Incredible battery and TOE

[Jones Beene]

One of the most frustrating things about the internet, especially to any alternative energy advocate who seeks to find, weed-out and support, in every reasonable way, or even try to replicate ... the *best reasonable* solutions available which address the looming fossil-fuel-reliance catastrophe is...   1) No, it is not the plethora of fly-by-night scam artists like GWE (Genesis) Dennis Lee, Gardner Watts, Tilley, Lutec, and the others documented by the (always over-inclusive) "crank" sites, like Kreig's: Those unscrupulous promoters who taint the entire field, by recognizing (as all good crooks can) - the 'johns' - the 'easy pickin's' available when wealthy individuals who have a social consciousness (but do not have much sophistication in appreciating what is feasible and what is not feasible.) are out there. Caveat emptor.   2) No, it is not well-meaning, sometimes brilliant but often self-deceived or at least hard-to-comprehend experimenters and theorists, who are not seeking financial gain, but yet are promoting ideas which are likely to be dead-end from the get-go. These go back to Leonardo da Vinci, Bernoulli, and even Isaac Newton. The problem here is separating the wheat from the chafe and often that involves personal viewpoints. No problem with that, either. It is well-documented that many of the greatest inventors, visionaries and creators throughout history have been borderline psychotic and see things that more focused scientists will miss.   3) No, its not the web sites which specialize in rehashing old scams, alien technology, missed-opportunity-nostalgia, suppressed inventions and failed ventures like those of Keeley, Hamil , Hendershot, DePalma, etc. or in egregious over-optimism about every little puffed-up item which appears on the PR-sites or in the vanity press. These can be mildly humorous.   Instead the really frustrating information is the tantalizing stuff which appears from brilliant, well funded, probably genius-level researchers like Mills/BLP who will publish tantalizing bits of apparently apocryphal (at least certainly unattainable in the short run) speculation, but cannot produce any real evidence to back it up, and then have the gall to claim "independent verification" when everyone who tires to duplicate it fails. More on the hydrino battery at the end.   But first, to consolidate two postings on Mills into one:   In case you were wondering: How heavy is everything: The initial mass of the Universe based on the size, age, Hubble constant, temperature, density of matter, and power spectrum is 2 X 10^54 kg...  give or take a few ounces How old is the universe? Infinitely old, as it oscillates on a long cycle but never collapses all the way: Thus, the observed Universe will expand as mass is released as photons for ~500,000,000,000 years to its maximum radius of 2x10^12 light years.. At that point in its world-line, the Universe will obtain its maximum size and begin to contract to its minimum radius of ~3x10^11 light years       Immodest Conclusion: all from this TOE by Randall Mills Maxwell's equations, Planck's equation, the de Broglie equation, Newton's laws, and Special, and General Relativity are now Unified.. If you have the time to download this amazing document, along with some very nice visualizations, over 100 pages and a tasty mixed-grill... then by all means, indulge yourself. There is a lot of potentially brilliant information here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if you do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the extra fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps keep you 'regular'...this is mostly new from the BLP site.  http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Theory%20Pres%20020905%20std%202.pdf   To me, one of the more interesting images in this new material is the OS (orbitsphere) which now looks like a truncated sphere with both ends missing. Not what I had been thinking.   Here is the tantalizing bit (not new, but certainly relevant to current threads on vortex about how to best way to store energy, especially wind and solar), for which Mills appears to be claiming as fact certain evidence which he has not produced, despite many appeals, and therefore likely cannot produce any time soon... but he hasn't removed or qualified the claims:   Battery Comparison (from the BLP site)   The energy density projection for BLP's battery is as high as 10,000+ watt-hours per kilogram. The voltage of BLP's battery may be 70 volts compared to the average voltage for a lithium-ion battery of 3.6 volts. BLP's battery compound may release about 100 times the energy and 1,000 plus times the power of any other conventional chemical used in batteries.   If Mills could better document this, as well as many other of his claims, of if anyone could reproduce them independently there would be... not millions, not even a few billion, but tens of billions of dollars available to develop the whole works. Instead, what do we have? More fancy papers and more vacuous claims.   At some point after 15 years of excuses, even his apologists are going to have to drop the spiel that "these things always take longer to develop then people realize," and ask themselves why, if there is any truth to it, that the public should not demand government intervention, due to global warming and the impending crisis of artic methane poisoning, etc and commandeer this research (and pay Mills its worth, of course, after that has been determined) and incorporate it into a new Manhattan project.   If Mills claims were true, and there are growing doubts from many former supporters, then the impending environmental crisis makes it that important... that we by-pass the reluctant inventor and get some real action going, rather than just more rhetoric and fancier papers and pdf presentations.   Jones