There is a difference between combustion of hydrogen and oxygen as proposed by Santilli, and x-ray irradiation of water containing water clusters as developed by Joe Papp. That is apples and oranges I think.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:21 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > Brown's gas has been consistently in the 'fringe' field for a few decades > now. There was a local guy who had a BG welding machine and I did see him > do some pretty interesting things. There was one important point about > Brown's gas that I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread... the two > gases, O and H, are separated right after being split, and not recombined > until right at the torch tip. I have not followed the BG/HOH/HHO field for > years, so this is just what I remember from many years ago... > > -mark iverson > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, February 01, 2014 9:56 PM > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A return to Brown's Gas / HHO ? > > > > 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. > > >
