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

[bruto]

All the technical bits aside (not that they're unimportant), the long and short of it is that you can't say a device is ready to go commercial and then follow it with another paragraph of excuses for why it is not ready to go commercial. When you say something it should mean something.

 

[markie]

Yet again, you depict Mills as a complete moron while trying to defend him.

If the Mills claims were true the high schoolers at the average Makerspace could surmount those technical challenges and build a commercially viable generator.

Getting 10 units of energy from 1 unit of input with water as the fuel may seem small compared to burning gasoline but you’re ignoring the fact that PRODUCING gasoline requires a huge infrastructure that distilling water and performing hydrolysis does not.

If Mills gave up on the tech because of the 10 to 1 power generation then he is, to be kind, a complete idiot with no business running a business.

Hey it was Thermacore who took the experimental cells this far, not Mills. It was Thermacore who had the patent and was trying to evolve the device into something commercially viable. So don't blame Mills on this one. He was moving on to another hydrino producing environment (gas phase) by this time. Don't even blame Thermacore. At least they tried.

BTW hydrogen gas was the fuel not water.

 

[markie]

No such thing as hydrinos, thus no such thing as hydrino chemistry.

We have been going around and around for over a year here and STILL NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE HYDRINO EVER.

Go back to basics Markie. Find the hydrino first before giving it characteristics in chemistry. First you take the hydrino, then observe how it reacts to other atoms and compounds under various conditions.

Your post is almost identical to Big Foot searchers who have determined what a bigfoot call sounds like...oh really? Don't you think you need find a bigfoot first? Then listen to the sounds it makes? Then you'll know a bigfoot call. Until then it's all hysteria.

Mills has made a similar mistake... or possibly Mills knew all along but he cons others into that mistake.

Maybe for fun you could peruse the papers with the analysis of dihydrino gas trapped in a matrix and shortened hydride bond lengths measured in crystalline hydrino hydride compounds as well as other anomalous properties of same.

 

[markie]

As a real-world illustration of this point, one of the Kickstarter projects I backed recently is for a lantern powered by a candle. It uses a burning candle as a source of heat, uses the heat to power a thermoelectric generator, and uses the electricity to power LEDs.

Huh? Why do that, instead of just using the light from the candle? Especially given that thermoelectric generators are only about 5% efficient, and a lot of the heat is going to escape before even getting to the generator, and LEDs are less than 50% efficient themselves. Well, it turns out that a burning candle flame puts out about 80 Watts of heat, and even with all those inefficiencies, you can get about 130 lumens from the LED. That's about 10 times as much light the candle flame itself puts out.

That tenfold increase, at very low power levels, is worth the complexity and capital cost of the unit, assuming (which is the risk I'm taking as a Kickstarter backer) that the unit works reliably as designed. It will be a useful part of my power outage (medium-term off-grid living) kit. Candles are way more expensive per kilowatt-hour than grid power (about $2 vs. about $.10), but not nearly as expensive as single-use batteries, which can easily cost $100 or more per kilowatt hour.

Would I buy a device requiring a reaction cell, lots of nickel tubing, some potassium carbonate, and some heating elements, that would produce a mere 90 steady usable Watts from water? As it happens I'm pricing out battery and solar panel options to achieve just about that level of steady power availability (2.1 kilowatt-hours per day) under bad-case conditions (e.g. overcast winter days), because that's a threshold level for keeping a small refrigerator going, along with a few hours a day of Internet access and all the USB device charging I would need. The cost for that capability ends up well over $5,000; more if you want the system to last under steady use (requiring a lot of additional battery capacity to avoid deep-cycling the batteries). And the system will still require a lot of care and maintenance to keep it ready for use, and even more when in actual use.

What was in that fully operational mid-90's Mills design, that would have cost more than half that (allowing for a retail markup) to mass-produce? Some nickel tubing? No.

