QX Concepts - A less critical Rossi thread.

  • The only material I'm aware of that would be translucent to soft x-rays would beryllium or beryllium oxide.

    To cynics the idea of shrinking hydrogen to release energy and then allowing it to grow to the ground state again would be unphysical. However, if we are willing to accept the idea of a sea of vacuum energy then it becomes possible.

    I'm thinking that it's possible the conditions that allow extraction of vacuum energy and the conditions that allow LENR could be extremely similar. What would be very interesting is to run the same experiment with different combinations of gases (with or without gases that are expected to participate in LENR) and see if any excess energy appears. I'd find it fascinating to test the optimum noble gas combination alone and then test the same combination with hydrogen and then with hydrogen and lithium.

  • I wonder if Rossi has made a variation of the QX/SK with such a thin shell. Remember, there is a patent application that he titled something like transparent x-ray reactor with 1MEV excitation.

    My guess is that he can vary the type of radiation produced depending on the fuel composition and the degree of resonance he is generating in the plasma. If he is using deuterium I expect the radiation to be higher, but if he is using mostly light hydrogen and lithium I think it would be much less. I also wonder if he can tune the reactor so that the main mechanism of energy production is extracting electron-positron pairs.

    On another note, I'm curious what the main differences between the QX and SK could be. My guess is that he can boost the input power to increase the output while producing a similar COP. Boosting the input power any higher in the QX would probably melt the reactor tube.

  • Here are a few of the patent applications that might be relevant to the QX/SK.

    61/962,001 October 29, 2013 X Rays Transparent Reactor

    61/967,664 March 24, 2014 X-Ray Transparent Reactor and its Application in a Jet Engine

    62/124,114 December 9, 2014 Theory regarding reaction between nickel, lithium, hydrogen weak interaction energy and in a mirror effect reactor

    Unknown October 21, 2015 X-rays transparent reactor with 1 MEV exicitation

  • From Dr. Mills lecture at Fresno State.

    Start listening at 45:20

    "We improved the process some and right now at our lab anybody wants to come check with me, you can come in and check this out. But Right now it's making twenty million watts peak power from something that's seven millionths of a liter in scale. It is almost all silver and we've put in it the very small one weight percent of the catalyst hydrogen source and makes that kind of power. There's nothing on this planet even come remotely close to that like within a factor of about a million. Man it is incredible, incredible power that's coming out as light. High energy light. That's the spectrum right there."

    Did Randell Mills basically reveal without attempting to do so that the new BLP process produces nuclear levels of power output?

    Remember, according to his theory, the hydrino reaction can only produce around 200eV. If there is no chemical fuel that can come close to the power output by a factor of about a million, that makes it seem like the reactions in the Suncell are producing around 1MeV each or at least several hundred KeV.

    This makes me think the QX/SK and Suncell must both be using similar principles.

    I really wish that BLP would just admit that they are producing reactions beyond what is possible with the hydrino theory.

    So let's look what is similar in both.

    1) Most likely they are both using argon.

    2) They are both pulsing through the negative resistance zone and creating a plasma ball.

    3) This plasma ball will have a double layer.

    4) EVOs and ball lightning with such a double layer induces nuclear reactions.

    The main difference is that BLP uses liquid metal electrodes and Rossi uses solid electrodes.

    Also, Rossi is using lithium which has proven to be both a BLP catalyst and very susceptible to nuclear reactions.

  • Did Randell Mills basically reveal without attempting to do so that the new BLP process produces nuclear levels of power output? [...]

    Not necessarily. They're referring to power, not energy density. The specific hydrino transition they're using might produce only 200 eV (energy), but it might do it very quickly (energy/time).

  • If you listen to the video it sure seems he is trying to explain that a huge amount of energy is produced from a very small amount of fuel. It doesn't seem like he is saying the reaction is happening a million times faster than any conventional reaction. I would find it difficult to believe that their hydrino reaction is a factor of a million times faster than any traditional chemical reaction.

  • But only one molar percent of the silver shot was water. I'm not exactly sure how to do the math, but that means that probably only a couple milligrams of water was present. This means that even less hydrogen was present. I get the feeling that the amount of energy produced by the shot is thousands of times more than the potential chemical energy of hydrogen.

