Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after
it. Probably he doesn't need it. You don't know what conditions are
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst. Where in every house is there a plasma
again? Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but of course
that is no proof of high heat, right?
You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was. Talk about arrogance.
AA
On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.
Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy.
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.
Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he
would have to submit to due diligence.
But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid
this technological collision.
The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest
investment. They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division
by zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is >3500C. As it runs without any input power
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?
AA
On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is
challenging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or
do you think they are all lying?
AA
On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
A. ..". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large
amount of excess heat..."
Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and
conduct it for him.
Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.
The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is: No data = no failure =
ambiguity coupled with enticing potential profits = large
investments while showing nothing.
If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement. I think that is the
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong. Likewise there is good evidence
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one
might quibble about the actual value.
AA
On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics. I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.
Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to make
sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly
based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very
helpful thing. My strong hunch: it is not possible, because the
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived
from them. But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.
Eric
