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. >>> >>> >>> >> >
