subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Is the SunCell a titanium burner\?"

 For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the light
is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.

Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
down shift light to varied wavelengths.

For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
dimensions.






On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if
 true, it came from some other mysterious process.
 It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
 fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
 their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I got
 the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
 the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait for
 the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
 I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
 therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
 to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
 verification documents later on.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:

 spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
 artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy ...


 There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
 spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
 CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
 for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
 report leaves open a range of possibilities.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Steve High

I realized this morning that I am mixing up the proposed final product with
the proof of concept prototype that Mills says he can bring out in twenty
weeks, which would have much less of a heat dissipation issue. Mea Culpa
for that. Vortex is such an amazing sandbox to play in, gotta be real
careful not to use it as a cat litter box :-)


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  From Steve High



  It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of

  100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the

  energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So

  how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15

  megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's

  engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of

  150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still

  think that's going to take some work.



 If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
 Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
 if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
 idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
 seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
 spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
 way of generating electricity than from heat  steam.) It's almost as if
 Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
 be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
 have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
 generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
 turn turbines to generate it.



 That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
 involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
 predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
 I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
 are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.



 Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how good they are... or not.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
* Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
hundred or even worse spectral capture?
* Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset is
being picked?

If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral fingerprint
being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
that would be very very improbable.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
 rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
 the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
 and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
 present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
 ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the light
 is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.

 Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
 light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
 down shift light to varied wavelengths.

 For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
 dimensions.






 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
 if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
 It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
 fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
 their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
 got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
 the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
 for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
 I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
 therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
 to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
 verification documents later on.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:

 spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
 artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy ...


 There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
 spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
 CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
 for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
 report leaves open a range of possibilities.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

*It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,*

The observation of the spectral line came first, then the theory was
designed to fit that data. If the production of the nanostructures are
consistent over time, it could then be said that the theory predicts those
lines.

It is the lines that made the theory, not the theory that make the lines.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
 theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
 * Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
 hundred or even worse spectral capture?
 * Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset is
 being picked?

 If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral fingerprint
 being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
 that would be very very improbable.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
 rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
 the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
 and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
 present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
 ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the
 light is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.

 Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
 light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
 down shift light to varied wavelengths.

 For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
 dimensions.






 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
 if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
 It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
 fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
 their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
 got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
 the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
 for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
 I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
 therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
 to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
 verification documents later on.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:

 spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
 artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy 
 ...


 There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
 spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
 CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
 for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
 report leaves open a range of possibilities.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Steve High

I think the 15 MW  would be a continuous smoothed-out number related to the
10 MW of electric power that the proposed final product would emit


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote:


 So how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15
 megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's engineers
 will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of 150,000 100 watt
 bulbs from a one by one by one meter box.I still think that's going to take
 some work.


 15 MW continued for how long? A nanosecond? It would not be a problem
 dispersing 0.015 J. A millisecond? 15 kJ is still not a problem.

 This is supposed to be flash, isn't it?

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment
of the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  From Steve High



  It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of

  100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the

  energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So

  how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15

  megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's

  engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of

  150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still

  think that's going to take some work.



 If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
 Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
 if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
 idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
 seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
 spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
 way of generating electricity than from heat  steam.) It's almost as if
 Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
 be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
 have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
 generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
 turn turbines to generate it.



 That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
 involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
 predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
 I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
 are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.



 Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how good they are... or not.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Jojo Iznart

Come on my friend.  It's these kinds of hyper-scarmongerism that causes LENR 
advocates to loose credibility.

Is there any reason why the suncell can not be installed inside a rudimentary 
Faraday cage?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment of 
the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.



  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

From Steve High



 It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of

 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the

 energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So

 how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15

 megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's

 engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of

 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still

 think that's going to take some work.



If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if Mills 
was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as if he 
simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the idea of 
collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills seemed, at 
least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light spectrum for PV 
cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct way of generating 
electricity than from heat  steam.) It's almost as if Mills may be missing the 
much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to be a huge amount of generated 
heat that perhaps in the end may very well have very good industrial 
applications. This may include the possibility of generating electricity the 
old fashion way via from steam which in turn, turn turbines to generate it.



That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms 
involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is 
predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter. I 
don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they are, 
after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.



Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how good they are... or not.



Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Its the same reason way the testers of Rossi's reactor must use a thermal
camera to measure temperature.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  Come on my friend.  It's these kinds of hyper-scarmongerism that
 causes LENR advocates to loose credibility.

 Is there any reason why the suncell can not be installed inside a
 rudimentary Faraday cage?



 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:09 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

 The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment
 of the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  From Steve High



  It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of

  100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the

  energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So

  how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15

  megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's

  engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of

  150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still

  think that's going to take some work.



 If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
 Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
 if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
 idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
 seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
 spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
 way of generating electricity than from heat  steam.) It's almost as if
 Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
 be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
 have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
 generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
 turn turbines to generate it.



 That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
 involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
 predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
 I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
 are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.



 Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how good they are... or not.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

No the assumptions is really not that parameterized. It was developed to
fit the atomic data, the hydrino was a consequence of that theory that came
after. the theory cannot have been adjusted after that, so there is no such
parameters in the theory. But the theory can produce a lot of spectral
lines and if there have been a selection there, which I doubt, you could
get some faulty evidences.

The assumption is
1. a trped photon
2. a charge distribution of charge -e
3. a proton still at origo and charge e
4. A boundary condition of the charge such that there is no radiation

That's it, everything is pure deduction and Mills end up calculating in
principle everything from this. Of cause you can cheat when it comes
to theory. But I have never seen anyone point to specific parts in his
theory where he does that. In fact there is claims of that, but when you
press them to point out where, they simply just assumes that after reading
wikipedia or such that it so it is working. That's the science of the
critiques, it's piss poor.
there is some summary abstract negative judgement that is plain wrong
(Rathke) or there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos
because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true. It's a
sorrow state of humanity to have spent 25 years of claiming Mills
theory crackpot theory and not give an inch of an ack for many things that
are obviously very correct. I'm ashamed of our science and glad I took
another path then going for a physics degree.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
 theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,*

 The observation of the spectral line came first, then the theory was
 designed to fit that data. If the production of the nanostructures are
 consistent over time, it could then be said that the theory predicts those
 lines.

 It is the lines that made the theory, not the theory that make the lines.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
 theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
 * Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
 hundred or even worse spectral capture?
 * Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset
 is being picked?

 If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral
 fingerprint being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
 that would be very very improbable.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can
 give rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols
 containing the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong
 absorption and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that
 are not present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in
 the ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the
 light is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.

 Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
 light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
 down shift light to varied wavelengths.

 For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
 dimensions.






 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
 if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
 It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
 fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
 their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
 got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
 the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
 for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
 I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
 therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
 to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
 verification documents later on.


 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:

 spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
 artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy 
 ...


 There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
 spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to 
 Harvard
 CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
 for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
 report leaves open a range of possibilities.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if
 true, it came from some other mysterious process.


Perhaps it would help if we could move beyond generalizations and get
concrete.  Would you be willing to provide some spectral predictions that
we can look at?  (Please forgive my ignorance of specifics of Mill's
theory.)  Just a handful will do.  Hopefully they will be straightforward,
and ideally they will be different from the quotidien kind of thing you see
in LENR experiments; if they are not different, we'll need to start
considering the possibility that Hydrinos and LENR are identical (which I
understand Mills has disavowed).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos
 because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true.


Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're
dual, as you have suggested previously.  If so, could you help me to
understand where the prediction of a broadband spectrum comes from?  This
is the explanation as I have seen in promotional literature:  as the
electron goes to deeper redundant levels, first it yields a kick to the
Mills catalyst via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and then it
spirals down, giving off broadband emission.  QED says that electrons
radiate emissions in sharp peaks as they relax (or excite) from one
quantized energy level to another.  In effect, they tunnel from one level
to another, and the *single* photon that is given off has an energy that is
the delta of the two levels.  In QED, there is an explicit understanding
that there is no classical spiraling down.  The spectra bear this out, as
there are lines for the hydrogen atom at the non-redundant levels rather
than broadband emissions.  Broadband emissions suggest multiple photons, or
another particle that is involved, or something else I haven't been
acquainted with.

My questions:

   - Is QED's claim about sharp lines and instantaneous transitions wrong
   for the non-redundant electron levels?
   - If it is not wrong, why are there sharp lines for the non-redundant
   levels and then broadband emissions for the redundant levels?  Where does
   the discontinuity arise from?

This kind of detail may seem like a trifling point to worry about; but it's
actually very important.  People have spent their whole lives looking at
this type of question.  One should not just wave it away.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're
 dual, as you have suggested previously.

 This has puzzled me also.  A single transition is 27.2 eV which is in the
uV range not visible.  Higher energies are from multiple transitions and
less visible.  I guess I just don't understand hydrino theory.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Eric Walker

I wrote:

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way the testing done on
 behalf of BLP at Harvard-Smithsonian CfA is characterized.


What I need to come clean with is that I've been a little unfair, here.
 Because it turns out that the University of California at Berkeley has
provided crucial backing for the idea some of us have been playing around
with, that LENR is the result of microscopic electric arc discharges.

What I mean is that people at Berkeley have rendered invaluable assistance
in developing this general line of thought.

What I mean is that the staff at the Doe Library have been crucial in
directing me to where I could get a visitor library card, so that I could
look at journal articles.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Bob Higgins

I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills
demo calorimetry may be flawed.  I hope the enclosed diagram will come
through to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to
make this a small image file.  If it doesn’t come through, I apologize.
 Since I was not there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I
believe was used - and this is just reasonable speculation.




If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one
would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal
to Ein.  If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat
measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat.  In the ideal calorimeter, all
heat generated inside gets measured, 100%.


Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large
electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the
detonation occurs inside.  In general, the apparatus to provide the source
energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large).  In
this simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the
calorimeter:  1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures
Qmeas), and 2) through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond.  Since
there is a large current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to
insert something in the conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow
going through the conductor.  So, what to do?  Well, Ein is usually
measurable electrically.  To find Qcond, then perform a reference (blind)
experiment.  Don’t put anything inside the arc gap, fire it with energy,
Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate


   Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1


Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it.  You think
Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output
as


   Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1


and you go on to calculate the COP as


   COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein   (presuming Ein is constant for now)



So, where is the flaw in this?  Consider (for a mental experiment) that for
the blind you evacuated the calorimeter.  When the arc is fired, all of its
electrons will impact the positive electrode.  Most of the energy will be
deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as
Qcond; very little will show up in Qmeas.  In this case Qcond may be fairly
close to Ein.


Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t
short the electrodes), and you fire the arc.  Most of the electrons will
impact the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature.  There
will be some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very
hot.  In this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as
Qmeas, and Qcond will be smaller than the vacuum case.


Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc.  As the demonstration
showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter.  This doesn’t
necessarily mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean
that there was more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon
radiation.  All of the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy
away from the arc and Qcond is less still.


Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst
is used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind
calibration calculation.  When the COP is calculated as


   COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein


it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger
than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount.
Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in
all tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create
a similar, but slightly less error in the COP.


Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2.  Because of this kind of error,
the COP could easily have been closer to 1.  This is an extremely difficult
modified calorimeter to calibrate.  Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source
small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny
capacitor charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate
measurement.

Bob Higgins


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  2.  I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry.  Larger
 conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current
 is lower.  Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal
 mass and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be
 lower.  The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise.  If there
 is a large thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower
 temperature rise inside.   If any, the modifications you object to would
 UNDER estimate the output power.  Besides, it matters not if there is a
 large conductor.  You claim that these larger conductor carried heat.
 Yea??? heat from where to where.  Everything is

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Jojo Iznart

Bob, if you view the video where the calorimetry was being demonstrated, it 
appears that the heat was calculated from the temp rise.  It seems to me that 
if there was Qcond being conducted out of the conductor, it was ignore.  That 
means that the energy output was underestimated because Qcond was not measured 
at all; only the temp rise in the calorimeter was considered.

Also, the COP was 4+ based on this specific single explosion, Mills did not 
claim COP of 2.


Jojo

 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills 
demo calorimetry may be flawed.  I hope the enclosed diagram will come through 
to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to make this a 
small image file.  If it doesn’t come through, I apologize.  Since I was not 
there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I believe was used - and 
this is just reasonable speculation.




  


  If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one 
would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal to 
Ein.  If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat 
measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat.  In the ideal calorimeter, all 
heat generated inside gets measured, 100%.




  Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large 
electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the 
detonation occurs inside.  In general, the apparatus to provide the source 
energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large).  In this 
simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the calorimeter: 
 1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures Qmeas), and 2) 
through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond.  Since there is a large 
current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to insert something in the 
conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow going through the conductor.  
So, what to do?  Well, Ein is usually measurable electrically.  To find Qcond, 
then perform a reference (blind) experiment.  Don’t put anything inside the arc 
gap, fire it with energy, Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate 




 Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1




  Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it.  You think 
Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output as 




 Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1




  and you go on to calculate the COP as 




 COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein   (presuming Ein is constant for now)



  So, where is the flaw in this?  Consider (for a mental experiment) that for 
the blind you evacuated the calorimeter.  When the arc is fired, all of its 
electrons will impact the positive electrode.  Most of the energy will be 
deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as Qcond; 
very little will show up in Qmeas.  In this case Qcond may be fairly close to 
Ein.  




  Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t 
short the electrodes), and you fire the arc.  Most of the electrons will impact 
the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature.  There will be 
some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very hot.  In 
this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as Qmeas, and Qcond 
will be smaller than the vacuum case.




  Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc.  As the demonstration 
showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter.  This doesn’t necessarily 
mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean that there was 
more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon radiation.  All of 
the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy away from the arc and 
Qcond is less still.  




  Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst is 
used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind calibration 
calculation.  When the COP is calculated as




 COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein




  it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger 
than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount.  
Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in all 
tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create a 
similar, but slightly less error in the COP.




  Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2.  Because of this kind of error, the 
COP could easily have been closer to 1.  This is an extremely difficult 
modified calorimeter to calibrate.  Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source 
small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny capacitor 
charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate measurement.


  Bob Higgins



  On Mon, Jul 28

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his 
lightbulb?

Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the beautifully 
elegant language of Relativity mathematics?

PERIOD.



Don't get me wrong, I want Mills to fail.  That would give my wave-powered 
power generation plants a fighting chance to compete in the new LENR 
environment.  I feel my design can compete with Rossi, but not with the 
Suncell.  It is just too revolutionary in my opinion.


Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  If  you place your bet on  Miills, you  put it on someone with an incredibly 
lousy history.  Period.  




  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion.  It 
was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that 
single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly).  So, it appears 
incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims.  

Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.  

Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In this 
case, it appears to be 100.

I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly 
overunity.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Jones:

  I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for 
at least a decade.  He's brilliant.  He knows how to attract investors to 
pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out.  Now he's seeing Rossi 
with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT 
third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode.  He got beat by Rossi and 
he either goes after all  his supposedly superior prior  solutions or he gets 
ready for the patent war that is to come.  Mills will be a patent warrior and 
nothing more.  None of his fun experiments will come to fruition in the 
industrial/commercial nor consumer market.  


  You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, 
it's a death blow to his theory.  With the money that will soon be attracted to 
this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to 
his theory.  Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than 
contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of 
History.  




  On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now
online. I wish it was better organized.

The most hyped up doc is here :

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons
tration-Abbreviated.pdf

I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not 
with any
confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on.
These could be inaccurate.

1)  There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant 
margin
2)  COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell
conversion
3)  COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst
rejuvenation and loses
4)  Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills 
he
has a better one under wraps)
5)  He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated 
in
line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, 
it is
a great fuel.
6)  In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, 
which
is still under wraps, or else I missed it.
7)  Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation
(combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical 
gain.
Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for 
Military
uses) To be explained.
8)  Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. 
The
difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs 
much
more.
9)  Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is 
probably
a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is 
no
doubt it is oxidized in the
10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the
general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not
impressed with the level of openness here.
11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is
basically

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread James Bowery

Where, in the most recent demo video, is the calorimetry?

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected
his lightbulb?

Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the
beautifully elegant language of Relativity mathematics?

PERIOD.

Don't get me wrong, I want Mills to fail. That would give my wave-powered
power generation plants a fighting chance to compete in the new LENR
environment. I feel my design can compete with Rossi, but not with the
Suncell. It is just too revolutionary in my opinion.

Jojo

- Original Message -
*From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 1:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

If you place your bet on Miills, you put it on someone with an
incredibly lousy history. Period.

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an
explosion. It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the
output of that single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember
exactly). So, it appears incontrovertible that the output is around 700J
as Mills claims.

Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.

Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP. In
this case, it appears to be 100.

I am not sure where the controversy is. COP appears to be clearly
overunity.

Jojo

- Original Message -
*From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jones:

I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for
at least a decade. He's brilliant. He knows how to attract investors to
pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out. Now he's seeing
Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat,
INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode. He got
beat by Rossi and he either goes after all his supposedly superior prior
solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come. Mills will
be a patent warrior and nothing more. None of his fun experiments will
come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market.

You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments,
it's a death blow to his theory. With the money that will soon be
attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows
will be dealt to his theory. Maybe half of such death blows will have real
data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to
the fringes of History.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now
online. I wish it was better organized.

The most hyped up doc is here :

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons
tration-Abbreviated.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demonstration-Abbreviated.pdf

I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with
any
confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on.
These could be inaccurate.

1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant
margin
2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell
conversion
3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst
rejuvenation and loses
4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he
has a better one under wraps)
5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated
in
line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it
is
a great fuel.
6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst,
which
is still under wraps, or else I missed it.
7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation
(combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical
gain.
Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for
Military
uses) To be explained.
8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The
difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs
much
more.
9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is
probably
a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is
no
doubt it is oxidized in the
10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the
general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not
impressed with the level of openness here.
11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his
 lightbulb?


No, he had a fabulous history. He was one of the successful and celebrated
inventors in history by 1879, with breakthroughs in telegraphy, the
phonograph and electricity. He often infuriated his investors by spending
far more than they expected, but they kept coming back because he made
fortunes for them and for himself.

Here is a timeline of some of his major inventions. There were many others
not listed here that were quite lucrative:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/scripts/s19t.htm

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Point is, he had a long string of failures before his successes.  But feel free 
to disagree with me.  I won't hold it against you.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:


But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his 
lightbulb?


  No, he had a fabulous history. He was one of the successful and celebrated 
inventors in history by 1879, with breakthroughs in telegraphy, the phonograph 
and electricity. He often infuriated his investors by spending far more than 
they expected, but they kept coming back because he made fortunes for them and 
for himself.


  Here is a timeline of some of his major inventions. There were many others 
not listed here that were quite lucrative:


  http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/scripts/s19t.htm



  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:


 Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.

 Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In
 this case, it appears to be 100.

 I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly
 overunity.


Most explosions are over-unity, including most chemical explosions. So is
an ordinary fire. The question is: How much potential chemical energy is
there in the starting materials? To answer that clearly, Mills should have
spent 5 or 10 minutes introducing the experiment and listing all of the
materials and the potential chemical energy from various ways of reacting
them. That is what McKubre did in his first book about cold fusion, as I
described here on p. 12:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Point is, he had a long string of failures before his successes.  But feel
 free to disagree with me.  I won't hold it against you.


What do you mean failure? Commercial failures? No, his inventions nearly
always made money. If you mean he went through several potential designs
for the lightbulb, and he tested many filament materials, then yes, he did.
This can be seen in his laboratory log books:

http://edison.rutgers.edu/

. . .  or in any history of his work. It took over a year to perfect the
light bulb. But he wasn't just working on the bulb. He also improved
generators, invented meters, methods of wiring, methods of attaching bulbs,
light switches, distribution networks, and many other patent-able features.
The key invention was the high resistance light bulb that could be wired in
parallel. Series incandescent bulb were invented 20 years before that, by
Farmer and other people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I wrote:


 What do you mean failure? Commercial failures? No, his inventions nearly
 always made money. If you mean he went through several potential designs
 for the lightbulb . . .


He also had some epic demonstration failures in 1878 and '79, when
investors visited his house to see the light bulbs in action, and the
lights burst and set fire to the curtains. His wife escorted the visitors
out to the dining room while his assistants batted out the fires. The
investors were getting nervous.

It sounds like demonstrating computer software in 1979, or cold fusion
today.

The newspapers and his commercial and academic rivals had declared him a
failure which may be where Jojo Iznart got idea he failed. By 1879 he was
a expert in dealing with naysayer nitwits. In late winter Edison staged
demonstrations lighting his buildings at night. These attracted thousands
of people from New York. He as a master at public relations, unlike today's
cold fusion researchers or Mills.

In 1883 Edison's people installed stand-alone lighting in some prominent
wealthy houses in New York City. They burned out J. P. Morgan's library.
This is described in the book Empires of Light. Morgan took it in stride,
and was eventually delighted by lighting.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

Mills should have spent 5 or 10 minutes introducing the experiment and
listing all of the materials and the potential chemical energy from various
ways of reacting them. That is what McKubre did in his first book about
cold fusion, as I described here on p. 12:

He does have validators saying that the searched and did not find
the alternate explanation of the heat. And say so himself. I agree that for
scientific purposes it is not well done validation not
writing down the pathes they searched. But I'm sure anyone who like to
verify the claims can talk with them and get the list. Indeed we should ask
for Mills to supply this information.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:


 Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.

 Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In
 this case, it appears to be 100.

 I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly
 overunity.