For comparison, consider what a gas-burning home hot water heater requires. A glass-lined vessel that holds tens of gallons under pressure, a high-temperature combustion chamber, electronic systems for temperature control and safe condition monitoring, a thermocouple to power the electronics, pressure safety valves, a magnesium sacrificial anode, copper pressure fittings, and more. Yet they don't retail for anything close to $5,000.

The thermoelectric device is interesting and would give another meaning to reading by candlelight. Ideally it could power a mobile phone as well.


I knew a guy online who lived in Hawaii who made his own system to convert sunlight to hydrogen gas which he stored and used later for heating and electricity generation. My brother lives up north on 5 acres of wooded land which produces enough dead wood to feed his homemade burner which is the sole means of heat for his little house throughout a very cold winter. I admire improvisors like that.

You forgot that Thermacore's device required hydrogen gas.

To produce probably the same amount of low grade heat as a Thermacore cell I myself would prefer a simple tealight candle. I'm in the habit of stockpiling about 500 of them at home through the winter just in case.

 

[markie]

All the technical bits aside (not that they're unimportant), the long and short of it is that you can't say a device is ready to go commercial and then follow it with another paragraph of excuses for why it is not ready to go commercial. When you say something it should mean something.

Yeah there is a huge difference between a lab top apparatus that is babied from day to day and a commercial device that is safe, robust, reliable and mostly maintenance free.

In the past Mills has been way too optimistic on his forecasts of a commercial product based on preliminary experimental and necessarily circumscribed lab results. He gets very excited about new developments. Anyhow I notice as of late he is much more restrained about forecasts of commercial production. Live and learn.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Maybe for fun you could peruse the papers with the analysis of dihydrino gas trapped in a matrix and shortened hydride bond lengths measured in crystalline hydrino hydride compounds as well as other anomalous properties of same.

Been there done that. It's hydrogen embrittlement. A pretty well known phenomenon. NOT hydrinos. Read up on it.

Hydrogen causes metal to break

It's caused by using welding equipment improperly. Which is exactly all Mills has done from the beginning, ie develop new and creative ways to improperly use welding equipment. (as well as some lab equipment too BTW)

Now if you want to say that this ISN'T Hydrogen embrittlement then you need to properly test for it and rule it out...... Did Mill's ever do that? ... crickets ...

But I have explained this to you before, including the exact reading Mills claims is "anomalous" being precisely the same seen in hydrogen embrittlement. All with references.

You never replied back then because you are most likely in the scam yourself, either that or hugely suffering from cognitive dissonance. Take your pick. There is no other rational conclusion to be drawn.

 

[markie]

Been there done that. It's hydrogen embrittlement. A pretty well known phenomenon. NOT hydrinos. Read up on it.

Hydrogen causes metal to break

It's caused by using welding equipment improperly. Which is exactly all Mills has done from the beginning, ie develop new and creative ways to improperly use welding equipment. (as well as some lab equipment too BTW)

Now if you want to say that this ISN'T Hydrogen embrittlement then you need to properly test for it and rule it out...... Did Mill's ever do that? ... crickets ...

But I have explained this to you before, including the exact reading Mills claims is "anomalous" being precisely the same seen in hydrogen embrittlement. All with references.

You never replied back then because you are most likely in the scam yourself, either that or hugely suffering from cognitive dissonance. Take your pick. There is no other rational conclusion to be drawn.

Hydrogen gets into some metals and causes them to embrittle.
So simple, why didn't I think of that to explain all the hydrino phenomena. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[EvilBiker]

I knew a guy online who lived in Hawaii who made his own system to convert sunlight to hydrogen gas which he stored and used later for heating and electricity generation.

Sunlight to hydrogen gas? Surely you're missing out an important part of the process, like, for example, a source of hydrogen?

My brother lives up north on 5 acres of wooded land which produces enough dead wood to feed his homemade burner which is the sole means of heat for his little house throughout a very cold winter.

Yeah, I have one of those too - it's called a wood-burning stove. You can pick them up from your local hardware store.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Hydrogen gets into some metals and causes them to embrittle.
So simple, why didn't I think of that to explain all the hydrino phenomena. Thanks for clearing that up.

