In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:36:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Robin wrote: > > >> In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800: [snip] >> Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that >you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time IMO, you get fusion instead, >so there aren't going to be a whole lot of n=1/16 hydrinos lying around. >> Furthermore, the energy density is based on 70 V and the mass of the >hydrino, if I don't miss my guess, but this appears to ignore the mass of >the structural materials of the battery (but you may be able to make a >battery that is qua volume and mass largely fuel). Besides, with >disproportionation reactions probably taking place in any such battery, it's >likely to overheat, and eventually, possibly explode. There is also the >difficulty of working with hydrinos at multiple different levels of >shrinkage concurrently, and the consequences this would have for battery >voltage. > >MC: A few years back, I had a visit with Mills in his conference room to >introduce an overseas visitor who wanted to meet him. In the course of the >conversation he said he would be happy with a battery that is twice as good >as the popular lithium-ion cell. A long shot from the p=16 battery. I think >there have been a few chemical demosntrations along the way. But before any >of this can be remotely feasible there has to be a source of lots of pure >hydrinos. You get that when hundreds or thousands of BLP reactors are >running and hydrino hydrides are collected as byproducts. There is no point >in pounding the drum for the BLP battery when the necessary ingredients are >not available. > >There is no point on dwelling on P=16, P=2,3,4,5,6,7 will do just fine as >well, and these have been seen in the spectra of reactors. Mills has >reported that the reactor gas can be liquefied at liquid nitrogen >temperatures, so fractionl distillation is available as a means of >purification. There may be a family of batteries with different terminal >voltages. If any of this comes to pass, it could make an immense difference >in the performance of hybrid cars and lots of other systems as well.
The problem lies not in the initial separation of hydrinos, but in the fact that disproportionation reactions will continue in the battery itself, leading (through entropy) to an inevitable mix of hydrino levels within each individual battery. [snip] JB: >> >At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to >have to drop the spiel that "these things always take longer to develop then >people realize," and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that >the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming >and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this >research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been >determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project. > MC: >And just how will this hasten the day, when people like Zimmerman, Baron, >Pibel, and Rabitt all agree that the orbitsphere model is terminally faulty >[despite the computer animations now on the website]? I am an unabashed >"apologist" for Mills, having paid close attention to his work and noted >repreatedly that there is a big gap between his reports and viable >commercial systems. If you pay close attention you will see that Mills is >systematically building a fortress of patents and papers that will protect >his investors and partners when the rush begins. > >He could still fail. >> RvS: >> The public rarely demands action on matters so esoteric (to them). In fact >99% (at least) of the public, has never even heard of Mills. Most of those >that have, are sitting back and waiting for him to do the hard work, then >when he's got something that works well, someone will steal it. > MC: >So Robin wants the US governemnt to steal it? RvS: Not at all, and that isn't what I said. This technology is conservatively worth trillions. JB suggested that it be taken by the government, and Mills be paid what it's worth. I am simply pointing out that no one has ever paid trillions for a technology. When the amount gets that high, the technology is simply stolen, the theft swept under the rug, and obscured by legal niceties. The fact that this happens, doesn't mean that I support it. However it does mean that Mills should watch his back (this is a warning, not a threat). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