 Most explosions are over-unity, including most chemical explosions. So is
 an ordinary fire. The question is: How much potential chemical energy is
 there in the starting materials? To answer that clearly, Mills should have
 spent 5 or 10 minutes introducing the experiment and listing all of the
 materials and the potential chemical energy from various ways of reacting
 them. That is what McKubre did in his first book about cold fusion, as I
 described here on p. 12:

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1.  A guy 
named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph of the 
temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then explain that the 
input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was enclosed in an aluminum 
sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the aluminum sphere shell also.  He 
then explained that if the fuel is detonated directly, that the input energy is 
5J instead of 200+ J.  They then explained that in this particular single 
explosion, the COP was 4+.  

It seems clear to me that Randy was not BSing us when he claimed that the 
output energy was around 700J per explosion.  The real question now is to 
confirm the input energy.  It seems to me that either way, that the COP clearly 
appears to be overunity to the tune of 4(min) to 100.

Some folks like Jones will dismiss this as oxidation of the titanium powder 
supplying the energy.  But I challenged Jones to do the math on whether the 
minuscule amount of titanium powder is sufficient to provide the energy output 
seen.  His response seems to be that it is not, that there is some other energy 
output mechanism at work.  Yet, despite all his answers, he will still not 
acknowledge the revolutionary nature of this Mills invention.

Barring any really egregious fraud or misrepresentation in the bomb calorimetry 
(ala DGT's water flow fraud), it is my opinion that we have a winner here.  
More revolutionary that any other LENR or LENR-like free energy schemes out 
there.  The suncell, if it produces just 1% of its claimed calculated output 
will run circles around everything else, including Rossi's hotcat and DGT's 
non-existent mythical Hyperion creature.


Once again, don't get me wrong.  I want Randy to fail.  Yet, this latest demo 
was very compelling to me, despite Mills' known history.  Many inventors have a 
long string of failures before phenomenal success.  It might be wise not to 
discount Randy because of his past failures. I'm not, and I'm hedging my 
wave-powered plans accordingly. 

I'm beginning to think there might be something to it in referring to Randy as 
America's Newton.  This is much much more than Rossi's New Fire.  The guy's a 
Newton-like genius, albeit a rather eccentric and arrogant genius.  (Most 
geniuses are.)  Ignore him at your own peril.



Jojo


BTW. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and a folly 
unto him. 

It would be good for one to properly hear the matter before answering.  
Maybe it is wise to watch the videos first.



  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Where, in the most recent demo video, is the calorimetry?



  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his 
lightbulb?

Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the beautifully 
elegant language of Relativity mathematics?

PERIOD.



Don't get me wrong, I want Mills to fail.  That would give my wave-powered 
power generation plants a fighting chance to compete in the new LENR 
environment.  I feel my design can compete with Rossi, but not with the 
Suncell.  It is just too revolutionary in my opinion.


Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  If  you place your bet on  Miills, you  put it on someone with an 
incredibly lousy history.  Period.  




  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com 
wrote:

In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion. 
 It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that 
single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly).  So, it appears 
incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims.  

Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.  

Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In 
this case, it appears to be 100.

I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly 
overunity.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Jones:

  I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters 
for at least a decade.  He's brilliant.  He knows how to attract investors to 
pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out.  Now he's seeing Rossi 
with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT 
third party submission... Mills

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I blamed Mills for revealing too much in his demos, now you are asking him to 
reveal more secrets.  I don't think that's wise.  If he will have any 
commercial success at all, he must learn how to keep his secrets a little 
better.

We as outside observers will have to be content with what Mills reveals.  He is 
under no obligation to reveal to us or to convince us.  He just needs to reveal 
to his investors and convnce them.  And Judging from the absence of any 
investor screaming fraud, it seems to me that he has satisfied this one 
obligation.

We, on the other hand, will have to judge based on the limited info given to 
us.  And based on this most recent demo, I find his claims compelling, while 
not complete.  Compelling enough to reevaluate my investment plans for my 
wave-powered project.

Regarding the overunity of chemical reactions, sure it is.  But I challenged 
Jones or anyone else to do the math if this explosion can be explained 
chemically.  I challenged others to do this cause I don't know how to do it.  
If you can provide the math to show that it is possible to explain the energy 
from the chemical oxidation of titanium, then please do so.  This is a fair 
challenge, isn't it?

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.  

Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In this 
case, it appears to be 100.

I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly 
overunity.


  Most explosions are over-unity, including most chemical explosions. So is an 
ordinary fire. The question is: How much potential chemical energy is there in 
the starting materials? To answer that clearly, Mills should have spent 5 or 10 
minutes introducing the experiment and listing all of the materials and the 
potential chemical energy from various ways of reacting them. That is what 
McKubre did in his first book about cold fusion, as I described here on p. 12:


  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf



  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

The Sun Cell has all the indicators of a LENR system: arc discharge,
nanoparticles, and EMF output. Rather than infrared output as seen in the
NiH system, the output is at high frequencies in the blue/green color
spectrum.

Argon is a puzzle to me. The NiH system should work with argon as a gas but
it does not. In the Sun Cell it does work.

It could be that chlorine is the dielectric(.85) that insolates the
titanium metal in the LENR nanoplasmonic process. Chlorine is a better
dialectic than hydrogen(.65).

Titanium has excellent reflective properties in the blue color range of the
spectrum.

I expect to see transmutation of both titanium and chlorine. This would
prove that the Sun Cell is a LENR system and put an end to the Mills
classical science in favor of quantum mechanics.

I question why Mills needs any water to carry the reaction.

Pure titanium in a chlorine envelope might work just as well.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1.
 A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph
 of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then
 explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was
 enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the
 aluminum sphere shell also.  He then explained that if the fuel is
 detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J.  They
 then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+.

 It seems clear to me that Randy was not BSing us when he claimed that the
 output energy was around 700J per explosion.  The real question now is to
 confirm the input energy.  It seems to me that either way, that the COP
 clearly appears to be overunity to the tune of 4(min) to 100.

 Some folks like Jones will dismiss this as oxidation of the titanium
 powder supplying the energy.  But I challenged Jones to do the math
 on whether the minuscule amount of titanium powder is sufficient to provide
 the energy output seen.  His response seems to be that it is not, that
 there is some other energy output mechanism at work.  Yet, despite all his
 answers, he will still not acknowledge the revolutionary nature of this
 Mills invention.

 Barring any really egregious fraud or misrepresentation in the bomb
 calorimetry (ala DGT's water flow fraud), it is my opinion that we have a
 winner here.  More revolutionary that any other LENR or LENR-like free
 energy schemes out there.  The suncell, if it produces just 1% of its
 claimed calculated output will run circles around everything else,
 including Rossi's hotcat and DGT's non-existent mythical Hyperion creature.


 Once again, don't get me wrong.  I want Randy to fail.  Yet, this latest
 demo was very compelling to me, despite Mills' known history.  Many
 inventors have a long string of failures before phenomenal success.  It
 might be wise not to discount Randy because of his past failures. I'm not,
 and I'm hedging my wave-powered plans accordingly.

 I'm beginning to think there might be something to it in referring to
 Randy as America's Newton.  This is much much more than Rossi's New
 Fire.  The guy's a Newton-like genius, albeit a rather eccentric and
 arrogant genius.  (Most geniuses are.)  Ignore him at your own peril.



 Jojo


 BTW. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and a
 folly unto him.

 It would be good for one to properly hear the matter before
 answering.  Maybe it is wise to watch the videos first.




