OK was I was able to adopt an unreasonably open posture toward Mills's presentation and spend time searching for the calorimetry in the demonstration videos. What I found was intriguing enough to bother to do a little more investigation and invest a bit of my personal credibility with a physicist whose time I am hesitant to impose on but who is at least somewhat open to looking at alternatives to "accepted" theory.
Two outcomes: 1) After a quick reading of key points of particular interest to him the physicist is convinced Mills's theory is worthy of further consideration. 2) In part 2 of the July 21st demo, very near the end, is a report from a professor at the University of Illinois that claims to have reproduced Mills's heat phenomenon with rigorous calorimetry. I went to the University of Illinois and have colleagues there that are skeptical of George Miley's work there. My impression of the of the UofIL is that when a professor of engineering there says something in his field of expertise, it is it is unwise to discount it before giving it serious consideration. I find this somewhat disconcerting because I've previously been relatively skeptical toward BLP simply on the basis of its incompetently drafted press release prior to its first demo of this year and the seeming appeal to 2 "miracles" at once: 1) The hydrino (the miracle here being that Mills has overturned most of the 20th century's authorities in physics). 2) That the hydrino explains the production of nuclear ash (columb masking) of cold fusion experiments while at the same time providing substantial energy (if not most of its energy) from hydrino chemistry. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't get it. > > Why do people think Mills is relevant when, if he has made any energy in > vs energy out measurements at all, they are so buried in other material > that any reasonable man would give up long before finding them? > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can >> a >> >rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the >> >rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? >> >> Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number, >> however >> even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be >> 10 kW >> iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power >> unit. >> >> The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting >> queue >> any shorter. ;) >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
