🚀 go-pugleaf

 DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov  writes
 
>Farrell says "I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the
>recombiner."  I was getting it with the recombiner too, John.  See 2) above.
>So can you explain the sequence?  I will be the first to admit that my
>experiments were not very good.  But not quite rubbish. (I know you did not
>call them rubbish, John.)  At the time I figured it would have taken about six
>months to do a good experiment.  I could not see a reason to try.
> 
>Tom Droege

1.  I did not call your experiments rubbish.  I did call your statement
that "Mills was a moving target" rubbish.  Mills was simply trying to help
you with an experiment that he did not recommend.

2.  I cannot explain your result (2).  I'll add it to the list of things
that I don't understand.

For what it is worth, I recommend, once again, that you not use a
recombiner. I cite the following reasons:

1.  The danger of explosion. 

2.  It is harder to get the excess heat.  Maybe it is contamination.  Maybe
it is H2 pressure.  There may be other reasons.  Mills has not spent much
time or effort on recombiners.

3.  If you get 50% excess heat with a recombiner you will be surprised that
people will still not believe it.  They will say that it is a chemical
reaction, heat transfer problems, cosmic ray interactions, and god knows
what all.

4.  The heat value of the recombination process is small compared to the
excess heat that can be produced.

The proposals (from the net and from private communications from net
readers) for demonstration of this process are under consideration by
HydroCatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.  My guess is that it will
not happen for a month or two.  At which time, the demo will be so
convincing that there will be no question of the energy producing potential
of this process.

A note to Dick Blue.  Keep your dust bin handy.

Best regards,

John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College