Where, in the most recent demo video, is the calorimetry?

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected
> his lightbulb?
>
> Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the
> beautifully elegant language of Relativity mathematics?
>
> PERIOD.
>
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I want Mills to fail.  That would give my wave-powered
> power generation plants a fighting chance to compete in the new LENR
> environment.  I feel my design can compete with Rossi, but not with the
> Suncell.  It is just too revolutionary in my opinion.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 1:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
>
> If  you place your bet on  Miills, you  put it on someone with an
> incredibly lousy history.  Period.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an
>> explosion.  It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the
>> output of that single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember
>> exactly).  So, it appears incontrovertible that the output is around 700J
>> as Mills claims.
>>
>> Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.
>>
>> Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In
>> this case, it appears to be >100.
>>
>> I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly
>> overunity.
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
>>
>>  Jones:
>>
>> I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for
>> at least a decade.  He's brilliant.  He knows how to attract investors to
>> pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out.  Now he's seeing
>> Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat,
>> INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode.  He got
>> beat by Rossi and he either goes after all  his supposedly superior prior
>> solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come.  Mills will
>> be a patent warrior and nothing more.  None of his fun experiments will
>> come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market.
>>
>> You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments,
>> it's a death blow to his theory.  With the money that will soon be
>> attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows
>> will be dealt to his theory.  Maybe half of such death blows will have real
>> data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to
>> the fringes of History.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now
>>> online. I wish it was better organized.
>>>
>>> The most hyped up doc is here :
>>>
>>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons
>>> tration-Abbreviated.pdf
>>> <http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demonstration-Abbreviated.pdf>
>>>
>>> I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with
>>> any
>>> confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on.
>>> These could be inaccurate.
>>>
>>> 1)      There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant
>>> margin
>>> 2)      COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell
>>> conversion
>>> 3)      COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst
>>> rejuvenation and loses
>>> 4)      Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he
>>> has a better one under wraps)
>>> 5)      He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated
>>> in
>>> line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it
>>> is
>>> a great fuel.
>>> 6)      In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst,
>>> which
>>> is still under wraps, or else I missed it.
>>> 7)      Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation
>>> (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical
>>> gain.
>>> Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for
>>> Military
>>> uses) To be explained.
>>> 8)      Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The
>>> difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs
>>> much
>>> more.
>>> 9)      Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is
>>> probably
>>> a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is
>>> no
>>> doubt it is oxidized in the
>>> 10)     Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the
>>> general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not
>>> impressed with the level of openness here.
>>> 11)     If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is
>>> basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically .
>>>
>>> This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP:
>>>
>>> 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W,
>>> within 4 months.
>>>
>>> 2005: Only months away from commercialization.
>>>
>>> 2008: 50000 W, within 12 to 18 months.
>>>
>>> 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months.
>>>
>>> 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013
>>>
>>> 2014: 100000 W in 16 to 18 weeks.
>>>
>>> If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony
>>> show
>>> put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how
>>> contrived the whole thing is.
>>>
>>> However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will
>>> carry
>>> the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now.
>>> The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see
>>> this
>>> as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine.
>>>
>>> I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology
>>> is
>>> most likely not ready for prime time in the commercial arena, and there
>>> could be allegations of actual fraud this time around, if Mills does not
>>> have a commercial device in 2015. If his ace-in-the-hole is the Pentagon,
>>> then he will dodge a bullet by that tactic.
>>>
>>> IMO - there is no chance of a commercial device in 2015 for the general
>>> public or for Grid usage, if nano-titanium is required. This is not what
>>> we
>>> have been looking for as an affordable alternative to fossil fuel.
>>>
>>> Yet in the end - power could cost 10 times more than fossil fuel - and
>>> yet
>>> it would be great for weaponry. Admitting that from the start, however,
>>> does
>>> not bring enough investors to the table.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to