This is just a story about technical development and I do find it to be a credible process of such and I enjoyed the story leading to the final design for which I agree that if the COP is high will lead to a success. Now Mills clearly show no need to prove to the public that it works. It do sound like he quite like to be under the radar and put in the fringe corner as long as the dollars roll in and that they can finish the work cooperating with partners. >From what we see one cannot say for sure that Mills has a high COP, at least I can't, but what we don't see is unknown, the investors can be gullible or have done their due diligence outside the public light. We can only wait and see and in the meantime Mills will have a great time. If you think that Mills is an empty bag of promises then why don't you challenge some of his academic work, like the experiments leading to EUV spectra. Non have step up and claimed that those results are wrong or have a credible natural explanation (axil publish a paper if you want acceptance here). This fact means that there is really a base of what he is doing and I would say that the best a critic can do is to challenge what Mills is publishing. I would certainly change my perspective if negative facts about those experiments came into light and i'm sure that those investors would too. The critics are really way out of method to hurt Mills and he knows it and have a ball because of it. Of cause if there is a high COP then we all would benefit from it in the future and if not I won't feel sorry for the investors.
Regards Stefan On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Note - that despite the crap-load of magnificent claims Mills has been > making for months on the massive COP, he says in the vid that he has no > data on the photovoltaic conversion end of it. What !?! > > > > Yet he wants to move it to market real quick. UNBELIEVABLE. > > > > He needs at least a year of performance data before moving to market, but > he says there is presently none. This is most reminiscent of all those New > Mexico licensees for the previous bogus invention (of a long line of bogus > inventions) - that were supposed to be in production back in… when? Uh, > like 8 years ago. > > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/11/blacklight-power-energy-f_n_150270.html > > > > Where does BLP find investors this gullible and patient? At least Rossi > claims to have a year of performance data under his belt. If he does, he > will have no competition from “the brilliant one.” > > > > *From:* Eric Walker > > Here is where a demo of the open device starts: > > > > https://youtu.be/R0PYe-4090g?t=53m13s > > > > Just prior to that, Mills says: "Now there's no microwave here. There's no > high voltage. This is plasma being created in atmospheric pressures, that's > filling that entire chamber. That is an enormous amount of power -- there's > no energy source that can be responsible for that." > > > > No doubt we're to conclude that we're seeing the side-effects of > Hydrinos. The video itself reminds me a little of ball lightning: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning#/media/File:Great_Balls_of_Lightning.jpg > > > > One proposed explanation for ball lightning is that soil is vaporized by > an arc discharge, in which case you'd have a dusty plasma. My suspicion is > that that somehow induces beta decay in the dusty plasma, creating a > self-sustaining ball of hot electrons and Cherenkov radiation. BrLP may > have found a way to harness that kind of process, using a precursor such as > potassium or silicon. > > > > In ball lightning, there's often reports of a sulfur smell. A source of > the sulfur could be the following decays, starting with silicon: > > - > - 32Si => 32P + e- + neutrino + 13 MeV > - 32P => 32S + e- + neutrino + 1.7 MeV > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks like they made a video available of their welder-sun demo. ;) > > > > See: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PYe-4090g > > >
