subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together\?"


Beene,
What makes you think that is Rossi?
Or do you just lap up fake news?

AA

On 3/28/2017 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery 
image of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...


https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/ 



It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is in this 
year, or perhaps AR is lecturing new hires at his factory in Miami 
where robotic mass production of the quark-X is underway... no? what 
about taking a break from audition for "Most Interesting Man in the 
World" beer ad ? Dos Equis can relabel it "quark-XX" if he gets the gig?


Stay thirsty my friend...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery image 
of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...


https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/

It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is in this year, 
or perhaps AR is lecturing new hires at his factory in Miami where 
robotic mass production of the quark-X is underway... no? what about 
taking a break from audition for "Most Interesting Man in the World" 
beer ad ? Dos Equis can relabel it "quark-XX" if he gets the gig?


Stay thirsty my friend...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
You don't get to order me not to comment.
As I said, it it probably better for you to insult those who are not 
here to answer you.  Otherwise they might show up your "palpable ignorance,"


AA

On 3/28/2017 12:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

 a.ashfield wrote:

I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody.  If you think my 
English is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.


Enough of this nonsense. How about this - I refrain from comment on 
your posts and you don't comment on mine...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


 a.ashfield wrote:

I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody.  If you think my 
English is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.


Enough of this nonsense. How about this - I refrain from comment on your 
posts and you don't comment on mine...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody.  If you think my English 
is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.


I have not said I KNOW if the E-Cat works, despite your claim.  I have 
consistently said "Wait and see."  II think it probably does work.  
Unlike you I don't automatically assume the evidence is all error or fraud.


As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should restrict your insults to 
those who are not here to defend themselves.


AA

On 3/28/2017 11:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:


I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi 
and is commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and 
without any kind of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or 
otherwise.




OK, he is not being paid - I will accept your word on that, although 
Rossi has on numerous occasions posted to his own forums, and possibly 
to a few others, using a made-up identity and making the customary and 
identical grammatical mistakes as a tip-off to the duplicity.


I am not saying that AA is Rossi's sock puppet or surrogate, but it is 
curious that he wants everyone else to withhold judgement on AR except 
himself... which does not sound very scientific to me. "Idealism" on 
any cause - though often admirable, can be dangerous when taken to 
extremes.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?



bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:


I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi and 
is commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and 
without any kind of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or 
otherwise.




OK, he is not being paid - I will accept your word on that, although 
Rossi has on numerous occasions posted to his own forums, and possibly 
to a few others, using a made-up identity and making the customary and 
identical grammatical mistakes as a tip-off to the duplicity.


I am not saying that AA is Rossi's sock puppet or surrogate, but it is 
curious that he wants everyone else to withhold judgement on AR except 
himself... which does not sound very scientific to me. "Idealism" on any 
cause - though often admirable, can be dangerous when taken to extremes.

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-28 Thread bobcook39923

Jones stated:

“I am not sure what he hope (sic) to gain by these endless and inane pro-Rossi 
postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. Apparently, since 
Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share the blame, instead of 
admitting his gullibility.”

I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi and is 
commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and without any kind 
of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or otherwise.   I suspect 
gullibility and ignorance are not a concern to Ashfield, since he understands 
his own makeup quite well.  

  Regarding Ashfield’s comments about plasma in CFL’s from the Vortex archives 
as follows:

"Jones,

I wonder if you are confused by the rating of a CFL being 5000C. The argon in a 
CFL is not nearly completely ionized, it is a gas discharge, but not a full 
plasma. Being fully ionized is not necessary for the CLF gas, which is merely 
there to hold the mercury that emits the UV radiation that excites the visible 
light emitting phosphors on the inside of the tube. The mercury efficiently 
emits much of the power that is deposited by the electric current, which keeps 
the gas cool.”

This is consistent with my understanding of how CFL’s work.  

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.

Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to account of 
the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that Mills power supply 
contains large caps - as shown in early images which Mills removed from his 
site. Either way that is ignorance of basic facts which explain the lack of a 
real anomaly based on appearances.

The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is further 
ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very long periods on 
capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea to stop so-called "libel" 
of Rossi is further ignorance of both law and facts.

