In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 3 May 2009 20:23:41 -0400: Hi Mike, [snip]
Reading between the lines, I would say that you don't like what I read between the lines. ;) >My comment was in part to remind everyone of BLP technology. The 100 x gain >in energy yield from H is real and demonstrated years ago. That's fine, but it is on an "atom for atom" basis, not on the basis of a whole system. IOW, in practice this large gain is mostly offset by other losses, e.g. unnecessarily ionizing catalyst atoms which then *do not* go on to create Hydrinos before they reform the original atom. I think the fact that the excess is in the same ballpark as the input means that only about 1% actually create Hydrinos (but take into account that this is the time of day when my brain takes a holiday ;). >The potential COP >boost is more than two. Potential - maybe, but I think it will get much more difficult to increase as the COP gets higher. (It's taken him until now just to get that far). >The benchtop appartus which demonstrated this was >far from closed loop. ...that's because he can't close the loop. You need a COP of about 3 or better to close the loop (inefficient conversion of heat to electric power). >BLP has achieved higher yields with its 'solid fuel' >but a water-fueld system has not been announced. BLP reactors can use H or D >from any source, and do so far better than combustion. Ideally a 'BLP' world >would not rely on wind or solar to power the electrolysis, but reactors >would yield so much energy that each could run its own electrolysis unit and >use any convenient water for fuel. ..."ideally", yes. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
