According to Albert, adding 25 MWhrs (90 gigajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 milligram, even though no matter has been added... and vice-versa.
In the case of the AR glow-tube, where 1.5 MWhr has been reported, the
equivalent mass loss would only be about 60 micrograms. This could come from
anywhere, although fringe fizzix suggests it should come from the single
gram of reactant. But this is new territory. For instance, can SPP or even
electrons be actually consumed to provide mass-energy? (say by dark matter
or positrons without the gamma signature)? Can SPP act as a gateway to the
Dirac field?
1.1*10^21 electrons weigh in 1 microgram.
6.25*10^18 electrons per second = 1 amp
30 days is 2.6*10^7 seconds... !
What's the point? The point is that if there is a real paradigm shift here,
then it does not necessarily have to nuclear fusion as the source, not even
involve the nucleus. We should be thinking outside the box ... err... make
that outside the glow tube. A 'sink' for electrons could be imagined.
____________________________________________
This is not Mark Gibbs' site but an aluminum mineral which
may be relevant to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbsite
Gibbsite is Al(OH)3 is one of the minerals found in
bauxite. Unlike other hydroxides, it is stable at high temperature.
We are told that in the Rossi reactor hydrogen is admitted
in the form of LiAlH4. In that case, about 12% of the weight of that
compound is hydrogen. We are told elsewhere that Lithium accounts for 1
percent of the total fuel mix. The density of Al is about 2.7 g/cc and
lithium is .53 g/cc. or about 5 times less than the Al so that in the total
mix, here is what we have to work with, roughly.
Lithium - 0.01 grams
Aluminum 0.05 grams
Hydrogen 0.006 grams
We are also told that the fuel powder is put into a cavity
filled with air and not evacuated, so it is clear that as soon as the 6
milligrams of hydrogen is released from the carrier, it will oxidize to
steam, and then as the temperature rises, and the steam pyrolizes at 1200 C,
we will end-up preferentially with a stable hydroxide.
That would be Gibbsite, perhaps. Is there a better scenario?
At any rate this does not seem to be a hydrogen reactor.
Since no radioactive debris is seen in the ash, it may not be a nuclear
reactor either, but for certain 6 milligrams of hydrogen is unlikely to
provide over a MWhr of heat. If every single atom converted in the Alain's
version of the "hydrotron" reaction we would be left out in the cold by a
factor of 10 times too little heat.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