 - Original Message -
 *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 9:19 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  Where, in the most recent demo video, is the calorimetry?


 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected
 his lightbulb?

 Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the
 beautifully elegant language of Relativity mathematics?

 PERIOD.



 Don't get me wrong, I want Mills to fail.  That would give my
 wave-powered power generation plants a fighting chance to compete in the
 new LENR environment.  I feel my design can compete with Rossi, but not
 with the Suncell.  It is just too revolutionary in my opinion.


 Jojo






  - Original Message -
 *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 1:09 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

 If  you place your bet on  Miills, you  put it on someone with an
 incredibly lousy history.  Period.


 On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an
 explosion.  It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the
 output

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Bob Higgins

First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is
completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented
demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.

Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified the
calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone
knows that what carries current well also transports heat well.  The heat
carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction,
but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat contained in
the ejecta of the actual experiment.  The result is an overestimation of
the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an overestimation
of the COP.

I am not saying that his COP is less than 1.  I think he may be realizing
excess heat.  I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all.  And with
low COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain.  I
think he has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but
the COP is low.  The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the
efficiency made sense) is pretty ridiculous.  I built a 5.4 kW array for
solar electric and it had 67 square meters of collection area.  Do you
really think he will be able to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter?
 100kW would melt the PV cells due to inefficiency.  It is about as
[im]practical as his completely flawed plan to use MHD conversion.

Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.  His
work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that in
high current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high
rate.  The transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring
in this high current discharge.  Mills may actually get excess heat, but
much of it may be coming from LENR.  Mills does not want this to be the
case, because heat produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents.
 So he doesn't look for the transmutation products in his result, or he
doesn't publish that data.  Mills may be correct about the fractional
quantum states of hydrogen and they may be complicit in LENR.  But he would
lose a lot of his patent value if the heat were proved to actually be
coming from LENR.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1.
 A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph
 of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then
 explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was
 enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the
 aluminum sphere shell also.  He then explained that if the fuel is
 detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J.  They
 then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

LENR will always occur in a nanoparticle environment when pumped by an
electric discharge. This is witnessed by many experiments involving
exploding foils comprised of various types of metals.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is
 completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented
 demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.

 Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified the
 calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone
 knows that what carries current well also transports heat well.  The heat
 carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction,
 but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat contained in
 the ejecta of the actual experiment.  The result is an overestimation of
 the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an overestimation
 of the COP.

 I am not saying that his COP is less than 1.  I think he may be realizing
 excess heat.  I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all.  And with
 low COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain.  I
 think he has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but
 the COP is low.  The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the
 efficiency made sense) is pretty ridiculous.  I built a 5.4 kW array for
 solar electric and it had 67 square meters of collection area.  Do you
 really think he will be able to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter?
  100kW would melt the PV cells due to inefficiency.  It is about as
 [im]practical as his completely flawed plan to use MHD conversion.

 Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.  His
 work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that in
 high current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high
 rate.  The transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring
 in this high current discharge.  Mills may actually get excess heat, but
 much of it may be coming from LENR.  Mills does not want this to be the
 case, because heat produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents.
  So he doesn't look for the transmutation products in his result, or he
 doesn't publish that data.  Mills may be correct about the fractional
 quantum states of hydrogen and they may be complicit in LENR.  But he would
 lose a lot of his patent value if the heat were proved to actually be
 coming from LENR.

 Bob Higgins

 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1.
 A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph
 of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then
 explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was
 enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the
 aluminum sphere shell also.  He then explained that if the fuel is
 detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J.  They
 then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread David Roberson

Jojo,

A lot depends upon how accurately the input energy can be determined.  It would 
surprise me to find that the welder has precise control upon the current and 
voltage waveforms at that level and time frame.  These types of devices are not 
instrument quality and control of the leakage fields, etc. is not guaranteed.

I am not stating that the input energy is not well defined but instead remain 
skeptical of the proof.  The past track record of the company must be kept in 
mind as well when reviewing their claims.  Under these conditions I find myself 
skeptical until shown otherwise.

We all hope that something will arise out of this demonstration, but it does no 
good for us to become disappointed again.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 27, 2014 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?



In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion.  It was 
clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that single 
explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly).  So, it appears 
incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims.  
 
Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.  
 
Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In this 
case, it appears to be 100.
 
I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly overunity.
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Kevin   O'Malley 
  
To: vortex-l 
  
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a   titanium burner?
  


  
  
Jones:

I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his   hind quarters for at 
least a decade.  He's brilliant.  He knows how   to attract investors to 
pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan   out.  Now he's seeing 
Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement   with Industrial Heat, 
INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in   scramble mode.  He got beat 
by Rossi and he either goes after allhis supposedly superior prior  
solutions or he gets ready for the patent   war that is to come.  Mills will be 
a patent warrior and nothing   more.  None of his fun experiments will come to 
fruition in the   industrial/commercial nor consumer market.  


You have stated   that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, it's 
a death blow to   his theory.  With the money that will soon be attracted to 
this sector of   industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to 
his   theory.  Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than   
contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of   
History.  

  


  
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
  
Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now
online. I wish it was better organized.

The most hyped up doc is here :
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons
tration-Abbreviated.pdf

I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with
 any
confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on.
These could be inaccurate.

1)  There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin
2)  COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell
conversion
3)  COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst
rejuvenation and loses
4)  Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills 
he
has a better one under wraps)
5)  He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in
line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is
a great fuel.
6)  In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which
is still under wraps, or else I missed it.
7)  Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation
(combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain.
Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military
uses) To be explained.
8)  Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. 
The
difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much
more.
9)  Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably
a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no
doubt it is oxidized in the
10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the
general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not
impressed with the level of openness here.
11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is
basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically .

This turned up on one of the forums. Past

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

A huge amount of RF radiation should be produced by the NMR active isotopes
of chlorine. Chlorine has only non zero nuclear magnetic monuments in its
two isotopes.

Mills could capture a large amount of electric power by converting RF to
electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna


Like all LENR reactors, the Sun Cell will need to be heavily shielded from
transmitting RF interference. Someone needs to invent a Rectenna system
that not only capture all RF interference but also shields the reactor from
RF interference exiting the reactor. This IP will be a big money maker.

Mills won't invent this IP because it would undercut this theory.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 LENR will always occur in a nanoparticle environment when pumped by an
 electric discharge. This is witnessed by many experiments involving
 exploding foils comprised of various types of metals.


 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is
 completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented
 demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.

 Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified
 the calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone
 knows that what carries current well also transports heat well.  The heat
 carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction,
 but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat contained in
 the ejecta of the actual experiment.  The result is an overestimation of
 the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an overestimation
 of the COP.

 I am not saying that his COP is less than 1.  I think he may be realizing
 excess heat.  I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all.  And with
 low COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain.  I
 think he has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but
 the COP is low.  The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the
 efficiency made sense) is pretty ridiculous.  I built a 5.4 kW array for
 solar electric and it had 67 square meters of collection area.  Do you
 really think he will be able to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter?
  100kW would melt the PV cells due to inefficiency.  It is about as
 [im]practical as his completely flawed plan to use MHD conversion.

 Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.
  His work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that
 in high current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high
 rate.  The transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring
 in this high current discharge.  Mills may actually get excess heat, but
 much of it may be coming from LENR.  Mills does not want this to be the
 case, because heat produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents.
  So he doesn't look for the transmutation products in his result, or he
 doesn't publish that data.  Mills may be correct about the fractional
 quantum states of hydrogen and they may be complicit in LENR.  But he would
 lose a lot of his patent value if the heat were proved to actually be
 coming from LENR.

 Bob Higgins

 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video
 1.  A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output
 graph of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then
 explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was
 enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the
 aluminum sphere shell also.  He then explained that if the fuel is
 detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J.  They
 then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+.

RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Jones Beene

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified the 
calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone knows 
that what carries current well also transports heat well…  

 

Good point Bob, and good post. There is almost no real science in this Mills’ 
demo- hype only. 

 

The heat carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the 
reaction, but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat 
contained in the ejecta of the actual experiment.  The result is an 
overestimation of the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an 
overestimation of the COP.  

 

Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.  His work 
was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that in high 
current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high rate.  

 

Yes – I had forgotten about Santilli and magnegas. Santilli is very litigious 
and has patent protection. 

 

Matter of fact -check out Santilli US Patent # 6,540,966. That one precedes 
Mills by a decade. SunCell will almost certainly need a license from to proceed.

 

Actually – this provides Mills with a convenient excuse to move on to the next 
round of financing…

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

After the arc discharge, the TiC2 will be completely vaporized. But in
microseconds, titanium nanoparticles will condense out of the plasma when
the plasma temperature falls below the boiling point of titanium.

There will be a timeframe when titanium will be a solid and chlorine will
be a gas at a temperature above 1500C. It will be in this timeframe in
which the LENR reaction will take place.

I predict that the light emissions from the reaction will be offset in time
after the completion of the arc discharge by the number of microseconds it
takes titanium to condense out of the plasma.

The emission of light will persist for as long as chlorine remains a gas.

I also predict that a continuous emission of light will be produced if
the Sun cell is operated at a temperature over 1500C but no more than 3500C
when pumped by an electric current. This is a form of LENR based titanium
vapor lamp.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 LENR will always occur in a nanoparticle environment when pumped by an
 electric discharge. This is witnessed by many experiments involving
 exploding foils comprised of various types of metals.


 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is
 completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented
 demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.

 Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified
 the calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone
 knows that what carries current well also transports heat well.  The heat
 carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction,
 but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat contained in
 the ejecta of the actual experiment.  The result is an overestimation of
 the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an overestimation
 of the COP.

 I am not saying that his COP is less than 1.  I think he may be realizing
 excess heat.  I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all.  And with
 low COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain.  I
 think he has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but
 the COP is low.  The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the
 efficiency made sense) is pretty ridiculous.  I built a 5.4 kW array for
 solar electric and it had 67 square meters of collection area.  Do you
 really think he will be able to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter?
  100kW would melt the PV cells due to inefficiency.  It is about as
 [im]practical as his completely flawed plan to use MHD conversion.

 Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.
  His work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that
 in high current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high
 rate.  The transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring
 in this high current discharge.  Mills may actually get excess heat, but
 much of it may be coming from LENR.  Mills does not want this to be the
 case, because heat produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents.
  So he doesn't look for the transmutation products in his result, or he
 doesn't publish that data.  Mills may be correct about the fractional
 quantum states of hydrogen and they may be complicit in LENR.  But he would
 lose a lot of his patent value if the heat were proved to actually be
 coming from LENR.

 Bob Higgins

 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video
 1.  A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output
 graph of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then
 explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was
 enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the
 aluminum sphere shell also.  He then explained that if the fuel is
 detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J.  They
 then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I hope you're right.  It is in my interest to see the Suncell fail.

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  Jojo,

  A lot depends upon how accurately the input energy can be determined.  It 
would surprise me to find that the welder has precise control upon the current 
and voltage waveforms at that level and time frame.  These types of devices are 
not instrument quality and control of the leakage fields, etc. is not 
guaranteed.

  I am not stating that the input energy is not well defined but instead remain 
skeptical of the proof.  The past track record of the company must be kept in 
mind as well when reviewing their claims.  Under these conditions I find myself 
skeptical until shown otherwise.

  We all hope that something will arise out of this demonstration, but it does 
no good for us to become disappointed again.

  Dave

  -Original Message-
  From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Sun, Jul 27, 2014 8:02 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion.  It 
was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that 
single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly).  So, it appears 
incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims.  

  Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration.  

  Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP.  In this 
case, it appears to be 100.

  I am not sure where the controversy is.  COP appears to be clearly overunity.

  Jojo

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin O'Malley 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jones:

I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for 
at least a decade.  He's brilliant.  He knows how to attract investors to 
pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out.  Now he's seeing Rossi 
with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT 
third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode.  He got beat by Rossi and 
he either goes after all  his supposedly superior prior  solutions or he gets 
ready for the patent war that is to come.  Mills will be a patent warrior and 
nothing more.  None of his fun experiments will come to fruition in the 
industrial/commercial nor consumer market.  

You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, 
it's a death blow to his theory.  With the money that will soon be attracted to 
this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to 
his theory.  Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than 
contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of 
History.  

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now
  online. I wish it was better organized.

  The most hyped up doc is here :

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons
  tration-Abbreviated.pdf

  I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with 
any
  confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on.
  These could be inaccurate.

  1)  There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant 
margin
  2)  COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell
  conversion
  3)  COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst
  rejuvenation and loses
  4)  Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he
  has a better one under wraps)
  5)  He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in
  line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it 
is
  a great fuel.
  6)  In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which
  is still under wraps, or else I missed it.
  7)  Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation
  (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical 
gain.
  Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for 
Military
  uses) To be explained.
  8)  Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The
  difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs 
much
  more.
  9)  Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is 
probably
  a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no
  doubt it is oxidized in the
  10) Bottom line - this technology could be great

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 I blamed Mills for revealing too much in his demos, now you are asking him
 to reveal more secrets.  I don't think that's wise.


Well, if he cannot reveal the chemical contents of the explosion, there is
no point to doing it. It cannot be convincing without that information. It
cannot even be useful.


We as outside observers will have to be content with what Mills reveals.


Not me. I reserve the right to discontent.



 He is under no obligation to reveal to us or to convince us.


He hasn't convinced me.


  He just needs to reveal to his investors and convnce them.


He seems to be good at that.



 We, on the other hand, will have to judge based on the limited info given
 to us.  And based on this most recent demo, I find his claims compelling .
 . .


I judge the demo useless, as far as I could tell. I could barely hear what
the people in the video said. Maybe if I could have heard it I would have
found it more convincing. Slides would have helped, too.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Another thing that would have helped would be to trigger a chemical
explosion with a known amount of explosive, to calibrate.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Carrell

Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are standard 
lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards. Speculation about 
titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the chemistry of the 
SunCell.

Mike Carrell

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

 

Another thing that would have helped would be to trigger a chemical explosion 
with a known amount of explosive, to calibrate.

- Jed



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the
chemistry of the SunCell.


How So? Can you expand on this point?


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

 Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are
 standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards. Speculation
 about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the chemistry of
 the SunCell.

 Mike Carrell



 *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 1:53 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?



 Another thing that would have helped would be to trigger a chemical
 explosion with a known amount of explosive, to calibrate.

