I will study the BLP website and hydrino "proof" that you are alluding to,
although my reading list is quite long at this time. I am concentrating my
study on theoritical avenues that are more promising and my actual
replication attempts. Axil's charge accumulation ideas are much more
promising than Mill's "hydrino" miracles, so that is where my current
interest is right now.
Maybe I am more skeptical of Mills that you appear to be, but the guy has
had decades to provide proof or to build something. Thus far, it's mostly
talk. Rossi has had less time and money and he appears to have a valid
Military customer. Where are BLP's custormers? While I acknowledge that
people endorsing the CIHT process/reactors are impressive, we are yet to see
one of his CIHT reactor. If Mills delivers good on his CIHT promises, I
will eat my words, apologize publicly for my skepticism and invest a huge
fortune on his company, and will be the first person to buy his reactors,
because I am sorely in need of such a device.
In my opinion, we should concentrate more of our attention on LENR+ systems
like Rossi, DGT or Flat Plate propane systems, not the dead end technologies
like Pd-D electrolytic cells and hydrinos. BUT .... I am willing to be
wrong about this, so don't get into a knot.
In peace,
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Carrell" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and
LENR))
The simple, and correct thing to do is *study*the current BLP website,
particularly the 'technical presentation', the FAQ, etc. There is more
than
ample proof of the physical existence of the hydrino state listed. There
is
no point in trying to create a HE version of a hydrino, although such
might
be possible. There is a strong likelihood that the 'excess heat' seen in
LENR?CF experiments is due to hydrino formation at the cathodes of
electrolytic cells as discussed by Mills in the 'technical presentation'.
In other words, do your homework.
Mike Carrell
-----Original Message-----
From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management
(and
LENR))
Robin, let me see if I got this right.
1. Your machine (proposed machine) will take H2 (Hydrogen Molecule) and
convert it to Hy2 (hydrino molecule.). Theoritically you can do this in
copious amounts with an output of energy.
2. Then, you take the Hy2 molecule and split it into Hy+ and Hy+
molecule.
This involves an input of 4000eV.
3. Then you fuse Hy+ with Hy+ to form a hydrino variant of Helium.
4. Then this hydrino variant of He becomes normal Helium with an input of
energy.
Did I get this right?
And all this results in a COP of 1000 - 2000?
I think the first step is to prove the existence of the Hydrino to begin
with. Do we have any conclusive proof that hydrinos exists?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:01 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 13:40:47 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]
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?
All one and the same thing. Hydrinos are manufactured in the device
itself,
and
fused on the spot.
However the great possible weakness is that I'm not sure how much energy
it
will
cost to make them. At 100% production efficiency about 4000 eV / Hydrino
=>
8
MeV fusion energy for a COP of 2000. However I have no idea what sort of
production efficiency I might achieve in practice (IOW I don't know how
many
times I will have to spend 4000 eV to produce 1 Hydrino).
Though it may not be too bad, as there are few alternative routes
available
that
might consume energy.
Despite the uncertainties, I think it's worth trying. The downside is a
few
thousand down the drain if it doesn't work. The upside is
billion/trillions
if
it does.
(The World spends over 4 trillion annually on energy).
(Besides the additional benefit of cheap & easy interplanetary travel.;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