Because you are brainwashed? Or maybe in on the scam?

 

[Hans]

Bottom line, more useless markie hand waving - and still NO viable product.

Yep no viable product and none on the horizon.....

 

[Darat]

Yeah there is a huge difference between a lab top apparatus that is babied from day to day and a commercial device that is safe, robust, reliable and mostly maintenance free.

In the past Mills has been way too optimistic on his forecasts of a commercial product based on preliminary experimental and necessarily circumscribed lab results. He gets very excited about new developments. Anyhow I notice as of late he is much more restrained about forecasts of commercial production. Live and learn.

"in the past" and "way too optimistic" makes it sound like he got there *eventually*.

Have you forgotten he has never had a product commercially available?

That isn't an optimistic time line, that is utter failure.

 

[markie]

Sunlight to hydrogen gas? Surely you're missing out an important part of the process, like, for example, a source of hydrogen?

Just simple electrolysis of water.

Yeah, I have one of those too - it's called a wood-burning stove. You can pick them up from your local hardware store.

Yours isn't home made, and you probably have to outsource your wood supply, probably consisting of live trees that were cut down.

 

[Reality Check]

Horizon documentary from the 90s, which features Mills

Broadcast on 26 March 1990 so about 1989 or before research. Mills is applying his delusions to cold fusion. There is what has to be a lie of 100% excess heat from an experiment with nickel electrodes and water. Primitive apparatus - a plastic? container, a normal voltmeter?. What looks like a very unscientific "lab", maybe a warehouse. A commercial company (Thermocore) cannot explain it and are too stupid or greedy to ask experts.
An unnamed source (a "senior scientist" at a national laboratory) expresses some paranoia about being associated with cold fusion. They investigate Thermocore's results, ignoring Mills.

List of Horizon episodes: "Cold Fusion: Too Close to the Sun" 26 March 1990

 

[halleyscomet]

Hey it was Thermacore who took the experimental cells this far, not Mills. It was Thermacore who had the patent and was trying to evolve the device into something commercially viable. So don't blame Mills on this one. He was moving on to another hydrino producing environment (gas phase) by this time. Don't even blame Thermacore. At least they tried.



BTW hydrogen gas was the fuel not water.

This is another example of the lack of “big picture” thinking that keeps you falling for this nonsense. I described a working device and infrastructure. You failed to realize this.

I clearly described electrolysis as part of the process. I specifically compared the infrastructure needed to perform electrolysis to the infrastructure needed to produce gasoline. Your point about hydrogen being the fuel is one made in my post. I find it telling that you had to invent a “flaw” in my comment in order to mount a defense.

Either that or you simply don’t know what electrolysis is.

DO you know what electrolysis is?

 

[Hans]

This is another example of the lack of “big picture” thinking that keeps you falling for this nonsense. I described a working device and infrastructure. You failed to realize this.

I clearly described electrolysis as part of the process. I specifically compared the infrastructure needed to perform electrolysis to the infrastructure needed to produce gasoline. Your point about hydrogen being the fuel is one made in my post. I find it telling that you had to invent a “flaw” in my comment in order to mount a defense.

Either that or you simply don’t know what electrolysis is.

DO you know what electrolysis is?

You're unfortunately wasting your time - it might be better to use your energy to sell Unicorn milk to markie - I mean he'll buy anything.

 

[markie]

This is another example of the lack of “big picture” thinking that keeps you falling for this nonsense. I described a working device and infrastructure. You failed to realize this.

I clearly described electrolysis as part of the process. I specifically compared the infrastructure needed to perform electrolysis to the infrastructure needed to produce gasoline. Your point about hydrogen being the fuel is one made in my post. I find it telling that you had to invent a “flaw” in my comment in order to mount a defense.

Either that or you simply don’t know what electrolysis is.

DO you know what electrolysis is?

How about I find another flaw in your prior post. You used the term "hydrolysis" instead of "electrolysis", twice. Big difference. No matter, I knew what you meant anyway.

Have away at it then and try to build a similar reactor and see if you could go commercial with it, or alternatively just make it as an educational tool. Thermacore's patent for a simple electrolytic cell inspired from Mills has expired and is here:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5273635

Mind you it isn't the same as the iteration where they had hydrogen gas going through vast amounts of nickel tubing, but it's essentially the same chemistry.

As an educational tool you could ask the class why the cell produces so much more heat with Potassium Carbonate instead of, say, Sodium Carbonate.
And the answer is ...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not so simple. Required hydrogen gas as fuel, lots and lots of nickel tubing, potassium carbonate catalyst and of course electricity to heat the tubing, not to mention the device itself which had to have safety measures to ensure H2 gas didn't accumulate at the top and lead to potential explosion.
Given that overhead,

I can easily believe that Dr Mills has been unable to obtain those materials and technologies.

Some day, however, hydrogen gas might become available in quantity. Right now, global production is limited to something like 57 million tons.

Potassium carbonate is even rarer, with annual US production on the order of a thousand tons. As it is needed only as catalyst, however, Dr Mills might eventually discover a source of potassium hydroxide he could mix with some source of carbon dioxide, extracted perhaps from a can of Dr Pepper.

As for nickel tubing, that too might someday become commercially available.

Although Rolex has been manufacturing helium release valves for many years, cannibalizing Sea-Dweller Submariners might not be economically viable, even if they could be made to work with hydrogen instead of helium.

As for electricity, I guess Dr Mills will just have to wait until Benjamin Franklin invents the stuff.

Or Alessandro Volta or Robert Boyle or William Gilbert or Thales or some anonymous Persians or Greeks or Egyptians. For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter who ends up inventing electricity. Until Dr Mills becomes aware of its invention, electricity will be just as hard for Dr Mills to obtain as hydrogen and carbon dioxide have been.

 

[Myriad]

As an educational tool you could ask the class why the cell produces so much more heat with Potassium Carbonate instead of, say, Sodium Carbonate.
And the answer is ...

As an educational tool, I would ask the class to design an experiment that would clearly show how much heat (including excess heat) the cell can produce, that can be replicated by any investigator and, when so replicated, confirms the claimed results.

Clearly more educational tools of that kind are needed, because that's something Mills (and Thermacore, and E-Cat, and...) has been either unable or unwilling to do.

 

[halleyscomet]

How about I find another flaw in your prior post. You used the term "hydrolysis" instead of "electrolysis", twice. Big difference. No matter, I knew what you meant anyway.

Meh, you knew what I meant. Given the logical gymnastics you engage in to make excuses for Mills you can move past that error.

Have away at it then and try to build a similar reactor and see if you could go commercial with it, or alternatively just make it as an educational tool. Thermacore's patent for a simple electrolytic cell inspired from Mills has expired and is here:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5273635

Mind you it isn't the same as the iteration where they had hydrogen gas going through vast amounts of nickel tubing, but it's essentially the same chemistry.

As an educational tool you could ask the class why the cell produces so much more heat with Potassium Carbonate instead of, say, Sodium Carbonate.
And the answer is ...

What's your point?

Seriously, what was your point in the rest of the post? Are you still trying to make claim that there's some insurmountable technological barrier to monetizing a reaction that produces 10 units of energy for 1 unit of input because it involves hydrogen gas?

 

[Myriad]

What's your point?

Seriously, what was your point in the rest of the post? Are you still trying to make claim that there's some insurmountable technological barrier to monetizing a reaction that produces 10 units of energy for 1 unit of input because it involves hydrogen gas?

His point appears to be that Mills and Thermacore were being very deceptive in claiming both "runs on water" and "produces 10 units of energy for 1 unit of input." It appears what they actually meant was, "runs on water that you've already converted into hydrogen" and "produces 10 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy put in when you also put in hydrogen." No wonder it wasn't commercially viable... if you could do better just by burning the hydrogen.