In reply to Mark S Bilk's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:15:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] >This still leaves the questions of: > >1. How are deeper hydrino level transitions catalyzed, since >chemical catalysts can't absorb hundreds or thousands of ev, >and many-body collisions are too improbable?
The same catalysts are used for the deeper levels, but if I'm not mistaken they may not work as well at those levels as they do at the higher levels. (This has to do with resonance as harmonics and sub-harmonics iso at the fundamental frequency). > >If it's hydrinos catalyzing other hydrinos, does this release >any net energy? Yes. See "disproportionation" in Mills' book. The reason is that higher levels release more energy per step than lower levels. > >2. What determines the partition of the liberated energy >between the catalyst and the hydrino or UV photon? > This is determined by the amount that the catalyst can absorb. Whatever is left is either radiated as a UV photon, or ends up as kinetic energy of the hydrino (or possibly some of each?). [snip] >Or does the catalyst absorb all of the energy and then give some >back to the hydrino and/or UV photon? No, the catalyst only gives back as a UV photon what it absorbed. > >3. And on another subject, the HSG FAQ says: > > "Being extremely light, [hydrinos] rapidly float up into the > atmosphere and diffuse into space." This statement from Mills is from the early days, before he came up with the hydrinohydride concept. IMO hydrinohydride ions ensure that this is irrelevant. The original statement referred to the fact that hydrinos would form a mon-atomic gas (like helium), but comprising lighter atoms, hence it would be the lightest gas known. > >But since a hydrino is much smaller than a normal H atom, and >still weighs 1 amu, wouldn't it be very dense and (since it is >so tiny) tend to fall toward the center of the Earth? No, you are forgetting about the space between the atoms. > >4. Also, are hydrinos toxic? Deuterium is (mildly). Probably. As the shrinkage level increases, the affinity for electrons also increases. To give an idea of what this means, Fluorine gas doesn't have anywhere near the electron affinity of heavily shrunken hydrinos, yet is extremely toxic. Heavily shrunken hydrinos would be chemically similar to the halogens. However to put this in context, by the time they are that dangerous, they have probably already stolen an electron from some other atom in their neighbourhood, forming hydrinohydride, which is then likely bound to a positive ion, rendering them essentially harmless. >If we can >create a practical hydrino power generator, will it be necessary >to trap and store the hydrinos to keep them from contaminating >the ground water? Probably not, see above, as they tend to be "self trapping". OTOH one would probably want to keep them anyway, because they are valuable, both for the new materials that may be made from them, and also for the energy that they can still produce. IMO any commercial device based on hydrinos will probably shrink them so far that they undergo fusion reactions, finally realising humanity's dream of cheap fusion power. > >5. If so, will the hydrino storage tanks blow up some day from >cross-hydrino reactions, or even turn into fusion bombs if the >hydrinos get small enough to approach the nuclei of other atoms >or each other within reach of the strong nuclear force? Which >is my favorite theory of cold fusion and transmutation, because >it's simple enough that I can understand it! 8^) Mine too, same reason! :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
