• I think that for moving water or boiling you have a heat transfer coeficcient of 25kW/m^2/K and hence

    this thing should be able to produce 1-10MW of heat.


    There's no definitive answer, as it depends on pressurisation and how fast the water is flowing, but you can push 1MW/m2 into still water before the Leidenfrost effect causes problems.


    (This limits the deltaK in the heat transfer equation to ~80C at 1atm)

  • You need to know how much hydrogen you put into it as well, it burns with quite some surplus of energy


    But very hard to control the rate - the difference between burn and bang is very slight. But it is (figures vary a surprising amount) on average reckoned to carry 37.5 kWh thermal per kilo. Though even at 200+ Bar I doubt you could fit more than 10 Mol (20 gr) into that sphere.

  • There's no definitive answer, as it depends on pressurisation and how fast the water is flowing, but you can push 1MW/m2 into still water before the Leidenfrost effect causes problems.


    (This limits the deltaK in the heat transfer equation to ~80C at 1atm)


    I guess that's the easy heat transport constraint then. I am also wondering how the internals would behave when power is increased I would expect a higher inner temperature all over the place inside and problems due to that.

  • But very hard to control the rate - the difference between burn and bang is very slight. But it is (figures vary a surprising amount) on average reckoned to carry 37.5 kWh thermal per kilo. Though even at 200+ Bar I doubt you could fit more than 10 Mol (20 gr) into that sphere.

    SOme figurative thinkings, not sure if correct.


    20gr*50 = 1kg, so burning it is 37.5kWh/50 < 1kWh I doubt that you can refill it in less than a second so we would have en effect of < 1kW That is way too small to have

    that glowing. Hydrino burning is what 200x hydrogen, so we are talking about < 200kW a refill rate every 10s and you would have about 20kW which feels like closer to

    the effect of that glowing sphere. To reach 1MW you need to refill it every 0.2s.

  • Quote

    You think it's paint, I' don't.


    I doubt it too. The usual fakery in high tech scams is that the power comes from the mains if it's a lot and from a battery or chemistry if it's not. The way you fake stuff involving a large staff is that only a few (the fakers) know about all of it. The others get plausible pieces.

  • I doubt it too. The usual fakery in high tech scams is that the power comes from the mains if it's a lot and from a battery or chemistry if it's not. The way you fake stuff involving a large staff is that only a few (the fakers) know about all of it. The others get plausible pieces.

    Can you give examples of such fraud done before?

  • They like to make papers so there will be a paper in the future. Look at the paper they released last year. It is pretty detailed. I could imagine that they try to land the great punch with their next paper. They need to sink this in oil, refine the process, make sure the reactor runs for 1-2 hours before failure and model the whole thing thermodynamically. After that they surely try to get an independant peer review of their measurement system. Peer review takes time, they need to address the objections the peer has, measure again.... If they have their system ready in summer 2019 I would expect a paper minimum six months later.


    So this will take time. But what are 1-2 years compared to the 28 years of the overall saga? The sceptics will say "red paint" and the believers will say "insert long list of not verifiable arguments". But Mills knows this and I think he is preparing some kind of "great punch". Till then I enjoy every progress video.

  • The piece cited by Alan Smith is by Tom Whipple. Mr. Whipple has supported Rossi at length and vociferously for years and far as I know has never repudiated him. At least I've never seen such a repudiation and I have a standing search for "Rossi" in Google. Far as I know, he reported on all sorts of RossiWonders but never wrote about the Rossi vs IH debacle and all the RossiFailures.


    Also, he censors the replies to his articles. In most cases, all effective rebuttals are deleted. You can draw your own conclusions about his credibility.

  • Mr. Whipple has supported Rossi at length and vociferously for years and far as I know has never repudiated him.

    Quote from Tom Whipple

    ""The differences in transparencies between Rossi and Randell Mills who is developing the competitive hydrino technology is like night and day. For numerous reasons, Rossi is highly secretive about his technology, only responding to questions about his progress on his blog in one or at most a few words""


    It took me ten seconds of google search to repudiate seven-of-twenty.

