You have missed the point entirely. The *experimental* results using
carbon arcs in water produced a COP of 7. No half baked theory was
involved. No metals were involved. Hydrinos were possibly not even
involved.
Of course the results could have been bogus. That is why I used the
word "may" instead of "is".
On Nov 19, 2011, at 3:31 AM, David ledin wrote:
"Nickel may not be necessary at all'
No : Nickel or similar metal with high lattice enthalpy like Alkali
metal halides is necessary.
See these papers from Rowan university
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf
On 11/19/11, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:24 AM, David ledin wrote:
From Randell Mills yahoo group
The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst.
Nickel has
an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees
Celsius heating
nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant
reaction
causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface.
At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating
one hopes a
population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity
which can
undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface.
Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO ->
C + CO2
reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of
CO dominates -
a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to
create a self
regulating reactor.
The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO
would work best
to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy
transfers
appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of
catalyst and
the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together
to trigger
transitions.
antony
Nickel may not be necessary at all, nor even hydrino formation, for
free energy generation in this regime. A carbon arc in water vapor
may be sufficient, or more to the point any form of arc (including
induced electrodeless discharge) in a CO2 plus water vapor
environment, may be sufficient for energy generation. There was
excess energy observed from "aquafuel" (water gas) creation via
pyrolysis of carbon (or carbon bearing materials) via underwater
arc. It seemed to me logical in 1996 that a direct CO2 recycling
mechanism, without additional carbon input, might work. See:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/aquafuel.pdf
I mentioned the possible use of Correa's PAGD discharge range, a low
pressure discharge regime, which is described here
http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html
The low pressure CO2 + H2O gas should cycle to water gas and back
within the arc, with chemically enhanced negative resistance pressure
waves increasing the electrical AC feedback output (and thus the free
energy) from such a tube.
The Correas supposedly obtained a COP of 7 from the PAGD regime
without any added chemical means. The newly available nickel barium
alloys, which have very good thermionic emission characteristics, and
avoid the need for barium oxide thermionic emission filament coatings
entirely, may be of use in producing greatly improved PAGD regime
devices.
I wonder what happened to both the aqaufuel and the Correa endeavors.
At least the Correa's web information is still up.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
