Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:43:39 -1000: Hi, [snip] > Since the event seemed to develop 'slowly' at first, how >about this - a bubble of H & O2 did develop and ignite, but in a burn still >slow and/or small enough to be mechanically absorbed by the system. As the >fuel was consumed, then - perhaps even synchronously with a returning shock >wave from the walls of the vessel from the initial burn - the bubble collapses >down against the site of reactions on the screen, causing a tiny supernova. > [snip] More wildspeculation; Supernovas may be triggered by hydrino formation and collapse when the He3 level at the surface of a large star gets high enough. (It almost has to be at the surface, because the core is too hot to allow much H to exist). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
The hydraulic transmission of a sharp shock does seem to satisfy in the face of the impressive pattern of the shattered bottom of the beaker, and from what I recall a stoichiometric mix of H & O2 has a pretty sharp brisance when ignited. A cherry bomb won't harm a toilet at all unless it's deep enough underwater so that pressure/shock release can't be quickly relieved by raising the water above it. Don't ask me why I know anything about this, I'm sworn to secrecy even though it was a long time ago. So the less gas there is confined in the system to act as a shock absorber, the more brittle or susceptible to shock it would be, and rather small shocks appear to magnify through hydraulic force distribution. The efficient conversion of explosive energy to momentum in the system could account for the destruction of the outer chamber and the high velocity of the shards even beyond the chamber. Since the event seemed to develop 'slowly' at first, how about this - a bubble of H & O2 did develop and ignite, but in a burn still slow and/or small enough to be mechanically absorbed by the system. As the fuel was consumed, then - perhaps even synchronously with a returning shock wave from the walls of the vessel from the initial burn - the bubble collapses down against the site of reactions on the screen, causing a tiny supernova. - R.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:05:41 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the >device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger >volume. In addition, the energy density is huge. [snip] Precisely. >> So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it >> before it captures another electron and becomes O+. >> >> >The window of time during which oxygen has the correct charge would seem >to be rather short. I guess it is a matter of intuition whether the time >is too short for sufficient O++ to be present. I think it's more a matter of what else is present that it can collide with before it comes into contact with H, and what the result of that collision will be. In a stoichiometric mix of H and O, there will be twice as many H as O atoms, so a lone O++ is twice as likely to come in contact with H as it is with an O atom. Of course there is also the competing reaction: H + O++ -> H+ + O+ and it's anybody's guess what the ratio of the two reaction rates is. Of course pre-existing hydrinos in the plasma will shift the balance in favour of a shrinkage reaction, because the O percentage is decreased, and also because when O++ reacts with a hydrino rather than with H, there is no competing reaction. Shrinkage is the only game in town. This means that once shrinkage has started, there is practically speaking no real way back. [snip] >> What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed >> far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production >> of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed >> by the energy excess from the reaction. >> >OK, I understand. Presumably the reaction proceeds until all of the >accumulated hydrinos are used up. Yes, or the cell blows itself apart, and puts and end to the process. In which case, there should still be a supply of severely shrunken hydrinos bound to the walls/electrodes, which is why I suggested that it might be possible to replicate using the remains of the shattered cell/electrodes. [snip] >I don't understand how the hydrinos can accumulate in the glass. Hydrinos can bind an extra electron to become hydrinohydride (H*-). This is essentially a very small negative ion. The second electron can be very tightly bound to the hydrino (up to 70 eV binding energy according to Mills). Because this ion is very small, it can snuggle up very close to a positive ion, which in turn implies a high binding energy between the two. To give an idea of what this means, O-- ions bind very tightly to metal ions because they are relatively small, which is why oxides generally have high melting points. The H*- ion if much smaller than O--, and hence should sit closer to a metal ion than even O--, implying a much stronger bond. These substances could have melting points of tens to hundreds of thousands of degrees. Consequently H*- could easily be bound to Si or Na+ in the glass, displacing O--. This bond would be so strong that no amount of scrubbing and no solvent would remove it. Essentially it would be stronger than the glass itself. This same reasoning applies equally to the electrodes. [snip] >Even >if they were in the glass, why and how would they suddenly come out into >the solution? The extraction process requires a threshold energy. Below the threshold, nothing happens, which is why cleaning has no effect. Because of the strength of the bond, it takes a very energetic process to free them, however hydrino shrinkage provides just such energies. IOW shrinkage reactions taking place in the plasma can supply the energy required to free the H*- from its bound position in the lattice. Once free, O+++ will remove the electron from H*-, provided that the binding energy of the second electron doesn't exceed 54 eV. The H* thus provided, is then free to undergo further shrinkage. [snip] > material attached to the glass would not be expected. Your model >needs a significant source of hydrinos that have accumulated over a >period of time, which can quickly enter the water at a particular time >and react. How does this occur and why the sudden release? Please see above. However the plasma required has to start somewhere. The initial trigger may be a cosmic ray or a random fusion event occurring in the lattice, between an "embedded" H*- and the metal atom to which it is bound. Because of the mass and size of H*-, it's even possible that these particles actually orbit the nucleus of the metal atoms inside the K shell, effectively displacing a K shell electron during the binding process. This is a closer analogy to the muonic molecule. From such an orbit, it is only a matter of time before a fusion reaction occurs. Naturally such reactions would have a characteristic half life, depending on the metal atom in question, and the shrinkage level of th
