Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[halleyscomet]

I'm sure you were laughing when I told people to buy Bitcoin at 10 bucks a coin as well.

Even if you did make such a recommendation, having been right about an alternative currency in the past would not mean you were right about a generator that's been in development for nearly 30 years without a single commercial product.

 

[phunk]

It did.

They were vaporizing (literally vaporizing into metal vapor) 1/4" thick tungsten electrodes within seconds of turning the power on.

No commercial power source known to man can do that.

They solved the vaporizing electrode problem by going with molten metal injection.

A megawatt in that small of a space wouldn't just vaporize the electrode, it would vaporize the whole device. It would be a bomb.

 

[halleyscomet]

It did.

They were vaporizing (literally vaporizing into metal vapor) 1/4" thick tungsten electrodes within seconds of turning the power on.

No commercial power source known to man can do that.

They solved the vaporizing electrode problem by going with molten metal injection.

A megawatt in that small of a space wouldn't just vaporize the electrode, it would vaporize the whole device. It would be a bomb.

It has been discussed in this thread that Hydrinos, if real, would be prone to spontaneous fusion under relatively easy to achieve circumstances. Perhaps the reactions that keep taking Mills by surprise are nuclear in nature.

I still want to know how liquid metal solves a problem with enough energy being discharged to vaporize solid metal. The liquid metal just needs to absorb less energy to vaporize. It's the same as liquid water taking less energy to bring to a boil than ice. If you have a device that vaporizes ice, pouring in liquid water won't magically resolve the problem.

 

[Aepervius]

Megawatts in a coffee cup... I'm just wondering how it doesn't instantly vaporize.

If I were generous I would say because they are taking a measurement on a very short time, and get a micro number of watt, estimate the time to be very low, et voila megawatts. e.g. You measure 1 micro joule over 1 pico second and you get a megawatt. To have a real life equivalent, gigawatt laser are usually pulsed laser with femto second pulse but nanojoule over the whole pulse and you get a gigawatt laser.

But I am generous and they simply pulled it out of thin air.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I still want to know how liquid metal solves a problem with enough energy being discharged to vaporize solid metal. The liquid metal just needs to absorb less energy to vaporize. It's the same as liquid water taking less energy to bring to a boil than ice. If you have a device that vaporizes ice, pouring in liquid water won't magically resolve the problem.

Perhaps it speeds up the oxidation?

Vaporization of tungsten in flowing steam at high temperatures

Keep in mind I am still going with the hypothesis that anything shown so far is just a fancy light bulb burning out. I will be happy to have my hypothesis torn down. But not hand waved away. Exothermic reaction is the null hypothesis if any more energy is measured over inputs. It's only if when NOT burning up and instead sustaining itself and still producing higher outputs than inputs that it becomes interesting.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Megawatts in a coffee cup... I'm just wondering how it doesn't instantly vaporize.

Macdonalds use them to heat their coffee.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Let's start by examining the physical properties of Tungsten:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten


The BLP claim appears to be the current reactor uses liquid silver electrodes to get around the tungsten vaporization problem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver


How the HELL are liquid silver electrodes an improvement if the device supposedly vaporized tungsten? The silver will vaporize too!

No wonder they can't bring a product to market.

Why not just turn it down a bit?

 

[Aepervius]

No commercial power source known to man can vaporise 6mm tungsten electrodes in seconds? Really? You wouldn't just like to do the sums on that for us, would you, to support that claim?

Heat of vaporization is lower than 800 KJ.mol -1 (bear with me I round numbers to easily calculate the stuff), Tungsten is about 180 g.mol -1 and 20 g.cm-3, so 1/9 mol per cm^-3. An electrode of 6 mm diameter that's about 1.1 cm^3 per centimeter assuming round cylindric electrode, I'll assume 1 cm^3 because I am lazy and want only order of magnitude.

That is the vaporization energy of 1 cm electrode of 6mm diameter is 800/9 KJ per centimeter. About 100 KJ.

Note that he said *seconds* of being turned on. So assuming , let us say at least 3 second that's barely 30 KW needed. At 220 Volt that is 150 Ampere. For reference I had 100 Ampere current in my building, 240 V triphased, so it would deliver *conventionally* potentially what Michael said cannot be delivered conventionally.

Now I may have an error in the above, who knows.

 

[halleyscomet]

Heat of vaporization is lower than 800 KJ.mol -0 (bear with me I round numbers to easily calculate the stuff), Tungsten is about 180 g.mol -1 and 20 g.cm-3, so 1/9 mol per cm^-3. An electrode of 6 mm diameter that's about 1.1 cm^3 per centimeter assuming round cylindric electrode, I'll assume 1 cm^3 because I am lazy and want only order of magnitude.