I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane pro-Rossi 
postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. Apparently, since 
Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share the blame, instead of 
admitting his gullibility. He should be posting to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - 
where his views will be appreciated.


 Brian Ahern wrote:
I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did not 
comment on capacitors.


From: a.ashfield 
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after it.  
Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are attached to 
the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a plasma again?  
Mills' plasma can melt large  tungsten electrodes but of course that is no 
proof of high heat, right?
You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA

On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.

Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. Why hasn't 
Mills addressed this source.

Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he would have 
to submit to due diligence.

But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid this 
technological collision.

The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have succumbed 
to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest investment.   They 
cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful experiment, so the risk/rewards 
calculations are obtained by division by zero.


From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? 
 
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.


From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? 
 
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power why do 
you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

AA
On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.


From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? 
 
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you not 
think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  Several (hired) 
independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you think they are all 
lying?

AA

On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
A.    ..". there is good evidence that

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Ashfield,


You have already admitted that you do not know what is in the SunCell, 
so why would you try to save face by saying "what apparently is in the 
SunCell"?



That CFL analogy stands, no matter what you may think from your brief 
learning excursion into plasmas. There is no data from Mills to indicate 
otherwise.



And it is doubtful that Rossi could be libeled, even if that was the 
commenters intent, which it is not. Actually, I would love to see him 
succeed by showing real gain with real data. That is why I am on this 
forum - the operative word being "real". Rossi's reputation following 
the Petroldragon affair, for which he was never pardoned, BTW - 
eliminates the possibility of further damage, so ditch the "libel" crap.




On 3/28/2017 7:41 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

Beene,
"It (plasma) can simply be considered as a gaseous mixture of 
negatively charged electrons and highly charged positive ions, being 
created by heating a gas or by subjecting gas to a strong 
electromagnetic field. However, true plasma production is from the 
distinct separation of these ions and electrons that produces an 
electric field, which in turn, produces electric currents and magnetic 
fields" Wikipedia.
Apparently you think a relatively cool, partially ionized gas like a 
neon display is the same as a more fully ionized hot plasma in the 
sun, or  what apparently is in the SunCell.


You accuse me of not understanding capacitance well enough to know 
that they were used to fake the "self running" plasma.  Where did I 
say that didn't happen?  Earlier you claimed you had not written that.
You didn't give the period of self sustaining operation,nor the power 
required to run it unsustained, nor the capacity of the capacitors 
required t do that.  You simply waved your arms.  "Big" doesn't cut it.


If you used Occam's razor you would cut yourself because your bias is 
that neither the SunCell nor the E-Cat can possibly work, so ANY 
evidence that they do is either error or fraud.


Yes, you do make libelous statements although I doubt it is worth the 
time to go after you for them.


AA

On 3/28/2017 9:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images 
which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of 
basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on 
appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea 
to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law 
and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane 
pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. 
Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to 
share the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be 
posting to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be 
appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I 
did not comment on capacitors.





*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone 
after it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what 
conditions are attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but 
of course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of 
energy. Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by 
division by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently obs

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


ps.
My understanding of the capacitors was that they were required to start 
the plasma from cold.  Not clear if they are required with the new 
liquid silver electrodes.

AA

On 3/28/2017 9:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images 
which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of 
basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea 
to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law 
and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane 
pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. 
Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share 
the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting 
to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.





*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone 
after it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what 
conditions are attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but 
of course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by 
division by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input 
power why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, 
or do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a 
large amount of excess heat.."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. 
He could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within 
two days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it 
and conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure 
=  ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel exp

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
"It (plasma) can simply be considered as a gaseous mixture of negatively 
charged electrons and highly charged positive ions, being created by 
heating a gas or by subjecting gas to a strong electromagnetic field. 
However, true plasma production is from the distinct separation of these 
ions and electrons that produces an electric field, which in turn, 
produces electric currents and magnetic fields" Wikipedia.
Apparently you think a relatively cool, partially ionized gas like a 
neon display is the same as a more fully ionized hot plasma in the sun, 
or  what apparently is in the SunCell.