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Nuclear weapons essentially work on this principle, creating very little in the way of extra atoms compared to the size of the shock wave, which is essentially a result of thermal ionisation of the surrounding air. (The actual amount of material present is only a few kg, while the shock wave can have an extent of many km's). Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger volume. In addition, the energy density is huge. Furthermore, in the case at hand, the surrounding medium is water rather than air, so flash vaporization will also produce a shock wave (which the surrounding water will very effectively transmit to the walls of the container). Good point. The shock wave might originate in the water as you propose. It really all depends on just how much energy is liberated, and in what time frame. [snip] My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. This is actually only partly true. The reaction goes like this: O++ + H -> O+++ + H* followed by O+++ + e- -> O++ + UV where the e- comes from the plasma, or just about anything else in the neighbourhood that happens to have electrons attached to it. :) So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. The window of time during which oxygen has the correct charge would seem to be rather short. I guess it is a matter of intuition whether the time is too short for sufficient O++ to be present. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. In either case, there is sufficient energy present to ionise O+ to O++ (which requires about 35 eV). The UV from the reaction: O+++ +e- -> O++ + 54.9 eV is also sufficient to convert O+ to O++, or there is also the reaction: O+++ + O+ -> 2 O++ However as previously mentioned, most of the time this energy won't be "spent" in this way. That means either that the UV/hydrino needs to have more initial energy so that even after losing some energy to competing processes, enough remains upon encountering O+ to ionise it to O++, or supplementary O++ needs to be formed from fusion reactions. I should point out that by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, which with luck may even produce multiple O++ ions. Given an initial population of severely shrunken hydrinos, it should therefore be possible to reach a self sustaining (chain) reaction. (For n=1/120 -> n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. OK, I understand. Presumably the reaction proceeds until all of the accumulated hydrinos are used up. It's just a matter of using hydrinos that are at such a level that O++ production rate exceeds consumption rate. (I don't know what that level is, but I hope to have shown that such a level may well exist). [snip] I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. There was no original concentration of O++. What was accumulating over time is hydrinos of ever high levels of shrinkage. Once the average shrinkage level reaches a certain point, an explosion becomes possible (in water). It then only requires a trigger to set it off. IOW the most important point in the Mizuno experiment is that fact that the cell had been in use for about 5 years. This gave plenty of time to cake the inside wall (and/or electrode(s)) with high level hydrinos. It also means that others using the same container (or electrode(s)) for extended periods should also be pre
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
thomas malloy wrote: > BTW, what's the final story on the funnel. was there one above the > area of gas emission or not? No, there was not. - Jed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Ed Storms wrote: and Mike Carrell responded; I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". Correct. I was discussing Patapov's Yusmar machine with David Moon. Tests reported excess amounts of C 14 in the water, which lead David to postulate a reaction of a Neupron with N to yield C 14. David's calculations required the input of energy in order to go from H to a neupron, which I assume is similar to a hydrino, except that according to Mills hydrino formation yields energy. OTOH, the environmental conditions necessary to facilitate hydrino formation may exceed the energy of hydrino production. > 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. There And they can form stable compounds which would allow them to accumulate. The big question is what set this event off? > Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released > to be accounted for by a "normal" H2+O2 reaction. What interests me is the speed of the reaction. It seems to me that given the interesting pattern of the cracks in the bottom of the vessel, a shock wave was responsible for the damage. Since the composition of the damaged material, and the distance from the event, to the damage is known, it should be possible to calculate the amount of energy, and the speed of it's release, required to cause the damage. BTW, what's the final story on the funnel. was there one above the area of gas emission or not? Remember F&P? Also unlikely. Remember where you came from.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] >For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having >energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go >up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden >heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 >atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow >the lid off, maybe. Nuclear weapons essentially work on this principle, creating very little in the way of extra atoms compared to the size of the shock wave, which is essentially a result of thermal ionisation of the surrounding air. (The actual amount of material present is only a few kg, while the shock wave can have an extent of many km's). Furthermore, in the case at hand, the surrounding medium is water rather than air, so flash vaporization will also produce a shock wave (which the surrounding water will very effectively transmit to the walls of the container). It really all depends on just how much energy is liberated, and in what time frame. [snip] >My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is >spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. This is actually only partly true. The reaction goes like this: O++ + H -> O+++ + H* followed by O+++ + e- -> O++ + UV where the e- comes from the plasma, or just about