In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:57:55 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >He might be attempting to extract the energy of charged particles by some >means. If they have a significant amount of kinetic energy, then they can be >directed against a retarding electric field to give up some of that energy.
Yes, there is an old US patent based on this concept. Something else I have considered when thinking about Paul Brown and Alfred Hubbard, is that an electron freed from it's atom by a fast particle might acquire significantly more energy than just the ionization energy. e.g. a few hundred eV as compared to an ionization energy of just a few eV. If the whole contraption is embedded in a magnetic field, then as these free electrons return to their ions, they may emit cyclotron radiation. This could then be captured. I suspect that this is the actual principle upon which Hubbard etc. is based. >I once speculated upon that possibility many months ago but felt that the >amount of energy that could be obtained would not be enough to make a huge >difference to the overall efficiency. > > >To accomplish this feat he will need to have a dialectic spacer of some sort >that allows the charged particles to pass through(air would do) and be >collected upon a metal electrode. Perhaps Compton effect driven electrons >arising from low energy gammas might do the trick, especially if the number is >multiplied due to multiple collisions. This is pure speculation buy I believe >it is possible. > > >I do not give much credence to what Rossi states these days. I think we must >wait until we see the data to gain significant confidence. > > >Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
