BLP update

I think the point is that it gives a greater energy than ordinary hydrogen combustion. Figures below should be relevant to the claims, but I haven't managed to attach them all in a single post due to forum limitations. They come from https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?…onNum=&idkey=E5151C22EABA

Quote

[0075] FIG. 7 shows the results of the DSC (100-750 °C) of NaH at a scan rate of 0.1 degree/minute. A broad endothermic peak was observed at 350 °C to 420 °C. which corresponds to 47 kJ/mole and matches sodium hydride decomposition in this temperature range with a corresponding enthalpy of 57 kJ/mole. A large exotherm was observed under conditions that form NaH catalyst in the region 640 °C to 825 °C. which corresponds to at least -354 kJ/mole H2, greater than that of the most exothermic reaction possible for H, the -241.8 kJ/mole H2 enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen.

[0076] FIG. 8 shows the results of the DSC (100-750.degree. C.) of MgH2 at a scan rate of 0.1 degree/minute. Two sharp endothermic peaks were observed. A first peak centered at 351.75 °C corresponding to 68.61 kJ/mole MgH2 matches the 74.4 kJ mole MgH2 decomposition energy. The second peak at 647.66 °C corresponding to 6.65 kJ/mole MgH2 matches the known melting point of Mg(m) is 650 °C. and enthalpy of fusion of 8.48 kJ/mole Mg(m). Thus, the expected behavior was observed for the decomposition of a control, noncatalyst hydride.

[0077] FIG. 9 shows the temperature versus time for the calibration run with an evacuated test cell and resistive heating only.

[0078] FIG. 10 shows the power versus time for the calibration run with an evacuated test cell and resistive heating only. The numerical integration of the input and output power curves yielded an output energy of 292.2 kJ and an input energy of 303.1 kJ corresponding to a coupling of flow of 96.4% of the resistive input to the output coolant.

[0079] FIG. 11 shows the cell temperature with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 1 g Li, 0.5 g LiNH2, 10 g LiBr, and 15 g Pd/Al2O3. The reaction liberated 19.1 kJ of energy in less than 120 s to develop a system-response-corrected peak power in excess of 160 W.

[0080] FIG. 12 shows the coolant power with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 1 g Li, 0.5 g LiNH2, 10 g LiBr, and 15 g Pd/Al2O3. The numerical integration of the input and output power curves with the calibration correction applied yielded an output energy of 227.2 kJ and an input energy of 208.1 kJ corresponding to an excess energy of 19.1 kJ.

[0081] FIG. 13 shows the cell temperature with time for the R-Ni control power test with the cell containing the reagents comprising the starting material for R-Ni, 15 g R-Ni/Al alloy powder, and 3.28 g of Na.

[0082] FIG. 14 shows the coolant power with time for the control power test with the cell containing the reagents comprising the starting material for R-Ni, 15 g R-Ni/Al alloy powder and 3.28 g of Na. Energy balance was obtained with the calibration-corrected numerical integration of the input and output power curves yielding an output energy of 384 kJ and an input energy of 385 kJ.

[0083] FIG. 15 shows the cell temperature with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 15 g NaOH-doped R-Ni 2800, and 3.28 g of Na. The reaction liberated 36 kJ of energy in less than 90 s to develop a system-response-corrected peak power in excess of 0.5 kW.

[0084] FIG. 16 shows the coolant power with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 15 g NaOH-doped R-Ni 2800, and 3.28 g of Na. The numerical integration of the input and output power curves with the calibration correction applied yielded an output energy of 185.1 kJ and an input energy of 149.1 kJ corresponding to an excess energy of 36 kJ.

[img]

[0085] FIG. 17 shows the cell temperature with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 15 g NaOH-doped R-Ni 2400. The cell temperature jumped from 60 °C to 205 °C. in 60 s wherein the reaction liberated 11.7 kJ of energy in less time to develop a system-response-corrected peak power in excess of 0.25 kW.

[img]

[0086] FIG. 18 shows the coolant power with time for the hydrino reaction with the cell containing the reagents comprising the catalyst material, 15 g NaOH-doped R-Ni 2400. The numerical integration of the input and output power curves with the calibration correction applied yielded an output energy of 195.7 kJ and an input energy of 184.0 kJ corresponding to an excess energy of 11.7 kJ.