  • Unless I'm doing some silly mistake, a calculation with the provided figures doesn't seem to point to nuclear energy densities. R.Mills has always referred to exceptional power densities, not energy.

    0.08 g (80 mg) silver shots at 1% molar H2O should be 0.0008 g of H2O.

    Of this, 2/18 would be hydrogen, so 8.89E-5 g of H, or the same amount in moles of H.

    A net energy release up to 200 Joules per shot is claimed. Assuming it's just from H transitioning to lower Hydrino energy levels, that's 200/8.89E-5 = about 2250000 J/mol H => 2250 kJ/mol, about 8 times that of hydrogen combustion (286 kJ/mol).

    This is less than I expected but it should be a conservative value.

  • It would be beneficial to your understanding of these optical examples of high powered LENR to research the nature of negative photons, negative frequency of virtual particles and analog optical event horizons.


    The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

    The impact of something we thought couldn't exist has now been detected.

  • Hello Can,

    I just noticed your request in the text box.

    When it comes to the costs involved in replicating the QX/SK there are several different variables to consider. Depending upon these variables, the cost could go up or down significantly - not only in dollars/euros but also in labor.

    The first variable is the duration of the project. If it's going to be a short-term project which will make a few attempts and then stop if the effect doesn't become apparent, the cost would be lower than a longer-term project. Depending on how many people would be involved in such a project (more individuals working on it would reduce setup time both at first and between tests), I'm guessing this is a matter of a few week long project verses a few month long project. Of course if good results are obtained, the project would need to be extended even further. Personally, I'm not in favor of a short-term project because I think it's too easy to overlook simple but significant aspects that could have a very important - perhaps critical - impact on the results. But if a short term project is all that can be performed, it's better than nothing and guaranteeing the QX/SK fade away into obscurity.

    The second variable is the lab space and/or equipment that is already available verses what would need to be purchased. To be frank, I expect that the cost of these two could be the largest expense. If such a project already had access to a lab, a good quality oscilloscope or two, associated current probes, frequency generators, and so forth then several thousand dollars could be saved immediately, right from the start of the project. A bit of good news is that a savvy electronics guru could probably source these second hand from places like EBay for a fraction of the retail price if they were obtained new.

    In addition to the above, a power supply with a control system would need to be designed and fabricated. I'm unsure how much this would cost upfront. However, I expect that the cost of building a power supply and control system (which would require either someone very skilled in electronics or an actual electrical engineer) could be reduced if the parts were scrounged up or salvaged rather than purchased new. Another issue to think about is just how sophisticated does the power supply and control box need to be. I'm guessing that it doesn't have to be something extremely complex but simply designed carefully to have a high Q factor so the oscillations from the reactor can be maximized.

    Next, we'd need to think about materials. I'm not even going to consider custom materials here. If initial success is achieved and a need for some high tech material is encountered, then it can be worried about. For now, I think quartz, fused silica, or sapphire tubing (there are probably a few other transparent materials that could be used as well), nickel rods capable of being electroplated (if we want to coat it with a material like platinum which would be a poorer thermionic emitter and less likely to push us out of the negative resistance zone), high temperature sealant, perhaps some permanent magnets, wires/connectors, and a few other items would be needed. And, obviously, whatever would be needed to build a flow calorimeter to check for excess heat production. Finally, the fuel elements we would want to experiment with - Li, LiAlH4, LiH, argon, helium, etc.

    To give a precise cost is difficult for the reasons I've already stated. But I'd guess that if the right people were involved and they at least had the lab space and access to oscilloscopes, the cost would not be astronomical. I'd say that the final cost might only be five thousand dollars or maybe significantly less depending on how they were wanting to test it. Obviously, a spectrometer would cost more but a simple water flow calorimeter (basic hosts, pipes, seals, insulations, thermocouples) would cost less.

    All I can say is that if a third party doesn't test this technology to confirm or deny that it works, I'm almost certain it is going to fade into obscurity.

  • A spectrometer like Rossi's (the StellarNet Greenwave) is about US$2000 new.

    There was a pair of StellarNet Bluewave spectrometers on E-Bay for US$1650, which is a good deal if they work and have most of their components. The Bluewave is superior to the Greenwave, and sees shorter wavelengths in UV (down to 200 nm) than the Greenwave, and has much more software and electronic support than the budget Greenwave model.