As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see, what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater so if it turns out to be real.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even > 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one quick bomb calorimetry > demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was > not published on it. If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should > publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a > reasonable time period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the > experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis. He wouldn't have to > publish anything about what is inside his black box. He doesn't need to > wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement. He could > establish credibility with one such paper. If he published a credible > paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence. There > must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way. > > Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of > pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science. He shows pretty > stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something > else. > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says he will >> demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required >> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year. Obviously he >> can't do that before. >> >> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof. I >> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class >> "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as very unscientific. >> >> Slightly related see. http://www.scotsman.com/news/o >> pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing- >> cold-fusion-system-1-4400376 >> >> AA >> >> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: >> >> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted. >> >> >> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating. >> >>
