Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC, which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time. I tried to track this down (with little actual success) and the few vague assertions I could find made it seem like combustion actually takes

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:00:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] > wrote: > >Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results >> in a >> power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of >> milliseconds, >> and that's

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

On 06/17/2016 06:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . . .1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn? For sure -- at least, in

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

wrote: Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results > in a > power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of > milliseconds, > and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;). > Really? Hmmm . . . How do you

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

Axil Axil wrote: Mills SunCell is now vaporizing the tungsten electrodes. Mills now produces > megawatts of power in the volume of a coffee cup . . . > Not for long. The coffee cup would explode or vaporize. Do you mean megajoules, perhaps? Some chemical systems can

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

Mills SunCell is now vaporizing the tungsten electrodes. Mills now produces megawatts of power in the volume of a coffee cup, Can energy release from chemistry explain this high power density? Can chemistry explain life after death of 10 times the input energy duration explainable using chemistry?

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:49:55 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy and >claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels of >energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:58:09 -0400: Hi, [snip] >This doesn't make sense because Mills has a theory which explains >precisely how much energy and power he expects to generate in each >experiment. He couldn't have made a mistake like this. Surely he has

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

On 06/17/2016 04:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his funding. These people, whoever they

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:38:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] >R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his experiments >were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the particular >characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has been a

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

>>> Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening inside the

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy and claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels of energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this situation, a way to tell what method was correct is not possible. Now over time, huge

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his funding. These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded for nothing.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he: 1) Discovered something unusual. 2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon. 3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding of this phenomenon. It's because he was working from theory which made his

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

>From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: > Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop this > process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it? > > Craig

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it? Craig On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes