Talk-Polywell.org

Alright, thanks for the extra info.

birchoff wrote:

JoeP wrote:My guess is that any excess energy (if there is any) is the metals simply heating up due to the shorts and then burning up in the atmosphere. Very energetic for sure...all basic chemistry.

While the heating of the metal particles are contributing to the excess energy, burning isn't. during the demo on July 21, 2014 he one or two demos where the reaction chamber was filled with argon. Now the chamber that the ignition was being shown in didn't look as if it was hermetically sealed but I am willing to give him a pass on this since I don't have any money ridding on him being right and it looked like they were continuously running argon through the chamber before the test for a considerable amount of time.

By the way, my skeptic meter is pegged on Mills even more than Rossi. The hot ecat test was far more "transparent." Just shows the low bar Mills is not attempting to get over. Anyway...

Filling the chamber with argon is pretty good to eliminate the burning with atmosphere.

But -- enough juice into those rollers and the metal is going to vaporize and burst in a similar light show anyway. So I agree this is kinda of meaningless without some actual numbers claims to look over. And I agree with all that say this is easy to cheat with. Hell, an oxidizer could be a component of the fuel too, so the argon bit could be just a shell game.

Doesn't impress at all. Oh well.

agreed

I would also add to this that powderization of metal only makes it burn better and easier. Sometimes explosively.
If you add an oxidation component or mechanism, you do not need any air. Thus, adding Argon to the chamber could be a mere gimmick distraction.
Self oxidizing metallic powder compunds are used all the time every day, just add spark.

We should make a League of Extraordinary Gentledebunkers. Storm Rossi's and Mills' lairs and snatch their black boxes. Settle it once and for all.

I wished James Randi was attending their demonstrations. He would probably swap the "Null demo" capsule for the real one just to see whether that changes anything. I know, I would.

ladajo wrote:I would also add to this that powderization of metal only makes it burn better and easier. Sometimes explosively.
If you add an oxidation component or mechanism, you do not need any air. Thus, adding Argon to the chamber could be a mere gimmick distraction.
Self oxidizing metallic powder compunds are used all the time every day, just add spark.

It would also be a pretty easy thing for one of his validators to discover. So if he is adding an oxidizer then his validators would definitely need to be in on it. Since all of them claim that they are unable to find an explanation for the energy released.

Also, what I really don't get. If your meet the SEC's rules for investing in a private company, how do you not get someone independent to do due diligence for you? It just seems like the scale of the deception would need to be really really big, like Bernie Madoff scandal big for this to grok in my mind. Either way it will be a great story when its all said and done.

birchoff wrote: Also, what I really don't get. If your meet the SEC's rules for investing in a private company, how do you not get someone independent to do due diligence for you? It just seems like the scale of the deception would need to be really really big, like Bernie Madoff scandal big for this to grok in my mind. Either way it will be a great story when its all said and done.

In my personal experience many investors are not particularly smart. Many investors made their money with sports or inherited it. They don't understand science and engineering in any way enough to even think of a validation. How else did EESTOR get money for years without having anything?

Skipjack wrote:

birchoff wrote: Also, what I really don't get. If your meet the SEC's rules for investing in a private company, how do you not get someone independent to do due diligence for you? It just seems like the scale of the deception would need to be really really big, like Bernie Madoff scandal big for this to grok in my mind. Either way it will be a great story when its all said and done.

In my personal experience many investors are not particularly smart. Many investors made their money with sports or inherited it. They don't understand science and engineering in any way enough to even think of a validation. How else did EESTOR get money for years without having anything?

I guess my dad was right when he told me, "A Fool and his money will soon be parted"

JoeP wrote:"5 J input and the light energy released is over 500 J."

Eh, someone who know more about these demos educate me. To a casual observer like myself, it looks pretty unconvincing. I could make such a thing in my garage if I cared enough to try -- and if I wanted to risk getting electrocuted, which I don't

The claimed fuel material is some kind of hydrated metallic powder or pellets fed into electrified rollers, which causes shorts and the supposed hydrino reaction -- which is supposed to be the main contribution to the light and heat emitted?

OK, so did Mills run this with non-hydrated fuel?

My guess is that any excess energy (if there is any) is the metals simply heating up due to the shorts and then burning up in the atmosphere. Very energetic for sure...all basic chemistry.