 - Jed


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

 and is a threat to my plans.  I have to take this 
technology seriously.  I truly wish Randy would fail so that I can make a few 
million with my wave-powered design.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is 
completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented 
demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.


  Their calorimetry appears to be flawed.  They have apparently modified the 
calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone knows 
that what carries current well also transports heat well.  The heat carried by 
these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction, but this was done 
in a way that did not account for the heat contained in the ejecta of the 
actual experiment.  The result is an overestimation of the heat carried out by 
the conductors and subsequently an overestimation of the COP.  


  I am not saying that his COP is less than 1.  I think he may be realizing 
excess heat.  I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all.  And with low 
COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain.  I think he 
has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but the COP is 
low.  The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the efficiency made 
sense) is pretty ridiculous.  I built a 5.4 kW array for solar electric and it 
had 67 square meters of collection area.  Do you really think he will be able 
to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter?  100kW would melt the PV cells 
due to inefficiency.  It is about as [im]practical as his completely flawed 
plan to use MHD conversion.


  Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments.  His 
work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili.  Santilli showed that in high 
current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high rate.  The 
transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring in this high 
current discharge.  Mills may actually get excess heat, but much of it may be 
coming from LENR.  Mills does not want this to be the case, because heat 
produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents.  So he doesn't look for 
the transmutation products in his result, or he doesn't publish that data.  
Mills may be correct about the fractional quantum states of hydrogen and they 
may be complicit in LENR.  But he would lose a lot of his patent value if the 
heat were proved to actually be coming from LENR.


  Bob Higgins


  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1.  A 
guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph of the 
temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J.  Randy then explain that the 
input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was enclosed in an aluminum 
sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the aluminum sphere shell also.  He 
then explained that if the fuel is detonated directly, that the input energy is 
5J instead of 200+ J.  They then explained that in this particular single 
explosion, the COP was 4+.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are
 standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards.


This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical
instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even
when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate.
Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off
a small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



 Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the
 chemistry of the SunCell.


Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the explosion.
Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. But what
was there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the bomb
calorimeter is working, without a calibration?

The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer
questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening.
It cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be
simple, covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in
one hour.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Carrell

Jed resumes his traditional role as a skeptic, as he has been these many years. 
The composition of the fuel powder is stated openly in papers on the website. 
One just has to read carefully and in the context of all Mills’ has written 
about GUTCP, which unfortunately is not CMNS or LENR [try using a cookbook to 
fix a car engine]. The study of the interactions in the SunCell plasma could 
occupy study of generations of graduate students. The hydrino transition 
reaction emits soft x-rays which ionize air or argon, emitting intense light. 
That light was observed at BLP and confirmed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center 
for Astrophysics. An OEM licensee is building a prototype of SunCell 3 for 
field tests in the coming weeks. In a sense this could be his final exam, his 
“Masterpiece”.

Mike Carrell

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

 

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 

I blamed Mills for revealing too much in his demos, now you are asking him to 
reveal more secrets.  I don't think that's wise.

 

Well, if he cannot reveal the chemical contents of the explosion, there is no 
point to doing it. It cannot be convincing without that information. It cannot 
even be useful.

 

 

We as outside observers will have to be content with what Mills reveals.  

 

Not me. I reserve the right to discontent.

 

 

He is under no obligation to reveal to us or to convince us.

 

He hasn't convinced me.

 

 

  He just needs to reveal to his investors and convnce them.

 

He seems to be good at that.

 

 

We, on the other hand, will have to judge based on the limited info given to 
us.  And based on this most recent demo, I find his claims compelling . . .

 

I judge the demo useless, as far as I could tell. I could barely hear what the 
people in the video said. Maybe if I could have heard it I would have found it 
more convincing. Slides would have helped, too.

 

- Jed

 



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

Jed resumes his traditional role as a skeptic, as he has been these many
 years.


No, I was only critiquing this as a demonstration. I think it failed in
that role. It failed for the general public. For insiders it might have
been optimum. I cannot judge.


The composition of the fuel powder is stated openly in papers on the
 website.


As I said earlier, I will have to read paper to understand what happened
here. That is a demerit for a demonstration. A demo should be
self-contained. It should not demand that the audience go read a paper on
the web site. If it does that, it is either incomplete or it tries to cover
too much ground.

They should have extracted information about the available chemical species
from these papers and listed them on a slide, along with the total energy
these chemicals can produce. This would have been similar to the page from
McKubre's book.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

For the simple reason that even if you assumed that the titanium powder was 
oxidized chemically, it would still not account for the energy.  It was clear 
that titanium was not being oxidized; else you are left with the conundrum on 
why it is not being consumed or why it would oxidize so readily in an argon 
envelope.

It is indeed a distraction.





Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the 
chemistry of the SunCell.




  How So? Can you expand on this point?



  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are 
standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards. Speculation 
about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in the chemistry of the 
SunCell.

Mike Carrell



From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?




Another thing that would have helped would be to trigger a chemical 
explosion with a known amount of explosive, to calibrate.

- Jed



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

*Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available.*

In the 20,000C plasma blast, the water will decompose into h2 and O. SO
there is oxygen.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

 Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are
 standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards.


 This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical
 instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even
 when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate.
 Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off
 a small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



 Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in
 the chemistry of the SunCell.


 Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the explosion.
 Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. But what
 was there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the bomb
 calorimeter is working, without a calibration?

 The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer
 questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening.
 It cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be
 simple, covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in
 one hour.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

yea, there's oxygen from H20, but isn't the real question be how much?

Maybe you can do the math and compute the amount of oxygen and then estimate 
the amount of titanium and then add 2 and 2 together and figure out if there is 
enough chemical energy to explain the huge explosion.

For that matter, can you think of any substance that would produce that level 
of explosion and blinding light from such miniscule amount?



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available.


  In the 20,000C plasma blast, the water will decompose into h2 and O. SO there 
is oxygen.



  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:


  Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are 
standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards. 



This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical 
instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even 
when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate. 
Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off a 
small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



  Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in 
the chemistry of the SunCell.



Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the explosion. 
Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. But what was 
there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the bomb 
calorimeter is working, without a calibration?


The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer 
questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening. It 
cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be simple, 
covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in one hour.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

To find where the Sun Cell power is coming from, experimental procedure as
follows:

Test the power of the electric arch only,

Then, add the TiCl2 and measure the power output.

Then add water is small steps and measure the associated power output
increase.




On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  yea, there's oxygen from H20, but isn't the real question be how much?

 Maybe you can do the math and compute the amount of oxygen and then
 estimate the amount of titanium and then add 2 and 2 together and figure
 out if there is enough chemical energy to explain the huge explosion.

 For that matter, can you think of any substance that would produce that
 level of explosion and blinding light from such miniscule amount?



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:37 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  *Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available.*

 In the 20,000C plasma blast, the water will decompose into h2 and O. SO
 there is oxygen.


 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

   Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are
 standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards.


 This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical
 instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even
 when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate.
 Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off
 a small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



  Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in
 the chemistry of the SunCell.


 Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the explosion.
 Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. But what
 was there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the bomb
 calorimeter is working, without a calibration?

 The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer
 questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening.
 It cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be
 simple, covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in
 one hour.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread ChemE Stewart

http://youtu.be/P5VdbabPbvU

I love these videos...