Display More

A few US 20190389723 drawings

Quote from Curbina

Chemical release of energy when burning H is 286 KJ per mole. The patent abstract says “greater than about 300 KJ” so the improvement over chemical ain’t that impressive, perhaps this was on purpose?

I think this was probably worded just to clarify that this isn't oxidation of hydrogen dispite being of a "chemical" nature. Greater has an untapped potencial height. There is no limit to a measurement that is just clarified as greater than any value. Yep, I agree it was intentional, doesn't mean it isn't 200 times more.

Here is the pdf of the full Mills application including all figures:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190389723.pdf

Great to see progress!!!

Wonder what the legal status is if Mills’ obsession with a transition energy of 27.2eV/c^2 proves not to be correct. (It’s pretty simple to work out that 54.4-13.6 is not 27.2eV)

Is it legally acceptable to misrepresent the process so badly???

Quote from Simon Brink

Great to see progress!!!

Wonder what the legal status is if Mills’ obsession with a transition energy of 27.2eV/c^2 proves not to be correct. (It’s pretty simple to work out that 54.4-13.6 is not 27.2eV)

Is it legally acceptable to misrepresent the process so badly???

Hmmmm, 27.2 eV is not a transition energy. A multiple of 27.2 eV is transferred to a catalyst, and the remainder of the energy (from the binding energy differential) is released as light continua.

For instance:

When H(1/1) goes to H(1/2), 27.2 eV is transferred to the catalyst, and the remaining energy, (2^2 - 1^2)*13.6eV - 27.2eV = 13.6eV, is released as light.

When H(1/1) goes to H(1/3), 2*27.2 eV = 54.4 eV is transferred to the catalyst, and the remaining energy, (3^2 - 1^2)*13.6eV - 54.4eV = 54.4eV, is released as light.

New BLP USPTO Patent Application ---

United States Patent Application 20200002828     January 2, 2020

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS REGARDING SAME

Abstract

A solid or liquid fuel to plasma to electricity power source that provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H.sub.2O catalyst or H.sub.2O catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H.sub.2O catalyst or H.sub.2O catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a material to cause the fuel to be highly conductive, (iii) a fuel injection system such as a railgun shot injector, (iv) at least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and an electrical power source that provides repetitive short bursts of low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to forming hydrinos to form a brilliant-light emitting plasma, (v) a product recovery system such as at least one of an augmented plasma railgun recovery system and a gravity recovery system, (vi) a fuel pelletizer or shot maker comprising a smelter, a source or hydrogen and a source of H.sub.2O, a dripper and a water bath to form fuel pellets or shot, and an agitator to feed shot into the injector, and (vii) a power converter capable of converting the high-power light output of the cell into electricity such as a concentrated solar power device comprising a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photoelectric cells or a plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0002828&RS=DN/20200002828

A long way to go, pumped up patent applications aside

221 pages

I don't think anybody is going to grant such a patent application regardless of hydrinos, but I don't think these applications are being filed for the purpose of getting them granted either.

To sum up funding opportunities for old cheese

Quote from Curbina

I doubt the examinators Will get past the “hydrino” but good for them to keep attempting to patent.

If a company is ruled by a genius that is infected by the all mighty syndrome, then we most likely will see the same outcome as with Steven Jobs "next computer" company. Mills is obviously unwilling to learn and understand anything else that has not been invented by himself.

Getting energy out of Hydrogen and producing H* only is bare nonsense. H* is the most precious ingredient to induce LENR and the step to get LENR if you have H* is tiny. As said already 10 times: Nobody will allow a process that produces H* as dangerous waste and thus this will end his business if he cannot present a technology to neutralize it again. E.g. a super fridge!

H* has been first produced by Santilli. USPTO has denied patent status. Mills has no evidence for an other (Hydrino) state of matter as a simplistic formula with no physical foundation that is ridiculous. Mills idea that charge would increase is weird as charge according physics decreases with the radius. Thus a patent based on fantasy will end in the waste basket.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If a company is ruled by a genius that is infected by the all mighty syndrome, then we most likely will see the same outcome as with Steven Jobs "next computer" company. Mills is obviously unwilling to learn and understand anything else that has not been invented by himself.