You accuse me of not understanding capacitance well enough to know that 
they were used to fake the "self running" plasma.  Where did I say that 
didn't happen?  Earlier you claimed you had not written that.
You didn't give the period of self sustaining operation,nor the power 
required to run it unsustained, nor the capacity of the capacitors 
required t do that.  You simply waved your arms.  "Big" doesn't cut it.


If you used Occam's razor you would cut yourself because your bias is 
that neither the SunCell nor the E-Cat can possibly work, so ANY 
evidence that they do is either error or fraud.


Yes, you do make libelous statements although I doubt it is worth the 
time to go after you for them.


AA

On 3/28/2017 9:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images 
which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of 
basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea 
to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law 
and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane 
pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. 
Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share 
the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting 
to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.





*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone 
after it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what 
conditions are attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but 
of course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by 
division by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input 
power why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images which 
Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of basic facts 
which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea to 
stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane pro-Rossi 
postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. Apparently, 
since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share the blame, 
instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting to Rossi's 
sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.





*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but of 
course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, 
or do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat.."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


On 3/26/2017 9:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
"Do you understand capacitance?"

You would do better if you stuck to insulting those that are not here to 
defend themselves.


AA


On 3/28/2017 5:31 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 9:48 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but of 
course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, 
or do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good 
evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, 
though one might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-28 Thread Brian Ahern

I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did not 
comment on capacitors.

From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after it.  
Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are attached to 
the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a plasma again?  
Mills' plasma can melt large  tungsten electrodes but of course that is no 
proof of high heat, right?
You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA

On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.

Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. Why hasn't 
Mills addressed this source.

Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he would have 
to submit to due diligence.

But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid this 
technological collision.

The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have succumbed 
to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest investment.   They 
cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful experiment, so the risk/rewards 
calculations are obtained by division by zero.

From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com><mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power why do 
you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.

From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you not 
think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  Several (hired) 
independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you think they are all 
lying?

AA

On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of 
excess heat..."

Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He could show 
water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two days of set up and 
calibration. I would offer to pay for it and conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure =  ambiguity 
coupled with  enticing potential profits = large investments while showing 
nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the point.  
Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether Mills is a 
genius or delusional.  That he can come up with values for particles that are 
more accurate than from QM and that his program can show the position nuclei 
and electrons for complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is 
premature to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.

AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have yet 
to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of those 
equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of the 
electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those equations.  If 
you can do th

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

I still thinks they will reach 500 degrees months before 3000 degrees. I
have got a lot of respect for getting that thing up to 3000.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:00 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
> essence.   If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that would
> still happen.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>
> >> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>
> I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a bad
> controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and verified, why not
> spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
> effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive equipment
> that used
> wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these risks
> are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not buy a Tesla
> and have some fun.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Stefan,
>> "I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close
>> the system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
>> functioning which is logical."
>>
>> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
>> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>>
>> As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close
>> the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
>> calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
>> short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
>> this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
>> the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
>> system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
>> functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
>> park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
>> several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
>> Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
>> from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
>> hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
>> as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
>> what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
>> energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
>> so if it turns out to be real.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
>>> even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb
>>> calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a
>>> paper was not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
>>> should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course
>>> of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe
>>> the experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have
>>> to publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
>>> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
>>> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
>>> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
>>> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>>>
>>> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
>>> of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
>>> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
>>> else.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Brian,

 He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
 will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
 photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
 can't do that before.

 You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
 have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
 "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

 Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
 pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
 cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

 AA

 On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

 It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
essence. If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that
would still happen.

On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>> That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water
calorimetry.

I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a
bad controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and
verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive
equipment that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these
risks are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not
buy a Tesla

and have some fun.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when
they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."

That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to
having photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with
water calorimetry.

