RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Randell sez: “It won’t take decades or even years. Every major issue has broken in our favor, said Randell. Followed by commentary from two posters It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more underway. and... LOL. Sadly this sentiment is both humorous and accurate - backed by repeated episodes of Mills snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They guilty know who they are. ;-) . . . Naive it might be for me to say this, I'm less inclined to speculate that Mills is about to screw up again. But to be honest, I just don't know. I remain guardedly optimistic this time around. That is my sense when I try my best to remove my personally invested emotions from the equation. Granted, disinvesting my emotions is not easy to do... not with Randall Mills. ...and, yes, maybe I've failed in that matter. I've been keeping track of Mills' work since the 1990s. I know many other veterans in this group have done the same. Veterans remember: There have been many, MANY, false starts over at BLP. Mills has predicted many things in the past that did not manifest. Obviously, repeated failures, of crying WOLF! can disappoint many well intended wishers. It also simultaneously delights Mill's main detractors, of which there have been many... i.e.: Connett PZ. See! He's a crock of doo doo and we knew it from day one. That's what the skeptics would say. Unfortunately, that's the crux of the BLP problem as the Vort Collective continues its observations of these kinds unprecedented claims and predictions. We become psychologically predisposed to emotionally protect ourselves from experiencing yet another disappointment. We ask ourselves: why didn't I see the steaming piles of doo doo all along. Why couldn't I see it was all a crock. We reveal our defensiveness by deriding and putting down what we are, once again, observing from the mad scientist's laboratory. We say things like LOL! No, Dr. Mills, you're not going to take me in again not again. FWIW, this is how I personally try to approach this kind of a controversial matter: I remind myself of the fact that it is not to terribly useful to allow myself to become so psychologically jaded with the remembrance of each prior failure as to lose site of the fact that from a statistical POV each roll of the dice is a completely independent event from what had transpired in the past. I remind myself: Let he or she who is free from guilt throw the first die. I think there is a reasonable chance that we will soon know once and for all whether it is worth it to start emotionally investing in Dr. Mills work. We may know this in about a week. I believe the next POC prototype demonstration is scheduled for July 21. The next demo may actually close the loop. If not, the data collected will likely continue to reveal more convincing conclusions. The demo may be ugly and awkward looking. The device may be held together with bailing wire and duct tape. It may not run very long either before crashing and burning. It may run for only 59 seconds... kind of like another prototype we know about that finally managed to get off the ground. At this stage of the game I personally think it would be unwise to bet against the doctor. Actually, I'm beginning to wonder where Randy parked his tardis. The birthing process tends to be a long drawn out bloody affair. Why shouldn't BLP's extended 20 year pregnancy be any different. Labor is a bitch. PUSH If the baby cries, start investing in PV companies. Focus on triple junction PV configurations. They are likely to be a very lucrative stock purchase. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
They say that there is nothing new under the sun. This applies to exploding water systems. Back in the 1960’s Joe Papp used the wet chlorinated water formula to blast a crater into the hardpan desert floor of the California desert. Engineering is the art of turning disadvantage to your fullest advantage. Joe Papp did this by amplifying the explosive nature of the wet cluster process to drive a piston. Joe was after explosive pressure increase and not heat production and wet clusters gave him that in abundance. When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Those like Mills who want to use water in their wet cluster based mix should look to other explosion based engineering solutions based on short wavelength light. This technology was seen from another guy who used EVU light to produce exploding nano clusters. http://www.google.com/patents/US3977191 Atomic expansion reflex optics power optics power source (aerops) engine US 3977191 A This is a sealed system engine power source which has no exhaust nor intake ports. The engine includes a spherical hollow pressure chamber which is provided with a reflecting mirror surface. A noble gas mixture within the chamber is energized by electrodes and work is derived from the expansion of the gas mixture against a piston. Vortex discussed this engine back in 2010. This engine is an example of how extreme ultraviolet light (EUV) can be used to explode nano-crystals to produce plasma expansion. The same principle of nanoparticle explosion can be used in a catalyzed water vapor based system as demonstrated by Papp. In the EUV portion of the spectrum (wavelengths shorter than about 30 nm) nearly all materials absorb strongly, making it difficult to focus or otherwise manipulate light in this wavelength range. Telescopes such as TRACE or EIT that form images with EUV light use multilayer mirrors that are constructed of hundreds of alternating layers of a high-mass metal such as molybdenum or tungsten, and a low-mass spacer such as silicon, vacuum deposited onto a substrate such as glass. Each layer pair is designed to have a thickness equal to half the wavelength of light to be reflected. Constructive interference between scattered light from each layer causes the mirror to reflect EUV light of the desired wavelength as would a normal metal mirror in visible light. Using multilayer optics it is possible to reflect up to 70% of incident EUV light (at a particular wavelength chosen when the mirror is constructed). High EUV reflectivity is one reason that Mills uses molybdenum in his system. If Mills ever does turn a buck with his “new”? invention, he will need to run a gantlet of patent challenges from open source advocates based on the many patented exploding water systems that have been demonstrated in the past. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Randell sez: “It won’t take decades or even years. Every major issue has broken in our favor, said Randell. Followed by commentary from two posters It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more underway. and... LOL. Sadly this sentiment is both humorous and accurate - backed by repeated episodes of Mills snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They guilty know who they are. ;-) . . . Naive it might be for me to say this, I'm less inclined to speculate that Mills is about to screw up again. But to be honest, I just don't know. I remain guardedly optimistic this time around. That is my sense when I try my best to remove my personally invested emotions from the equation. Granted, disinvesting my emotions is not easy to do... not with Randall Mills. ...and, yes, maybe I've failed in that matter. I've been keeping track of Mills' work since the 1990s. I know many other veterans in this group have done the same. Veterans remember: There have been many, MANY, false starts over at BLP. Mills has predicted many things in the past that did not manifest. Obviously, repeated failures, of crying WOLF! can disappoint many well intended wishers. It also simultaneously delights Mill's main detractors, of which there have been many... i.e.: Connett PZ. See! He's a crock of doo doo and we knew it from day one. That's what the skeptics would say. Unfortunately, that's the crux of the BLP problem as the Vort Collective continues its observations of these kinds unprecedented claims and predictions. We become psychologically predisposed to emotionally protect ourselves from experiencing yet another disappointment. We ask ourselves: why didn't I see the steaming piles of doo doo all along. Why couldn't I see it was all a crock. We reveal our defensiveness by deriding and putting down what we are, once
[Vo]:Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and LENR
*Could Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and LENR all be related? We can safely assume that LENR is an all-pervasive process that permeates every nook and cranny in the universe born on the back of cosmic dust clouds. Nano and micro dust of Rydberg crystals float throughout the universe. This dust will produce an infectious LENR reaction when excited by photons. This EMF excitation is gainful and spreads carrying the LENR reaction with it.* *This cosmological LERN reaction produces entangled spin on a cosmological scale that will readily produce and entangled BEC extending for millions of light years. Each pocket of LENR will eventually become entangled with all the other pockets of LENR based BEC throughout the universe. The massive amounts of spin produced by all this entangled dust will counteract gravity through Einstein’s equivalence principle and the principle of spin gravity coupling thereby magnetically pushing matter outward in all directions.* *It might well be that dark matter and dark energy will not be understood until science understands LENR is exquisite detail. There will be a lot of thrashing about till then.* *There may be no need for science to invent new particles, or look for them at CERN, and/or invent new forces to explain dark energy; just understand LENR well to resolve all the currently unknowable answers throughout the universe.*
[Vo]:Why now?: the Nancy Kerrigan problem
Why now?: the Nancy Kerrigan problem See the post: *Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and LENR *for an introfuction. A critical constraint on dark energy is that it not interfere with the formation of structure in the Universe. This means that dark energy must have been relatively unimportant in the past (at least back to the time of last scattering). If dark energy is characterized by some constant w, in the past W was small hereby not interfering with structure formation throughout the universe. Now W has grown large affect the universe greatly. This means that the dark-energy density evolves more slowly compared to matter. That is, in the past dark energy was unimportant and in the future it will be dominant! We just happen to live at the time when dark matter and dark energy have comparable densities. In the words of Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan, Why me? Why now? This fits the dust born LENR process to a T. In the early universe there was little space for dust clouds to spread. As the universe gradually expanded, more space was available for dust clouds to form where LENR could take hold. Now LENR is becoming the major energy producer in the universe. For example, XUV light is being produced 400% more than can be explained in excited hydrogen in these dust clouds than can be explained by existing radiation sources. Perhaps this fact is an important clue to unraveling the nature of the dark energy. Perhaps LENR it could be the basis of an explanation for the changing size of the cosmological constant.
Re: [Vo]:Why now?: the Nancy Kerrigan problem
To understand the dots to be connected, also see these posts as follows for background: Can dark matter be polaritons? Cosmic accounting reveals missing light crisis On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Why now?: the Nancy Kerrigan problem See the post: *Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and LENR *for an introfuction. A critical constraint on dark energy is that it not interfere with the formation of structure in the Universe. This means that dark energy must have been relatively unimportant in the past (at least back to the time of last scattering). If dark energy is characterized by some constant w, in the past W was small hereby not interfering with structure formation throughout the universe. Now W has grown large affect the universe greatly. This means that the dark-energy density evolves more slowly compared to matter. That is, in the past dark energy was unimportant and in the future it will be dominant! We just happen to live at the time when dark matter and dark energy have comparable densities. In the words of Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan, Why me? Why now? This fits the dust born LENR process to a T. In the early universe there was little space for dust clouds to spread. As the universe gradually expanded, more space was available for dust clouds to form where LENR could take hold. Now LENR is becoming the major energy producer in the universe. For example, XUV light is being produced 400% more than can be explained in excited hydrogen in these dust clouds than can be explained by existing radiation sources. Perhaps this fact is an important clue to unraveling the nature of the dark energy. Perhaps LENR it could be the basis of an explanation for the changing size of the cosmological constant.
[Vo]:magnetism counteract gravity
Dark energy is the term for the causative agent of the current epoch of accelerated expansion. This stuff must have negative pressure, with magnitude comparable to its energy density, in order to produce accelerated expansion Further, since this mysterious stuff does not show its presence in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, it must be relatively smoothly distributed. That being said, dark energy has the following generally recognized properties: (1) it emits no light; (2) it has large, negative pressure, and (3) it is approximately homogeneous. (more precisely, does not cluster significantly with matter on scales at least as large as clusters of galaxies). Because its pressure is comparable in magnitude to its energy density, it is more “energy-like than “matter-like LENR can satisfy each of these Dark Energy properties. All the energy produced by LENR is eventually converted to magnetic force. Magnetism will stiffen space time and effectively counteracts gravity. If gravity increases with space/time curvature, straightening that curvature will weaken gravity. Since all the energy produce by LENR is converted to magnetism, its energy density is equal to its pressure If a LENR based BEC is formed over cosmological distance scales, the LENR entanglement will produce superfludity that operates instantaneously within another dimension (the fifth) to keep the forces produced by LENR homogeneous over space/time and evenly spread out over cosmological distances. It has been said that the sum total of progress in understanding the acceleration of the universe is naming the causative agent. If LENR is that causative agent, then science better wake up to its awesome power.
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
One thing that strikes me is the apparent long term attention of Mills. He must be pretty old. The desire to fool people as one ages declines in some and increases in others. Mills history strikes me as the latter.(I really only gather this from reading this Vortex blog for about 5 moths.) Nevertheless, I hope that Steven is correct about the gestation period. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Randell sez: “It won’t take decades or even years. Every major issue has broken in our favor, said Randell. Followed by commentary from two posters It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more underway. and... LOL. Sadly this sentiment is both humorous and accurate - backed by repeated episodes of Mills snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They guilty know who they are. ;-) . . . Naive it might be for me to say this, I'm less inclined to speculate that Mills is about to screw up again. But to be honest, I just don't know. I remain guardedly optimistic this time around. That is my sense when I try my best to remove my personally invested emotions from the equation. Granted, disinvesting my emotions is not easy to do... not with Randall Mills. ...and, yes, maybe I've failed in that matter. I've been keeping track of Mills' work since the 1990s. I know many other veterans in this group have done the same. Veterans remember: There have been many, MANY, false starts over at BLP. Mills has predicted many things in the past that did not manifest. Obviously, repeated failures, of crying WOLF! can disappoint many well intended wishers. It also simultaneously delights Mill's main detractors, of which there have been many... i.e.: Connett PZ. See! He's a crock of doo doo and we knew it from day one. That's what the skeptics would say. Unfortunately, that's the crux of the BLP problem as the Vort Collective continues its observations of these kinds unprecedented claims and predictions. We become psychologically predisposed to emotionally protect ourselves from experiencing yet another disappointment. We ask ourselves: why didn't I see the steaming piles of doo doo all along. Why couldn't I see it was all a crock. We reveal our defensiveness by deriding and putting down what we are, once again, observing from the mad scientist's laboratory. We say things like LOL! No, Dr. Mills, you're not going to take me in again not again. FWIW, this is how I personally try to approach this kind of a controversial matter: I remind myself of the fact that it is not to terribly useful to allow myself to become so psychologically jaded with the remembrance of each prior failure as to lose site of the fact that from a statistical POV each roll of the dice is a completely independent