anything else in the neighbourhood that happens to have electrons attached to it. :) So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. >It is not clear that the reaction >its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is >only an assumption needed for your explanation. When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. In either case, there is sufficient energy present to ionise O+ to O++ (which requires about 35 eV). The UV from the reaction: O+++ +e- -> O++ + 54.9 eV is also sufficient to convert O+ to O++, or there is also the reaction: O+++ + O+ -> 2 O++ However as previously mentioned, most of the time this energy won't be "spent" in this way. That means either that the UV/hydrino needs to have more initial energy so that even after losing some energy to competing processes, enough remains upon encountering O+ to ionise it to O++, or supplementary O++ needs to be formed from fusion reactions. I should point out that by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, which with luck may even produce multiple O++ ions. Given an initial population of severely shrunken hydrinos, it should therefore be possible to reach a self sustaining (chain) reaction. (For n=1/120 -> n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. It's just a matter of using hydrinos that are at such a level that O++ production rate exceeds consumption rate. (I don't know what that level is, but I hope to have shown that such a level may well exist). [snip] >I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 >and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if >O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant >rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of >O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. There was no original concentration of O++. What was accumulating over time is hydrinos of ever high levels of shrinkage. Once the average shrinkage level reaches a certain point, an explosion becomes possible (in water). It then only requires a trigger to set it off. IOW the most important point in the Mizuno experiment is that fact that the cell had been in use for about 5 years. This gave plenty of time to cake the inside wall (and/or electrode(s)) with high level hydrinos. It also means that others using the same container (or electrode(s)) for extended periods should also be prepared for explosions at some point. In a high temperature plasma containing primarily O and H, mixed with high energy hydrinos/UV, O++ formation would no longer be a rare occurrence. We are not looking at a slowly accumulated supply of catalyst here, but rather at a situation where a more than adequate supply is created, on the fly, in situ. As the reaction proceeds, the supply actually increases (because the average hydrino shrinkage level increases, and hence also the average energy released per shrinkage reaction). [snip] >I don't understand what k
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] I don't understand how "instantly" is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the density of catalyst and fuel particles is high. "High"-which is the operational word. I suggest the concentration can never be sufficiently "high". Even in a normal gas at room temperature, each molecule undergoes about 500 million collisions every second. Even if only 1 in a hundred thousand results in a shrinkage reaction, that still means that the average shrinkage reaction only takes a fraction of a millisecond. In short, when a chain reaction occurs, it could easily all be over in less than a millisecond. IMO that qualifies as "instantly". For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. True, but the reactions don't wait on one another. I.e. the reactions are not all consecutive, many of them happen in parallel. In fact, in a chain reaction scenario, the number of parallel reactions is constantly increasing. My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Actually it is. It is akin to the chain reaction which takes place in a fission bomb, except that neutron production rate is replaced by catalyst ion production rate. Though in this case "together" means in the same container, rather than in the same molecule. I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. This may explain why there are so few hydrino explosions. The conditions need to meet strict minimum requirements. A chain reaction using O++ can occur when the rate of formation of both catalyst and H atoms exceeds the consumption rate. O++ is formed through collisions with energetic particles (or UV photons or gamma rays). O++ can be formed when a hydrino of at least level 3 is formed, however most level 3 reactions will not result in O++ formation, because the energy will end up elsewhere. Consequently either reactions of on average much higher level must take place, or fusion reactions must take place. The latter lifts the average O++ production rate, because each fusion reaction can produce hundreds to thousands of O++ ions, while it may only take one O++ ion to finally trigger a fusion reaction, among a population of previously existing severely shrunken hydrinos. I don't understand what kind of fusion reaction you imagine using H2. In any case, such a reaction would release nuclear energies, which would be expected to produce visible particle and X-ray emission, unlike the cold fusion process in a solid. These are apparently not seen, or felt. (Here the "dead graduate student" effect comes in again.) Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. Extra volume is produced in hydrino reactions, because plasma growth results in the production of free electrons, each of which counts as a separate particle. Hence the particle count is commensurate with the average ionisation level. A hot plasma formed from an electrolyte (which contains many multi-electron atoms), could therefore easily result in a doubling of the number of particles per reaction, and possibly more, as the temperature increases. Not to mention normal thermal expansion. [snip] Free electrons are generated by formation of ions. These ions quickly recapture their electrons so that only initially are these extra particles part of the shock wave. I don't think this would be a serious source of expansion. Heating is another matter, but not very effective. Regards, Ed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Vince Cockeram's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:56:58 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Indeed! When I was running a glow discharge in H2 + K, I had an 'event' that >I can not explain. >I had run this experiment probably a hundred times and had never seen what >occurred. >A run on March 18, 2000 at a 30 watt tube current was proceeding steady and >normal when >suddenly the wattage dropped to ~5 watts input and the temperature increased >by over 400 C. in >the next few minutes. Without going back and searching my lab notes I recall >the voltage remained >at about 300 dc and the current dropped way down. I guess this indicates >that the tube impedance >suddenly increased, but as to why, I don't have a clue. [snip] If one turns these two observations around, it may make more sense. A rapid increase in temperature, may imply either a rapid increase in hydrino formation, or an increase in severely shrunken hydrinohydride formation on at least one electrode. Since severely shrunken hydrinohydride can be expected to form a strong bond (not unlike an oxide), one might expect the resultant surface layer to act as an insulator, restricting the current flow through the tube. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I don't understand how "instantly" is possible. Two entities must get >together. This takes time. Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the density of catalyst and fuel particles is high. Even in a normal gas at room temperature, each molecule undergoes about 500 million collisions every second. Even if only 1 in a hundred thousand results in a shrinkage reaction, that still means that the average shrinkage reaction only takes a fraction of a millisecond. In short, when a chain reaction occurs, it could easily all be over in less than a millisecond. IMO that qualifies as "instantly". >Once energy is released from this collision, >the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two >more entities must find each other. True, but the reactions don't wait on one another. I.e. the reactions are not all consecutive, many of them happen in parallel. In fact, in a chain reaction scenario, the number of parallel reactions is constantly increasing. >This is not like explosive >decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Actually it is. It is akin to the chain reaction which takes place in a fission bomb, except that neutron production rate is replaced by catalyst ion production rate. Though in this case "together" means in the same container, rather than in the same molecule. >Even in >a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ >condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant >shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. This may explain why there are so few hydrino explosions. The conditions need to meet strict minimum requirements. A chain reaction using O++ can occur when the rate of formation of both catalyst and H atoms exceeds the consumption rate. O++ is formed through collisions with energetic particles (or UV photons or gamma rays). O++ can be formed when a hydrino of at least level 3 is formed, however most level 3 reactions will not result in O++ formation, because the energy will end up elsewhere. Consequently either reactions of on average much higher level must take place, or fusion reactions must take place. The latter lifts the average O++ production rate, because each fusion reaction can produce hundreds to thousands of O++ ions, while it may only take one O++ ion to finally trigger a fusion reaction, among a population of previously existing severely shrunken hydrinos. >Also, >extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock >wave can not grow. Extra volume is produced in hydrino reactions, because plasma growth results in the production of free electrons, each of which counts as a separate particle. Hence the particle count is commensurate with the average ionisation level. A hot plasma formed from an electrolyte (which contains many multi-electron atoms), could therefore easily result in a doubling of the number of particles per reaction, and possibly more, as the temperature increases. Not to mention normal thermal expansion. [snip] MC: >> ionized by a microwave field. I don't know of any reason why O++ can't be >> produced in a hard-driven electrolytic cell. Only indirectly, by either UV photons resulting from hydrino formation, energetic hydrinos, or ionising radiation. Interestingly, the explosion in Mizuno's cell happened when the voltage was increased to 20 V. This is high enough to produce O+ (at the anode), providing a supply of ions ready to be ionised to O++ by other means. > >Let's assume that K+ and/or O++ are produced. The reaction with H to >produce H* can proceed no faster than the rate of K+ or O++ formation. K+ doesn't need to be produced, it's already in the electrolyte in large quantities. >Both of these formation rates have to be slow and the products will not >accumulate to any great extent because they are so unstable. This might >allow extra energy to be produced while electrolysis was ongoing, but I >do not understand how an explosion can result. Despite Mills' statements, I don't believe that K+ is an effective catalyst, because it requires a 3 body reaction. K (atom) on the other hand is an effective catalyst, because only a two body reaction is required. In an electrolytic cell, both K atoms and H atoms are constantly being formed concurrently at the cathode, and hence are frequently in close proximity to one another. Nevertheless, the reaction rate is constrained by the fact that this is a surface reaction, and the amount of surface area is limited. (In an eventual plasma formed from such an electrolyte however no such constraint exists, though the mean free path between particles in a plasma is greater). [snip] >If hydrides form, the issue is how does an electron in a special, unique >orbit associated with H interact with normal electrons in
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
- Original Message - From: "Mike Carrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion? <There is evidence from Mills' gas phase experiments that reaction rates are complex functions of process parameters. I doubt that Mills has explored that parameter space of plasma electrolysis. It's just something to keep in mind while exploring these phenomena. Mike Carrell Indeed! When I was running a glow discharge in H2 + K, I had an 'event' that I can not explain. I had run this experiment probably a hundred times and had never seen what occurred. A run on March 18, 2000 at a 30 watt tube current was proceeding steady and normal when suddenly the wattage dropped to ~5 watts input and the temperature increased by over 400 C. in the next few minutes. Without going back and searching my lab notes I recall the voltage remained at about 300 dc and the current dropped way down. I guess this indicates that the tube impedance suddenly increased, but as to why, I don't have a clue. And try as I might over the next year or so I was never able to replicate. Regards, Vince Cockeram Las Vegas
