If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1. A guy
named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph of the
temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J. Randy then explain that the
input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was enclosed in an aluminum
sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the aluminum sphere shell also. He
then explained that if the fuel is detonated directly, that the input energy is
5J instead of 200+ J. They then explained that in this particular single
explosion, the COP was 4+.
It seems clear to me that Randy was not BSing us when he claimed that the
output energy was around 700J per explosion. The real question now is to
confirm the input energy. It seems to me that either way, that the COP clearly
appears to be overunity to the tune of 4(min) to >100.
Some folks like Jones will dismiss this as oxidation of the titanium powder
supplying the energy. But I challenged Jones to do the math on whether the
minuscule amount of titanium powder is sufficient to provide the energy output
seen. His response seems to be that it is not, that there is some other energy
output mechanism at work. Yet, despite all his answers, he will still not
acknowledge the revolutionary nature of this Mills invention.
Barring any really egregious fraud or misrepresentation in the bomb calorimetry
(ala DGT's water flow fraud), it is my opinion that we have a winner here.
More revolutionary that any other LENR or LENR-like free energy schemes out
there. The suncell, if it produces just 1% of its claimed calculated output
will run circles around everything else, including Rossi's hotcat and DGT's
non-existent mythical Hyperion creature.
Once again, don't get me wrong. I want Randy to fail. Yet, this latest demo
was very compelling to me, despite Mills' known history. Many inventors have a
long string of failures before phenomenal success. It might be wise not to
discount Randy because of his past failures. I'm not, and I'm hedging my
wave-powered plans accordingly.
I'm beginning to think there might be something to it in referring to Randy as
America's Newton. This is much much more than Rossi's "New Fire". The guy's a
Newton-like genius, albeit a rather eccentric and arrogant genius. (Most
geniuses are.) Ignore him at your own peril.
Jojo
BTW. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and a folly
unto him.
It would be good for one to properly "hear" the matter before "answering".
Maybe it is wise to watch the videos first.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
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
To: vortex-l
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
To: vortex-l
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
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.
