Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
Is this a report of the same demo for which we previously saw the video. I dont think the high voltage arc discharges appeared in the video, and seem to be quite different to the low voltage electric arc welder style demo. Both demos come within the patent description. For the high voltage discharge, Nick does not go into great details on the calorimetry, but seems convinced of the results. Nigel On 20/02/2014 03:38, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.
Re:[Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
JOnes, 0.5 C is easy enough to measure. What I found disappointing was the COP = 2.8
RE: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
-Original Message- From: a.ashfield 0.5 C is easy enough to measure. What I found disappointing was the COP = 2.8 Even that inflated estimate could go away with a poof when they measure P-in from the wall, which should always be done with pulsed power. But the huge disappointment in this report is basically that it is the Graneau line of experiment from nearly 20 years ago, also taken up by dozens of others who provide much more information than Mills. It is mildly OU but has been impossible to take further. Given that 6 years ago, Mills licensed half a dozen Utility companies to produce gigawatts of power in the Southwest, using his solid fuel reactor - what we should be seeing now is a full report on that progress - or a mea culpa on why it fizzled ... (it did fizzle, just like CIHT will fizzle in all likelihood, based on a two decades of disappointment, cloaked by silence.) Move on... nothing new to see here... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
I thought it was an interesting report, but I think a fundamental issue may be getting missed in the calorimetry of the BLP experiment. As I understand it, the calorimeter was modified to have the large copper electrodes that supply the very high spot welder current placed into the test chamber. These conductors will allow a lot of heat to flow out that will not get registered by the calorimeter because the whole apparatus is not in an enclosed box. To address this outflow of heat, null/blind experiments were run for calibration using spot welding of metals. However, as the author of the report points out, the nature of the energy release for the experiments with water was different - louder pop and light. This means that there was radiation (at least visible light) and probably ejecta from the actual experiment compared to the null blind. The blind experiments would have had more of their heat conducted out through the copper electrodes and the experiments with light and ejecta would deposit more of the heat to the calorimeter bomb shell. Even if the energy release were the same in the two cases, the calorimeter would show more heat in the case where there was light and ejecta and water vapor. Is this enough to make up for a factor of 2 difference in the measured heat? It is hard to say without having a better model for the apparatus, and the report does not provide any indication this this detailed level of modeling was done. Despite this, a factor of 2 should be discern-able after modeling if real. Bob Higgins On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
If the past is prolog, the Papp engine produced very little if any heat. The same will be true for the Mills engine. Mills engine energy production will come from two places: pressure/shock wave expansion with associated plasma movement and the production of excess electrons. These two energy sources were the source of the over unity power production derived from the Papp engine and these sources should be the same for the Mills engine. The one important engine design idea that has not made it into Mills' head yet is the requirement to setup positive feedback loops that leverage these two energy sources to optimize Mills engine power production. I fear that Mills fantasy doctrinaire will blind Mills to these important engine design priorities in the design and the development of the Mills engine. Can Mills discard the science religion that has fed him and built a legion of faithful and adoring followers be abruptly discarded in altruistic pursuit of truth and subsequent open source engine design success? It will never happen.
[Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. Everything extrapolated from that. LOL. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
What was the S:N ratio? On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.