    7/20's "AFAIK" is not very far at all.

    https://fcnp.com/2018/08/17/gr…-fossil-fuels-new-energy/

  • Whipple does not repudiate Rossi in the article you cite and link. He actually regurgitates Rossi's BS in that article and provides no way for most critics to respond (he seems to have missed one skeptical post that is still there). Your link proves my point, not yours. The issue is, of course, not whether or not Rossi secretive. Who cares? The issue is that he is a lying con man without the originality to change any of his 2011-2013 lies (mystery customers, robotic factories, certificators [sic] and unseen megawatt reactors).

  • 7/20"regurgitates"


    7/20 rhetoric as usual.. as can be seen by anyone who actually reads 7/20's the source rather than 7/20 froth

    Where did Rossi write "As is usual with Rossi, there are no details ""


    Quote from Tom Whipple


    ""In a recent post, Rossi says he has a contract to build a 40-megawatt (MW) heat producing plant and hopes to have the reactors ready for installation before the end of the year. As is usual with Rossi, there are no details as to where the reactors will be installed, who the customer is, or which of two devices Rossi has under development will be used for his first installation.""


    https://fcnp.com/2018/08/17/gr…-fossil-fuels-new-energy


    BTW 7/20 is rossifying another thread. I thought this thread was about BLP??????

  • robert bryant You don't seriously want me to write an example of what I consider to be a repudiation of Rossi when only you and maybe a half dozen others here think anything he brays still has merit? Whipple basically believes Rossi as he has uncritically since 2011. He simply glosses over Rossi's history of criminality, failures, lies and so on, culminating in the debacle of Rossi vs IH in which Rossi asked for $300M and got nothing, zero, zip. not even his considerable legal expenses. Whipple also prevents effective critics from answering him in public by deleting replies he dislikes. All of that is hardly encouraging.


    I am not "Rossifying anything." One has to understand an argument to refute it, don't you think? My critique is about Whipple, not Rossi. Whipple's long adulation of Rossi proves that he is not qualified or capable of evaluating any claim for a new source of energy. Thus what he writes about Brillouin, BLP, or any other energy claim, is not credible. Clear now?

  • "BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a "state below the ground state", called the "hydrino." There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains."


    Oh well, has anything changed? Could we persuade Randy to work on LENR since his other projects don't seem to be going anywhere fast? His spherical Suncell reactor could easily be adapted into a PULVA1 complex plasma reactor or a SAFIRE/ST40 hybrid - he's the man with the lab and the cash if he can be persuaded. But I'm probably barking up the wrong tree - those with the cash and resources are all too stuck in their own vested interest ruts.

  • Or maybe upgrade this recent fission fragment reactor research recently commissioned by NASA to run on hot/cold fusion recipes too? Very Interesting.

    A Half-Gigawatt Space Power System using Dusty Plasma

    Fission Fragment Reactor

    Robert B. Sheldon1,2, Rodney L. Clark1

    1Grassmere Dynamics, LLC, Gurley, AL 35748-8909 256-776-9471 [email protected]edynamics.com

    1,2RB Sheldon Consulting, Huntsville, AL 35803 256-6538592; [email protected]

    Abstract. A dusty plasma nuclear fission fragment reactor employs a cloud of nanometer-sized dust of fissionable

    material inside a magnetized moderator. The negatively charged dust, free electrons, and positively charged ions

    form a 3-component “dusty plasma” that can be confined and manipulated as charged fluid. The nanometer dust has

    such a large surface to volume ratio, that it is capable of remaining solid at 3000K while radiating 10-100 GW of

    radiant power, as discussed in previous work. This ``nuclear light bulb” power source solves the intractable

    problems of previous designs: confining charged dust rather than hot gas; eliminating the need for quartz windows;

    and not requiring gas cooling. Unlike previous designs the radiation is in the near-infrared, so that conversion to

    electricity is inefficient. While Brayton-cycle power converters are often advertised as a space power solution, they

    require additional radiators and additional mass. Several recent technologies, however, can convert NIR into electric

    power at improved efficiency and with no moving parts. We model the conversion efficiency of a space system

    consisting of radiators, moderator, direct fission-fragment converter, and IR converter panels as a viable solution to

    the growing need for MW space power system