Robin wrote:
> In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800: > Hi, > [snip] > >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 > > > The date forms part of the title. This is 2 1/2 years old. > [snip] > >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. > > Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time IMO, you get fusion instead, so there aren't going to be a whole lot of n=1/16 hydrinos lying around. > Furthermore, the energy density is based on 70 V and the mass of the hydrino, if I don't miss my guess, but this appears to ignore the mass of the structural materials of the battery (but you may be able to make a battery that is qua volume and mass largely fuel). Besides, with disproportionation reactions probably taking place in any such battery, it's likely to overheat, and eventually, possibly explode. There is also the difficulty of working with hydrinos at multiple different levels of shrinkage concurrently, and the consequences this would have for battery voltage. MC: A few years back, I had a visit with Mills in his conference room to introduce an overseas visitor who wanted to meet him. In the course of the conversation he said he would be happy with a battery that is twice as good as the popular lithium-ion cell. A long shot from the p=16 battery. I think there have been a few chemical demosntrations along the way. But before any of this can be remotely feasible there has to be a source of lots of pure hydrinos. You get that when hundreds or thousands of BLP reactors are running and hydrino hydrides are collected as byproducts. There is no point in pounding the drum for the BLP battery when the necessary ingredients are not available. There is no point on dwelling on P=16, P=2,3,4,5,6,7 will do just fine as well, and these have been seen in the spectra of reactors. Mills has reported that the reactor gas can be liquefied at liquid nitrogen temperatures, so fractionl distillation is available as a means of purification. There may be a family of batteries with different terminal voltages. If any of this comes to pass, it could make an immense difference in the performance of hybrid cars and lots of other systems as well. > > > > >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. If one is not allergic to Mills' name on a paper, independent reproduction will be found in papers by Phillips and Conrads, in New Mexico and Germany, respectively. > The claim is years old. As time passes, Mills tends to leave these things on the back burner, and concentrate on what he believes is most likely to work best. If you want to benefit from his experience, then concentrate on what he is currently working on. > > > > >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. And just how will this hasten the day, when people like Zimmerman, Baron, Pibel, and Rabitt all agree that the orbitsphere model is terminally faulty [despite the computer animations now on the website]? I am an unabashed "apologist" for Mills, having paid close attention to his work and noted repreatedly that there is a big gap between his reports and viable commercial systems. If you pay close attention you will see that Mills is systematically building a fortress of patents and papers that will protect his investors and partners when the rush begins. He could still fail. > > The public rarely demands action on matters so esoteric (to them). In fact 99% (at least) of the public, has never even heard of Mills. Most of those that have, are sitting back and waiting for him to do the hard work, then when he's got something that works well, someone will steal it. So Robin wants the US governemnt to steal it? > > > > >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. On what basis do you say "growing doubts from 'many' former supporters?" > > There is nothing to stop others from doing development work. Absolutely nothing, in fact Mills would be pleased. All he wants are some royalties from commercial developments. > In fact there are a number of others who's work may well at least in part depend on hydrino formation (e.g. Betavolt), even if they are not aware of it (or in some cases don't believe it). That's fine. If there is replicable commercial product, everyone will benefit. Eventually the courts will settle issues of primacy and royalties. Such battles have happened before. Mills has filed application for a huge patent with some 700 claims and hundreds of clauses, covering virtually every variation on the processes he has reported in the past years. Some working devices and a big court battle will be wonderful publicity, one that Mills will probably win. > > The bottom line is that in the long run, "hydrinos" are going to be important primarily as a workable path to fusion and transmutation, the only direction in which Mills is loath to go (and possibly in some new materials). Mills' is reluctant to have any association with CF, LENR, CANR and nuclear phenomena. His path is alliances with large corporations where he appears as the consummate businessman with valuable patents which he can and will defend. He need convince only CEOs and their immediate technical staffs, not the public, nor members of vortex or HSG. He does not want the EPA, the NRC and other agencies involved. There must be nothing in the way of the critical signatures. No doubt when it becomes "real" there will be a rush of imitators. Fine. I suspect that what they will find that the effects reported by Mills will be easy to do if you follow directions and not do something 'new and improved'. Doing something 'new and improved' will require the know-how painfully acquired by Mills in these years of development, and a license to get access to that know-how. In decades, as the technology propagates, know how will also. Regards, Mike Carrell
