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

[halleyscomet]

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

Markie’s contributions to this thread have been wonderful. He’s diligently researched one resource after another highlighting the scientific illiteracy, absurdity, and general incompetence of the Mills/BLP claims. This thread would have died long ago if not for his dogged dedication.

I’m not saying he’s a deep cover skeptic, but he posts the way I’d expect a deep cover skeptic to post.

 

[UncertainH]

Here is a non-Mills paper describing excess heat in a potassium carbonate solution

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9730/dd9c67182c6176d6548e000f4e7c786d7ba2.pdf

Here's another but unfortunately behind a pay wall

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST92-A29736

This one rejects recombination as a possible explanation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022072896049728

Whatever the explanation for the large amounts of excess heat reported by various groups, H2 + O2 recombination must be rejected as a tenable explanation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here is a non-Mills paper describing excess heat in a potassium carbonate solution

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9730/dd9c67182c6176d6548e000f4e7c786d7ba2.pdf

FWIW, this one claims it's cold fusion.

 

[markie]

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.

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

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.

Correct, in this particular experiment they didn't have to do a calculation based on specific heat values for the solutions. Rather it was done directly by calibration with a heater of known energy input and then doing a simple comparison. So your distinction of heat vs temperature is only that, a distinction. Has nothing to do with this experiment. So again, I don't know why you were fixated on that.

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?

The paper raised another possibility for what produced the small excess heat with the sodium carbonate solution. The hydrogen gas may have reduced nickel oxide in the inside of the tubing, releasing some heat.

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".

Now, this is potentially a good point you mention. They estimated that the tubing would pass about .3 cubic centimetres (.3 ml) of gas into the solution per hour. This gas would raise the conductivity of the top N2 gas layer, resulting in more heat loss from the solution. But results showed a heat gain instead. I'm supposing that you are thinking that 1) the hydrogen in a KCO3 solution might alter (lower) the specific heat very significantly while not doing so with a NaCO3 solution, or 2) the hydrogen would undergo some unknown but conventional chemical reaction with KCO3 which was very exothermic, but not with NaCO3.

Both 1) and 2) are not supported by evidence. A third option, hydrino chemistry, is.

 

[markie]

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.

They ignore this possibility? How about you stick with "because they do not know". And neither does anyone, yourself included. There is simply no good answer using conventional chemistry. Only Mills's hydrino chemistry gives an evidence based answer.

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?

Huh? Have you forgotten the 1994 report sponsored by the Air Force?
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

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!).

You mean this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236546685_Dihydrino_Molecule_Identification
where Shaubach also was also involved.

Mills publishes where he can. If a more mainstream journal refuses to publish, ultimately too bad for them.

 

[markie]

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

How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.

That kinda depends.

IF it is like Mills et al suggests it would be free energy. If you cannot see how that is useful, I doubt anyone can explain it to you. Such a device would have solved most of the worlds energy problems.

Of course, like everything else Mills touches, reality suggests that it is all smoke and mirrors and the device either does not produce that energy or, more likely in this case, producing the chemicals that power the reaction consumes MORE energy, in which case the device is just a poorly designed battery. Those we can do more efficiently, and thus this device, like all of Mills' attempts is useless.

 

[markie]

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

1. You'd need two meters to support the claim the measured values were constant throughout the test.

1. 
   That is a stretch worthy of a Yoga instructor.
   
   

   [*]Thermacore and Fluke do not agree on the accuracy of the 8600A meter. I'm inclined to believe the manufacturer.

   
   So instead of .1 percent accuracy it may have been a dismal .2 percent accuracy?
   https://www.atecorp.com/atecorp/media/pdfs/data-sheets/fluke-8600a_datasheet.pdf
   
   

   [*]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).

   
   The variac need not be precise as much as able to hold constant, which the multimeter confirmed.
   
   

   [*]The resistivity of Inconel 600 varies with temperature, which casts additional doubt on the final sentence of the quoted paragraph.

   
   The quoted paragraph was this:
   
   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.
   
   If the power is held constant at 35 watts then the temperature and resistivity of the wire will be constant as well.
   Or, if you are referring to the 14.4 ohm figure, I imagine that's what is at 1000 watts.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.

The claim wasn't that the experimental apparatus was impractical for real-world applications, it was that it needed to be scaled up. This is untrue. 35W generators are freely available and used by many people today.

If you want to make the case that it's the apparatus that made it non-viable, then please explain how and why or, preferably, link to Mills or someone from Thermacore explaining how and why.

 

[jsfisher]

That is a stretch worthy of a Yoga instructor.

Not sure why you would say that. Perhaps you can explain how one would use a single meter to monitor both current and voltage without disrupting the experiment each time one switches from measuring current to measuring voltage.

Any competent experimenter would recognize the problem and use two meters. Heck, just setting up the heater to draw 35 watts of power would be painful with just one meter.

