Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[aleCcowaN]

As for how global warming fits into all of this, I'm completely at a loss. I've never heard a climatologist reference engine heat as a driver of so-called global warming.

... and let me fix you some of this Mococoa drink, all natural cocoa beans from the upper slopes of Mount Nicaragua, no artificial sweeteners!

 

[The Man]

I had two thoughts:

1: Distribute the weight across more wheels, kind of like tracked vehicles do. Maybe good for tracks that were built on poor footings or with rotten ties/sleepers.

2: Improve traction. Normally each wheel has one point of contact with the tracks. This way each drive wheel has two points of contact (one with each of the first-tier extra wheels) and each of the first-tier wheels has two-points of contact with the second-tier extra wheels (not sure what else to call them).

I guess in that respect I don't understand the Hollman Horror's websites criticism of the thing. It claims that more wheel-wheel interface would creat more slippage. I would think the opposite to be true - more surface area contact would reduce slippage.

I would guess that they were thinking along with one or both of those ideas, but were probably wrong. It would be overly complicated and top heavy.

Friction is proportional to the normal force between two surfaces. Distributing the load over more area decreases the force per unit bearing area and thus reduces friction. Good when you want smooth motion and less heat generation in say a ball bearing but bad for drive wheels to the pushing surface.

 

[michaelsuede]

Here is a link to a paper, which shows that the functions describing the Hydrinos' orbital states cannot be used to describe the higher energy states (hydrogen). You would think that Mills could at least have made up equations that generalize to all states of Hydrogen (Hydrino all the way up to where Hydrogen is on the verge of ionizing), but he couldn't even do this. Personally I feel that it is more likely that the remarkable accuracy of measurement predictions by quantum theory over the last century compared to actual measurements means that it should not be discarded in favor of Mills replacement of it. A key quote from the paper:
"In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis,
both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were
originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that
CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deciencies. Amongst these are
the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen
atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance."

www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

Rathke's paper is ancient, and Mills responded to his criticisms a long time ago.

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf

 

[hecd2]

I'm not sure where you're getting your data from, but a 7 series will blow through way more than 25 mpg at peak power. I said a BMW 7 series revving its engine in neutral, so already you're grossly distorting my original claim.

Wiki to the rescue:

BMW 7 Series 760Li 6 L V12 2006 engine operates at 327 kW / 439 bhp.

So at peak load, that engine is roughly the equivalent of Mills generator.

Exactly, but revving in neutral is not peak load. Not even close. Neutral is zero external load and running an engine, even at the red line, in neutral will not generate anything like the engine's peak power output.

Now if you claimed that a Mills generator makes as much waste heat as a BMW series 7 running 24/7 at 180 - 200 mph then you'd be nearer the truth.

As it is, you're way, way off. As we have come to expect.

 

[RussDill]

I'm not sure where you're getting your data from, but a 7 series will blow through way more than 25 mpg at peak power. I said a BMW 7 series revving its engine in neutral, so already you're grossly distorting my original claim.

Wiki to the rescue:

BMW 7 Series 760Li 6 L V12 2006 engine operates at 327 kW / 439 bhp.

So at peak load, that engine is roughly the equivalent of Mills generator.

As for how global warming fits into all of this, I'm completely at a loss. I've never heard a climatologist reference engine heat as a driver of so-called global warming.

You can get peak power for maybe a half second while revving in neutral. After that you'll either hit a limiter or your engine will blow up. Try it out sometime.

 

[hecd2]

...and the problem isn't global warming but simply the management of vast quantities of waste heat. And the objection that the so-called waste heat from the generator is the most easily accessible source of energy. Putting solar cells round a light bulb. Sheesh!

 

[RussDill]

Rathke's paper is ancient, and Mills responded to his criticisms a long time ago.

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf

Which Mills is right, the one that says this new substance is a gas that can be captured, or the one that says this new substance is dark matter?

 

[halleyscomet]

As for how global warming fits into all of this, I'm completely at a loss. I've never heard a climatologist reference engine heat as a driver of so-called global warming.

Your ignorance is rather terrifying given the environmental dangers of the system you're promoting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat

Anthropogenic heat is a much smaller contributor to global warming than are greenhouse gases.[13] In 2005, although anthropogenic waste heat flux was significantly high in certain urban areas (and can be high regionally. For example, waste heat flux was +0.39 and +0.68 W/m2 for the continental United States and western Europe, respectively) globally it accounted for only 1% of the energy flux created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Global forcing from waste heat was 0.028 W/m2 in 2005. This statistic is predicted to rise as urban areas become more widespread.[14]

Of course you're taking about a power source that will belch out a LOT more waste heat than current electricity generation technologies AND spew potentially toxic gas into the environment.

Tell me, why are the idiots behind this hot, wet, abortion going for solar panels and not using some of the waste heat for power generation in steam turbines? There's something fishy in that decision.

 

[bruto]

I'm not sure where you're getting your data from, but a 7 series will blow through way more than 25 mpg at peak power. I said a BMW 7 series revving its engine in neutral, so already you're grossly distorting my original claim.

Wiki to the rescue:

BMW 7 Series 760Li 6 L V12 2006 engine operates at 327 kW / 439 bhp.

So at peak load, that engine is roughly the equivalent of Mills generator.

As for how global warming fits into all of this, I'm completely at a loss. I've never heard a climatologist reference engine heat as a driver of so-called global warming.

Of course revving the engine at neutral is not peak power either, is it?

 

[michaelsuede]

Of course revving the engine at neutral is not peak power either, is it?

