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

[abaddon]

Take a deep breath. Neither you or I, especially you, are privy to important details surrounding decisions Mills makes.

Then why do you act as though you ARE?

Yet you continue to judge his motives.

Why should we not assess the evidence that we have to hand?

You assume that Mills switch to silver was concurrent to the switch from MHD to photovoltaics. <snip pseudo-science>

Because that is how it works. And you fall for it every time. For thirty years.

You say he is throwing away a year's worth of work. Hardly. The main work is the same: creating a closed, high energy, continuous system of energy generation. Regardless of the way that energy is harvested. So get a grip.

Yeah, do.

I am not contradicting myself, and neither is Mills. The story is more complex than you know.

Is it? How do you know that? Is there something you are not telling us?

Not that it will matter, but this is where Mills reported why he changed from an MHD approach to photovoltaic, from August 2014:
<gibbersnip>

Now he is revisiting MHD, because in part (I surmise) the environment has changed; from a relatively low pressure vessel with exploding hydrating slurry, to a high pressure vessel with ionized silver plasma.

It doesn't matter, because all of that is pseudo-scientific gibberish designed to impress the intended marks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I highly doubt you are doing pioneering work. Just engineering different versions of what has been done before.

Frankly, none of us think you're the best judge of that.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/RosenblumIE17.pdf

Randell Mills: We have people very eager to commercialize this and we’ve been able to make independent validated energy cells that produce a thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen.

AR: A thousand? I heard a hundred.

RM: Well, that was Penn [Pennsylvania] State University’s test, but they didn’t do lifetime tests, they stopped that after about 700, 800 hours—something like that, or, excuse me, minutes. They never did lifetime tests. They ran it for a finite period of time. We have done lifetime tests here with Atlantic Electric and gotten a thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen.

So, producing a thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen, for over 800 hours (or minutes - so 13 hours and 20 minutes). I'm sure markie will be able to explain why this isn't a continuous reaction, or why it doesn't produce enough energy to be commercially viable.

That's from 1999, BTW. Mills was only 6 months from commercial production at that point...

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Nobody has done this kind of work before. Mills is the first.

FTFY.

Until he has done the work - which you say he hasn't - your statement stands alone.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The fatal and obvious flaw in your 'reasoning' is that you assume it is easy to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.

Nobody has done this kind of work before. Mills is the first.

Ah... see, there is your problem.

It's called a 'battery'. You should look it up. As it turns out, that work was done centuries ago. But I guess Mills does not know about this, in the same way that the concept of 'steam engine' also slipped his notice.

 

[UncertainH]

Chuck a charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere". We have known since 1909 that does not happen.

A charged particle is emitted from a decaying atomic nucleus and in Mills world it will go through and presumably destroy his "orbitsphere".

Chuck a low energy charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere" . We will see scattering from a sharp atomic sized surface. AFAIK this does not happen. We see scattering off a fuzzy could of electrons.

Now you are just making stuff up. Nowhere does Mills claim that his "orbitsphere" is some kind of impenetrable rigid shell. Let's not resort to the L word

 

[halleyscomet]

Prototypes are by definition not ready for market, so what you say is nonsense.
Again, he has had experimental devices working, but not anything resembling something ready for market. Let that sink in.

Your "information" is badly out of date.

BlackLight Power Inc. Announces Commercial-Ready Alternative Energy Solution

Cranbury, NJ (May 28, 2008) ... BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately12 to 18 months.

Remedial research into the past claims of Mills and company shows a long history of claming they have commercial devices on the cusp of release. You are, quite literally, claming that Mills was lying every time he said he had production ready hardware.

You have personally complained about how we keep bringing up an article where Mills said they were just waiting for the delivery of a third party component before they went into production with a commercial heater.

Trying to whitewash Mills and his past claims as just a "prototype" won't work. Everyone in this thread knows better.

Perhaps you should talk to the guy who was preaching the benefits of parallel development. Believe it or not, Mills and BLP do work in parallel. Who would figure that they work on the basic Suncell reactor functions, on the MHD functions, on hydrino production functions, and probably other functions, all on the same work day! Amazing.

Parallel development only makes sense if you have a stable reaction you're refining or optimizing. Every time Mills changed the design of the underlying reactor all the work on harnessing energy from it has been thrown out. That's stupid and wasteful.

Then there's the fact that none of his tech has patent protection. Even if Mills had the science right and he eventually produced a stable, reliable generator, his investors are STILL going to get cornholed because there will be no legal protections preventing a competitor from building their own reactor.

 

[halleyscomet]

Yeah, I wonder how many "top level" labs were just chomping at the bit to replicate Mills CIHT cells and results. How naive.

Ahh, the old tinfoil hatter nonsense about scientists being afraid of change.

Nobody pays scientists to re-prove what's already known. Scientists are PAID to discover new things. A discovery that brings into question relativity, quantum physics and most of chemistry would be a HUGE career making development. If there were anything to Mills and his ideas then anyone providing proof of the Hydrino in an experimental framework that allowed for replication (not the "verification" ******** you keep wanking over) would go down in history by UNSEATING Einstein.