So instead of .1 percent accuracy it may have been a dismal .2 percent accuracy?
https://www.atecorp.com/atecorp/media/pdfs/data-sheets/fluke-8600a_datasheet.pdf

I am not concerned with the meter's accuracy. The 0.1% figures cited in the paper speak to the competence of the experimenters. Much like Mills reporting measurements from a device incapable of those measurements, the Thermacore folks don't understand the limitations of the equipment they used.

The variac need not be precise as much as able to hold constant, which the multimeter confirmed.

You do understand how variacs are built, right? They are not continuously variable devices; they vary in discrete steps, and not a lot of discrete steps over the full range. Did you consider the voltage needed to provide for 35 watts through a nominal 14.4 ohm load and what that would mean for the discrete step size?

You should consider the current required, too, and whether the variac can deliver that much current when dialed down that far.

The quoted paragraph was this:

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.

If the power is held constant at 35 watts then the temperature and resistivity of the wire will be constant as well.

Except, there's that 50 watts of excess power claimed to have come into existence during the experiment. Also, the voltage from the power grid is variable by something around 5%. Therefore, the claim "remained constant throughout the experiment" is suspect, particularly considering how disruptive it would have been to continually (notice I didn't say continuously) monitor voltage and current.


You know, with all the things that would not have worked as described, it is almost as if the Thermacore paper was written without actually performing the experiment. Almost.

 

[LTC8K6]

What is meant by 35 watts of heat? Or excess heat?
Do we measure heat in watts?

If I had a 1000W electric heater, but the amount of heat it produces is actually what a 1035W electric heater would produce, I have 35W of "excess heat"?

 

[bruto]

Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.

BTU is a measure of energy and can therefore also be a measure of heat. Watts are unit of power which is a rate of delivering energy. Watts don't covert to BTU or vice versa. BTUs per hour can be converted to watts because that's a rate of delivering energy.


There's a lot of things wrong with Mills claims but the phrase "35 watts of heat" isn't a big mistake. Lots of people would say that instead of the correct "35 watts as heat".

 

[Dancing David]

Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.

Brilliant!

 

[markie]

Not sure why you would say that. Perhaps you can explain how one would use a single meter to monitor both current and voltage without disrupting the experiment each time one switches from measuring current to measuring voltage.

Any competent experimenter would recognize the problem and use two meters. Heck, just setting up the heater to draw 35 watts of power would be painful with just one meter.

It's a given to me that they played with the experiment many times before running the official experiment that is reported. For instance they would have optimized the temperature at which to run the device in order to optimize the temperature gain. This temperature would correspond to a certain dial setting on the Variac. Given this variac setting they checked (confirmed) the voltage with the multimeter. Then after rearrranging the multimeter wires they would check the current. This is all before the experiment would even begin. They would establish that given this setup both the voltage and current repeatedly held steady for an arbitrary amount of time.

Then they ran the official experiment and simply assumed this constancy. There would be no reason for it to change. So when the paper says, "The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test" it may be saying they just left it alone at a constant.

I am not concerned with the meter's accuracy. The 0.1% figures cited in the paper speak to the competence of the experimenters. Much like Mills reporting measurements from a device incapable of those measurements, the Thermacore folks don't understand the limitations of the equipment they used.

Really, you don't know that.

You do understand how variacs are built, right? They are not continuously variable devices; they vary in discrete steps, and not a lot of discrete steps over the full range. Did you consider the voltage needed to provide for 35 watts through a nominal 14.4 ohm load and what that would mean for the discrete step size?

If you look at the particular variac used, judging by its dial it looks continuous to me. Here's a similar one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4lxc6cgw8E

You should consider the current required, too, and whether the variac can deliver that much current when dialed down that far.

According to
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1...5.1466305443.1541710834-1639128452.1541710834
it can deliver up to 10 amps.

Except, there's that 50 watts of excess power claimed to have come into existence during the experiment. Also, the voltage from the power grid is variable by something around 5%. Therefore, the claim "remained constant throughout the experiment" is suspect, particularly considering how disruptive it would have been to continually (notice I didn't say continuously) monitor voltage and current.

As I've said before I don't think they had need to monitor the current during the official experiment. It would have remained steady.
About any small varying voltage from the power grid, I would have thought the variac would correct for that.
The 50 watts of claimed excess heat would indeed have altered the resistance of the heater coil. The experiment did not account for this. It would have increased the resistance of the heater coil, hence lowering the power delivered to the heater. How much would it have increased the resistance?
Since the temperature coefficient of resistance for Nichrome is low, at .0004 /C, the temperature rise of 81 degrees going from a nominal 14.4 ohm resistance heater coil would increase the resistance by 14.4 ohms * .0004 * 81 =~ . 47 ohms. So not that much.

You know, with all the things that would not have worked as described, it is almost as if the Thermacore paper was written without actually performing the experiment. Almost.