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:28:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] >> I don't understand how "instantly" is possible. Two entities must get >> together. This takes time. Once energy is released from this collision, >> the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two >> more entities must find each other. This is not like explosive >> decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Even in >> a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ >> condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant >> shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. Also, >> extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock >> wave can not grow. > >What I meant was that any particular rection event is instant. Ed is correct >that the formation of reaction events may not be instant and he is correct. >My conjecture included the possibility that a singular event is very >energetic and may initiate dissociation in nearby water. There is >possibility for a chain reaction, as the BLP event releases intense UV >energy which may couple into other molecules. True, but actual experiments show that this is insufficient. Otherwise some hydrino forming event in an aqueous environment (including the ocean), would result in a chain reaction. The oceans still exist. IOW The formation of O++ in the oceans during hydrino creation events doesn't lead to a chain reaction. Clearly the losses out weigh the gains. This may be different in a potassium rich environment, though 0.2 M is clearly also not enough, or the cell would have exploded much earlier. It is also why I suggested that an adequate supply of pre-existing severely shrunken hydrinos which are candidates for fusion, may be a necessary prerequisite to a chain reaction. >Another catalyst is K+++, which is a two body reaction with H. I believe you are referring to the reaction: K + H -> H* + K+++ however in this case K (not K+++) is the catalyst. K is readily formed in a plasma, where free electrons are ubiquitous, and easily captured by K+. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
ED Storms wrote: > > Mike Carrell wrote: > > > Ed Storms wrote: > >>2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as > >>rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting > >>hydrino diffuses away. > > > > > > No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. > > I don't understand how "instantly" is possible. Two entities must get > together. This takes time. Once energy is released from this collision, > the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two > more entities must find each other. This is not like explosive > decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Even in > a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ > condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant > shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. Also, > extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock > wave can not grow. What I meant was that any particular rection event is instant. Ed is correct that the formation of reaction events may not be instant and he is correct. My conjecture included the possibility that a singular event is very energetic and may initiate dissociation in nearby water. There is possibility for a chain reaction, as the BLP event releases intense UV energy which may couple into other molecules. Another catalyst is K+++, which is a two body reaction with H. There is evidence from Mills' gas phase experiments that reaction rates are complex functions of process parameters. I doubt that Mills has explored that parameter space of plasma electrolysis. It's just something to keep in mind while exploring these phenomena. Mike Carrell
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Mike Carrell wrote: Ed Storms wrote: I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". Correct. 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. I don't understand how "instantly" is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. There is one essential condition, the proximity of an H atom (not H2) and a catalyst. Relevant catalysts in the Mizuno case are 2K+ and O++. My comment was that these can be produced in a plasma hydrolysis cell. The reaction rates depend on many complex factors which are not well controlled, even in Mills' experiments. My conjecture was that electrolysis liberates both K+ and H in the proximity of the cathode, which is supported by Mills' early experiments with Thermacore and other later experiments. The 2K+/H reaction is a three-body one. The probability is enhanced by the high density in the liquid/plasma interface, but so are competing reactions -- this is a problem with the Mills cells. O++ can be produced in a plasma -- some mills experiments start with water vaporizing at low pressure and then being ionized by a microwave field. I don't know of any reason why O++ can't be produced in a hard-driven electrolytic cell. Let's assume that K+ and/or O++ are produced. The reaction with H to produce H* can proceed no faster than the rate of K+ or O++ formation. Both of these formation rates have to be slow and the products will not accumulate to any great extent because they are so unstable. This might allow extra energy to be produced while electrolysis was ongoing, but I do not understand how an explosion can result. I have no clue about the dynamics here. If it could be reproduced at will, it would be a great leap forward toward solving the world's energy problems. One is reminded of other effects, such as attributed to Stanley Meyer. Mills has shown the presence of these reactions; putting them to work is something else. It's as daunting as making reliable CF cathodes. 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce hydrino water. Hydrinos can form hydrides, which can form chemical compounds. I don't recall any comment about water specifically; it would not be "water". O++ is a BLP catalyst, and one can conjecture that both H and O++ will exist in the plasma in the Mizuno and Cirilli cells. If hydrides form, the issue is how does an electron in a special, unique orbit associated with H interact with normal electrons in the combining atom? Such interactions provide the required energy for compound formation. Without this energy, the "hydrides" become physical mixtures. This might be possible in solids, but forming water requires a chemical bond. Consequently, Mills ruled out this possibility. These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. 2 out of 3. It is indeed "unlikely" but the ingredients are there. Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released to be accounted for by a "normal" H2+O2 reaction. Remember F&P? Also unlikely. Yes, we seem to be treated to "unlikely" events every couple of years. This is worse than cold fusion. Regards, Ed Mike Carrell
