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

[Dave Rogers]

His first name is spelled "Randell". And I think you need a course in logical deduction.

We both know who I'm talking about. And I'm not the one who still believes that a device promised in four months back in 1991 is still about to come out any time now. Nor am I the one who said he'd revise his beliefs if said device wasn't ready by February 2019, and has now made it clear that this only meant that he'd revise the belief that it would be ready by February 2019.

Dave

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

It makes total sense that in order to time efficiently explore the parameter space one would have multiple units running at one time.
So yes, he did.

And you accuse others of logical inadequacy? Either he did or he didn't. That "it makes total sense" is a complete non-sequitur.

Translated into more factually unchallenged English, your statement becomes, "So yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe that he did."

And that is not what you were asked.

 

[jsfisher]

With some qualifications, yes.
First: "commercial demonstrator cell" should be understood as "demonstrator cell for a proposed commercial unit".

Now, if only Mills had said that, you might have a point. Mills said what he said, not what you want to believe he meant to say.

Second: Mills said the cell had the 'capacity' to run at a kilowatt, so that implies to me it wasn't there yet.

No, it does not. He claimed to have a generator, running, with a 1,000 watt capacity. I have a generator, not running currently, with a 7,000 watt capacity. No implication that my generator "wasn't there yet." Same for Mills'.

Otherwise I would think he would have straight-out said it was running at a kilowatt. But maybe it was.

More likely he was just flat out lying.

Third: It is unclear how much of that kilowatt of heat output was actually excess energy. Maybe it had a COP of just 2 and had an input of 500 watts of electricity.

More likely he was just flat out lying.

Fourth: It is unclear how big the thing was. Perhaps it required 1000 litres of electrolytic solution, I don't know.

I bet you are really good at Twister. Mills said, "[W]e have right now a cell running that is a commercial demonstration of this technology." That does not blend with your narrative. It agrees with mine, though.

 

[dudalb]

No, but it is an interesting case study in how the mind of a Troo Bleever works. He'll never actually admit he was taken, no matter how often his predictions or expectations come to naught, while at the same time, he's convinced that, any day now, there will be developments that will make "some pseudoskeptics here twitchy".

And he does that in spite of the obvious evidence that every one of his predictions has been wrong, while literally none of our predictions have yet failed.

Drop the terms directly related to science, and you have a good descripton of the mentality of the die hard Trump supporters....

 

[Horatius]

I suspect that their current development focus is to come up with even faster cameras in order to extend the duration even further!

And true to BLP form, he won't bother just buying the camera from people who've already done that.

 

[UncertainH]

Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/108164525/20181101_Espinho.pdf

 

[jonesdave116]

Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/108164525/20181101_Espinho.pdf

Indeed. The relevant text is;



Previous investigations in microwave plasmas in mixtures of helium-hydrogen(98 - 2%) working at 1 Torr suggested the emission of novel spectral lines in the EUV region, at wavelengths 13.03 nm, 10.13 nm and 8.29 nm [55-57]. Attempts to measure these spectral lines were carried out in the present operational setup.

And;

However, consecutive measurements in the same operational conditions confirmed that these spectral variations do not correspond to emission lines but rather to fluctuations of the background noise, as evidenced in figure 6.10b.

Fig. 6.10b is;

 

[Reality Check]

Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/108164525/20181101_Espinho.pdf

The author does experimental physics that Mills and his coauthors at least neglect. Physicists know that a single run of an experiment is essentially useless because it does not distinguish between a real result and random noise. Thus spectral lines should be measured multiple times in case they are a spike in the noise.

This shows that Mills is at least incompetent (no surprise there!). Mills may be committing a worse error - allowing an unconscious confirmation bias to filter the results so that he only reports the results with the spectral lines he wants to see. If he is a scammer then there could be actual fraud - a conscious decision to hide contrary results.

The papers also show that Mills is unable to convince independent scientists of his results and publish with him. Thus he has to publish with his employees.

 

[UncertainH]

I apologize if this has been posted before but some may find this interesting.

On the bound energies of the hydrogen atom with a more general uncertainty relation
Mario A. Gatta

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b593/bff1beb817dbdafb4a08705bfb7239d0d38d.pdf

"One of the main outcomes
of this new approach, here applied, is a renewed, generalized form of the
basic position-momentum uncertainty relation which seems to permit,
if applied to an orbiting electron, the recovery of Feynman’s reasoning
criticized by Mills and the existence of energy states below −13.6 eV."

 

[Reality Check]

I apologize if this has been posted before but some may find this interesting....

I do not remember the PDF myself from this thread.
It is a slightly dubious paper. Single author and published in the rather obscure Fondation Louis-de-Broglie It skates over the basic error by Mills of quantum states below the ground state.

The paper assumes a more general set of uncertainty relations is correct and derives a lower energy for the ground state than Feynman deduced. That is equation 26.

The paper references an unpublished preprint by a Jan Naudts from 2005. Starts with a misconception about Mills' delusions. It is not "the hydrino state". The delusion is the conventional ground state + an infinite number of hydrino states for negative quantum numbers. Naudts calculates a relativistic correction for the energy of the ground state that he labels the hydrino state.

