan try to do, instead of this? What would >you do in Mills' shoes? > >Simple, my dear Watson. If you want the public >involved at all, and BLP must care about that - then >why do we not see a simple Ar + Sr + H2 filled pyrex >tube, surrounded by photoelectric cells - and >self-powering? Because it wouldn't *be* self powering. The energy required to maintain the plasma still dwarfs the excess released by the process. IOW it is only fractionally OU (even for Sr-Ar-H). All the table shows, is that light output of the same order of magnitude as the other entries in the table occurs at a far lower voltage and current. However all that really means is that the other entries in the table represent combinations that are far less efficient. IOW you wouldn't want to use any of the others to create a light source. ;) (Most of the output is probably in the form of heat, and most of it comes directly from the electrical input power). > >With a 60-1 gain or higher, that is so easy and As pointed out above, I doubt seriously that the gain was anything like that. [snip] >If BLP are really desperate to raise capital, as >critics (and neighbors) claim; and if they really do >have a highly gainful technology as the company >claims, then a small self-powering demo eliminates ALL >DOUBT - and that is the way to go - no question about >that. Actually, I don't think even the NaH solid fuel reactor is self powering *yet*. > >The only logical conclusions then are either that they >cannot do it, that the table above is misleading, or >that doing it gives away too much trade secret >information. [snip] I think that #1 is the correct answer, for the moment. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