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Ed Storms wrote: > I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino > explanation. > > 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when > accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". Correct. > > 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as > rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting > hydrino diffuses away. No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. There is one essential condition, the proximity of an H atom (not H2) and a catalyst. Relevant catalysts in the Mizuno case are 2K+ and O++. My comment was that these can be produced in a plasma hydrolysis cell. The reaction rates depend on many complex factors which are not well controlled, even in Mills' experiments. My conjecture was that electrolysis liberates both K+ and H in the proximity of the cathode, which is supported by Mills' early experiments with Thermacore and other later experiments. The 2K+/H reaction is a three-body one. The probability is enhanced by the high density in the liquid/plasma interface, but so are competing reactions -- this is a problem with the Mills cells. O++ can be produced in a plasma -- some mills experiments start with water vaporizing at low pressure and then being ionized by a microwave field. I don't know of any reason why O++ can't be produced in a hard-driven electrolytic cell. I have no clue about the dynamics here. If it could be reproduced at will, it would be a great leap forward toward solving the world's energy problems. One is reminded of other effects, such as attributed to Stanley Meyer. Mills has shown the presence of these reactions; putting them to work is something else. It's as daunting as making reliable CF cathodes. > > 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce > hydrino water. Hydrinos can form hydrides, which can form chemical compounds. I don't recall any comment about water specifically; it would not be "water". O++ is a BLP catalyst, and one can conjecture that both H and O++ will exist in the plasma in the Mizuno and Cirilli cells. > > These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. 2 out of 3. It is indeed "unlikely" but the ingredients are there. > > Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released > to be accounted for by a "normal" H2+O2 reaction. Remember F&P? Also unlikely. Mike Carrell
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:39:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino >explanation. > >1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when >accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". The presence of preexisting severely shrunken hydrinos is not important because they might be in a position to expand again, but because they might be in a position to shrink further and undergo rapid fusion reactions, which in turn can produce ionising radiation. This in turn can produce O++ ions which will catalyze the production of more hydrinos from any existing hydrogen gas, and also help to further shrink preexisting hydrinos. Because the ionisation energy of O+ is 35 eV, ionising radiation is one of the few ways of producing O++. (An alternative is through charged particles that have been accelerated in a microwave field). > >2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as >rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting >hydrino diffuses away. This assumes that there a limited number of "active sites" on a surface. When O++ in a plasma acts as the catalyst, the number of "sites" greatly expands. Also, as energy is released, and the temperature of the plasma rises, the diffusion rate increases. However the problem arises that much of the energy from hydrino formation will turn up as heat, without ever having produced more O++ catalyst, so the process may by itself, not be self-sustaining. That's where the pre-existing hydrinos and the fusion reactions come in. Each fusion reaction can produce hundred to thousands of O++ ions, so there is a chance that a runaway chain reaction might ensue, at least until either the pre-existing hydrinos are reduced severely in number, or the device blows itself apart. > >3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce >hydrino water. Not a problem, as they can exist on the surface of any solid. In this case, a hydrinohydride ion simply replaces an existing electron in another atom, resulting in a tightly bound "salt" (Mills even has photos of them in little glass bottles). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
RE: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Hi Ed. Here's another thought. Let's assume a small quantity of gas ignites, sufficient to create an ionized bridge between anode and cathode. Would you have an arc discharge due to the power supply capacity in addition to the H2 and O2 gas recombination? Certainly if the supply is operating in constant current mode and voltage limiting is not set properly, I could see that happening. That would add more energy than the initial ~10 joules cemical energy in the gas. Would 10J be sufficient to see these effects alone? I think so, but I'm open to hearing more to the contrary. Perhaps Dr. M should make up some dummy resistive loads with a switch, and stress test his power supply before resuming experimentation. The power supply I used for this kind of work has crowbar features to handle such extreme conditions. But of course you have to set them to work...and I don't always do that (grin). I suspect I'm not alone in this regard. K. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion? Hi Jones, Granted that an autocatalytic reaction is possible, several more facts have to be considered. 1. First of all, a destructive explosion occurs as a shock wave that is suddenly formed by release of energy and gas. A slow release of energy that does not produce a shock wave will dissipate without shattering the vessel, unless a pressure in excess of the bust strength of the container is maintained for a significant time, say several seconds. At which time, the container will separate at its weakest point, rather than shatter. Glass usually is found in pieces after such an event because the few large parts shatter upon hitting the nearest hard object. 