Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR. Peter
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer > and clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it. Maybe those > who have actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question. > (Mike and Robin? up for some calculations.) > > This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where > people speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR. But it seems to me > that if we are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly > evaluate if Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous > heat we get with NiH and PdD systems. > > Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions > rates. Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it > explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat? > > Consider this scenario for now. Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic > function like Titanium nanopowder. The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze > transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion. > Some of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze > further reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano > powder like Mills claims. Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel > nanopowder capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions. The Temperature > controls (for some reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the > catalyzation and reaction rates. When it reaches a certain point, the > reaction rates overshoot, runs away and melts the reactor. > > The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR > reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise > > 1. This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many > experiments. Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions > occur and KABOOM! > > 2. This would also explain why there is no hard radiation. > > 3. This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high > temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even > possibly to sublimate some nanopowders of Nickel itself. > > 4. This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than the BEC soliton > formation at extremely high temps and all the convoluted explanations on > how to thermalize the gammas or other hard radiation. > > 5. This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than BEC "metaphasic" > shielding protecting the nickel nanostructures from melting. (Metaphasic > shielding is another miracle that is added to the repetoire of miracles > that need to be explained. It seems our theories require more miracles to > explain a miracle. We end up with more miracles to explain than what we > began with.) > > 6. (This next point is speculation so may not be a valid point.) This > is certainly a more satisfying explanation to the continued presence of NAE > to cause reactions to continue up to the runaway melting point of the > reactor. It seems to me that once the reactor has melted, the inside > environment would have been exposed to outside air hence should have > quenched the BEC or solitons or whatever it is, It seems that a tiny hole > in the reactor would have quickly quenched the BEC, soltions, etc reaction > before it creates a bigger hole. Tell me if I am wrong on this? Didn't > the Levi first Hotcat totally melt? This tells me that the reaction > continued even after the inside was exposed to outside air. > > > > > If you are knowledgeable enough and understand Hydrinos enough, please > help me do the calculations of the energy balance. > > Can the hydrino transition even be catalyzed by high temps instead of high > currents like in the Suncell? > > > > Jojo > > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
