On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected > his lightbulb? > ***Not at all. He had several successful inventions under his belt by that time. > > Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the > beautifully elegant language of Relativity mathematics? > ***My physics professor said that if Einstein had taken a certain math class as an undergraduate, his Relativity theory would have had far more rigor (note that he didn't get his Nobel Prize for the TOR, but on his work on the PhotoElectric effect in 1905. And there's some French dude that Einstein seems to have stolen from wholesale. > > PERIOD. > ***And your point is???? > > > 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. > ***Mills will fail. Best of luck with your design. > > > 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >
