Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
So then where are the X-rays? -----Original Message----- From: P.J van Noorden <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3 Frank, You say that Mill`s device is a million times hotter than fire. That is not correct: The powerdensity of the hydrino reaction is 1 million times higher that that of gasoline combusion mainly due to the rate of hydrino transition compared to the rate of gasoiline combustion ( 5000 times higher) So per second many more reactions can take place then during gasolibe combustion. Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x). The hydrinotransition can cause significant Balmerline broadening ( 50 eV). The electrodes can hold that kind of temperature, when adequately cooled. Peter v Noorden ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3 Hydrinos, shmeamos. Jones is on the right track with his energy coherence. Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a million times hotter than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion degrees. That would be hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot hydrodynamics. What does he make the electrodes out of, neutronium! That's a claim in itself. An what about all of those hydrinos, where do they go? What about all of the x-rays from the an inner election reactions. Why is he not dead? Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for example. Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the faintest radio signals. In today's world of satellite communications such a claim is truly dated. Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make strong ingredients through a process infinite dilution. Frank Z -----Original Message----- From: Mike Carrell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]>; cmns <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3 This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well. Please read: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else that suits your fancy]. The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos. The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst. The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements, including 2H.2H > H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body reaction, it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms [such as at the cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I speculate that H > [h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of ‘excess heat’ in CF electrolytic cell experiments. This is my conjecture.] The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry. The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP. An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons, which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum spectrum was produced by helium. The six ‘Validation’ reports on the website deserve respectful attention. Although on-site and coached by Mills, the ‘validators’ built he cells themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the years experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U. New Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six ‘validaors’, ENSER corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT cell operation. Their new report is on the BLP website. “Independent verification” is a gold standard. Over the years several groups have ‘tested’ Mills’ claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the instruments or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment. Mike Carrell