That is the vaporization energy of 1 cm electrode of 66mm diameter is 800/9 KJ per centimeter. About 100 KJ.

Note that he said *seconds* of being turned on. So assuming , let us say at least 3 second that's barely 30 KW needed. At 220 Volt that is 150 Ampere. For reference I had 100 Amepre current in my building, 240 V, so it would deliver *conventionally* potentially what Michael said cannot be delivered conventionally.

Now I may have an error in the above, who knows.

michaelsuede,

What's your science background like?

A quick search for information on vaporizing tungsten shows your claims about it being impossible with conventional energy sources to be, well, wrong.

Vaporization of tungsten in flowing steam at high temperatures

Chemical reactions of tungsten with steam which persist to tungsten temperatures as low as 800°C result in the formation of a hydrated tungsten-oxide which has a high vapor pressure and is readily convected in a flowing atmosphere. The vaporization reaction removes the oxide scale that forms on the tungsten surface as it forms, leaving behind a fresh metallic surface for further oxidation and vaporization. Experiments were conducted with cylindrical tungsten rods heated to temperatures from approximately 700°C to 1350°C in flowing steam which was superheated to 140°C to measure the oxidative vaporization rates of tungsten in steam. The results of these experiments revealed a threshold temperature for tungsten vaporization in steam between 700°C and 800°C. Other tests were conducted over the temperature range of 800–1350°C. In these tests, the tungsten rods were found to have lost weight due to vaporization of the tungsten and the missing weight was collected in the downstream condensate system.

lets see you do this with a normal pencil torch. The original mass was 2.5g and after the total parts massed out at 2.3g, which means IT VAPORIZED .2g of tungsten. I don't know the heat of vaporization off

Here we are cutting/melting various materials. You can see that the flame is not hot at all, I can wave my hand through the flame and it feels only warm. The first item is a thin iron hair clip. Then we are cutting a piece of silicon steel lamination. Then we melt the tip of a 4mm diameter stainless steel rod. The tip is melting, but I can safely hold the other end in my hand and it is only slightly warm. Then we are vaporizing a tungsten rod, you can see that there are lots of fumes. Then again a 1mm thick piece of steel. Then I am demonstrating how the flame condenses into water again. Then we are melting the surface of a ceramic plate (about 10k degrees). And at last we are melting a small piece of glass
Hope you enjoyed it

The Mills device could get the tungsten vaporization results that so impressed michaelsuede by breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the resulting gas mixture, assuming it doesn't just use the electrical current to directly vaporize the metal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's not context, that's you making up stuff and posting it on the internet without sources.

It's not made up, it's quoted from a paper that's already been cited in the thread. If you haven't read it, then that's on you, not me.

See all those "..." in the text? That means stuff was left out from whatever source you're quoting that from.

Both of them, yes I see them. Neither are where he says he's tested a 120W cell, which you claim he never has, or where he says they've tested one with a thousand watt capacity. Neither are where he says how rapidly or straightforwardly the technology scaled. Neither are where he said he can see no limitation to how much the technology can be scaled.

 

[Aepervius]

michaelsuede,

What's your science background like?

I corrected some unit which were wrong, like cm-0.

Also note that I am assuming the totality of the current energy goes into electrode heating.

 

[hecd2]

melting point of tungsten = 3422C
Vaporisation point = 5555C
Heat of melting = 285J/g
Heat of vaporisation = 4390 J/g

Specific heat = 0.134 J/gC

So heat required to vaporise tungsten from room rtemp = 5415 J/g

Assume 6mm diameter 12mm long electrode. Volume is 0.68 cm^3. Density of ungsten is 19.25 g/cm^3. Electrode weighs 13g.

To vaporoise electrode we need 70 kJ over says 5 seconds which is 14kW.

Resistivity = 5.6 x 10^-8 ohm meter.

Resistance is therefore 9.8x10^-4 ohms

Current to produce 14kW is therefore 3,780 amps. You need the current capacity to get the needed losses in the tungsten to heat it but very little voltage is required.

In reality you need more because of thermal losses in the 5 seconds so lets double it.

Michael can you think of a commercial process to produce 28kW? It's rather modest.

If you're aware of one, nothing is stopping you from posting it here and making me look like an idiot.

And how do you look now?

Of course, the longer you delay, the more credibility I gain.

How has that worked for you?

 

[hecd2]

Let's start by examining the physical properties of Tungsten:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten


The BLP claim appears to be the current reactor uses liquid silver electrodes to get around the tungsten vaporization problem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver


How the HELL are liquid silver electrodes an improvement if the device supposedly vaporized tungsten? The silver will vaporize too!

No wonder they can't bring a product to market.

