Bib,
Wow! you guys are harsh! I think Mills should be given the benefit of the
doubt. He has raised plenty of money & a lot of due diligence has been
done over the years. Why should he invite competition by proving anything?
Especially with the US Patent office problems.
At my age I don't have the inclination to try to follow the math of his
theory but it doesn't seem any crazier than assuming that the electron has
no dimension or the the universe originated from a singularity. In fact
within reasonable limits it does much easier than does QM.
He has published plenty of experimental material some of which I have
tried to verify through RF plasma experiments.
Some years ago I had some quartz gas tubes made up with Ar, H2, He, Ar+He,
H2+Ar H2+He and H2 with Strontium compound getter. These were all in the
2-8 Torr pressure range. I fired these with a 12V 127 MHz source with a
linear amp and tuner using copper collars around the tubes. I monitored
the power required to fire the tubes & maintain a plasma, light output &
temperature.
My results were interesting and indicated to me that Mills had discovered
a true anomaly. I could not fire the pure H2 (2 Torr the lowest pressure
tube) tube without a direct connection to internal electrodes. Pure Ar &
He were fired normally with copper collars taking 50 watts or so as did
the Ar+He mix. The 50/50 mix of Ar+H2 fired easily at ~ 1/2 the power
required for the pure Ar and the H2 with the Strontium tube (also at 2
torr) would easily make a plasma even without the linear amp with just a
few watts.
So my amateur home experiments were enough to convince myself that Mills
had a discovery and that he was worth following. I doubted that he could
come up with a system that had meaningful power density but it looks to me
as if he may have done it and good luck to him.
I gave up on Rossi some time ago.
Ron
--On Monday, March 27, 2017 10:16 AM -0600 Bob Higgins
<rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one quick bomb
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable,
and a paper was not published on it. If Mills wants to convince his
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and
analysis. He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside
his black box. He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to
make this measurement. He could establish credibility with one such
paper. If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result
with some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.
Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science. He shows
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to
something else.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Brian,
He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says he
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year. Obviously
he can't do that before.
You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof. I
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a
class "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.
Slightly related see.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-in
to-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
AA
On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
