Jones stated: “I am not sure what he hope (sic) to gain by these endless and inane pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility.”
I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi and is commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and without any kind of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or otherwise. I suspect gullibility and ignorance are not a concern to Ashfield, since he understands his own makeup quite well. Regarding Ashfield’s comments about plasma in CFL’s from the Vortex archives as follows: "Jones, I wonder if you are confused by the rating of a CFL being 5000C. The argon in a CFL is not nearly completely ionized, it is a gas discharge, but not a full plasma. Being fully ionized is not necessary for the CLF gas, which is merely there to hold the mercury that emits the UV radiation that excites the visible light emitting phosphors on the inside of the tube. The mercury efficiently emits much of the power that is deposited by the electric current, which keeps the gas cool.” This is consistent with my understanding of how CFL’s work. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable. Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances. The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law and facts. I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated. Brian Ahern wrote: I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi and Godes, but I did not comment on capacitors. From: a.ashfield 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> 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
