PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
essence. If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that
would still happen.
AA
On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>> That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water
calorimetry.
I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a
bad controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and
verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive
equipment that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these
risks are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not
buy a Tesla
and have some fun.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when
they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."
That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to
having photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with
water calorimetry.
AA
On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old
water bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the
experiment after just a short time. Closing the system can reveal
new caveats and difficulties so this step can take considerable
more time than what we heard so far. I got the impression that
these validatoins will be done when they close the system
reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know
the ball park of the release of energy if they are honest, and
there have been several attempts to characterize this ballpark
and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and
rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just
the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences as
always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and
see, what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining
ride - making energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great
lol, and even greater so if it turns out to be real.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins
<rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he
has made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The
one quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude
calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not
published on it. If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve
hours). He should describe the experiment in detail, and
provide data and analysis. He wouldn't have to publish
anything about what is inside his black box. He doesn't need
to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.
He could establish credibility with one such paper. If he
published a credible paper, we would believe his result with
some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.
Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the
same class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated
science. He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never
published, and then he moves on to something else.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Brian,
He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.
Mills says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing
power soon after the required photovoltaics are developed
and in pace - later this year. Obviously he can't do
that before.
You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that,
without proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal
critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the
question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.
Slightly related see.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
<http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376>
AA
On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
It has never been independently observed, but is often
quoted.
If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
