It is easy to see BLP's HOH as 'really' Browns' Gas, written HHO. Brown's
Gas is that collected from the electrolysis of water, which when ignited
seemed to yield more energy than required to electrolyze it. If one
**studies** Mills' work with the catalysis of H, there is a curious
relationship. It happens that under certain circumstances, ionized O can
catalyze hydrino production, and H can auto-catalyze. An electric spark
produces a brief plasma. Mills' HOH is an abbreviation for *nascent* H2O, a
free molecule not involved in any liquid. Mills' 'solid fuels' achieve this
by sophisticated chemistry. It is conceivable that nascent  H2O is created
by the spark in burning Browns' Gas. The 'excess energy' phenomenon could be
hard to reproduce without an understanding of the BLP phenomena.

 

As I write this, I think there is "something" there. I suggest that
advocates of Brown's Gas do some real homework on BLP. The effects produced
at BLP are potentially very strong and backed by sophisticated science.
The target of BLP is a device which uses ordinary eater as a fuel and
produces electricity without pollution. Brown's Gas, however interesting, is
not on that path.

 

Mike Carrell

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 6:06 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A return to Brown's Gas / HHO ?

 

What is it that distinguishes the two types of setups?  Perhaps it is that
they're fundamentally different in nature; 

 

I think the difference involves the nature of the spark discharge. If the
spark imparts a very high level of instantaneous power, pressure is produced
and heat is minimized. 

 

Mills has gone in the wrong direction in forming his spark. It has too many
amps and too few volts. He should have gone in the other direction in spark
formation: very low amps and very high volts. Going the high voltage route
would have increased his COP since little input power is involved for the
same level of instantaneous power production.

 

 

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Has DGT ever reported a huge pressure increase and/or a shock wave
immediately after the spark discharge? I would expect such a process to
occur consistent with spark discharge in hydrogen that other people have
seen.

 

Good point.  There are clearly different setups -- one where pressure is
important, and one where pressure is mitigated and/or does not arise.
Papp's and Mills's setups fall into the group where pressure is important,
and Karabut's and DGT's setups do not seem to involve much or any pressure
(at least, none is reported that I can recall).

 

What is it that distinguishes the two types of setups?  Perhaps it is that
they're fundamentally different in nature; one group uses nanoparticles, for
example, which emit photons in the EUV range and cause clusters of water to
explode due to Coulomb repulsion once the constituent elements are ionized.
Or perhaps it's as simple as there being workarounds to avoid the buildup of
pressure in the case of DGT and Karabut, where heat is what is desired
instead.

 

In all cases, though, I think you have an anode; a cathode; a gas medium,
which probably contains hydrogen in some form; and something along the lines
of a glow discharge.

 

Eric

 

 


________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Reply via email to