I said the heat Mills generator produced was equivalent to a BMW revving its engines at neutral.

Then I proceeded to show that Mills generator was producing 250 kw of waste heat.

Then I showed the total kW of the BWM to be 327 kW, which is far above the 250 kW of waste heat produced by Mills reactor.

So yeah, I figure a BWM parked in neutral revving is engines is going to dump about as much heat as Mills generator - ball park.

The whole point of this exercise was to show that the world would not melt from every household running one of these generators because air is a great insulator. You can stand around an entire fleet of cars at idle and not roast to death.

 

[abaddon]

I said the heat Mills generator produced was equivalent to a BMW revving its engines at idle.

Then I proceeded to show that Mills generator was producing 260 kw of waste heat.

Then I showed the total kW of the BWM to be 327 kW, which is far above the 260 kW of waste heat produced by Mills reactor.

So yeah, I figure a BWM parked in neutral revving is engines is going to dump about as much heat as Mills generator - ball park.

The whole point of this exercise was to show that the world would not melt from every household running one of these generators because air is a great insulator. You can stand around an entire fleet of cars at idle and not roast to death.

You can rev an engine or you can have an engine at idle. You cannot have both.

Mills generator was producing 260 kw of waste heat.
Where does that heat go?

the world would not melt
Strawman. Nobody made that claim.

air is a great insulator.
How do ovens work, then?

 

[michaelsuede]

*neutral

*And it's 250, not 260.

Ovens work by heat transference through convection, conduction and radiation.

 

[mifune]

I said the heat Mills generator produced was equivalent to a BMW revving its engines at neutral.

Then I proceeded to show that Mills generator was producing 250 kw of waste heat.

Then I showed the total kW of the BWM to be 327 kW, which is far above the 250 kW of waste heat produced by Mills reactor.

So yeah, I figure a BWM parked in neutral revving is engines is going to dump about as much heat as Mills generator - ball park.

The whole point of this exercise was to show that the world would not melt from every household running one of these generators because air is a great insulator. You can stand around an entire fleet of cars at idle and not roast to death.

So you reckon a BMW engine revving in neutral is ~70% of the peak output that engine can generate?? Do you not realise how ridiculous that is? I know its a tiny insignificant error compared to the much more grandiose and physics shattering errors the Mills engine implies, but still, its a good indication of how good (ie. poor) your grasp on the basic stuff of science is.

 

[tableplay]

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Aside from the fact that Rathke uses CQM theory itself to show that hydrogen's excited states cannot be derived from it, the following statement is taken from Mills' rebuttal (which you linked to): "CQM gives closed-form physical solutions for the electron in atoms, the free electron, and excited states which match the observations. With these solutions, conjugate parameters can be
solved for the first time, and atomic theory is at last made predictive and intuitive." So CQM theory brushes aside the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - the momentum and position of the electron can be perfectly predicted at the same time because of CQM. Apparently BLP has opted not to create an entire cottage industry around the ability of CQM to perfectly predict every atom in the universe (the rebuttal was from 2008 so there was plenty of time for this branch of BLP to blossom).
Anyway, as posted by numerous people, if the hydrino is real, BLP has not done any environmental studies on hydrino chemistry.

Rathke's paper is ancient, and Mills responded to his criticisms a long time ago.

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf

 

[bruto]

The science aside, I must say I find the sociology of this kind of thing fascinating. A discovery and a machine that should be good for a Nobel prize at the very least, and a world changing fortune beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and what do we get? Chinglish patent gibberish, fuzzy videos, appeals for investment and thirty years of delays?

If those developments were real, they'd constitute good evidence for why they should be abandoned, because pretty clearly they make people act with singular stupidity.

 

[RussDill]

The whole point of this exercise was to show that the world would not melt from every household running one of these generators because air is a great insulator. You can stand around an entire fleet of cars at idle and not roast to death.

I thought the whole point was to avoid tricky questions about physics, dark matter, and what the point of just not using a turbine was.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I said the heat Mills generator produced was equivalent to a BMW revving its engines at neutral.

Then I proceeded to show that Mills generator was producing 250 kw of waste heat.

Then I showed the total kW of the BWM to be 327 kW, which is far above the 250 kW of waste heat produced by Mills reactor.

So yeah, I figure a BWM parked in neutral revving is engines is going to dump about as much heat as Mills generator - ball park...

I recommend you try sometime to rev a car's engine up to the redline in neutral. Note in particular what a small throttle opening is required to hold the engine at high rpm with no load. Your ballpark guess is at odds with reality.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Mills said he's going to make the generator housings look like European sports cars so people can stick them in their driveways without anyone noticing.

And another poster on this site is going to build a flying Star-of-David-shaped temple when he has established his New World Order.
Instead of worrying about whether to paint his temple blue or red, he should work on establishing his dystopia first.

 

[Aepervius]

Why wouldn't that work? Anti-matter is quantum opposite to matter right? So if it's the opposite then an antimatter acid would change litmus paper to blue! What more proof would be needed?

(I think I am getting the hang of this scamology malarky.)

I dunno if the litmus paper would have time to change color, but certainly seeing half a city block vaporized would be proof enough for me (thinking about : no it would not have time - explosion is quicker)

 

[hecd2]

Then I showed the total kW of the BWM to be 327 kW, which is far above the 250 kW of waste heat produced by Mills reactor.

So yeah, I figure a BWM parked in neutral revving is engines is going to dump about as much heat as Mills generator - ball park.

Rubbish. The notion that a car revving its engine in neutral is anywhere near its peak power output just shows how little you understand about physics and engineering.