In reply to Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800: Hi Jojo, [snip] >Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 >that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without >apparent success. No insult or ridicule intended, but what makes you think >that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what >he has produced so far, when the "maestro" himself has been unsuccessful? > >Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult. I >guenuinely want to know. [snip]
1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions. 2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having trouble achieving an acceptable COP. 3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an acceptable COP should not be a problem. 4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very large energy output/Hydrino. 5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, leading to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds). 6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino production rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical current. (In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, which is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs). 7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because it is very clean in a nuclear sense. 8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