Getting energy out of Hydrogen and producing H* only is bare nonsense. H* is the most precious ingredient to induce LENR and the step to get LENR if you have H* is tiny. As said already 10 times: Nobody will allow a process that produces H* as dangerous waste and thus this will end his business if he cannot present a technology to neutralize it again. E.g. a super fridge!

H* has been first produced by Santilli. USPTO has denied patent status. Mills has no evidence for an other (Hydrino) state of matter as a simplistic formula with no physical foundation that is ridiculous. Mills idea that charge would increase is weird as charge according physics decreases with the radius. Thus a patent based on fantasy will end in the waste basket.

Your ignoring the political and psychological aspects of introducing a new energy source. Many people irrationally have a problem with diversifying and unleashing safer atomic power. The point is the H* step is quite energy dense itself and more than good enough to supply all our current demands. H* also after release would have theoretically many potencial high value applications as another intense energy source (direct electron production), super fridges lol, probably a lot more. Just thinking that compartmentalizing stages isn't a problem when products are collected.

Quote from LeBob

Your ignoring the political and psychological aspects of introducing a new energy source. Many people irrationally have a problem with diversifying and unleashing safer atomic power.

Mills is ignoring it and his investors too. Hot dry LENR produces no waste. H*-H* is waste if it is not properly collected or used for LENR!

Further: The energy density of H*-H* is to low to replace conventional reactors. But if he can manage to find a cyclic (cooling) process H* --> H again he is back in the game.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills is ignoring it and his investors too. Hot dry LENR produces no waste. H*-H* is waste if it is not properly collected or used for LENR!

Further: The energy density of H*-H* is to low to replace conventional reactors. But if he can manage to find a cyclic (cooling) process H* --> H again he is back in the game.

Touchè, it is a much better density than all current chemical/solar energy sources. And you also have to account for the engineering, bulky safety hardware and red tape of traditional PWR fission. H* energy and modular fission MSRs would probably work well in tandem considering dense hydrogen reactions apparently help deal with stablising nuclear waste. H* is useful outside of just possibly refrigeration and further energy production. Pico-chemistry could be a whole exciting amazing field of research when properly collected God willing!

But you are right if you were talking about completely annialating these H* condensates being the best energetic use. All cause you supposedly get high energy electrons and neutrinos mostly as a byproduct. Fusion/fission as we know them traditionally in isolation, though useful, aren't the endgame. Hydrogen metal pico-chemistry (catalyzed dense matter) would do all well with waste/chamber walls that isn't ionizing after years or at all, after that the next step is turning matter directly into electricity/light. Correct me if I'm wrong please 😅🙏🏽, assuming this is all real.

Quote from LeBob

But you are right if you were talking about completely annialating these H* condensates being the best energetic use. All cause you supposedly get high energy electrons and neutrinos mostly as a byproduct. Fusion/fission as we know them traditionally in isolation, though useful, aren't the endgame. Hydrogen metal pico-chemistry (catalyzed dense matter) would do all well with waste/chamber walls that isn't ionizing after years or at all, after that the next step is turning matter directly into electricity/light. Correct me if I'm wrong please 😅🙏🏽, assuming this is all real.

Help me with definitions. Is H* a dense state of matter that has released energy (hydrino) or a dense state of matter due to added energy and therefore and energy source relative to the ground state? Is the pico-chemistry due to magnetic bonding or what force? Are you suggesting that if a hydrino state, then as a below the ground state is should be better for high energy waste containment? If H* is energized above the ground state but produces little high energy radiation after transmutation, then what comes out to balance mass and energy? Strange radiation? Neutrinos without high energy electrons? Some matter- antimatter picochemistry without baryons? Some new positive and negative masses that bind by picochemistry to the transmutation product? If the output of these nuclear processes is equal amounts of matter and antimatter, then annihilation to directly produce electricity/light should be possible, right?