On Monday, July 28, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  yea, there's oxygen from H20, but isn't the real question be how much?

 Maybe you can do the math and compute the amount of oxygen and then
 estimate the amount of titanium and then add 2 and 2 together and figure
 out if there is enough chemical energy to explain the huge explosion.

 For that matter, can you think of any substance that would produce that
 level of explosion and blinding light from such miniscule amount?



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');
 *To:* vortex-l javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:37 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  *Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available.*

 In the 20,000C plasma blast, the water will decompose into h2 and O. SO
 there is oxygen.


 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com'); wrote:

  Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mi...@medleas.com'); wrote:

   Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are
 standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards.


 This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical
 instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even
 when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate.
 Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off
 a small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



  Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved in
 the chemistry of the SunCell.


 Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the explosion.
 Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. But what
 was there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the bomb
 calorimeter is working, without a calibration?

 The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer
 questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening.
 It cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be
 simple, covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in
 one hour.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I believe the validators have already done that and have concluded that the 
energy output can not be explain chemically or any other way other than the 
hydrino.  They have come out very strongly for Mills.

Though I do not have a horse in this race, I still find GUTCP and the hydrino 
concept more satisfying and compelling than all the nano stuff, nanoplasmonics, 
quantum mechanics, BEC, magetic monopole, superatom, soliton metaphasic 
shielding explanation.  You still have not explained how your nickel 
nanostructure NAE can survive the temps.

Why do  you insist that Hydrino is the wrong explanation?  Mills has provided 
spectral evidence for hydrino, hasn't he?  Why do you believe DGT and their 
mythical hyperion more than actual spectral evidence?  Why do you insist on 
your convoluted quantum mechanics BEC soliton explanation which certainly has 
fewer evidence than what Mills has provided for his hydrino? 

Just curious.



BTW, remember, the fact that I am saying this contrary to my own self interest 
should at least be worth something.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  To find where the Sun Cell power is coming from, experimental procedure as 
follows:


  Test the power of the electric arch only,


  Then, add the TiCl2 and measure the power output.


  Then add water is small steps and measure the associated power output 
increase.







  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

yea, there's oxygen from H20, but isn't the real question be how much?

Maybe you can do the math and compute the amount of oxygen and then 
estimate the amount of titanium and then add 2 and 2 together and figure out if 
there is enough chemical energy to explain the huge explosion.

For that matter, can you think of any substance that would produce that 
level of explosion and blinding light from such miniscule amount?



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available.


  In the 20,000C plasma blast, the water will decompose into h2 and O. SO 
there is oxygen.



  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
wrote:

Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:


  Optical instruments to quantitatively measure the radiant energy are 
standard lab equipment and can be calibrated to NIST standards. 



This is a bomb calorimeter. I do not think it incorporates optical 
instruments. (A schematic of the calorimeter would have helped.) Plus, even 
when you use NIST calibrated instruments, you should still calibrate. 
Especially during a demonstration. It would not have taken long to set off a 
small charge of some explosive. Or thermite.



  Speculation about titanium is a distraction, for it is not involved 
in the chemistry of the SunCell.



Well, we should speculate about whatever chemicals were in the 
explosion. Mills remarked that there is no oxygen available. That is a start. 
But what was there, and how much energy can it produce? And can we be sure the 
bomb calorimeter is working, without a calibration?


The purpose of a demonstration is to teach the audience. To answer 
questions. To persuade. It should simplify and clarify what is happening. It 
cannot be full experiment that answers every question. It should be simple, 
covering limited ground, because the audience cannot learn much in one hour.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-28 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Jed:

 

...

 

 I judge the demo useless, as far as I could tell. I could barely hear

 what the people in the video said. Maybe if I could have heard it I

 would have found it more convincing. Slides would have helped, too.

 

Mills heard similar complaints from other observers, and they did something 
about it in the newer July 21 videos. I hope you can find the time to view 
them. They turned off the blowers and fans. It is much easier to hear Mills and 
the other engineers talk and explain things.

 

Part 1: Demonstation July 21: http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE

Part 2: Demonstation July 21: http://youtu.be/8TKgrOjac6Y

 

Granted, much of the initial discussion Mills goes into is the exact same 
blather you heard in the June 25 videos. I'm sure Randy has given the same 
spiel millions of times before to other potential financial backers, etc... He 
spends a lot of time rattling off numbers and figures in rapid fire. Mills 
talks about theory, and the experimental evidence that backs up Mills' pet 
theory. But at least you can hear him talking about it! ;-)

 

Perhaps of more interest... some of the models and devices demonstrated are 
more advanced versions from the June 25 demos. It's possible you might see 
something that will be of some interest to you. If so, please let us know your 
impressions.

 

Alas, the latest collection of July 21 demos have not yet closed the loop, nor 
did I expect that they would. However, it does appear to me as if they may be 
getting closer to that magical eureka moment. Perhaps by December if we're 
lucky.

 

My position is to remain agnostic on the matter. Trust, but verify!

 

I hate quoting R. Reagan.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I did not notice this.

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his
 lightbulb?

 Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the
 beautifully elegant language of Relativity mathematics?


No, he did not fail high school algebra. He was brilliant in math his whole
life. His only weak subject was foreign language -- French, as I recall.
This is described in every biography of him. See, for example:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

Before you make assertions about famous people, you should read their
biographies. Do some fact checking. I realize it is widely reported that
Einstein was not good at math, but this is highly implausible. His work
includes a lot of complicated, brilliant math. A person does not go from
being a failure at math at 16 to being the best on earth at 26 (in 1905).

Along similar lines, when Edison developed the lightbulb he did it with
capital from some of the biggest, most famous bankers and capitalists in
New York, including J. P. Morgan. He spent a ton of money. The first place
he installed lights was lower Manhattan: Wall Street and the offices of the
New York Times. His company evolved into General Electric. In other words,
this was a big money, mainstream effort. Do you think J. P. Morgan would
pour money into a project run someone who had been a failure up until then?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Whatever you say my friend. I'm not inclined to start an argument with you.

Jojo

- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I did not notice this.

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

But didn't Edison have an incredibly lousy history before he perfected his
lightbulb?

Didn'tt Einstein fail high school algebra before he created the beautifully
elegant language of Relativity mathematics?

No, he did not fail high school algebra. He was brilliant in math his whole
life. His only weak subject was foreign language -- French, as I recall. This
is described in every biography of him. See, for example:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

Before you make assertions about famous people, you should read their
biographies. Do some fact checking. I realize it is widely reported that
Einstein was not good at math, but this is highly implausible. His work
includes a lot of complicated, brilliant math. A person does not go from being
a failure at math at 16 to being the best on earth at 26 (in 1905).

Along similar lines, when Edison developed the lightbulb he did it with
capital from some of the biggest, most famous bankers and capitalists in New
York, including J. P. Morgan. He spent a ton of money. The first place he
installed lights was lower Manhattan: Wall Street and the offices of the New
York Times. His company evolved into General Electric. In other words, this was
a big money, mainstream effort. Do you think J. P. Morgan would pour money into
a project run someone who had been a failure up until then?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Whatever you say my friend.


No, it is not whatever I say. It is what every history book and
authoritative source says. This is not about me.



   I'm not inclined to start an argument with you.


You are not inclined to do your homework, or to look up readily available
facts. You are not inclined to think carefully about what is plausible. You
are not inclined to admit you made a mistake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?