Jones, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your premise, but it's my understanding that you are speculating that the BLP "SunCell" process is based primarily on a Ti - plus- O oxidation process that Mills doesn't want potential financial backers catch on to, at least not right away. Granted, it may be naive of me to say this but I'm not at present inclined to conjecture that Mills is operating on such level of deceit. Hopefully, I'll be proven right, but I have no guarantee of that.
With that said, I completely spaced out the fact that if both H2O intact and oxygen being separated from H2O might account for an actual source of free oxygen that might oxidize with Ti, even if the reaction chamber had been initially flooded with inert elements like argon or rendered a vacuum. OTOH, it's not clear to me how much free oxygen would need to accumulate within the chamber in order to start oxidizing with Ti to the point of contaminating and rendering the fuel "powder" useless until it was reprocessed. As you have pointed out, how much additional energy would the recycling of the oxidation process consume? If this is what is really going on the net energy gain is indeed likely to be distinctively negative. I do recall that on one of the two June 25 videos released, someone asked Mills about how best to handle a steady accumulation of free oxygen that would have to be building up within the reactor chamber as the SunCell process presumably breaks H2O apart. The query was not all that different from concerns Jones had brought up. Wouldn't oxidation eventually occur and start mucking things up? Mills response was that all BLP needs to do is "burn" off the free oxygen by systematically re-introducing free hydrogen into the gas mixture and then igniting it. At first glance, Mills' answer sounded counter-productive to me. But then... what it all seems to boil down to, at least for me, is whether Mills is telling the truth. Does the "SunCell" process alter atomic hydrogen. Does "SunCell" technology induce atomic hydrogen to release huge amounts of "sun" light, UV, and soft X-Rays while being converted into hydrinos? It would seem to me that we are currently wrestling with two POVs. Which one is the more accurate one? POV1: From Jones' conjecture, oxidation is the primary form of energy being released here. As such, when the entire recycling process is taken into consideration there is no net energy gain. POV2: Mills conjectures that the energy released is due to a still highly controversial claim that atomized hydrogen atoms are being transformed in such a manner as to release huge amounts of heat, light, UV, and soft X-Rays. Altered hydrogen is being transformed into a smaller hydirno atom model. Mills also claims recycling the powder catalyst is fast, easy, and doesn't consume much energy. This directly contradicts POV1's contention that considerably more energy is needed to the point that no net energy is actually realized. Obviously, POV2 is in direct conflict with POV1. Alas, many "burning" questions remain. In the meantime, we hope a 1st gen POC device will be delivered to BLP's laboratory from one of the engineering firms will either prove or disprove POV1 vs. POV2. Possibly this might happen as soon as this December. In the meantime, we should stock up on roasted peanuts. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