And they wouldn't need to produce a working generator to do it. All they'd need to do is provide reproducible proof Hydrinos exist.

This is another way Mills is a moron. If his ideas are ever proven even remotely accurate, the glory will go not to him, but to whoever provides actual PROOF of the Hydrino to science. Mills will be a footnote. Do you remember the name of the woman who actual proved DNA had a double-helix structure? Most people don't, because two misogynist ******** published first.

 

[markie]

It seems that you are determined to remain ignorant about the real world where an atom is not an atomic nucleus. They have electrons as well.

Chuck a charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere". We have known since 1909 that does not happen.

A charged particle is emitted from a decaying atomic nucleus and in Mills world it will go through and presumably destroy his "orbitsphere".

Chuck a low energy charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere" . We will see scattering from a sharp atomic sized surface. AFAIK this does not happen. We see scattering off a fuzzy could of electrons.


Since you insist:
26 June 2018 markie: Repeats his ignorance of the size of a hydrogen atom!

As I wrote before:
5 June 2018 markie: An irrelevant question not to do with his parroting of Mills lies or the lies in Mills book.

Or maybe an ignorant attempt at the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?
The Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom happens to be different from the covalent radius and Van der Waals radius because they are different radii! It would be ignorant to claim that the radius of a hydrogen atom is unknown. It is the fallacy of false dichotomy to claim that this "unknown" radius supports Mills delusions.

May be added to:
53 items of ignorance and some lies from markie from his blind faith in Mills. which includes
12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
24 February 2017 markie: Do you know about the Geiger–Marsden (Rutherford) experiment and its successors?

If an alpha particle can fly clean through the QM fluff ball probability clouds of electrons in, say, gold atoms, it can fly through the infinitely thin Mills orbitsphere. Why you think otherwise is a mystery. Or do you think a portion of a vanishingly thin electron orbitsphere is able to stop a speeding alpha particle with over 7000 times the mass of the entire orbitsphere?

Now, the outer orbitsphere of an atom when contacting the outer orbitsphere of another atom in a low energy collision will result in an elastic rebound.

Now picture two fuzzball electron probability clouds similarly contacting each other. It's amazing there are such things are elastic collisions, isn't it?

To help you about the radius of the hydrogen atom, according to QM there is about a 50 percent probability that the electron will be found between .5 and 1.5 times the Bohr radius.

 

[markie]

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/RosenblumIE17.pdf



So, producing a thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen, for over 800 hours (or minutes - so 13 hours and 20 minutes). I'm sure markie will be able to explain why this isn't a continuous reaction, or why it doesn't produce enough energy to be commercially viable.

That's from 1999, BTW. Mills was only 6 months from commercial production at that point...

The energy release was continuous alright. And the energy release was measured to be about a thousand times that of burning hydrogen. However, that was per hydrogen atom. With burning hydrogen, almost all the hydrogen is consumed. With Mills reactor at that time, only a tiny percentage of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. So the power was low. Mills thought he could sufficiently up the portion of hydrogen converted - the reaction rate - but it didn't work.

 

[halleyscomet]

The energy release was continuous alright. And the energy release was measured to be about a thousand times that of burning hydrogen. However, that was per hydrogen atom. With burning hydrogen, almost all the hydrogen is consumed. With Mills reactor at that time, only a tiny percentage of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. So the power was low. Mills thought he could sufficiently up the portion of hydrogen converted - the reaction rate - but it didn't work.

And yet he's announced commercial generators and heaters were on the cusp of release multiple times over the last 30 years or so.

Your own words paint him as a fraud.

 

[The Man]

Please pay attention. The context is hydrino chemistry in extreme conditions. Your furnace does none of that.

Please pay attention, the asserted text was "to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power" My furnace does that while Mills "hydrino chemistry in extreme conditions" still doesn't.

ETA: Also the asserted text that people here might think that doing such "hydrino chemistry" is "easy". On the contrary, impossible under any conditions would seem to be the consensus of thinking here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The energy release was continuous alright. And the energy release was measured to be about a thousand times that of burning hydrogen. However, that was per hydrogen atom. With burning hydrogen, almost all the hydrogen is consumed. With Mills reactor at that time, only a tiny percentage of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. So the power was low. Mills thought he could sufficiently up the portion of hydrogen converted - the reaction rate - but it didn't work.

This contradicts things Mills says in that same interview. For example:

The mass balance is very, very low because you get a tremendous amount of energy per atom, and the product is a lower energy chemical form of hydrogen that doesn’t burn, that’s lighter than air. So it’s very
environmentally friendly, and it turns out that the capital cost is very, very low for the equipment also. And you can use existing power conversion equipment, because it runs at very, very high power densities and very, very high temperature.

And:

How close are we? Well, the theory’s all worked out, the validations are worked out, the low energy hydrogen’s been identified, that is a product, and we have power densities equivalent to many electrical power plants and running at temperatures comparable to many electrical power plants. And we’re getting validated energy balance of a thousand times the energy of
burning hydrogen. So we know the process works and now it’s just the time it takes to retro-fit that into existing technology. We don’t have to invent anything new. We’re using vacuum furnaces and we’re going to use external combustor gas turbines, so it’s just a matter of retro-fitting it into existing technology.

