On June 06, 2012 JOjo said " It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively cheap "Hydrino Generator".
I disagree, based on Jan Naudts explanation of the hydrino you need a "relativity" cheap hydrino maker :_) Fran -----Original Message----- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR)) Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of energy.)? It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively cheap "Hydrino Generator". I guess once you are able to create copious amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly? Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR)) 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
