I haven't made it to the Q&A yet. Mills talked about there being a 100:1 energy ratio between gasoline and water. In other words, a car would go as far on 1 gallon of water as 100 gallons of gasoline. He made the case for a microliter of water producing 1000J of excess heat which is about 1 GJ/liter. Gasoline is about 36 MJ/liter. So, the ratio is about 28:1, which is approximately correct. Clearly the effect is not like LENR because the ratio to chemical is so small. Of course, Mills does not believe the effect is nuclear.
It bothers me that someone that has gone through so much extension of Maxwell's equations to bring them to the physics of the atom (supposedly) has made such a basic mistake in the presentation slides as missing the direction for the B field in the MHD generator. If he makes that mistake in his patent drawings, he is screwed. Further, what he shows for an MHD generator won't work for another reason as well. For the expanding plasma to make power, it would have to do work passing through the magnetic field. The magnetic field will offer an impediment to the flow of the plasma - much like a small orifice would. That will produce back pressure that will cause the expanding plasma to go anywhere else it can. His gear electrodes will create an expansion volume that will be hard to contain the plasma to go through those high back pressure magnet channels. The expansion volume around those gears would have to be small and the gears would have to be sealed to force the plasma to push through the magnetic field. The fluid dynamics of his apparatus just don't look like they will work. It reminds me of the problems the hot plasma folks have controlling their plasma at high temp and pressure. The calorimetry of the "pop" is really interesting. The guy who spoke about it kept interchanging power for energy and that was a little disturbing. However, their apparatus seemed to show an energy gain of about 2, presuming their measurements were correct. Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:56 PM, AlanG <a...@magicsound.us> wrote: > To me the most interesting part was the q+a toward the end. From about > 1:53:00 to 2:05:00 he finally cuts loose from the script and makes a strong > case for the quality and significance of his research. It left me with a > somewhat improved impression of BLP's prospects. The engineering challenge > is bigger than he lets on but still within reach given deep enough pockets > and careful design. > > On 2/3/2014 5:16 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > Measurements of the energy output and spectral evidence for the hydrino > theory start at 1:16:25 > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Craig >> >> He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are >> companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a >> prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a >> couple of months. >> >> >> Well this is déjà vu all over again, isn't it? >> >> Flashback 6 years to 2008. Almost the same Press Release. Different >> process, >> different players, same old shtick. >> >> "BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source >> with >> applications to Heating, Central Power, Motive Power, and >> Micro-Distributed >> power generation. This relies on a new chemical process of releasing the >> latent energy of the hydrogen atom... This new process generates >> electricity >> for as cheap as 1 cent/kW-hour - two to four times cheaper than any other >> contemporary power sources. The company has licensed to seven utilities >> 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino generation fueled by water - >> eliminating $2 billion/year in fuel costs." >> >> Flash forward 6 years. How much of that 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe >> hydrino power generation have those 8 Utility companies who licensed the >> BLP >> process in 2008, actually produced in the intervening years? >> >> Answer: zero. >> >> Why? Who knows? I guess this is another one of those inconvenient truths. >> >> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George >> Santayana >> >> >> > >