event from what had transpired in the past. I remind myself: Let he or she who is free from guilt throw the first die. I think there is a reasonable chance that we will soon know once and for all whether it is worth it to start emotionally investing in Dr. Mills work. We may know this in about a week. I believe the next POC prototype demonstration is scheduled for July 21. The next demo may actually close the loop. If not, the data collected will likely continue to reveal more convincing conclusions. The demo may be ugly and awkward looking. The device may be held together with bailing wire and duct tape. It may not run very long either before crashing and burning. It may run for only 59 seconds... kind of like another prototype we know about that finally managed to get off the ground. At this stage of the game I personally think it would be unwise to bet against the doctor. Actually, I'm beginning to wonder where Randy parked his tardis. The birthing process tends to be a long drawn out bloody affair. Why shouldn't BLP's extended 20 year pregnancy be any different. Labor is a bitch. PUSH If the baby cries, start investing in PV companies. Focus on triple junction PV configurations. They are likely to be a very lucrative stock purchase. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the time. It was well worth my time. According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, such as Jones who likes to use the LOL acronym a lot when discussing Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or agnostic as I noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when utilizing BLP technology. ;-) Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of Sun Cell (tm) light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a jet engine would be far more difficult task. According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction PV cells. The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. BLP claims the amortization rate for paying off PV cells using BLP Sun Cell (TM) technology would be in the neighborhood of about a month. Higher efficiency triple cell PV technology may be capable of cutting the amortization time down to just a couple of days. That certainly sounds better than financing a 15 - 20 year loan in order to attach a series of PV panels to my rooftop. The implication being inferred here is that electricity generated from BLP technology may soon be disposable. At least, that's what Randy appears to be predicting. It goes without saying that the latest BLP demonstrations and the claims appear to be extraordinary hard-to-take at face value. Many within the Vort Collective are inherently suspicious. I can appreciate such skepticism. All we can do is wait and see what develops. Fortunately, the wait may not be long. FWIW, I'll go ahead and make a fool of myself and bet that BLP will pull the rabbit out of the hat, possibly within six months... 12 months tops. I mean: closing the loop. Keep in mind I'm only betting for bragging rights. ;-) (My current bet is subject to change without notice based
RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Bob, Mills is definitely not old. View the two new you tube videos and judge for yourself! Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU Mills still has a long life ahead of him. Who knows. Maybe Mills will live long enuf to collect a Nobel Prize... assuming BLP does pull the rabbit out of the hat. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview One thing that strikes me is the apparent long term attention of Mills. He must be pretty old. The desire to fool people as one ages declines in some and increases in others. Mills history strikes me as the latter.(I really only gather this from reading this Vortex blog for about 5 moths.) Nevertheless, I hope that Steven is correct about the gestation period. Bob
Re: [Vo]:magnetism counteract gravity
A new spin on gravity: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1161
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
The light that Mills purports to produce is maximized at 500 nm of blue/green light or more in the UV direction. In the experiments on the Papp engine the Russ Gries ran, green light was seen as an strange plasma afterglow. The solid HO2 fuel Mills is talking about is crystalized water. Papp created a processor called a fuel mixer that produced this stuff and Papp patented it. Papp used water and noble gas crystals to produce his reaction. He also produced excess electrical power on every explosive cycle. Enough electrical power was produced to drive his engine without a battery. This solid water (water crystal) technology does work and Papp proved it, and he patented it. This technology is now open source. This Papp technology is far superior to the NiH reactor, IMHO because it does not produce heat. But Mills is working under a great disadvantage, His theory of operation is based on the delusional hydrino concept. Here is how it really works and it is all well accepted science, no hydrinos required: Here is a snippet from Papp engine theory that explains the basics of the power production principles. Remember that water can produce solid nanoparticles just like noble gases do. --- Where does the explosive force come from? The force produced in the Papp engine comes from the explosion of these clusters of gas and water atoms under the excitation of ultraviolet and x-rays. As the energy of this EMF goes up so does the explosive power of the clusters. Mills uses a lot of power, 12,000 amps will produce copious X-rays. When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low. On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp cluster explosion reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the cluster fragment expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion. Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity is similar in magnitude. The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it is for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have low energy. Put them together in a cluster and beam x-rays on them, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure. In getting to the breaking point, when the ionized cluster eventually reaches an ionization limit where the remaining electrons cannot sustain the structural integrity of the cluster any longer, an explosive disintegration of the cluster and subsequent plasma expansion of the positive ions and electrons which once formed the cluster occurs. Multi-electron ionization of molecules and clusters can be realized by photoionization of strong x-ray photons. The multi-electron ionization leads to an explosive disintegration of the cluster together with the production of multi-charged atomic ions fragments. The kinetic energy of the product ions formed by this explosion is of the order of several or tens eV in a diatomic, hundreds of eV in small van der Waals(VDW) clusters, and 100 KeV to 1 MeV in large (n 1000) VDW clusters. What causes this accelerating weakening of the structure under the onslaught of x-ray photons radiation is “barrier suppression ionization”. The initial arrival of x-ray photons begin the formation of plasma that is localized within the cluster itself. The electrons initially dislodged by the x-ray photons orbit around the outside of the cluster. These electrons lower the coulomb barrier holding the electrons that remain orbiting the cluster’s inner atoms. These remaining electrons reside in the inner orbits closer in to the nuclei of their atoms. Excess electric negative charge in the gas carrying the clusters will also add to the suppression of the coulomb barrier further supporting cascading cluster ionization. Papp uses every trick in the book to pack as many electrons in the plasma mix as he possibly can. When enough electrons are removed, the structure of the cluster cannot sustain itself any longer and the cluster explodes. In order to take advantage of the energy produced by “barrier suppression ionization”, the designers of the Papp reaction must satisfy two main engineering goals: first, large solid cystaline clusters must be
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
I hope there is something to this, but it doesn't seem very convincing yet. I want to see how much energy they are getting out in terms of electricity vs. how much it takes to run the welder. Let's also just see the welder running doing some welding and how much power that generates from the PV cells. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the time. It was well worth my time. According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, such as Jones who likes to use the LOL acronym a lot when discussing Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or agnostic as I noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when utilizing BLP technology. ;-) Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of Sun Cell (tm) light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a jet engine would be far more difficult task. According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction PV cells. The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. BLP claims the amortization rate for paying off PV cells using BLP Sun Cell (TM) technology would be in the neighborhood of about a month. Higher efficiency triple cell PV technology may be capable of cutting the amortization time down to just a couple of days. That certainly sounds better than financing a 15 - 20 year loan in order to attach a series of PV panels to my rooftop. The implication being inferred here is that electricity generated from BLP technology may soon be disposable. At least, that's what Randy appears to be predicting. It goes without saying that the latest BLP demonstrations and the claims appear to be extraordinary hard-to-take at face value. Many within the Vort Collective are inherently suspicious.
RE: [Vo]:magnetism counteract gravity
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton A new spin on gravity: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1161 Executive summary - no significant coupling of spin to gravity. Here is a nice graphic http://phys.org/news/2014-07-equivalence-principle-effects-spin-gravity-coupling.html
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
The feature that made the Papp engine gainful was frugal power management. The arc activated cluster explosion produced a great deal of current that Papp was able to capture and reuse in the next activation of the paired cylinder. His way of doing this capture was vary convoluted and hard to understand requiring alpha emitting electrodes stimulated by an arc mediated LENR reaction. Reusing the feedback current made the Papp engine work. Mills does not seen to attempt to capture the substantial feedback current. Until he does capture and reuse this feedback current, his COP may not reach over unity let alone exceed it. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I hope there is something to this, but it doesn't seem very convincing yet. I want to see how much energy they are getting out in terms of electricity vs. how much it takes to run the welder. Let's also just see the welder running doing some welding and how much power that generates from the PV cells. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the time. It was well worth my time. According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, such as Jones who likes to use the LOL acronym a lot when discussing Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or agnostic as I noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when utilizing BLP technology. ;-) Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of Sun Cell (tm) light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a jet engine would be far more difficult task. According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction PV cells. The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. BLP claims the amortization rate for
Re: [Vo]:magnetism counteract gravity
Gravity on the atomic scale is extremely weak and therefore difficult to detect. But if a soliton the size of a galaxy produced coherent spin, that change in spin magnitude might produce a different coupling result. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton A new spin on gravity: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1161 Executive summary - no significant coupling of spin to gravity. Here is a nice graphic http://phys.org/news/2014-07-equivalence-principle-effects-spin-gravity-coupling.html
RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Mills was born in 1957, making him 57, hardly “pretty old”. [I’m nearly 87, son]His key insight occurred while studying electrical engineering with Haus at MIT after finishing the academic requirements for an M.D. at Harvard Medical school. He had graduated summa Cum Laude in Chemistry from Franklin Marshall College. He was already a wealthy farmer when his interest turned to science. The key reaction of BLP requires the *close proximity* of a correct catalyst and a hydrogen atom. Achievement of this condition with a useful power density has been a very long search with many blind alleys. Mills has documented his work in over 90 journal papers and his massive magnum opus, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics. Dismissing all this as an attempt to “fool” others betrays a lack of diligent homework. There will be a series of prototypes of the SunCell before a formal presentation. To not understand or expect this is to show a lack of understanding of the normal course of product development. Mike Carrell From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview One thing that strikes me is the apparent long term attention of Mills. He must be pretty old. The desire to fool people as one ages declines in some and increases in others. Mills history strikes me as the latter.(I really only gather this from reading this Vortex blog for about 5 moths.) Nevertheless, I hope that Steven is correct about the gestation period. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.net Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Randell sez: “It won’t take decades or even years. Every major issue has broken in our favor, said Randell. Followed by commentary from two posters It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more underway. and... LOL. Sadly this sentiment is both humorous and accurate - backed by repeated episodes of Mills snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They guilty know who they are. ;-) . . . Naive it might be for me to say this, I'm less inclined to speculate that Mills is about to screw up again. But to be honest, I just don't know. I remain guardedly optimistic this time around. That is my sense when I try my best to remove my personally invested emotions from the equation. Granted, disinvesting my emotions is not easy to do... not with Randall Mills. ...and, yes, maybe I've failed in that matter. I've been keeping track of Mills' work since the 1990s. I know many other veterans in this group have done the same. Veterans remember: There have been many, MANY, false starts over at BLP. Mills has predicted many things in the past that did not manifest. Obviously, repeated failures, of crying WOLF! can disappoint many well intended wishers. It also simultaneously delights Mill's main detractors, of which there have been many... i.e.: Connett PZ. See! He's a crock of doo doo and we knew it from day one. That's what the skeptics would say. Unfortunately, that's the crux of the BLP problem as the Vort Collective continues its observations of these kinds unprecedented claims and predictions. We become psychologically predisposed to emotionally protect ourselves from experiencing yet another disappointment. We ask ourselves: why didn't I see the steaming piles of doo doo all along. Why couldn't I see it was all a crock. We reveal our defensiveness by deriding and putting down what we are, once again, observing from the mad scientist's laboratory. We say things like LOL! No, Dr. Mills, you're not going to take me in again not again. FWIW, this is how I personally try to approach this kind of a controversial matter: I remind myself of the fact that it is not to terribly useful to allow myself to become so psychologically jaded with the remembrance of each prior failure as to lose site of the fact that from a statistical POV each roll of the dice is a completely independent event from what had transpired in the past. I remind myself: Let he or she who is free from guilt throw the first die. I think there is a reasonable chance that we will soon know once and for all whether it is worth it to start emotionally investing in Dr. Mills work. We may know this in about a week. I believe the next POC prototype demonstration is scheduled for July 21. The next demo may actually close the loop. If not, the data collected will likely continue to reveal more convincing conclusions. The demo may be ugly and awkward looking. The device may be held together with bailing wire and duct tape. It may not run very long either before crashing and burning. It may run for only 59 seconds... kind of like another prototype we know about that finally managed to get off the ground. At this stage of the game I personally think it
RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
SVJ’summary of the interview is not bad at all. I caution the Vort community to not use the “close the loop” est with regard to BLP. BLP *is not* a free energy device. There is clearly a consumable, plain water, of which we have lots. The BLP SunCell gets *lots* of energy from the water, even from humidity in the air. Skepticism of the numerical claims is natural, but should be regarded as an invitation to study. The detonation light pulses last 0.5 ms, so at a 2,000/sec firing rate, the output is effectively continuous and the SunCell becomes a DC power source. Mills has already demonstrated with smooth copper discs, so there seems no reason for not reaching the 2,000 detonation rate. Mike Carrell From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the time. It was well worth my time. According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, such as Jones who likes to use the LOL acronym a lot when discussing Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or agnostic as I noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when utilizing BLP technology. ;-) Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of Sun Cell (tm) light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a jet engine would be far more difficult task. According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction PV cells. The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. BLP claims the amortization rate for paying off PV cells using BLP Sun Cell (TM) technology would be in the neighborhood of about a month. Higher efficiency triple cell PV technology may be capable of cutting the amortization time down to just a couple of
