I hope you're right. It is in my interest to see the Suncell fail.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jojo,
A lot depends upon how accurately the input energy can be determined. It
would surprise me to find that the welder has precise control upon the current
and voltage waveforms at that level and time frame. These types of devices are
not instrument quality and control of the leakage fields, etc. is not
guaranteed.
I am not stating that the input energy is not well defined but instead remain
skeptical of the proof. The past track record of the company must be kept in
mind as well when reviewing their claims. Under these conditions I find myself
skeptical until shown otherwise.
We all hope that something will arise out of this demonstration, but it does
no good for us to become disappointed again.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 27, 2014 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
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.
