Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[markie]

The claim here is that hydrinos could be part of all sorts of marvelous stuff. including super energy dense batteries, super long lasting paint, and energy from water schemes. Presumably this is because the compounds containing hydrinos have unique, powerful properties not to be easily confused with stuff that doesn't contain hydrinos. You are suggesting that despite these amazing possibilities that substances with hydrinos have, it may be that it isn't possible to determine unambiguously that something has hydrinos in it at all, but those hydrinos are the basis for all these amazing characteristics of hydrino containing materials? mmm.

There are probably at least ten different kinds of telltale hydrino signature. For instance there is the rovibrational spectral signature of dihydrino gas, matching the predicted value.

When it is all taken together it is pretty unambiguous for those with eyes to see.
Yes the quantities involved were too small to be useful, but at least they are detectable.

 

[davefoc]

As I said before, skeptics conveniently manage to ignore validation reports.
OMG, a validator signed a NDA, visited the lab and then had the gall to write a validation report!

Did the validator produce a document for a peer reviewed journal? Was what the validator said published by BLP or an independent entity? I don't think skeptics are ignoring reports of validation. I read through some of the reports when I was actively researching BLP. If these reports were corroborated by truly independent sources there might be something worth pursuing. The reason that main stream academics are not involved in even responding to BLP stuff is because the needle hasn't moved. Mills is making the same claims, that he has failed to validate in the past. He has made many grandiose claims of imminent products that he has totally failed to meet. There are thousands of people running scams in this world and there are thousands of non-physicists that think they have made a discovery that has eluded main stream science. Either all or some number very close to all of them have not discovered anything of value. Right now Mills appears to be just one more of those guys.


His claims are so grand and so unequivocal that all he needs to do is get independent testing done to prove that he's not full of crap and the world will be changed almost instantly because of Mill's theories and inventions. Alternatively he could just give one of his gadgets to a utility and they could do their own testing on it. All simple stuff and yet it never happens. I think the reason that it doesn't is that Mills is wrong, either intentionally or wrong because he believes in bogus stuff. You and miscellaneous other people that seem always to be there to tout his stuff think otherwise.



I wonder if Markie would be an investor in BLP at this time. What kind of testing would you require before you invested your money or your company's money in BLP?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

When has Mills said the SunCell has attained power that is both continuous and high? The high power is demonstrated and validated. What is not yet demonstrated is the Suncell running continuously at high power and with materials recycled - a closed system.

At least you realize RC misuses the L word.

Don't be obtuse and don't deflect.

I refer you to the interview. Mills states specifically that power density is (extremely) high and the process runs continuously. As a matter of fact, he states that analysis shows the MHD section will run at 90% efficiency.

Now, it's true that you are the one who stated that Mills decided to go with solar cells because the output energy is "photonic, not kinetic". I assume that you have a source for that, since the alternative is that you are simply making it up, therefor qualifying for the "L" word. And I would be most interested in you producing the statement by Mills which supports your claim.

As has been noted earlier in the thread, the characteristics of the Suncell dome guarantee that it will be no more efficient that a steam turbine system, and since such a system will be required to recover the waste heat from the previous stage, the dome is a waste of time and a testament to Mills's incompetence, either as a scientist or a con man, take your pick.

But please, by all means, prove me wrong. Produce the source for your assertion as to why Mills dropped the MHD concept. No, "It seems to me", no mind reading of Mills, no reading between the lines. A clear statement please. For once.

 

[Kid Eager]

As I said before, skeptics conveniently manage to ignore validation reports.
OMG, a validator signed a NDA, visited the lab and then had the gall to write a validation report!




Well at least I'll agree with you about Tesla.

Nice swerve there, Shylock!

One of these days somebody will try to substantiate the Mills claims. Show me that report.

As for validation, nice use of weasel words. Validation of what within what scope and parameters is what matters. Invoking validation as a get out of jail free card doesn’t wash, and it’s not a synonym for replication.

 

[markie]

Don't be obtuse and don't deflect.

I refer you to the interview. Mills states specifically that power density is (extremely) high and the process runs continuously. As a matter of fact, he states that analysis shows the MHD section will run at 90% efficiency.

Oh that interview from early 2014. That was when Mills was exploding hydrated metal slurry between large rotating electrodes. Yes that was somewhat continuous, in that it could run for, what, a minute or so, as long as the slurry was fed in. He did demo a proof of concept device to an audience at BLP shortly after that interview. But it ultimately had problems in that the electrodes were being damaged, and the amount of slurry that would have to be used for a closed system - with recycled, rehydrated slurry - was on the order of 100 kg if I recall.

I've referred to that pre prototype device earlier in this thread as the 'clunker' as I recall. Those were the days when Mills was considering MHD, and before he realized the reaction was more light producing than it was kinetic, that is, explosive.

Now, it's true that you are the one who stated that Mills decided to go with solar cells because the output energy is "photonic, not kinetic". I assume that you have a source for that, since the alternative is that you are simply making it up, therefor qualifying for the "L" word. And I would be most interested in you producing the statement by Mills which supports your claim.

Why would I lie about that? And why do you make it seem it is an either/or proposition between photonic and kinetic (moving plasma), when it is both? I suppose I could dig through the Yahoo group and find where Mills said c2014 that on further analysis he found more energy was produced in light energy than in moving plasma. But what's the point? What difference would it make to you, really?

As has been noted earlier in the thread, the characteristics of the Suncell dome guarantee that it will be no more efficient that a steam turbine system, and since such a system will be required to recover the waste heat from the previous stage, the dome is a waste of time and a testament to Mills's incompetence, either as a scientist or a con man, take your pick.

You speak as if Mills is not fully aware of the inefficiencies of producing electricity from heat energy. He knows much more than you or I on the matter.

Mills is also quite aware of the inefficiencies of harvesting light energy from a blackbody radiator. This is no doubt why he is revisiting the MHD concept for electricity production. But the SunCell as a simple heater will come first.

But please, by all means, prove me wrong. Produce the source for your assertion as to why Mills dropped the MHD concept. No, "It seems to me", no mind reading of Mills, no reading between the lines. A clear statement please. For once.

How about you tell me what it would do for you if I provided it?

 

[markie]

Did the validator produce a document for a peer reviewed journal? Was what the validator said published by BLP or an independent entity? I don't think skeptics are ignoring reports of validation. I read through some of the reports when I was actively researching BLP. If these reports were corroborated by truly independent sources there might be something worth pursuing. The reason that main stream academics are not involved in even responding to BLP stuff is because the needle hasn't moved. Mills is making the same claims, that he has failed to validate in the past. He has made many grandiose claims of imminent products that he has totally failed to meet. There are thousands of people running scams in this world and there are thousands of non-physicists that think they have made a discovery that has eluded main stream science. Either all or some number very close to all of them have not discovered anything of value. Right now Mills appears to be just one more of those guys.

The needle hasn't moved? On the contrary BLP has made lots of progress over the years.

His claims are so grand and so unequivocal that all he needs to do is get independent testing done to prove that he's not full of crap and the world will be changed almost instantly because of Mill's theories and inventions. Alternatively he could just give one of his gadgets to a utility and they could do their own testing on it. All simple stuff and yet it never happens. I think the reason that it doesn't is that Mills is wrong, either intentionally or wrong because he believes in bogus stuff. You and miscellaneous other people that seem always to be there to tout his stuff think otherwise.

Mills various 'gadgets' have been tested and validated at either BLP or at Rowan. But they were not ready to be plugged into the grid if that's what you are imagining.

I wonder if Markie would be an investor in BLP at this time. What kind of testing would you require before you invested your money or your company's money in BLP?

If I was a major investor I would inspect BLP's labs with experts, scrutinize validation reports and third party lab reports from over the years and check with the persons who created such. At the very least.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Oh that interview from early 2014. That was when Mills was exploding hydrated metal slurry between large rotating electrodes. Yes that was somewhat continuous, in that it could run for, what, a minute or so, as long as the slurry was fed in. He did demo a proof of concept device to an audience at BLP shortly after that interview. But it ultimately had problems in that the electrodes were being damaged, and the amount of slurry that would have to be used for a closed system - with recycled, rehydrated slurry - was on the order of 100 kg if I recall.

I've referred to that pre prototype device earlier in this thread as the 'clunker' as I recall. Those were the days when Mills was considering MHD, and before he realized the reaction was more light producing than it was kinetic, that is, explosive.



Why would I lie about that? And why do you make it seem it is an either/or proposition between photonic and kinetic (moving plasma), when it is both? I suppose I could dig through the Yahoo group and find where Mills said c2014 that on further analysis he found more energy was produced in light energy than in moving plasma. But what's the point? What difference would it make to you, really?