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
What COP has Mills measured? On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: SVJ’summary of the interview is not bad at all. I caution the Vort community to not use the “close the loop” est with regard to BLP. BLP **is not** a free energy device. There is clearly a consumable, plain water, of which we have lots. The BLP SunCell gets **lots** of energy from the water, even from humidity in the air. Skepticism of the numerical claims is natural, but should be regarded as an invitation to study. The detonation light pulses last 0.5 ms, so at a 2,000/sec firing rate, the output is effectively continuous and the SunCell becomes a DC power source. Mills has already demonstrated with smooth copper discs, so there seems no reason for not reaching the 2,000 detonation rate. Mike Carrell *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:44 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the past 10 days. So, I had the time. It was well worth my time. According to BLP a significant portion of the energy being generated per explosion matches the visible spectrum of our sun extraordinarily well. This would seem to lend additional support to some of Mill's controversial CQM claims. I realize some within the Vort Collective, such as Jones who likes to use the LOL acronym a lot when discussing Mills' claims, doesn't seem to regard CQM with high regard. As for me, I prefer to remain neutral on such matters... or agnostic as I noticed Mills tended to say several times, particularly when discussing which avenue might be the best path to follow when utilizing BLP technology. ;-) Setting CQM theory aside, insofar as satisfying BLP's needs are concerned, utilizing sun light appears to have been a godsend insofar as addressing a crucial need of exploiting an already well developed multi-billion dollar PV industry. The predicted amount of Sun Cell (tm) light to be generated when the reaction cycle is ramped up to 1000 (or 2000?) explosions per second appears to translate into an obscene amount of excess DC current - on the order of generating kilowatts and megawatts of excess electricity. I believe BLP claims several engineering firms are currently working with them on the goal of engineering a prototype capable of generating a continuous explosion rate of 1000 - 2000 per second. Apparently, from an engineering POV this should not be difficult to design. I gather designing a jet engine would be far more difficult task. According to the two June 25 video demonstrations, BLP wants to engineer the process to eventually utilize higher efficiency triple-junction PV cells. The upgrade should increase the conversion rate significantly more than what can currently be utilized using off the shelf technology. BLP claims the amortization rate for paying off PV cells using BLP Sun Cell (TM) technology would be in the neighborhood of about a
RE: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Let me clear on this point. I don't claim to be smart enough to know whether MILL's audacious, highly controversial CQM theory is an accurate theory or whether it is full of crapola as many Vorts here seem to posit. All that I know is that when I look at the latest BLP videos, what I see is a hell of a lot of laboratory experimentation that has been performed over twenty years. Correct theory or not, performing this kind of laboratory work, in my view, tends to get a lot more of my personal attention and respect as compared to reading a plethora of posts that focus on other unproven theories that are in my view equally controversial. So, what do I do under such circumstances? Well, I'd prefer to go with the folks who have been performing a lot of laboratory experimentation for the past 20 years. In UFOlogy terms, much of these kind of on-going theoretical discussions on Vort concerning critiques of Mill's audacious CQM theory strike me personally as being not all that different than what the late arch skeptic, Philip Klass did as he went about performing arm-chair research on who he wanted to debunk. Again, I just don't know who is right and who isn't, and quite frankly, at this stage of the game it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is whether BLP can close the loop within six months - or twelve. If BLP can close the loop, well then... maybe... just maybe something like hydrinos do exist in this wacky universe of ours. Right or wrong, I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I've learned to be a patient man when it comes to the continuing saga of BLP watching. I personally don't find it to be a waste of my time. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:29 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview The feature that made the Papp engine gainful was frugal power management. The arc activated cluster explosion produced a great deal of current that Papp was able to capture and reuse in the next activation of the paired cylinder. His way of doing this capture was vary convoluted and hard to understand requiring alpha emitting electrodes stimulated by an arc mediated LENR reaction. Reusing the feedback current made the Papp engine work. Mills does not seen to attempt to capture the substantial feedback current. Until he does capture and reuse this feedback current, his COP may not reach over unity let alone exceed it. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I hope there is something to this, but it doesn't seem very convincing yet. I want to see how much energy they are getting out in terms of electricity vs. how much it takes to run the welder. Let's also just see the welder running doing some welding and how much power that generates from the PV cells. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases like oxygen and chlorine and some other noble gases are added to hydrogen, you get an unstable, hard to control and explosive mix which is great for a pressure based internal explosion discharge engine. Perhaps I have missed something, but Axil seems to be unaware of a crucial characteristic pertaining to BLP's Sun Cell (TM) explosion ratios. BLP claims their proprietary solid-fuel water infused mixture generates a kinetic expansion ratio of about 10% per ignition. A 10% expansion rate strikes me as an exceedingly weak kinetic explosion quotient. FYI, recent BLP demonstrations from June 25, 2014 (published June 29) can be viewed at: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU I've viewed these videos back-to back several times over the last 10 days. I always seem to get a little more with each additional viewing. One has to be willing to invest several hours of one's time viewing them. Unfortunately, not many of us have several hours to kill particularly when we may already be predisposed into assuming viewing such demonstrations would be dubious at best. As for me, I wuz lucky in the sense that I had been on vacation for the