 

[Horatius]

The author does experimental physics that Mills and his coauthors at least neglect. Physicists know that a single run of an experiment is essentially useless because it does not distinguish between a real result and random noise. Thus spectral lines should be measured multiple times in case they are a spike in the noise.

I myself ran into a similar problem when doing my MSc. I was measuring certain electrical signals while a sample warmed up from about -50C. What I initially thought was a signal turned out to be electrical interference caused when my heating circuit would switch on and off. Without multiple runs, I likely would not have noticed the correlation.

 

[markie]

Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/108164525/20181101_Espinho.pdf

It is important to note Espinho did not attempt what would be rightly considered a replication of Mills's experiments. Mills' experiments were more thorough and included controls and analysis of fast hydrogen and end product. If the 'background noise' that Espinho reports consists of an upward baseline trend at the limits of the instrument she was using, then yes that might well be background noise. But Mills' spectral continua humps look distinct from that, occur at predicted energies, and are absent in controls.

For instance see https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/phys.2010.8.issue-3/s11534-009-0106-9/s11534-009-0106-9.pdf

What I find interesting is that with Espinho's approach she very much understates what are surprising results. Never uses the word 'anomalous' or 'unknown' or 'surprising'. Not even 'population inversion'. Just says a 'deeper understanding' should be sought and more theoretical and experimental work done.

 

[halleyscomet]

What I find interesting is that with Espinho's approach she very much understates what are surprising results. Never uses the word 'anomalous' or 'unknown' or 'surprising'. Not even 'population inversion'. Just says a 'deeper understanding' should be sought and more theoretical and experimental work done.

That's because it was actual research and not a press release geared towards enticing the next round of investors.

 

[Lurch]

That's because it was actual research and not a press release geared towards enticing the next round of investors.

^ Bingo!

 

[The Man]

I said the specific heat of the same low molar solutions. I'm not talking about cations in isolation here.

Let's back up.
You said, "The partial molar heat capacity of Na+ is three and a half times that of K+."

Let's consider the following scenario.

Given: A 1 molar solution of of sodium carbonate, that is, 106 grams of Na2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water

Given: A 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate, that is, 138 grams of K2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water

Again, what is specifically different about those two solutions?

Are you implying that the 1M solution of sodium carbonate will require
3.5 times the energy to raise the temperature of the solution a certain set amount of degrees as it would a 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate? It really seems as if you are implying that. Otherwise I don't understand why your knickers are in a knot.

No knots here, so any perception of knots on your part must simply be in your own "knickers".

I didn't imply anything, but stated specifically that potassium holds less heat energy than sodium. I also specifically encouraged you to try to work out the resulting equilibrium temperatures for the solutions yourself. What the potassium doesn't hold itself the rest of the solution then must.

I'm saying it will require only just a bit more energy.

You can say anything you want, but without any supporting evidence it is just meaningless. These are the things you actually have to look at before looking for other sources of heat.

Again, I recommend you work out the temperature to energy differences for the solutions to actually support your claim. You do need to try harder.

Also, I'm embarrassed to say that I had potassium and sodium switched in the periodic table in my mind. I thought potassium was lighter. But really it is incidental.

No problem, people make mistakes. Remember you wanted this example to be an educational tool. Already we know potassium will require less energy to oxidize leaving more energy for later. Potassium also holds less heat energy than sodium so the potassium solution will be hotter given the same amount of heat energy. So far all you've said is that you just don't think those differences are sufficient, while I have certainly never said that I think they were. As you also just thought potassium was lighter it simply shows that what you just think can be unreliable. You need try harder and to actually support your claims.

 

[markie]

Again, what is specifically different about those two solutions?

Not much.

No knots here, so any perception of knots on your part must simply be in your own "knickers".
I didn't imply anything, but stated specifically that potassium holds less heat energy than sodium. I also specifically encouraged you to try to work out the resulting equilibrium temperatures for the solutions yourself. What the potassium doesn't hold itself the rest of the solution then must.

Rather, you were implying, by your fixation on the fact that a solution of potassium carbonate has a higher specific heat that the same molar solution of sodium carbonate, that it could explain Mills' and Thermacores' results.

But now it seems you want to officially distance yourself from your past implication. Good.

Now that that is settled, please note: If someone was doing an experiment with a potassium carbonate solution and with a sodium carbonate as a control, and wanting to convert the measured temperature rise of those solutions to units of energy, it is of course a *given* that he would have the specific heat figures for those solutions handy in order to do the calculation in the first place.

Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences...ach - Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf

The control .6M sodium carbonate solution produced only 3 watts of excess heat power. Again, to do these temperature to energy calculations one must have the specific heat for both the .6M potassium carbonate and the .6M sodium carbonate solutions on hand. (BTW, Thermacore has a possible explanation for this small excess heat found: trace amounts of potassium carbonate were found in the sodium carbonate. )

Again, I recommend you work out the temperature to energy differences for the solutions to actually support your claim. You do need to try harder.