You speak as if Mills is not fully aware of the inefficiencies of producing electricity from heat energy. He knows much more than you or I on the matter.

Mills is also quite aware of the inefficiencies of harvesting light energy from a blackbody radiator. This is no doubt why he is revisiting the MHD concept for electricity production. But the SunCell as a simple heater will come first.



How about you tell me what it would do for you if I provided it?

Highlighted by me. See you seem to believe the so called "hydrino reaction" damaged the rotating electrodes. But actually it is the electrodes burning that has produced the "anomalous" surge of energy to begin with.
As you pointed out multiple times Mills has tried this in 5 different versions. Some run fast and hot and burn up fast. Some run more controlled and burn up slower. But in all cases the equipment is failing. Yet you think the burning up of the equipment is caused by producing hydrinos. I claim the burning up of the equipment is causing the energy in the first place and that is the source of the "anomalous" results!

Go back and study all 5 methods. You'll see the pattern.

There is no need to invoke new physics to explain his anomalous results.His equipment is burning up. There is the source of the extra energy.

This is why Mills will never actually produce a workable machine. Any machine durable enough to run for any significant length of time will also not produce any usable energy. Any machine that produces usable energy will burn up too quickly to be useful. This is the classic overunity paradox restructured in a way to obfuscate.

 

[abaddon]

When asked yesterday for an update on testing and publishing results about the material they have collected, Mills replied:



My best guess at interpreting this is that something was sent to outside laboratories where BLP paid for specific tests to be done and they are in the process of cherry picking results to make them appear mysterious and support their desired conclusion:

"Must be hydrinos! What else could they possibly be?"

That will be followed by an open house fund raiser at BLP.

That is exactly what Steorn did.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When has Mills said the SunCell has attained power that is both continuous and high?

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

Continuous megawatt-level power was recorded on a hydrino reactor wherein continuous brilliant plasma was maintained by HOH and H produced from water-entrained injected molten silver matrix.

Is a megawatt high? I'd say high enough to be of use in a commercial power station. Two power stations in Chippenham and Wheldale are 10MW each. Sure, Mills' SunCell is only a tenth as powerful, but given how small it is compared to the four reactors each of those plants need, it could easily match that with a much smaller physical footprint.

Oh, and that paper is from 2017 at the latest.

What is not yet demonstrated is the Suncell running continuously at high power and with materials recycled - a closed system.

If it's a closed system, then it's an overunity device.

 

[Kid Eager]

That is exactly what Steorn did.

...and Rossi

 

[abaddon]

...and Rossi

Whatever became of him? He seems to have dropped of the radar.

 

[The Man]

Whatever became of him? He seems to have dropped of the radar.

Unbeknownst to him he was producing hydrinos in his reactions. Over time those hydrinos tend replace the hydrogen in ones body*, eventually turning him into dark (or just extremely dim) matter.


*We're 50% to 65% water and about 10% hydrogen, by mass. With other hydrogen containing molecules besides water it works out to something like 4.7 X 10²⁷ hydrogen atoms. About 2.6 times the next numerous element, Oxygen, at like 1.8 X 10²⁷ atoms.

ETA: Oh, the current estimate of the number of stars in the universe is about 10²¹

 

[jrhowell]

Those were the days when Mills was considering MHD, and before he realized the reaction was more light producing than it was kinetic, that is, explosive.

Mills' design was equivalent to generating electricity by putting photo cells around a blast furnace. Just a way to waste time and spend money while diverting attention from his inability to produce a working reaction.

You speak as if Mills is not fully aware of the inefficiencies of producing electricity from heat energy. He knows much more than you or I on the matter.

Perhaps he is aware now. There is no sign that he was a year ago.

 

[SOdhner]

Oh that interview from early 2014. That was when Mills was exploding hydrated metal slurry between large rotating electrodes.

Anything current: Give him some time!
Anything not current: Oh that was a long time ago.

His strategy of constantly shifting course and changing methods seems to work really well for this kind of deflection. Still, you'd think his supporters would eventually ask why he has to shift around so much without ever actually producing anything commercial.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You speak as if Mills is not fully aware of the inefficiencies of producing electricity from heat energy. He knows much more than you or I on the matter.

And yet not enough to actually do it, despite humanity's generally successful record over the last two centuries.

