The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.http://www.blacklightpower.com/The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
I want to link up this forum I've found recently, as it appears to be specific to nuclear propulsion as we are specific to spaceflight:http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 04/04/2009 06:46 pmThe JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.http://www.blacklightpower.com/The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.
Quote from: mlorrey on 04/04/2009 07:21 pmQuote from: GI-Thruster on 04/04/2009 06:46 pmThe JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.http://www.blacklightpower.com/The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory. I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed. That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now. There have been many thousands of observations. There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals. There are the NIAC studies done years ago. There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours. I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong. If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades. And truly, this is how science works. All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance. If it did not, the scientific process would not work.But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan. I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!" That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task. And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing. At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .