David,

First of all I am saddened that the military has caught on to
the principle that will artificially transform the isotopes
into useful energy. I personally did NOT want this technology to
be used in warfare.

The military has calling their device a "quantum nucleonic
reactor".
This is just another name for what T. H. Moray was doing in the
1920's! There is another inventor that goes back even earlier, whom
I am not going to reveal at this point because my proposed grant
paper
to the Rolex Awards and other research financiers will use this
earlier work as a foundation to my own work. There is a lot at
stake
as you should realize. My life's work is at risk here. I could end
up
losing credit for my research if the military complex gets a big
enough jump on me. Do you really think that they will give credit
to
what I have already accomplished?

The process to obtain useful energy from isotopes is not new to me.
I have been trying to introduce this energy source to the free
energy
community years now as you may already know.

There is a list of isotopes that can be used. I list them in my
book on
page # 41...

http://ionvalve.com/book7download.htm

This is a shareware version and a printed upgrade can be obtained
from
my online catalog.

As can be seen, hafnium-174 is not the best choice because of its
rarity
as you have pointed out here. The best choice appears to be
cadmium-113
to generate electrical energy. An alpha emitter like hafnium-174 is
going to produce heat. A beta emitter like cadmium-113 will
generate
free electrons that can be directly converted to useful electrical
current with little or no heat.

-Bruce A. Perreault



--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, David Sligar <audax22@e...>
wrote:

Sorry, wetmtech -- I can't go for your evaluation. The device as
described depends on what I would call a "charge" of halfnium --
a very scarce commodity -- and operates by triggering energy level
changes using xrays. True, the energy out could be ~60 times the
energy in, if you count only the xray trigger energy. This does
not
include the energy it takes to find, mine and refine the halfnium,
nor
does it take into account that halfnium is a (severely) limited
resource. This is nearly analogous to calling a nuclear power
plant a
source of free energy, since, during operation, virtually no energy
input is required in order to obtain the heat energy from nuclear
decay to run turbines, etc.

Regards, David Sligar


"wetmtech " wrote:

Go to www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406

if that doesn't work go to www.rense.com and read the story
about nuclear powered drone aircraft. They found a "quantum-
nucleonic reactor" that gives out 60 times the energy put in.

Maybe this doesn't fit somebody's definition of free energy
but I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
.......