Mills' Final Exam. Mills at one time titled his magnum opus "...Classical Quantum Mechanics" - I have an autographed hard copy of the edition. People who cling to Quantum Mechanics can be comforted by CQM. The mounting evidence is that a wholly *classical Physics* is a more correct description of Nature has led to current title of GUTCP with a consistent system of math over 85 orders of magnitude. Einstein failed in his quest for a GUT, few are yet willing to concede that Mills may have succeeded. One has to really go back to the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' that led to QM to understand what this is really all about.
Mills' quest has a final exam, which may well be the SunCell. Mills' lab uses first class scientific instruments calibrated to nation standards and cites them by name and number in reports, so there should be no question about the accuracy of reported readings. Here is an operating SunCell, one of several copies. Can its characteristics, including power output, be explained by any physical theory but the one contained in Mills papers? You may squirm and squiggle, but the answer is no, no matter how uncomfortable that may make you feel. I do not assert that GUTCP is correct in every detail. It is, after all, he work of one man, to be picked over by generations of grad students. But it stands as a monumental challenge to the physical world view of the 20th century. The final exam is now in progress, we are witnesses to history. It is not yet 'pencils down'. Mike Carrell -----Original Message----- From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview Can't Quite Makework On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Steven-- > > What does CQM stand for? I know constituent-quark model and Chinese > Quantum Method may be applicable. What else? > > Bob > > Sent from Windows Mail > > From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:38 AM > To: [email protected] > > Just to be clear here, I did not mean to imply that when I used the > term "close the loop" I was not speculating on the premise that BLP > was tapping into "free energy". > > > > In the meantime, I see many additional pet theories that have been > described here that seem to suggest CQM is an incorrect theory. > Personally, I find it very odd (and not particularly productive) that > most of the current discussion seems to have focused primarily on > defending whose favorite pet theory best explains the presumed > extraordinary energy claims BLP is producing. Few seem to focus on > what I think is the vastly more important > matter: Are BLP's claimed energy gains accurate readings. If they are, > CQM being correct or not, Mills has pulled the rabbit out of the hat. > We all win... well most of us win. The fossil fuel industry is likely > to be not very happy. Meanwhile, the PV industry will be ecstatic. > They will make out like gangbusters. > > > > Personally, It does not matter to me whether CQM is the correct > theory, or not. What matters to me is whether the energy gains are > accurate. If they are, CQM will have to be taken more seriously by the > entire scientific establishment. It's almost as if some here are > feeling a tad threatened by this possibility coming true. > > > > I do not mean to imply that I personally believe CQM is correct. Quite > frankly, I don't know because I honestly can't follow the math. I mean > to imply that the world would no longer be able to ignore CQM as they > currently do. CQM will have to be discussed more openly. And that's a > good thing. The controversial theory needs to be analyzed, tested, and > presumably falsified far more extensively than what the current > scientific establishment has cared to do. The current scientific > establishment has completely ignored Mills work. They have in fact > attempted to make CQM go away, implying that the upstart theory > doesn't follow politically accepted QM doctrine, such as to comply > with a plethora of probability models. Ignoring Mills' CQM > theory...not attempting to perform any kind of experimental > falsification on CQM's extraordinary claims has been, IMHO, a patently stupid > and self serving action. I have little respect for such lack of foresight. > > > > I would also add that we can all continue quibble over whose favorite > theory is the correct one after we have purchased our very own BLP > energy units and we are saving thousands of dollars in electric and > heating bills each year. After all, quibbling is a favorite pastime... and > it's cheap. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks > > > > From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview > > > > SVJ’summary of the interview is not bad at all. I caution the Vort > community to not use the “close the loop” est with regard to BLP. BLP > *is not* a free energy device. There is clearly a consumable, plain > water, of which we have lots. The BLP SunCell gets *lots* of energy > from the water, even from humidity in the air. Skepticism of the > numerical claims is natural, but should be regarded as an invitation > to study. The detonation light pulses last 0.5 ms, so at a 2,000/sec > firing rate, the output is effectively continuous and the SunCell > becomes a DC power source. Mills has already demonstrated with smooth > copper discs, so there seems no reason for not reaching the 2,000 detonation > rate. > > Mike Carrell > > From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview > > > > Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement > claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another > couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for > Classical Physics group, subject thread " rumors regarding July 21st > demo" Mills > states: > > > > Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition > off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC > prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] > > > > We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution > system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. > > > > On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: > > > > "When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble > gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and > explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion > discharge engine." > > > > Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a > crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's "Sun Cell (TM)" explosion > ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture > generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% > expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. > > > > FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) > can be viewed at: > > > > Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M > > Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU > > > > I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 > days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. > One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing > them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill > particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing > such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky > in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the > time. It was well worth my time. > > > > According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated > per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily > well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's > controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, > such as Jones who likes to use the "LOL" acronym a lot when discussing > Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, > I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or "agnostic" as I > noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when > discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when > utilizing BLP technology. ;-) > > > > Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are > concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar > as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed > multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of "Sun Cell > (tm)" light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to > 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an > obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating > kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims > several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal > of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous > explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an > engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a > jet engine would be far more difficult task. > > > > According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to > engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction > PV cells. > The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more > than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. > > > > BLP claims the amortization rate for paying off PV cells using BLP > "Sun Cell (TM)" technology would be in the neighborhood of about a > month. Higher efficiency triple cell PV technology may be capable of > cutting the amortization time down to just a couple of days. That > certainly sounds better than financing a 15 - 20 year loan in order to > attach a series of PV panels to my rooftop. > > > > The implication being inferred here is that electricity generated from > BLP technology may soon be "disposable". At least, that's what Randy > appears to be predicting. It goes without saying that the latest BLP > demonstrations and the claims appear to be extraordinary hard-to-take > at face value. Many within the Vort Collective are inherently > suspicious. I can appreciate such skepticism. All we can do is wait > and see what develops. Fortunately, the wait may not be long. > > > > FWIW, I'll go ahead and make a fool of myself and bet that BLP will > pull the rabbit out of the hat, possibly within six months... 12 months tops. > I mean: > closing the loop. Keep in mind I'm only betting for bragging rights. > ;-) > > > > (My current bet is subject to change without notice based on further > BLP developments - or bungles.) > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. > Department. ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