Basic chemistry, and then they surround it with solar panels, and use the power from them to light LEDs.

And it was at that point that I smelled a very large rat.

LEDs, as you all know, have a very short rise and fall time regarding output - and are very low current devices. Light bulbs would have drawn more current AND taken longer to warm - which would have been nowhere near so impressive. But a flash in the demo followed by a flash of an led? Ooooh - shiny!

And the human retina's got 'persistence of vision' - which would tend to smooth out our perception of how constantly the LEDs were flashing.

Hate to say it, but this really looks like a scam. It might not be - but that's the way I'd bet at this point.

How do these people not have their heads on spikes (figuratively) yet? There's something wrong with the system if this sort of "trade secret" protected charade can go on for whole decades.

Betruger wrote:How do these people not have their heads on spikes (figuratively) yet? There's something wrong with the system if this sort of "trade secret" protected charade can go on for whole decades.

While I share the skepticism of everyone here where BLP is concerned. I honestly would be very surprised if this turned out to be a fraud. At least of the kind where Mills and associates knowingly misled their investors. Also I reviewed the information on their validation reports here. And confirmed my suspicion that the investors are actually having outside people do their due dilligence.

I'd love to be wrong.. That power density makes stuff like Woodward's thrusters almost lame. Except Mills is opposite Woodward's transparency, nearer Rossi's end. He's put out his theory (I was naive enough to go to my chem teacher at Uni at the time, wanting to bounce Mills' papers off of him), but he's also had years and millions and repeated grand reveals.

How does that keep happening? At the very least, why hasn't someone set the Mills experiments and/or theory straight, if indeed this is valid but oversold phenomena ie Mills & co riding something real to pitch faulty but profitable conjecture?

birchoff wrote:

Betruger wrote:How do these people not have their heads on spikes (figuratively) yet? There's something wrong with the system if this sort of "trade secret" protected charade can go on for whole decades.

While I share the skepticism of everyone here where BLP is concerned. I honestly would be very surprised if this turned out to be a fraud. At least of the kind where Mills and associates knowingly misled their investors. Also I reviewed the information on their validation reports here. And confirmed my suspicion that the investors are actually having outside people do their due dilligence.

After watching the demonstration again, I have a hard time convincing myself it isn't a fraud. Aside from the obvious things that I've detailed above, the fact that they weren't acting like this was some mysterious, high-energy source was interesting. I believe I saw a mention of soft x-rays - unless they'd had everyone put on lead jockstraps in addition to the cheap safety glasses, that didn't seem a concern.

I've seen better setups in SF movies.

Betruger wrote:I'd love to be wrong.. That power density makes stuff like Woodward's thrusters almost lame. Except Mills is opposite Woodward's transparency, nearer Rossi's end. He's put out his theory (I was naive enough to go to my chem teacher at Uni at the time, wanting to bounce Mills' papers off of him), but he's also had years and millions and repeated grand reveals.

How does that keep happening? At the very least, why hasn't someone set the Mills experiments and/or theory straight, if indeed this is valid but oversold phenomena ie Mills & co riding something real to pitch faulty but profitable conjecture?

I think that keeps happening because everyone is assuming that someone else will do the work of disproving him. Or assuming that anyone who believes him deserves to be swindled.

JLawson wrote:
After watching the demonstration again, I have a hard time convincing myself it isn't a fraud. Aside from the obvious things that I've detailed above, the fact that they weren't acting like this was some mysterious, high-energy source was interesting. I believe I saw a mention of soft x-rays - unless they'd had everyone put on lead jockstraps in addition to the cheap safety glasses, that didn't seem a concern.

I've seen better setups in SF movies.

Soft xrays carry less energy than their more powerful brother hard xrays so the fact that they say the reaction generates them is a non issue as they wont make it out side of the reaction camber much less to where the observers are watching from(See here for a more official explaination).

As for the lack of wonder... Like everyone here has said before supporters and skeptics included, they have been proposing this theory and similar devices for a long time now. From the perspective of mills and the lab techs this is probably demo number "too many to remember". As for the spectators, one group of them were said to have been validators of the technology, so I can understand the lack of enthusiasm. As for the rest of the spectators you could have a point. But that depends on whether or not this is a followup demonstration for the same investors or a mixture of new and existing investors.