[AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:08:28 -0500
The link you provided, dated 1/14/14 criticizes a poor quality press
release.
I also posted virtually same criticism of that press release on 1/14/14:
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@xxxxxxxxxx/msg88835.html
and
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@xxxxxxxxxx/msg88836.html
That press release cannot be taken as representative of the theory, let
alone demonstration that the theory implies violation of conservation of
energy.
The energy balance numbers are clearly stated for the case of fractional
rydberg state 1/4 as 2.78 GJ/kg, in slide 42 of the BLP business
presentation PDF:
Calculations: H2O to H2(1/4) + 1/2O 2 (50MJ/mole or 2.78 GJ/kg, 2.78
GJ/liter)
It looks like 5 metric tonnes of rocket thrust for a kg/sec fuel
consumption results from an optimistic (100% efficient) calculation,
assuming only the oxygen can be ionized and "grabbed" via MHD/EHD as
exhaust:
sqrt(2.78GJ/(16/18)kg)?m/s
sqrt((2.78 * [giga*joule]) / ([16 / 18] * [kilo*gramm])) ? meter / second
= 55924.056 m/s
The places where Mills might seem to imply perpetual motion are, AFAIK, the
places where he discusses hygroscopic extraction of H2O from the atmosphere
as being sufficient to maintain the hydrogen supply for a the process. I
await any specific cite where he attributes to hydrino technology perpetual
motion either explicitly or implicitly.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:05 PM, <qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> James watch and listen to the videos on his site. He states within those
> video that once the system is up and ruling that it then need needs no
> outside source to run it. Therefore "over unity". The one caveat here is
> that unlike a perpetual motion machine there is no drag or resistance to
> affect the outcome, but none the less, he still states he gets more out
> than he puts in.
>
> and as a reference...
> http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2014/01/14/the-latest-update-in-the-hydrino-saga/
>
>
> At 07:45 PM 3/19/2015, you wrote:
>
> Yes there is a lot of "power from water" foment out there. That doesn't
> mean it is all the same. The Mills theory is based on below-ground-state
> fractional Rydberg states of hydrogen which can be reached by energy
> transfer to a receptor above-ground-state ionization in a catalyst which
> then releases the photon. The Mills theory may be wrong but I'm unaware
> that the achievement of below-ground-state fractional Rydeberg states is
> theoretically a violation of conservation of energy. I'd be most
> intrigued to see the derivation.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
> monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> HHO practically insures an overunity experiment because the bond of
> water is just too strong to indicate anything else!
>
> Â Monroe
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
> > From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, March 19, 2015 6:24 pm
> > To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> >
> >
> > Please provide a link to the derivation of this over-unity implication.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:13 PM, <qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >Â I'd be very speculative of his work, although he's never said it
> > > publicly, if you follow his line of thinking you get an over unity
> device.
> > >
> > > At 06:57 PM 3/19/2015, you wrote:
> > >
> > > For those willing to entertain a speculative fuel -- one which has a
> > > potential exhaust velocity (specific energy) of tens of km/s:
> > >
> > > Reading H2O-Based Solid Fuel Power Source Based on the Catalysis of
> H by
> > > HOH Catalyst
> > > <
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/SunCellPaper.pdf
> >Â
> > > and thinking about what might constitute a relatively simple and
> > > inexpensive qualitative demonstration, it occurs to me that if (as is
> > > indicated by Table 1) titanium is acting as a Mills catalyst, a pure
> Ti+H
> > > system based on atomic hydrogen welding (AHW) may be worth a try for
> the
> > > following reasons:
> > >
> > >
> > >Â Â - In AHW, the shielding gas is hydrogen.
> > >Â Â - The tungsten electrodes could be replaced by titanium electrodes
> > >Â Â feeding in at a higher rate.
> > >Â Â - Rather than nano-titanium the catalytic surface is vaporized
> > >  titanium at 3,287°C -- a temperature readily achievable by
> AHW.
> > >Â Â - Being shielded from oxygen by the hydrogen flow, titanium
> oxidation
> > >Â Â is avoided thereby avoiding a major confounding process and
> variable.
> > >Â Â - The power into the AHW apparatus therefore takes two easily
> > >  meterable forms:Â
> > >    - electric power from the wall andÂ
> > >Â Â Â Â - hydrogen gas
> > >Â Â - The power out of the AHW apparatus should be dominated by light,
> > >Â Â which is also easily meterable.
> > >Â Â - Finally, and perhaps most decisively, the peak temperature
> should
> > >Â Â exceed that achievable by AHW.
> > >
> > >
> > > Further on in the same paper, Figure 10 may indicate a superior fuel
> > > mixture of:
> > >
> > > 50 mg NH4NO3 + KOH + KCl (2:1:1 wt.) + 15 mg H2OÂ
> > >
> > >
>
>
Other related posts: