The Sun Cell has all the indicators of a LENR system: arc discharge, nanoparticles, and EMF output. Rather than infrared output as seen in the NiH system, the output is at high frequencies in the blue/green color spectrum.
Argon is a puzzle to me. The NiH system should work with argon as a gas but it does not. In the Sun Cell it does work. It could be that chlorine is the dielectric(.85) that insolates the titanium metal in the LENR nanoplasmonic process. Chlorine is a better dialectic than hydrogen(.65). Titanium has excellent reflective properties in the blue color range of the spectrum. I expect to see transmutation of both titanium and chlorine. This would prove that the Sun Cell is a LENR system and put an end to the Mills classical science in favor of quantum mechanics. I question why Mills needs any water to carry the reaction. Pure titanium in a chlorine envelope might work just as well. On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <jabow...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *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 <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 >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