As I have pointed out above, it has already been done. Knowing the specific heat of each of these particular solutions is implicit in doing the energy calculations in the first place.

Sure I *could* look up the numbers myself and do an adjustment for the specific molarity (there is roughly a linear relationship between specific heat and the square root of molarity for a given solute), but why?

 

[The Man]

Not much.

Except of course the cations. Again, you're not even trying.

Rather, you were implying, by your fixation on the fact that a solution of potassium carbonate has a higher specific heat that the same molar solution of sodium carbonate, that it could explain Mills' and Thermacores' results.

Nope, given the difference in potassiums properties I certainly wouldn't discount some other reactions as a result. Heck, I have yet to even look at those "results". As I explicitly said these are just the things you have to look at first.

Also, please remember that specific heat only came up because of your reference to temperature as opposed to heat energy. So neither my implication nor my fixation.

But now it seems you want to officially distance yourself from your past implication. Good.

Nope, I made no implication, my statements were explicit. You can't "distance yourself" form simply your own desired implications by just trying to ascribe them to others.

Now that that is settled, please note: If someone was doing an experiment with a potassium carbonate solution and with a sodium carbonate as a control, and wanting to convert the measured temperature rise of those solutions to units of energy, it is of course a *given* that he would have the specific heat figures for those solutions handy in order to do the calculation in the first place.

What calculation? Where do you see any such calculation? The only energy calculation is just the result of multiplying their estimated 50 watts of power by the 18000 seconds in 5 hours.

From the linked paper...

The equivalent power required to provide this temperature increase has been estimated from the slope of the calibration curve show in figure 3 to be 50 +- 3 watts.

So what was "given" is that they did something other than the calculation you assert.

Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences...ach - Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf

The control .6M sodium carbonate solution produced only 3 watts of excess heat power. Again, to do these temperature to energy calculations one must have the specific heat for both the .6M potassium carbonate and the .6M sodium carbonate solutions on hand. (BTW, Thermacore has a possible explanation for this small excess heat found: trace amounts of potassium carbonate were found in the sodium carbonate. )

Again they didn't do any such calculation and explicitly state how they estimated the power produced over the 5 hour period from the temperature.

BTW, what they actually said was an "amount of potassium as a contaminant" was found and that its origins as well as as its "contribution to the 3 watts" was unknown. How exactly do you think one would determine a carbonate contaminate in a, well, carbonate solution?

As I have pointed out above, it has already been done. Knowing the specific heat of each of these particular solutions is implicit in doing the energy calculations in the first place.

As I have pointed out above and the authors pointed out in your link what you take as being "implicit" is explicitly not how they estimated the power from the temperature nor implicitly then the energy from simply that power times the time (in seconds)

Sure I *could* look up the numbers myself and do an adjustment for the specific molarity (there is roughly a linear relationship between specific heat and the square root of molarity for a given solute), but why?

Well, at least that would be trying. Oh, please remember that the solution at that time also includes the defusing hydrogen gas still in solution. Which they did not include in the "calibration curve". Because of the nitrogen "cap" some nitrogen will also be dissolved in the solution, however that appears to be at least included in the calibration run.

 

[Reality Check]

Take again Thermacores's experiment ...

Actually read and understand what you cite, markie.

That "Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate" PDF is an unpublished experiment from a company falling hook, line and sinker for Mills pre-1994 delusions. The references include cold fusion references.

They label the heat produced as anomalous because they do not know of a way that hot, pressurized hydrogen would have exothermic chemical reactions with potassium carbonate. They get a lesser heat with the presumably less reactive sodium carbonate and that is a hint that this is just chemistry. But they ignore this possibility.

The nail in the coffin though is the lack of any progress since 1994 . They conclude with an experiment to be done under a U.S. government contract, results expected spring of 1994. Where are those results, markie?
Where are the power stations using this technology, markie?

They even accidentally show a Mills paper was rejected by Physics Letters A. Reference 8 is a Mills & Wood crank paper that was "in progress" at Physics Letters A and actually published in the inappropriate Fusion Technology journal (the paper has no fusion in it!).

 

[jsfisher]

Reading over the Thermacore paper, there are multiple things I find, well, odd. Consider, for example, this paragraph from page 2:

The heater consisted of a 14.4 ohm, 1000 watt Inconel 600 jacketed Nichrome heater made by Watlow. It was wrapped around the outside diameter of the cylindrical pressure vessel and powered by a 110 VAC variable transformer Powerstat 3PN116C. The voltage (+0.1%) and current (+0.1%) were recorded with a Fluke 8600A digital multimeter. The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test.

Here are some of my observations:

1. You'd need two meters to support the claim the measured values were constant throughout the test.
2. Thermacore and Fluke do not agree on the accuracy of the 8600A meter. I'm inclined to believe the manufacturer.
3. Operating the 1,000 watt heater at 35 watts seems unlikely without an unidentified additional resistance element or an extraordinarily precise variac (which the 3PN116C isn't).
4. The resistivity of Inconel 600 varies with temperature, which casts additional doubt on the final sentence of the quoted paragraph.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.

That's great. 35W generators are incredibly useful. Why hasn't this been brought to market?