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On 07/16/2014 09:28 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Mills does not seen to attempt to capture the substantial feedback current. Until he does capture and reuse this feedback current, his COP may not reach over unity let alone exceed it. It's not plausible, at this point, that Mills doesn't completely understand his inventions. If he is telling the truth, then he has a theory, and has used that theory to develop several power plant designs, all of which have tested to his predicted specifications. He's not guessing here. If on the other hand, he's a fraud, then there's no chance of over unity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: If BLP can close the loop, well then... maybe... just maybe something like hydrinos do exist in this wacky universe of ours. His closing the loop will not necessarily be evidence for the existence of hydrinos. He could be tapping into LENR somehow, for example (as might have been the case with Papp sometime back). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
Mills may be seeing fractional electron orbits, but this behavior of the electron is caused by the quantum mechanics of many body interactions. In simple terms, other electrons change the orbits of these electrons in fractional orbits. Now Mills rejects quantum mechanics which has been also verified using loads of experiment equipment too. He says that hydrinos can stand alone, whereas quantum mechanics says they are an observation seen only in condensed matter...like superconductivity. Just like a cooper pair can only exist in a superconductor, a hydrino can only exist in topological material. The hydrino is not causation. Something else is the real causational factor and the hydrino is just one accidental effect of the causation mechanism. Keep Your Eye on the *Doughnut*, *not* on the *Hole*! http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2cad=rjauact=8ved=0CCQQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achievebalance.com%2Fspirit%2Fgospel%2Fdoughnut.htmei=dD3HU_uQCM-oyAS3mIKoAwusg=AFQjCNEMzAS_Hy-k5B3UQBdebseaeZWdPwsig2=7bZgdmtZuzy5XJqoiVJJYQbvm=bv.71198958,d.aWw On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Let me clear on this point. I don't claim to be smart enough to know whether MILL's audacious, highly controversial CQM theory is an accurate theory or whether it is full of crapola as many Vorts here seem to posit. All that I know is that when I look at the latest BLP videos, what I see is a hell of a lot of laboratory experimentation that has been performed over twenty years. Correct theory or not, performing this kind of laboratory work, in my view, tends to get a lot more of my personal attention and respect as compared to reading a plethora of posts that focus on other unproven theories that are in my view equally controversial. So, what do I do under such circumstances? Well, I'd prefer to go with the folks who have been performing a lot of laboratory experimentation for the past 20 years. In UFOlogy terms, much of these kind of on-going theoretical discussions on Vort concerning critiques of Mill's audacious CQM theory strike me personally as being not all that different than what the late arch skeptic, Philip Klass did as he went about performing arm-chair research on who he wanted to debunk. Again, I just don't know who is right and who isn't, and quite frankly, at this stage of the game it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is whether BLP can close the loop within six months - or twelve. If BLP can close the loop, well then... maybe... just maybe something like hydrinos do exist in this wacky universe of ours. Right or wrong, I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I've learned to be a patient man when it comes to the continuing saga of BLP watching. I personally don't find it to be a waste of my time. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:29 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview The feature that made the Papp engine gainful was frugal power management. The arc activated cluster explosion produced a great deal of current that Papp was able to capture and reuse in the next activation of the paired cylinder. His way of doing this capture was vary convoluted and hard to understand requiring alpha emitting electrodes stimulated by an arc mediated LENR reaction. Reusing the feedback current made the Papp engine work. Mills does not seen to attempt to capture the substantial feedback current. Until he does capture and reuse this feedback current, his COP may not reach over unity let alone exceed it. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I hope there is something to this, but it doesn't seem very convincing yet. I want to see how much energy they are getting out in terms of electricity vs. how much it takes to run the welder. Let's also just see the welder running doing some welding and how much power that generates from the PV cells. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Earlier today, July 16, 2014, I noticed Mills posted another statement claiming another crucial demo will likely be scheduled within another couple of months. As of July 16 2014, over in the Yahoo Society for Classical Physics group, subject thread rumors regarding July 21st demo Mills states: Next demonstration, in say two months, regards running the ignition off of the PV. [That sounds to me as if BLP will actually show a POC prototype that will close the loop. If so, it will be historic- svj] We have very elegant engineering designs to the optical distribution system and electronics to achieve that goal. We have to build and test them. On another matter in regards to Mills' work, I Axil recently stated: When dielectric gases