Dave

 

[markie]

Highlighted by me. See you seem to believe the so called "hydrino reaction" damaged the rotating electrodes. But actually it is the electrodes burning that has produced the "anomalous" surge of energy to begin with.
As you pointed out multiple times Mills has tried this in 5 different versions. Some run fast and hot and burn up fast. Some run more controlled and burn up slower. But in all cases the equipment is failing. Yet you think the burning up of the equipment is caused by producing hydrinos. I claim the burning up of the equipment is causing the energy in the first place and that is the source of the "anomalous" results!

Go back and study all 5 methods. You'll see the pattern.

There is no need to invoke new physics to explain his anomalous results.His equipment is burning up. There is the source of the extra energy.

This is why Mills will never actually produce a workable machine. Any machine durable enough to run for any significant length of time will also not produce any usable energy. Any machine that produces usable energy will burn up too quickly to be useful. This is the classic overunity paradox restructured in a way to obfuscate.

Nice try. It may sound reasonable on the surface, but oxidation of the equipment is out of the question as a significant source of energy. For instance in the example of the slurry between the copper electrode rollers, any cumulative mass damage to the electrodes would have been dwarfed by the mass of the water used in the slurry, let alone the mass of slurry.

Similarly, in say the bomb calorimetry experiments, the mass of the hydrated silver pellet in the pan would dwarf any mass differential caused by superficial surface damage done to the pan.

As said before, oxidation of silver cannot be a source of significant energy. Look up the redox reaction if you want.

Two reason why Mills likes using silver: it's a good conductor and in the environment of the Suncell it is not lost to oxidation.

 

[markie]

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf



Is a megawatt high? I'd say high enough to be of use in a commercial power station. Two power stations in Chippenham and Wheldale are 10MW each. Sure, Mills' SunCell is only a tenth as powerful, but given how small it is compared to the four reactors each of those plants need, it could easily match that with a much smaller physical footprint.

Oh, and that paper is from 2017 at the latest.

That kind of 'continuous' is only continuous relative to a single explosion. They had silver continuously injected in between electrodes for a continuous, but short, reaction. The idea of the experiment was to show that the nature of energy release in a continuous reaction was similar to the energy from the explosion of a single pellet. It should be a given that when I said continuous I meant for a prolonged period of time, not something on the order of seconds.

If it's a closed system, then it's an overunity device.

Yeah and if you walk into a room after closing the door behind you that's overunity as well. How silly.

 

[The Man]

Nice try. It may sound reasonable on the surface, but oxidation of the equipment is out of the question as a significant source of energy. For instance in the example of the slurry between the copper electrode rollers, any cumulative mass damage to the electrodes would have been dwarfed by the mass of the water used in the slurry, let alone the mass of slurry.

Similarly, in say the bomb calorimetry experiments, the mass of the hydrated silver pellet in the pan would dwarf any mass differential caused by superficial surface damage done to the pan.

As said before, oxidation of silver cannot be a source of significant energy. Look up the redox reaction if you want.

Two reason why Mills likes using silver: it's a good conductor and in the environment of the Suncell it is not lost to oxidation.

By all means please show the measurements of such "mass differential" for all the materials cited and their direct relation to the energy produced.

"the mass of the water used in the slurry, let alone the mass of slurry."? Do you contend that the entirety of those masses were converted to energy?

"the mass of the hydrated silver pellet in the pan"? Do you contend that the entirety of that mass was converted to energy?

What happens to "any cumulative mass damage to the electrodes"?

Hint: some of it is deposited on other surfaces. Something to keep in mind as your work up your actual deeper than the surface analysis.

 

[Reality Check]

When asked yesterday for an update on testing and publishing results about the material they have collected, Mills replied:

Mills doing his "wash, rinse and repeat" cycle! Like you said we are going to see more "god of the gaps" or argument from ignorance or fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[jrhowell]

Two reason why Mills likes using silver: it's a good conductor and in the environment of the Suncell it is not lost to oxidation.

Possibly not lost to oxidation, but in the SunCell designs so far the silver is lost, and so the energy used to melt it becomes part of the output.

There is slight of hand going on in accounting for energy in/out in all of Mills’ experiments. Each one hides what is really going on in different ways.

Without independent replication you have to trust Mills. Even the “validations” rely heavily on what he chooses to show and hide.

After 30 years of spending investor's money, Mills still hasn't been able to demonstrate a reaction that clearly shows more energy out than in according to conventional chemistry. Everything so far is extrapolation from indirect evidence with room for error.