As I understand it the paper wasn't intended for publication and so was lacking the detail or rigour that might normally be present. One has to read between the lines a bit. But it conveys in short form the basic idea and the results nicely enough that if a potential sponsor were to see it, the experiment could be taken to the next level.
This seems to have happened when the Airforce sponsored the much more thorough 1994 report.

 

[markie]

Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.

Or you could read the 7 page report and see that no BTU conversion was necessary. 35 Watts from the heater raised the temperature to a constant 233 C.
20 Watts raised the temperature a certain lesser amount. Since it is a linear relationship and two points define a line one can easily deduce the wattage required to have raised the temperature 86C up from 233C.

 

[jsfisher]

It's a given to me that they played with the experiment many times before running the official experiment that is reported. For instance they would have optimized the temperature at which to run the device in order to optimize the temperature gain.

Sure, it is a lot easier to imagine all sorts of things that might have happened to lend credibility to your narrative. Competent experimenters, however, don't leave those details out of their report.

This temperature would correspond to a certain dial setting on the Variac.

The point is that no, no it wouldn't. There is enough variability of conditions that continual measurement would be required to confirm power input and temperature.

Given this variac setting they checked (confirmed) the voltage with the multimeter. Then after rearrranging the multimeter wires they would check the current. This is all before the experiment would even begin. They would establish that given this setup both the voltage and current repeatedly held steady for an arbitrary amount of time.

There is nothing in the report to support your fantasy. And it is not simply "rearranging the multimeter wires" to measure current; it involves disconnecting the heater from the variac. The heater is powered off while things are rearranged...not that that would affect anything, right?

Then they ran the official experiment and simply assumed this constancy.

That is not the best way to lend credence to the report, to claim Thermacore assumed a result. It is almost like you are saying Thermacore didn't do the experiment at all.

There would be no reason for it to change.

Never run a real experiment, have you? Things change, and they change whether you can imagine a reason for it or not.

So when the paper says, "The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test" it may be saying they just left it alone at a constant.

Let's stick to what was written. The report claims the measured values were constant throughout the experiment, not that they were assumed to remain constant.

Really, you don't know that.

Yes, I do know that. Mills reported results from a device incapable of measuring those results. Thermacore cited capabilities of the device it was using that the device didn't have.

If you look at the particular variac used, judging by its dial it looks continuous to me. Here's a similar one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4lxc6cgw8E

Well, looks can be deceiving. Nonetheless, I overstated the "discrete steps" condition. The variac spans more windings at a time a carbon brush than I recalled; it results in an adjustment that is closer to continuous than I was thinking.

I acknowledge my mistake.

As I've said before I don't think they had need to monitor the current during the official experiment.

That would constitute either incompetence or fraud on Thermacore's part.

About any small varying voltage from the power grid, I would have thought the variac would correct for that.

You have made it clear you have assumed a lot of things. Competent scientists measure. (And despite your assumption, variacs are not voltage regulators.)

The 50 watts of claimed excess heat would indeed have altered the resistance of the heater coil. The experiment did not account for this. It would have increased the resistance of the heater coil, hence lowering the power delivered to the heater. How much would it have increased the resistance?
Since the temperature coefficient of resistance for Nichrome is low, at .0004 /C, the temperature rise of 81 degrees going from a nominal 14.4 ohm resistance heater coil would increase the resistance by 14.4 ohms * .0004 * 81 =~ . 47 ohms. So not that much.

You are assuming again. You have assumed all sorts of things about the heater temperature, the heat transfer mechanisms and the heat dissipation to the environment, and so on.

Experimenters don't assume. Well, the competent ones don't.

As I understand it the paper wasn't intended for publication and so was lacking the detail or rigour that might normally be present. One has to read between the lines a bit. But it conveys in short form the basic idea and the results nicely enough that if a potential sponsor were to see it, the experiment could be taken to the next level.
This seems to have happened when the Airforce sponsored the much more thorough 1994 report.

As I understand it, the paper is a farce, more likely a fraud, and perhaps describes something that didn't actually happen. We both agree, though, that the report might hook a potential sponsor.

 

[bruto]

Or you could read the 7 page report and see that no BTU conversion was necessary. 35 Watts from the heater raised the temperature to a constant 233 C.
20 Watts raised the temperature a certain lesser amount. Since it is a linear relationship and two points define a line one can easily deduce the wattage required to have raised the temperature 86C up from 233C.

You have just proved that a conversion is not necessary by doing it. Huh?

 

[Darat]

FWIW, this one claims it's cold fusion.

We should never forget that the cold fusion explosion and the resulting disappointment and "over unity" generators is where Mills originated from. He was lucky that he picked a slightly different approach to many so has been able to "reinvent" himself...

"cold fusion? Over unity? Not me.." as he turns and winks at his true believers.

 

[Darat]

How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.

35W excess heat in a year, that could be accounted for by part of the apparatus being in a sunny part of the lab!