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

[markie]

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?

It did happen, at Rohan university. There's a video of Dr. Janson (sp?) doing exactly that. But the power was very short lived.

 

[halleyscomet]

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 lone article is not the only example of Mills promising a commercial device was ready to go and you know it. I'd also like to point out that the claims made about existing technology in that article contradict the more modest claims Mills is making now.

Of course his tech has patent protection, why you think otherwise is strange.

That's right, you're too new to this thread to have encountered the long discussion that occurred examining the paltry patent "protection" Mills has in place.

The short version is BLP's patent applications, such as they are, were bungled badly. It's doubtful they hired a real patent attorney. From the Keystone Cops grade mess that's been uncovered, I suspect they handed the job to an intern who fired up "Ask Jeeves," searched for "patent applications" and went off based on the first Geocities page they encountered.

They have no enforceable international patents. They kicked off the process of getting some of those patents, but the ball got dropped not far into the process.

They don't even have much in the way of enforceable domestic patents.

Where did you get the idea they had valid parents? It certainty wasn't from any actual research.

 

[halleyscomet]

It did happen, at Rohan university. There's a video of Dr. Janson (sp?) doing exactly that. But the power was very short lived.

In other words, an anomaly consistent with rapid oxidation of metal components that contradicts the claims Mills has made about existing hardware both before and after that demonstration.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

I agree with your first statement, but not your second.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

One possible explanation is that he's lying and always has been. Have you considered that?

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

What potential explanations can you offer?

 

[LTC8K6]

What potential explanations can you offer?

However Mills & Co explain it will be fine...

 

[Myriad]

It did happen, at Rohan university. There's a video of Dr. Janson (sp?) doing exactly that. But the power was very short lived.

"Our new bubble gum ball machine makes bubble gum balls out of air and a small amount of electrical current. It works by using a special catalyst to expand nitrogen atoms to about two centimeters in diameter, which it turns out is what all bubble gum balls actually are. That's right, the supposed laws of confectionary science that conventional confectioners have been relying on all turn out to be wrong; see my self-published book.

"The reaction is very stable and reliable. One prototype was able to produce one bubble gum ball per hour for three months straight, before breaking down. That's not a high enough rate to be commercially useful, but another prototype produces bubble gum balls at a rate comparable to a medium sized commercial candy factory. That one only runs for a few seconds before burning out. Such material stress problems are only to be expected, of course; we're working on that.

"You say it looks like a bubble gum ball vending machine with the glass painted black and the coin operated feed mechanism replaced by an electric motor? Being able to use off-the-shelf components is another economic advantage.

"Yes, this has all been thoroughly validated! We've hired top accounting firms to count and time the bubble gum balls coming out of several of our prototypes. They're very accurate, reliable, and reputable. What other validation could anyone need?

"'Look inside?' Of course not. Trade secrets, you know! But here's a video showing a close-up of some bubble gum balls rolling down a chute."


ETA: If you imagine the above in Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka voice, the Oompa Loompas get to appear and add their coda:

Oompa Loompa doompety-do
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompety-dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get if you invest your green
In some free energy scammer's machine
Profits or power, whatever's your goal
You might as well be burning coal
No one can shrink a-a-toms...

Oompa Loompa doompety-da
If you know physics, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompety do

 

[Hellbound]

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

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

In other words, you are not going to answer my question. You will continue to protect your rather silly statement about power density and continuous operation. And if neither you nor I are privy to "important details", how are you able to explain his actions? I, at least, am attempting to reconcile his demonstrated performance with his statements. You, on the other hand, are Just Making Stuff Up.

One more time - if the hydrated slurry approach provided "billions of watts per liter", and was capable of being operated "continuously" (both quotes from Mills), how could it have been discarded due to insufficient power density and lack of continuous operation?

You assume that Mills switch to silver was concurrent to the switch from MHD to photovoltaics. This is not the case. Mills was still using the mechanically driven slurry approach into the photovoltaic phase. He dropped the slurry approach for a much more elegant and compact molten and vapourized silver method.

Prove it.

Photovoltaics was easier, but it had it had obvious drawbacks. MHD requires more original work and will take longer, but now it appears Mills feels it will be worth it.

If the drawbacks are obvious, why did Mills waste 3-4 years touting it?

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.

Get a clue. Development of the slurry process required addressing entirely different process and materials issues than molten silver. Not all "closed, high energy, continuous ... energy generation" systems are alike, or even vaguely similar. Contrast, for instance, boiling water fission reactors with thorium reactors. Your statement is naive and just plain wrong.

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

Umm. High power density. Continous operation. Yes? No? I agree that you're not contradicting yourself, but that's because you comprehensively refuse to address the issue. Let's try it, for a change.

Did the hydrated slurry approach provide high energy density and continuous operation, according to Mills?

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

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/2982

The earlier magnetohydrodynamic designs assumed a large portion of the energy would be released as thermal energy rather than radiative energy.

Pressure volume work from an expanding plasma.

But, the expanding plasma was measured to have a pressure of less than 2 PSIg which corresponds to about 1 J/ignition compared to greater than 500 J of light.

Right, so he was getting lots of energy (500 J/ignition) and lots of power (10 MW). Thanks for finally sharing. So tell us more about the inadequate power density, will you?

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.

You surmise. How special. And what part of your surmise are we to accept, given that "The story is more complex than you know."? Or is there something you know that nobody else does.

But I digress. When are you going to bite the bullet and admit that your sweeping generalization about power density and continuous operation isn't worth the paper it's written on, since, by your own admission ("Neither you or I, especially you, are privy to important details surrounding decisions Mills makes.") are Just Making Things Up?

 

[markie]

What potential explanations can you offer?

I'm going to do some investigating first. I'm not familiar with the c1997 timeframe. Earlier 90s, yes. About 2000 onwards, yes. But not that period.

 

[markie]

That lone article is not the only example of Mills promising a commercial device was ready to go and you know it. I'd also like to point out that the claims made about existing technology in that article contradict the more modest claims Mills is making now.



That's right, you're too new to this thread to have encountered the long discussion that occurred examining the paltry patent "protection" Mills has in place.

The short version is BLP's patent applications, such as they are, were bungled badly. It's doubtful they hired a real patent attorney. From the Keystone Cops grade mess that's been uncovered, I suspect they handed the job to an intern who fired up "Ask Jeeves," searched for "patent applications" and went off based on the first Geocities page they encountered.

They have no enforceable international patents. They kicked off the process of getting some of those patents, but the ball got dropped not far into the process.

They don't even have much in the way of enforceable domestic patents.

Where did you get the idea they had valid parents? It certainty wasn't from any actual research.

It's pretty easy. Just go to Google Patents, type in Randell Mills, and there are nearly 80 patent applications filed, about a dozen of which are granted.

In perhaps the last 10(?) years the patent office has seen positive changes when it comes to alternative energy applications.

There is an informative podcast of David French, patent lawyer, at http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ on the matter

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Are you saying that this sattement of Markie's is incorrect?

"The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. "

 

[Dancing David]

It did happen, at Rohan university. There's a video of Dr. Janson (sp?) doing exactly that. But the power was very short lived.

My statement was in reference to your statement "The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. "

That would not be short lived, now would it?

 

[halleyscomet]

It's pretty easy. Just go to Google Patents, type in Randell Mills, and there are nearly 80 patent applications filed, about a dozen of which are granted.

In perhaps the last 10(?) years the patent office has seen positive changes when it comes to alternative energy applications.

There is an informative podcast of David French, patent lawyer, at http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ on the matter

That returns a lot of his medical patents, which are not relevant to this discussion.

Go back and take a look at his hydrino related patents and see which ones have actually been granted.

Next, look up the patents that have actually been granted under WIPO.

You'll find Mills and his tech have very little practical protection, and what protection does exist is for components of devices Mills has abandoned.

 

[halleyscomet]

My statement was in reference to your statement "The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. "

That would not be short lived, now would it?

Well, a grenade can generate quite a bit of energy on demand.

 

[Myriad]

Are you saying that this sattement of Markie's is incorrect?

"The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. "

No, just very deceptive. Any time you want to produce 50,000 Watts of power, turn on the arc current. (That's your "demand". There might be a lengthy pre-heating period involved, depending on which prototype.) Then sometime (perhaps multiple times) over the course of the ensuing few seconds or minutes, there will be an arc of e.g. .001 second duration during which the machine outputs e.g. 50 Joules of energy. 50 Joules/.001 second works out to 50,000 Watts. At some slightly later point, the machine will burn out having vaporized one of its electrodes or melted or corroded some other vital part.

Mills always touts the "power" output (or better still, the "power density", peak power output divided by total mass or volume of the machine, relative to types of power plants that actually do run continuously) of his zap-zap-burnout models, and the "continuous" or "stable" operation of his "too low power output to be commercially viable" models. Unwary readers might be deceived into thinking a prototype exists or has existed that's managed both.

You can achieve the same with a charged car battery. Short out the terminals to make arcs of impressive "power" and "power density" figures but short (heh) lifespan. Run through a low-draw load for weeks or months of "continuous operation" at "low power output."

The one consistent performance feature of Mills's prototypes is a roughly constant total energy output before failure, relative to the size of the apparatus. Again, just like a battery. Or, substituting gum balls for units of energy, my metaphorical gum ball "making" machine.

 

[Myriad]

Well, a grenade can generate quite a bit of energy on demand.

And even more power for the fraction of a second while it's detonating. That distinction is key to understanding Mills's claims.

 

[Reality Check]

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

That is correct: Mills blatant ignorance and delusions does not include "some kind of impenetrable rigid shell". Which is a bit strange because he is willing to be deluded about so much!

What he includes is the basic fact that the electron is charged. Charged particles attract and repel. That is why I have scattering from charged particles and the fact that there no evidence of that high school level electromagnetism happening.

As I pointed out months ago:
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?

The Geiger–Marsden (Rutherford) experiment was done in 1909. The experiment passed alpha particles (2 protons and 2 neutrons) through gold foil and measured their scattering from electromagnetic forces. The results agree with scattering by electromagnetic interactions with the nucleus only. These alpha particle went though Mills delusions with absolutely no measureable effects on the particles or the gold foil. No influence of a charged sphere the size of a gold atom seen.
The "and its successors" is repeats of the experiment with a higher range of alpha particle energies and other charged particles including electrons. It is electron scattering experiments that would be most sensitive to scattering from atomic sized charged spheres.

 

[Reality Check]

Does not know that Mills infinitely thin delusions are also charged

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.....

27 June 2018 markie: Does not know that Mills infinitely thin delusions are also charged !

Charged bodies repel or attract.

You also need to understand what Mills "infinitely thin" claim (according to you) means for his delusions. A charge and mass singularity ! An infinite mass density, An infinite charge density.

For the information of others:
Alpha particles can pass through a cloud of QM or even classical electrons basically because those electrons can move away. That freedom is why this is interaction between the electrons and the alpha particle can be neglected (alpha particles are 1000's of times heavier than electrons). The electrons "bounce" away in the scattering with a negligible effect on the alpha particle.
That is not the case for Mills delusion of multiple atomic sized charged spheres that have to be around the nucleus. Those spheres have to stay in place*. That makes it into an interaction between the alpha particle and the entire atom. It is now the alpha particle "bouncing" away in the scattering.

*What if we allow Mills delusions to move?
Accelerated charges emit radiation which has been not detected over the last 109 years. Move too much and the nucleus pops out of the atom!

Electromagnetism affects the scattering of charged particle passing through atoms containing electrons and protons. That is why electron scattering experiments are one of the many death knells for Mills delusions.

The alpha particle experiments in 1909 showed that alpha particles passed through Mills delusions without any measurable effects on the alpha particles or the gold foil.