Jones,
Jojo already beat me to questioning some of your prior conclusions. Nevertheless, let me approach the matter from my own perspective. It seems to me that when you employ phrases like ".deceit, if there is any" and especially ".active avoidance" these strike me, personally, as implying Mills is deliberately performing a bait and switch campaign to entice DOD into forking over vast amounts of additional R&D funding. There exists an animation BLP video that clearly shows the powder substrate exploding, or being catalyzed. It then drops down as "spent" powder particulates into the bottom of the reactor chamber. The used powder is then collected and rehydrated with more water. This video reveals no visual hint of there being any kind of an elaborate recycling process needed in order to rejuvenate the spent powder. The animation clearly implies to any viewer that once water has been re-introduced into the recently catalyzed powder, the rehydrated slurry is pretty much ready once again to be catalyzed. There is no hint of any kind of special energy intensive technology needed. Apparently, this can occur endlessly. That certainly is our hope. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration.pdf See the still diagram on page 34. There is a flashy animated video on page 39 showing the recycling process. Yes, yes. of course, clearly this is nothing more than a BLP promo video. It's a simplified animation. Nevertheless, the implication, in my view, is obvious. The animation both visually and symbolically implies that the recycling process is fast, cheap, and easy to do. It implies very little intensive handling is necessary. Mills also had the following to say in regards to a question I recently posted concerning issues brought up in Vortex-l (many by you) having to do initially with potential oxidation issues, but also having to do with how energy intensive might the recycling process be: Posted July 24, 2014, by Dr. Mills: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] We intend to run H2 in the cell gas that reacts with CuO and AgO to form H2O and metal very exothermically. O2 with [will?] be very rapidly combusted with H2 in the plasma conditions in the cell. The source of H2 is H2O. [I read that is implying BLP will regularly burn off accumulations of O2 within the reaction chamber by supplying H2] We also have use fuels with Cu as the metal, and Ag + MgCl2 + H2O energy data in our paper. Burning cannot make any soft X-ray light. All of the calorimetry data is recorded under an argon atmosphere. The duration is only 0.5 ms, and the power density is >100 B watts per liter. There are many reasons why burning is completely ruled out. This is about the third time that I have addressed this question. I hope that you understand that there can be no oxygen combustion when there is no oxygen, and the characteristics of the reaction in terms of energy balance, power, power density, and soft X-ray production, fully ionized plasma formation, and 3500 to 6000 K blackbody radiation with no line emission are outside the bounds of what is possible with combustion. For details Mills cites the following paper: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/SunCellPaper.pdf Alas, the paper contains far more math than I am capable of digesting. Hopefully, there are others on this list far more capable of critiquing the contents than I. How about you? .or someone else? What are the prevailing thoughts on the paper's contents? On another matter, in one of the June 25 videos I recall that Mills specifically elaborates that BLP has repeatedly tested the recycling of the powder fuel. It should be pretty clear to anyone who views the video that, at least according to what Mills has verbalized, the recycling process is a pretty simple process. Here are some examples of what Mills has to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGTUd68hu5M&feature=youtu.be 19:20 Mills begins to talk about the metal powder 28:30 Mills starts talking about the volume of powder used 29:10 Mills states the fuel can be rehydrated and re-circulated 29:30 Mills states the regeneration system is "Very simple" 30:15: Again Mills talks about the regeneration system. If your conclusion is correct, Mills would have to be both consciously and deliberately lying, IMHO. Are you willing to go on the record as saying Dr. Mills is deliberately lying about how difficult and energy intensive the SunCell recycling process actually is? PS: Philippians? Welcome back, Jojo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
