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

[Darat]

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.

It's always those pesky inputs isn't it? If he could just engineer out the input side he'd be made...

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Great, it's the Juicero of generators.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm gonna get investors on with my new battery powered generator that generates 6 volts off of only 4 D-cell batteries.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm gonna get investors on with my new battery powered generator that generates 6 volts off of only 4 D-cell batteries.

"We've produced models that will deliver as much as half an amp, and models that will run for over 20,000 hours. As soon as we've engineered a solution that combines these two already demonstrated capabilities we will have a world-beating product."

Dave

 

[abaddon]

"We've produced models that will deliver as much as half an amp, and models that will run for over 20,000 hours. As soon as we've engineered a solution that combines these two already demonstrated capabilities we will have a world-beating product."

Dave

Pretty sure markie wont notice the flaw with that.

 

[catsmate]

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, and the device producing just watts of low grade heat (not electricity), it's not going to be marketable let alone something practical in the slums of the world. To its credit Thermacore took it a bit further from Mills' original idea but in the end still couldn't surmount the low power density inherent in that early iteration of hydrino chemistry.

All easy to manage. The magic energy box can be used to provide the heat and hydrogen via electrolysis.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"We've produced models that will deliver as much as half an amp, and models that will run for over 20,000 hours. As soon as we've engineered a solution that combines these two already demonstrated capabilities we will have a world-beating product."

Dave

I've been watching Elio, a wannabe new car company do exactly that for years now.

"Our car will get 84 miles to the gallon, cost 7,500 dollars brand new, and be completely made and sourced in America, and surpass a 5 star crash rating" and they've literally spend a decade claiming they've reached one goal only to realize it makes them fail another goal, then fixing that and realizing it cause the price to go up, then realizing the only way to get the price is to outsource certain parts of the production, wash rinse repeat.

 

[The Man]

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 ...

Potassium is less electronegative than Sodium. In other words it is more electropositive and will give give up an electron (oxidize) easier. Hope the education helps you.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Now that I go back and re-read his comments that appears to be the point he was going for. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[EvilBiker]

Just simple electrolysis of water.

Cool. So:

1. Sunlight.
2. Water.
3. ???
4. Hydrogen!

Now just need to narrow down step 3.

Yours isn't home made

Hardly rocket science, is it? I've made kilns, barbecues, and campfires, does that count? Obviously I know how to make fire, we've been doing it for a few millennia as a species, so it's pretty much ingrained at this point.

and you probably have to outsource your wood supply, probably consisting of live trees that were cut down.

Well, given that your brother lives on 5 acres of woodland, deadwood shouldn't be that difficult to find.

I'll stop now, this is a silly derail.

 

[Hellbound]

I'll stop now, this is a silly derail.

As opposed to the perfectly serious and respectable thread topic?

 

[EvilBiker]

As opposed to the perfectly serious and respectable thread topic?

I didn't want to dilute fiction with reality too much

 

[markie]

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



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?

I am not privy to the details of the particular cells that Thermacore had which had a stated COP of 10. What is in their patent does probably not accurately depict those best cells. Nor do I know exactly how many watts of heat their best cells produced. I'm guessing around 10 watts. Given that, I don't think it was good enough to make it to commercialization. Thermacore didn't think so either. No insurmountable technological (engineering) barrier. Of course not. Just too much overhead for too little produced. In other words it was simply not financially feasible to bring to commercialization. What it *should* have been was academically feasible and interesting. But as a scientist in the video portrayed, it was, and is, dangerous to both an individual and a lab's reputation to be associated with such a fringe. I don't think you and others really appreciate that. We're not talking energy from nothing, we're not talking about violating conservation of energy. We're talking about violating nothing but physics dogmatism and ego. We're talking about potentially upsetting the established order of funding to certain science departments. If you were not psssst off in that part of the video I can't help you.

 

[markie]

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.

I don't know what particular cells Thermacore was describing that had the COP of 10. But your attempt to attribute something both stupid and deceptive to the scientists and engineers at Thermacore is telling.

 

[markie]

Potassium is less electronegative than Sodium. In other words it is more electropositive and will give give up an electron (oxidize) easier. Hope the education helps you.

At least you tried. Yes K is less electronegative than Na by a bit.

https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/electronegativity.html

K solutions also tend to conduct better.

https://sites.chem.colostate.edu/di...ctrical conductivity of aqueous solutions.pdf

Given this we see that a little more voltage will be needed to run a current through a solution of sodium carbonate than potassium carbonate. But if we run a cell with the same power (voltage x amps) input then why should the potassium carbonate solution get substantially hotter?

Similar questions have been asked before:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electrolysis-of-water.463486/

 

[Hans]

..................and we are still not a centimeter closer to a Mills' created product!

Let us relax and allow the months and years to flow by...............................

 

[The Man]

At least you tried. Yes K is less electronegative than Na by a bit.

https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/electronegativity.html

K solutions also tend to conduct better.

https://sites.chem.colostate.edu/di...ctrical conductivity of aqueous solutions.pdf

Given this we see that a little more voltage will be needed to run a current through a solution of sodium carbonate than potassium carbonate. But if we run a cell with the same power (voltage x amps) input then why should the potassium carbonate solution get substantially hotter?

Similar questions have been asked before:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electrolysis-of-water.463486/

You didn't even try.

The amount of heat energy available after a chemical reaction or series of chemical reactions depends on how much heat energy is produced and how much is consumed by those reactions. Consume less in those reactions and you have more available later, given the same heat energy produced.

Your question asked about heat produced, which would imply heat energy produced. However, above you refer to "potassium carbonate solution" getting "substantially hotter" which would instead imply simply temperature and not heat energy. Temperature depends on specific heat. The specific heat of sodium is over one and a half times that of potassium, meaning given the same temperature and mass, sodium holds over half again as much heat energy than potassium.

Please, try harder.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't know what particular cells Thermacore was describing that had the COP of 10. But your attempt to attribute something both stupid and deceptive to the scientists and engineers at Thermacore is telling.

Thanks for the addition. Myriad claimed only the deceptive part, but I think we can all agree on your version. Mills and those at Thermacore were stupid and deceptive in making their claims.

 

[paiute]

it was, and is, dangerous to both an individual and a lab's reputation to be associated with such a fringe. I don't think you and others really appreciate that. We're not talking energy from nothing, we're not talking about violating conservation of energy. We're talking about violating nothing but physics dogmatism and ego. We're talking about potentially upsetting the established order of funding to certain science departments. If you were not psssst off in that part of the video I can't help you.

Were you ever a scientist you would know that the above is the purest bull. If there were the slightest hint of a bare clue of a possibility that such a thing as a hydrino existed, scientists would be all over it. Real scientists are not the reticent polite beings portrayed above. Real scientists are ten times as bloodthirsty as the worst lawyer. If the hydrino were real and not investor bait, there would be a scientific and financial war going on right now. Look at CRISPR. Look at PCR. Anything that works gets jumped on. On the other hand, bull snot gets ignored. Like the hydrino fantasy.

 

[Myriad]

I don't know what particular cells Thermacore was describing that had the COP of 10. But your attempt to attribute something both stupid and deceptive to the scientists and engineers at Thermacore is telling.

By your own description, the thing ran on hydrogen and put out ten Watts of heat.

A simple flame would do it, if you could sustain a flame that small.

Every kid who plays with one of these can out-perform those specs.