2. Normal explosives form a shock wave because they produce a greater volume of gas than they initially occupy. The moving shock wave causes the chemical reaction (decomposition) within its region and grows in strength. For example, a natural gas explosion results in the reaction 2CH4 + 5O2 = 2CO + 8H2O where 7 moles of gas turns into 10 moles. In contrast, the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O reaction actually shrinks in volume, from 3 to 2 moles. The shock wave is very brief and is only maintained by the expanded volume resulting from heating the gas. Even if the H = H* reaction were to occur, the energy has to go somewhere. Presumably, the energy goes into the O-- ion, which is a catalyst. As a result, the normal H2+O2 reaction energy is augmented by a small contribution from hydrino formation. This causes the normal shock wave to be sufficiently strong to break the container. How does this sound? Ed Jones Beene wrote: > Hi Ed, > > > >>I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when > > proposing the hydrino > >>explanation. > > >>1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not > > when > >>accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". > > > > That, of course, is part of Mills' explanation. But we > should keep in mind two things: > > 1) that he could very easily have discovered the process; > but yet he still got many of the details in his theory > wrong, or half-right. > > 2) there could be an autocatalytic stage, following build-up > of hydrinos over time. > > Some of us have been saying for some time that it appears > from analyzing many of the past results, that the first few > redundant ground states of hydrino formation (at least the > first) could be endothermic, not exothermic. > > Moreover, If at a certain stage in the ongoing process, the > shrinkage below ground state does continue and becomes > atuocatalytic - all the way down to n = 1/137 then of course > those last 100+ steps would shed tremendous energy very > rapidly. Had Mizuno been using a G-M monitor at the time, > there would have been a big spike at the time of the > explosion, as the lower stages are all soft x-rays, in > theory. > > Jones > > >
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Ed > Even if the H = H* reaction were to occur, the energy has to go > somewhere. Presumably, the energy goes into the O-- ion, which is a > catalyst. As a result, the normal H2+O2 reaction energy is augmented by > a small contribution from hydrino formation. This causes the normal > shock wave to be sufficiently strong to break the container. > > How does this sound? Interesting... there is little doubt that the normal H2+O2 reaction was somehow augmented. As for the ignition source itself, even a few 27.2 eV EUV photons or higher from hydrino formation should be enough to trigger the normal H2+O2 reaction with no actual spark, and from then on, there could have been a steam-roller effect. And as ozone is much more soluble than O2 in H2O, depending on pH, that factor could conceivably have contributed to the intensity of a reaction where there was little headspace for O2 gas. Does anyone know the pH and temp near the time of the accident? I just wish he had been running a G-M data-logging monitor. BTW, even if that was not the case, it wouldn't hurt for him to analyze the debris for residual radioactivity. There could be a surprise there. Jones
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Hi Jones, Granted that an autocatalytic reaction is possible, several more facts have to be considered. 1. First of all, a destructive explosion occurs as a shock wave that is suddenly formed by release of energy and gas. A slow release of energy that does not produce a shock wave will dissipate without shattering the vessel, unless a pressure in excess of the bust strength of the container is maintained for a significant time, say several seconds. At which time, the container will separate at its weakest point, rather than shatter. Glass usually is found in pieces after such an event because the few large parts shatter upon hitting the nearest hard object. 2. Normal explosives form a shock wave because they produce a greater volume of gas than they initially occupy. The moving shock wave causes the chemical reaction (decomposition) within its region and grows in strength. For example, a natural gas explosion results in the reaction 2CH4 + 5O2 = 2CO + 8H2O where 7 moles of gas turns into 10 moles. In contrast, the 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O reaction actually shrinks in volume, from 3 to 2 moles. The shock wave is very brief and is only maintained by the expanded volume resulting from heating the gas. Even if the H = H* reaction were to occur, the energy has to go somewhere. Presumably, the energy goes into the O-- ion, which is a catalyst. As a result, the normal H2+O2 reaction energy is augmented by a small contribution from hydrino formation. This causes the normal shock wave to be sufficiently strong to break the container. How does this sound? Ed Jones Beene wrote: Hi Ed, I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". That, of course, is part of Mills' explanation. But we should keep in mind two things: 1) that he could very easily have discovered the process; but yet he still got many of the details in his theory wrong, or half-right. 2) there could be an autocatalytic stage, following build-up of hydrinos over time. Some of us have been saying for some time that it appears from analyzing many of the past results, that the first few redundant ground states of hydrino formation (at least the first) could be endothermic, not exothermic. Moreover, If at a certain stage in the ongoing process, the shrinkage below ground state does continue and becomes atuocatalytic - all the way down to n = 1/137 then of course those last 100+ steps would shed tremendous energy very rapidly. Had Mizuno been using a G-M monitor at the time, there would have been a big spike at the time of the explosion, as the lower stages are all soft x-rays, in theory. Jones
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Hi Ed, > I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino > explanation. > 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when > accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". That, of course, is part of Mills' explanation. But we should keep in mind two things: 1) that he could very easily have discovered the process; but yet he still got many of the details in his theory wrong, or half-right. 2) there could be an autocatalytic stage, following build-up of hydrinos over time. Some of us have been saying for some time that it appears from analyzing many of the past results, that the first few redundant ground states of hydrino formation (at least the first) could be endothermic, not exothermic. Moreover, If at a certain stage in the ongoing process, the shrinkage below ground state does continue and becomes atuocatalytic - all the way down to n = 1/137 then of course those last 100+ steps would shed tremendous energy very rapidly. Had Mizuno been using a G-M monitor at the time, there would have been a big spike at the time of the explosion, as the lower stages are all soft x-rays, in theory. Jones
