Regarding: *"Mills' HOH is an abbreviation for *nascent* H2O."*
Mills is inventing more theory to fit experimental reality into his special world. HOH is really only the generation of water clusters that are required to explode when irradiated by x-rays. Joe Papp had a preprocessor to produce cluster formation in noble gases and he patented it. If the past is prolog, Mills will do the same. He will come up with some process to produce what he calls HOH. But in the real world, that special process will produce water clusters in water just like is done in HHO. Mills shows a picture of the atomic structure of a benzene ring in this theory write-up. Yes these days, taking a photograph of molecules is possible. I would very much like to see a picture of the HOH molicule. I will surly find that structure defined in the database of water clusters But I wonder if Mills has the intellectual integrity to show a picture of that molecule when it turns out to be a water cluster, when HOH absolutely turns out to be a water cluster. Can a man who has spent nearly 100 million dollar inventing a alternative universe afford to renounce his private fantasy all for the sake of a simple truth. IMHO, I seriously doubt it. On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell <mi...@medleas.com> wrote: > 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. >