Ok - but if you have a reservoir of liquid silver you can circulate itand cool the reservoir so that the nett power density into the total silver volume is manageable. Just trying to find a rationale.

 

[jrhowell]

I still want to know how liquid metal solves a problem with enough energy being discharged to vaporize solid metal.

The liquid metal solves a completely different problem.

Such a device can produce a significant amount of output power! It's free energy. (At least as long as you ignore the input power required to liquefy the metal in the first place.)

 

[halleyscomet]

To summarize the read so far.

A man named Mills has spent nearly 30 years claiming to have a generator / heater a few months from production. No generator or heater has ever come to market. This promised device is based upon theories that contradict a large swath of observed phenomena without offering alternative explanations for that phenomena. The theory literally contradicts most of what's known about chemistry and physics using arguments that target not actual science, but a comically flawed straw-man mish-mosh of different pieces of atomic models.

The devices that have been demonstrated with breathless claims of being "impossible" without Mills being right can be replicated using high-school level physics and engineering skills far below those of the Mythbusters.

Mills has rebranded his company multiple times over the years, often deleting most the claims that had been made about devices on the cusp of reaching market.

Hydrino gas, the waste product supposedly produced by this device, is going to be even MORE reactive than conventional hydrogen due to what the theories claim are being to the electron shells, yet Mills claims this waste product is inert and labels it "dark matter" without any rationale. If the stuff were real, it would be very, very dangerous, yet Mills apparently wants to vent it into the atmosphere.

Did I miss anything of note?

EDIT: Added MikeG's note

 

[MikeG]

I'd mention hydrinos, and the end of physics and chemistry as we know it..........

 

[halleyscomet]

Ok - but if you have a reservoir of liquid silver you can circulate itand cool the reservoir so that the nett power density into the total silver volume is manageable. Just trying to find a rationale.

And if it circulates fast enough in the right coolant system it can dissipate enough heat to avoid vaporization.

Still, why silver? It seems like they're begging for a vapor explosion if there's even the tiniest hiccup in the coolant system. Why not use a metal that can handle higher temperatures?

Are they even claiming to be circulating the silver to cool it?

And why not use all this heat to generate electricity instead of solar panels???

 

[Myriad]

Mills discussed this in his lecture that I cited. The problem was achieving a power density that made it economically competitive.

Here's what Mills is quoted as saying back in 1991:



ie. a prototype CIHT cell that was producing 10 watts (not kilowatts) of power.



The contract never materialized. They were pursuing a contract, which didn't pan out because they weren't able to achieve adequate power density to make the unit economically competitive.



Mills is a little loose with the term "capacity" here. It wasn't putting out a 1000 watts. It had the potential to scale (capacity) to 1000 watts, but the 1000 watt prototype was never built.

The size and cost of the units were ultimately not competitive.

Consider you could buy a 1000 watt gas generator for a hundred bucks that burns 1 gal of fuel for 5 hours, using 1752 gallons over a year for 24/7 operation at 2 bucks a gallon, for $3500 a year in fuel costs.

For example, if a 1000 watt CIHT cell cost $35,000 to produce and install, that's like running a gas generator for 10 years anyways, and if the projected lifespan is 10 years, you may as well just buy the gas generator.

Of course, grid tied power is far cheaper than even a gas generator would be, so there was no point to going forward with a commercial variant of the CIHT cell.

Being competitive doesn't require lower cost on a per kWh basis. Power sources have many different demands for different situations and applications. For instance, that $100 1000W gas generator is fine for occasional or emergency use, but is not built to have an extended duty time and will need replacement after a few months (not years) of continuous use. And of course the cost per kWh is therefore higher than grid cost. But they're sold and used anyhow, because they have other compensating advantages for specific uses.

By cost per kWh alone, a device that delivers small amounts of power at an end-user cost of $100 or more per kWh would have to be a non-starter in the marketplace. Yet, Duracell and Energizer sell them by the billions.

Are you really saying that Mills et. al. couldn't find a single profitable niche application for a 1000W $35,000 generator that would run for ten years and require only minuscule amounts of inexpensive fuel? During a time period when standalone solar power systems cost many times what they do now?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The contract never materialized. They were pursuing a contract, which didn't pan out because they weren't able to achieve adequate power density to make the unit economically competitive.

By that time I was trying to win the lotto, but I wasn't able to buy a lotto ticket.

Both stories sound alike.

 

[halleyscomet]

Are you really saying that Mills et. al. couldn't find a single profitable niche application for a 1000W $35,000 generator that would run for ten years and require only minuscule amounts of inexpensive fuel? During a time period when standalone solar power systems cost many times what they do now?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If there's any truth to any of the scientific claims being made by Mills and company, then Mills and his entourage are idiots who lack the skills needed to bring a product to market.