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to "normal". 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce hydrino water. These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released to be accounted for by a "normal" H2+O2 reaction. Ed Storms Jones Beene wrote: Jed Rothwell writes. I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. Here is a suggestion (w/ input from Fred Sparber) that might be woth mentioning to Mizuno, or anyone else working with K or Sr or Rb electrolytes, alone or in combinations. BTW, Rb should be the most active of these, based on the theoretical "fit" but a combination of the three should have synergy becasue of the "spread" of IP energy "holes" based on Table 5.2 in my edition of CQM. The most active combination of electrolytes would most likely be a trade secret, so don't expect any confirmation from Mills. It is potentially possible to easily detect hydrinos in ongoing electrolytes as they form over time, in a simple procedure, without much expense and without moving the cell. You would only need to shut it off for a few seconds, take your reading and continue. Assuming that the tighter "orbital" of the hydrino would create a drastically altered magnetic field, and there is every reason to suspect this, then If one were to measure the bulk magnetic field of a hydino-active electrolyte with any magnetometer, especially a "proton precession magnetometer," which can be easily contructed by anyone at minimal cost; and then measure before the electrolysis begins and periodically during electrolysis (there is no need to even remove the reactor, as this can be done 'in situ'... then after a few days of potassium (etc) hydroxide electrolysis, there should be a drastic change in the bulk magnetic field properties of the reactor, IF but only if lots of hydrinos were being created. http://www.portup.com/~dfount/proton.htm "In a simple proton precession magnetometer, a bottle of fluid rich in hydrogen atoms, usually distilled water or a hydrocarbon such as kerosene or alcohol, is surrounded by a coil of wire which can be energized by a direct current to produce a strong magnetic field. When the current is shut off, the precessing protons induce a very weak signal into the same coil, which is now connected to a suitable output device. This output circuitry may be a frequency counter calibrated to give a direct readout of of magnetic field strength." Jones BTW, if one wished to maximize hydrino "manufacture" then it would seem that a combination of both Rb, K and Sr electrolytes would be an improvement as they cover different IP ranges. Since you need to get to the first stage quickly, I would suggest that half or more of the mole% be Rb hydroxide.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Jed Rothwell writes. > I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. Here is a suggestion (w/ input from Fred Sparber) that might be woth mentioning to Mizuno, or anyone else working with K or Sr or Rb electrolytes, alone or in combinations. BTW, Rb should be the most active of these, based on the theoretical "fit" but a combination of the three should have synergy becasue of the "spread" of IP energy "holes" based on Table 5.2 in my edition of CQM. The most active combination of electrolytes would most likely be a trade secret, so don't expect any confirmation from Mills. It is potentially possible to easily detect hydrinos in ongoing electrolytes as they form over time, in a simple procedure, without much expense and without moving the cell. You would only need to shut it off for a few seconds, take your reading and continue. Assuming that the tighter "orbital" of the hydrino would create a drastically altered magnetic field, and there is every reason to suspect this, then If one were to measure the bulk magnetic field of a hydino-active electrolyte with any magnetometer, especially a "proton precession magnetometer," which can be easily contructed by anyone at minimal cost; and then measure before the electrolysis begins and periodically during electrolysis (there is no need to even remove the reactor, as this can be done 'in situ'... then after a few days of potassium (etc) hydroxide electrolysis, there should be a drastic change in the bulk magnetic field properties of the reactor, IF but only if lots of hydrinos were being created. http://www.portup.com/~dfount/proton.htm "In a simple proton precession magnetometer, a bottle of fluid rich in hydrogen atoms, usually distilled water or a hydrocarbon such as kerosene or alcohol, is surrounded by a coil of wire which can be energized by a direct current to produce a strong magnetic field. When the current is shut off, the precessing protons induce a very weak signal into the same coil, which is now connected to a suitable output device. This output circuitry may be a frequency counter calibrated to give a direct readout of of magnetic field strength." Jones BTW, if one wished to maximize hydrino "manufacture" then it would seem that a combination of both Rb, K and Sr electrolytes would be an improvement as they cover different IP ranges. Since you need to get to the first stage quickly, I would suggest that half or more of the mole% be Rb hydroxide.
Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Dieter Britz also wonders how such a small amount of gas might have caused such a large explosion in Mizuno's cell. He wrote to me: "It is also hard to imagine that there should have been enough for such a violent explosion. You have no doubt seen the school experiment, where a lighted taper is inserted into a tube with some hydrogen in it - you get a nice "pop". In an open cell, after a short time of electrolysis, that is what I would expect. So this is very strange and I have no guesses." I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. I do not know enough about explosions to judge the issue. It is not just the total energy involved; you also have to take into account the speed of the reaction, the shape of the container, and so on. That is why bullets are so much more destructive than firecrackers. - Jed
