Welcome to the dark side :-)
I, too was highly skeptical of BLP and hydrino until the most recent demos. To
me, what was convincing were:
1. The Bomb Calorimetry. Absent an egregious attempt at fraud, I think the
data is compelling. I think that any egregious fraud would easily be
identified by the folks at the demo. I don't think they are gullible folks.
2. The intensity of the explosion. The intensity with an aluminum foil was
nothing. But when fuel was added, the sound, the intensity of the light and
the size of the apparent explosion was hard to ignore. (Can anybody at least
propose a chemical the size of a sesame seed that would produce a comparable
explosion intensity?)
3. The strong support of the 3 validators indicating that they have done their
homework and have eliminated many of the criticisms which we are discussing
here. The most compelling for me was the second validator from ARA - a defense
contractor. A person in that capacity would be extremely careful in endorsing
a "dubious" technology, so it seems he really has verified this and come out
convinced.
4. And believe it or not, the statements of our very own Jones. Jones
acknowledged that there is something else other than a chemical explosion. I
know Jones still thinks Mills is a fraud, but what is remarkable is not what he
said, but in what he has not said. He has been mum with regards to the source
of the energy. At least this is my assessment. Maybe Jones will now come out
and totally denounce Hydrino, who knows; or maybe he already has but I am not
processing it properly.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
OK was I was able to adopt an unreasonably open posture toward Mills's
presentation and spend time searching for the calorimetry in the demonstration
videos. What I found was intriguing enough to bother to do a little more
investigation and invest a bit of my personal credibility with a physicist
whose time I am hesitant to impose on but who is at least somewhat open to
looking at alternatives to "accepted" theory.
Two outcomes:
1) After a quick reading of key points of particular interest to him the
physicist is convinced Mills's theory is worthy of further consideration.
2) In part 2 of the July 21st demo, very near the end, is a report from a
professor at the University of Illinois that claims to have reproduced Mills's
heat phenomenon with rigorous calorimetry. I went to the University of
Illinois and have colleagues there that are skeptical of George Miley's work
there. My impression of the of the UofIL is that when a professor of
engineering there says something in his field of expertise, it is it is unwise
to discount it before giving it serious consideration.
I find this somewhat disconcerting because I've previously been relatively
skeptical toward BLP simply on the basis of its incompetently drafted press
release prior to its first demo of this year and the seeming appeal to 2
"miracles" at once:
1) The hydrino (the miracle here being that Mills has overturned most of the
20th century's authorities in physics).
2) That the hydrino explains the production of nuclear ash (columb masking)
of cold fusion experiments while at the same time providing substantial energy
(if not most of its energy) from hydrino chemistry.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't get it.
Why do people think Mills is relevant when, if he has made any energy in vs
energy out measurements at all, they are so buried in other material that any
reasonable man would give up long before finding them?
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can
a
>rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the
>rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate?
Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number,
however
even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be
10 kW
iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power
unit.
The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting
queue
any shorter. ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