On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:

As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old
water bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the
experiment after just a short time. Closing the system can reveal
new caveats and difficulties so this step can take considerable
more time than what we heard so far. I got the impression that
these validatoins will be done when they close the system
reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know
the ball park of the release of energy if they are honest, and
there have been several attempts to characterize this ballpark
and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and
rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just
the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences as
always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and
see, what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining
ride - making energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great
lol, and even greater so if it turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins
> wrote:

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he
has made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The
one quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude
calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not
published on it. If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve
hours). He should describe the experiment in detail, and
provide data and analysis. He wouldn't have to publish
anything about what is inside his black box. He doesn't need
to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.
He could establish credibility with one such paper. If he
published a credible paper, we would believe his result with
some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the
same class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated
science. He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never
published, and then he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.
Mills says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing
power soon after the required photovoltaics are developed
and in pace - later this year. Obviously he can't do
that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that,
without proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal
critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the
question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a plasma 
again?  Mills' plasma can melt large  tungsten electrodes but of course 
that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat? 
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or 
do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one 
might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived 
from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

>> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.

I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a bad
controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive equipment
that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these risks
are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not buy a Tesla
and have some fun.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Stefan,
> "I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close
> the system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
> functioning which is logical."
>
> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>
> As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close
> the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
> calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
> short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
> this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
> the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
> system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
> functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
> park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
> several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
> Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
> from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
> hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
> as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
> what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
> energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
> so if it turns out to be real.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
>> 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
>> demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
>> not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
>> publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
>> reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
>> experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
>> publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
>> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
>> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
>> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
>> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>>
>> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
>> pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
>> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
>> else.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
>>> will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
>>> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
>>> can't do that before.
>>>
>>> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
>>> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
>>> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>>>
>>> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
>>> pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
>>> cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>>>
>>> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>>>
>>>
>>> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Brian Ahern

Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. Why hasn't 
Mills addressed this source.


Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he would have 
to submit to due diligence.


But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid this 
technological collision.


The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have succumbed 
to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest investment.   They 
cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful experiment, so the risk/rewards 
calculations are obtained by division by zero.



From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power why do 
you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.



From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you not 
think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  Several (hired) 
independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you think they are all 
lying?

AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of 
excess heat..."


Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He could show 
water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two days of set up and 
calibration. I would offer to pay for it and conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure =  ambiguity 
coupled with  enticing potential profits = large investments while showing 
nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the point.  
Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether Mills is a 
genius or delusional.  That he can come up with values for particles that are 
more accurate than from QM and that his program can show the position nuclei 
and electrons for complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is 
premature to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.

AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have yet 
to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of those 
equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of the 
electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those equations.  If 
you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not 
possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not 
derived from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Russ George

Here here… the comment about the bogus candles of the Hot Fusion cabals for 
decades utterly outshines even ‘brilliant light’ illumination.

 

What transpires here in this whirling vortex is mostly ever dimming 
‘gaslighting’ by the usual suspects.

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Bob Higgins; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

Bob—

 

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

 

From: Bob Higgins <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

 

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

 

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they
close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."

That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.

On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water
bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after
just a short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and
difficulties so this step can take considerable more time than what we
heard so far. I got the impression that these validatoins will be done
when they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get
the photovoltaics functioning which is logical. But sure they should
know by know the ball park of the release of energy if they are
honest, and there have been several attempts to characterize this
ballpark and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and rules
of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just the videos
so the careful need to wait for better evidences as always. As I tell
all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see, what comes will
come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making energy from
constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater so if it
turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote:

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has
made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one
quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was
not believable, and a paper was not published on it. If Mills
wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable
time period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the
experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis. He wouldn't
have to publish anything about what is inside his black box. He
doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this
measurement. He could establish credibility with one such paper.
If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with

some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same
class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.
He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then

he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills
says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon
after the required photovoltaics are developed and in pace -
later this year. Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here
who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?"
Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close the
reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
so if it turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
> 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
> demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
> not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
> publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
> reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
> experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
> publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>
> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
> pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
> else.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will
>> demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
>> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
>> can't do that before.
>>
>> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
>> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
>> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>>
>> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
>> pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
>> cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>>
>> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>>
>>
>> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>>
>>

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread bobcook39923

Bob—

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.
Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA
On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread bobcook39923

Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion 
unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk 
and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for 
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - 
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature T/C’s to 
Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at MFMP.  I suggested he 
use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature measurements of the outside of his glow 
stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more than 2000 C I believe. 

 With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo is a 
reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it could well replace 
Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply for remote locations or space 
applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook






Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones— I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your definition 
of  scam-built  “half-truths” tests. We will see.
 
Bob Cook.
Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half... 47% 
actually. 

I support the conclusion of Bob Higgins who did a far better job analyzing the 
Lugano data than the Levi crew. Anyone interested in this topic should study 
his paper:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view

Bob's conclusion is this : the radiant power of Rossi's device is estimated to 
be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano crew ...

The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion 
unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk 
and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for 
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - 
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects. 

The only good news is that there "could have been" thermal gain after the 
optical correction was made - but because the original results were tainted 
with incompetence, we will never know for sure. The Swedes vowed to repeat the 
experiment with proper instrumentation, but failed to do so. In science one 
cannot quote a failed and corrected result as being indicative of success, even 
if it was "almost half right." 

Yet, like many here, I suspect that there could have been thermal gain. IH has 
an expert who presumably will say under oath there was none, but the best thing 
other interested parties can hope for is that the experiment is repeated by the 
Swedes some time in the future.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Bob,
" If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time
period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the experiment in
detail, and provide data and analysis."

I doubt he has any incentive to convert the skeptics. His schedule is
for a fully working SunCell this summer. From the comments here I doubt
even that will convince them

On 3/27/2017 12:16 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one quick bomb
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable,
and a paper was not published on it. If Mills wants to convince his
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and
analysis. He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside
his black box. He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to
make this measurement. He could establish credibility with one such
paper. If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result
with some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science. He shows
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to
something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says
he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the
required photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this
year. Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who
seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as
very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Ron Wormus


Bib,
Wow! you guys are harsh! I think Mills should be given the benefit of the 
doubt. He has raised plenty of money & a lot of due diligence has been 
done over the years. Why should he invite competition by proving anything? 
Especially with the US Patent office problems.


At my age I don't have the inclination to try to follow the math of his 
theory but it doesn't seem any crazier than assuming that the electron has 
no dimension or the the universe originated from a singularity. In fact 
within reasonable limits it does much easier than does QM.


He has published plenty of experimental material some of which I have 
tried to verify through RF plasma experiments.


Some years ago I had some quartz gas tubes made up with Ar, H2, He, Ar+He, 
H2+Ar H2+He and H2 with Strontium compound getter. These were all in the 
2-8 Torr pressure range. I fired these with a 12V 127 MHz source with a 
linear amp and tuner using copper collars around the tubes. I monitored 
the power required to fire the tubes & maintain a plasma, light output & 
temperature.


My results were interesting and indicated to me that Mills had discovered 
a true anomaly. I could not fire the pure H2 (2 Torr the lowest pressure 
tube) tube without a direct connection to internal electrodes. Pure Ar & 
He were fired normally with copper collars taking 50 watts or so as did 
the Ar+He mix. The 50/50 mix of Ar+H2 fired easily at ~ 1/2 the power 
required for the pure Ar and the H2 with the Strontium tube (also at 2 
torr) would easily make a plasma even without the linear amp with just a 
few watts.


So my amateur home experiments were enough to convince myself that Mills 
had a discovery and that he was worth following. I doubted that he could 
come up with a system that had meaningful power density but it looks to me 
as if he may have done it and good luck to him.


I gave up on Rossi some time ago.
Ron




--On Monday, March 27, 2017 10:16 AM -0600 Bob Higgins 
 wrote:





I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable,
and a paper was not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours). 
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and
analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside
his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such
paper.  If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result
with some measure of confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to
something else.





On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
wrote:


Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously
he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a
class "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see. 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-in
to-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA


On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:




It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.



If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-27 Thread Bob Higgins

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Brian,
>
> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will
> demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
> can't do that before.
>
> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>
> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-
> generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>
> AA
>
> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>
> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>
>
> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says he
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year. Obviously he
can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof. I
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a
class "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is >3500C. As it runs without any input power
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is
challenging.

*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or
do you think they are all lying?

On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large
amount of excess heat..."

Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and
conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is: No data = no failure =
ambiguity coupled with enticing potential profits = large
investments while showing nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement. I think that is the
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong. Likewise there is good evidence
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one
might quibble about the actual value.

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics. I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to make
sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly
based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very
helpful thing. My strong hunch: it is not possible, because the
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived
from them. But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?