 

[markie]

Your "information" is badly out of date.

BlackLight Power Inc. Announces Commercial-Ready Alternative Energy Solution



Remedial research into the past claims of Mills and company shows a long history of claming they have commercial devices on the cusp of release. You are, quite literally, claming that Mills was lying every time he said he had production ready hardware.

You have personally complained about how we keep bringing up an article where Mills said they were just waiting for the delivery of a third party component before they went into production with a commercial heater.

Trying to whitewash Mills and his past claims as just a "prototype" won't work. Everyone in this thread knows better.

Please try to distinguish a forecast of a commercial device and actually having one. From the article: The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand.

Yeah, a prototype device can be very different from a commercial ready device.
Prototypes (to me) can be at any stage between mere experimental apparatus
and a commercial device. There is a lot of potential latitude there.

Then there's the fact that none of his tech has patent protection. Even if Mills had the science right and he eventually produced a stable, reliable generator, his investors are STILL going to get cornholed because there will be no legal protections preventing a competitor from building their own reactor.

Of course his tech has patent protection, why you think otherwise is strange. That's why I've said Mils waits on revealing specifics until a patent is successfully filed. The filing date is the important date, not the date the patent is actually granted, which can take much longer.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, I wonder how many "top level" labs were just chomping at the bit to replicate Mills CIHT cells and results. How naive.

This is truly ignorant, that is exactly what happened with Fleischmann–Pons but keep pretending that Mills is capable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please try to distinguish a forecast of a commercial device and actually having one.

What do you think has been going on for the last thirty years?

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

Please try to distinguish a forecast of a commercial device and actually having one. From the article: The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand.

That is exactly something that could have been demonstrated easily without any revealing of 'trade secret', it is the same failure type of Rossi.

This unit could have been placed in a large container, sealed with inputs and placed in a water bath.

Why didn't that happen?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ahh, the old tinfoil hatter nonsense about scientists being afraid of change.

Nobody pays scientists to re-prove what's already known. Scientists are PAID to discover new things. A discovery that brings into question relativity, quantum physics and most of chemistry would be a HUGE career making development. If there were anything to Mills and his ideas then anyone providing proof of the Hydrino in an experimental framework that allowed for replication (not the "verification" ******** you keep wanking over) would go down in history by UNSEATING Einstein.

Remember a few years back when the people at CERN thought that perhaps they'd violated the speed of light? They tested, and re-tested, then they issued a press-release basically saying "we think that we've made a mistake somewhere, but we can't find it. Can people please see if they can replicate this?" And other scientists jumped at the chance just in case there was something there.

Turns out there wasn't, of course; it was an artefact of some kind from a piece of equipment. But the point is that other scientists didn't mock them, and they certainly didn't go "no, this might overturn Relativity therefore I'm not going to grace it with my time". Instead they went "oh, this looks like fun. Can I have a go?"

 

[Myriad]

That is exactly something that could have been demonstrated easily without any revealing of 'trade secret', it is the same failure type of Rossi.

This unit could have been placed in a large container, sealed with inputs and placed in a water bath.

Why didn't that happen?

Because there was no such "unit" that had all the characteristics described. There have been "prototypes" that produced a tiny trickle of net excess power for a few hours or days, and there have been "prototypes" that produced thousands of Watts of power for fractions of a second while burning out. Not enough total net energy in either case to make a convincing calorimetry demonstration, given the amounts of external power being fed in and the amount of chemical decomposition of the apparatus afterward.

A battery, capacitor bank, or even a large wound-up spring could accomplish the same.

 

[markie]

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The energy release was continuous alright. And the energy release was measured to be about a thousand times that of burning hydrogen. However, that was per hydrogen atom. With burning hydrogen, almost all the hydrogen is consumed. With Mills reactor at that time, only a tiny percentage of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. So the power was low. Mills thought he could sufficiently up the portion of hydrogen converted - the reaction rate - but it didn't work.

This contradicts things Mills says in that same interview. For example:

Quote:
The mass balance is very, very low because you get a tremendous amount of energy per atom, and the product is a lower energy chemical form of hydrogen that doesn’t burn, that’s lighter than air. So it’s very
environmentally friendly, and it turns out that the capital cost is very, very low for the equipment also. And you can use existing power conversion equipment, because it runs at very, very high power densities and very, very high temperature.
And:

Quote:
How close are we? Well, the theory’s all worked out, the validations are worked out, the low energy hydrogen’s been identified, that is a product, and we have power densities equivalent to many electrical power plants and running at temperatures comparable to many electrical power plants. And we’re getting validated energy balance of a thousand times the energy of
burning hydrogen. So we know the process works and now it’s just the time it takes to retro-fit that into existing technology. We don’t have to invent anything new. We’re using vacuum furnaces and we’re going to use external combustor gas turbines, so it’s just a matter of retro-fitting it into existing technology.

Just read the article. I have no problems with the first quote, but I certainly do with the second quote, particularly this:

and we have power densities equivalent to many electrical power plants and running at temperatures comparable to many electrical power plants.

Frankly I can't see how this is true. I'm genuinely puzzled.