Can't Quite Makework
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steven--
>
> What does CQM stand for? I know constituent-quark model and Chinese Quantum
> Method may be applicable. What else?
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:38 AM
> To: [email protected]
>
> Just to be clear here, I did not mean to imply that when I used the term
> "close the loop" I was not speculating on the premise that BLP was tapping
> into "free energy".
>
>
>
> In the meantime, I see many additional pet theories that have been described
> here that seem to suggest CQM is an incorrect theory. Personally, I find it
> very odd (and not particularly productive) that most of the current
> discussion seems to have focused primarily on defending whose favorite pet
> theory best explains the presumed extraordinary energy claims BLP is
> producing. Few seem to focus on what I think is the vastly more important
> matter: Are BLP's claimed energy gains accurate readings. If they are, CQM
> being correct or not, Mills has pulled the rabbit out of the hat. We all
> win... well most of us win. The fossil fuel industry is likely to be not
> very happy. Meanwhile, the PV industry will be ecstatic. They will make out
> like gangbusters.
>
>
>
> Personally, It does not matter to me whether CQM is the correct theory, or
> not. What matters to me is whether the energy gains are accurate. If they
> are, CQM will have to be taken more seriously by the entire scientific
> establishment. It's almost as if some here are feeling a tad threatened by
> this possibility coming true.
>
>
>
> I do not mean to imply that I personally believe CQM is correct. Quite
> frankly, I don't know because I honestly can't follow the math. I mean to
> imply that the world would no longer be able to ignore CQM as they currently
> do. CQM will have to be discussed more openly. And that's a good thing. The
> controversial theory needs to be analyzed, tested, and presumably falsified
> far more extensively than what the current scientific establishment has
> cared to do. The current scientific establishment has completely ignored
> Mills work. They have in fact attempted to make CQM go away, implying that
> the upstart theory doesn't follow politically accepted QM doctrine, such as
> to comply with a plethora of probability models. Ignoring Mills' CQM
> theory...not attempting to perform any kind of experimental falsification on
> CQM's extraordinary claims has been, IMHO, a patently stupid and self
> serving action. I have little respect for such lack of foresight.
>
>
>
> I would also add that we can all continue quibble over whose favorite
> theory is the correct one after we have purchased our very own BLP energy
> units and we are saving thousands of dollars in electric and heating bills
> each year. After all, quibbling is a favorite pastime... and it's cheap.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
> From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:34 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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 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 on further BLP
> developments - or bungles.)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
