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

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

markie, can you explain what it is about the experimental set up that made it non-viable for commercialisation? Better yet, can you link to Mills or someone from Thermacore doing so?

 

[phunk]

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.

The relationship between the wattage and the equilibrium temperature won't be linear.

 

[markie]

markie, can you explain what it is about the experimental set up that made it non-viable for commercialisation? Better yet, can you link to Mills or someone from Thermacore doing so?

Page 6, the Conclusions and Recommendations section from the long 47 page 1994 report at

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Excess heat energy was measured at an average level of 24.3 watts ± 6.4 watts. Our confidence to report excess heat comes as a result of repeated testing and reevaluation of the test procedures ...
Despite the considerable work conducted in this Phase I effort, the parameters that significantly enhance excess heat production remain unknown. Enhancement by at least a factor of 10 to 100 is required to make this technology feasible for commercial use. Much work remains as shown in Table 1; Thermacore is currently pursuing this work on internal funding.


Why did Thermacore regard it as non viable commercially, as is? Essentially, low COP. Looking at the 1994 data and the investigations into various parameter spaces, the best they could do from the various setups was extract about 33 watts of excess heat from an electrical input power of 107 watts. Given the overhead to achieve this, it would simply not be feasible to attempt to bring it market unless results were remarkably improved. Thermacore evidently could not improve it sufficiently so it was shelved.

 

[markie]

The relationship between the wattage and the equilibrium temperature won't be linear.

Of course not exactly linear, but for relatively tight and moderate temperature range, close enough.

 

[markie]

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.
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?

Well of course the power would have to be disconnected first before rearranging the circuit so that the multimeter could directly measure current. Not a big deal if this is done pre experiment to get a feel for what is going on.

Look at the 1994 paper where they continually measured the power by just continually monitoring the voltage and using the V^2/R for power calculation, making the simplistic assumption of constant R. This kind of detail was not mentioned in the previous 7 page paper because it was not intended to be detail oriented.

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.

I'm just offering a possible scenario. And yes, you can assume some things can remain constant for all intents and purposes. Competent scientists do that all the time when they know that the potential error introduced is insignificant compared with other much larger sources of error.

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.

To believe it is more likely a 'fraud' shows you have trust issues. Why not read the more thorough 47 page report from 1994. Was that a 'fraud' as well? Where does that mindset of yours end I wonder. Fascinating.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

New article

I've not had time to read it yet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Essentially, low COP. Looking at the 1994 data and the investigations into various parameter spaces, the best they could do from the various setups was extract about 33 watts of excess heat from an electrical input power of 107 watts.

Are you sure?

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.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

To believe it is more likely a 'fraud' shows you have trust issues.

10's of millions of dollars and no confirmable results in 30 years will tend to do that to a person.

I also am fairly certain this is fraud too. ... the only question being who is perpetrating the fraud and who is just fooled by it and repeating the fraud.

 

[jsfisher]

Well of course the power would have to be disconnected first before rearranging the circuit so that the multimeter could directly measure current. Not a big deal if this is done pre experiment to get a feel for what is going on.

But it is a big deal during the experiment. We have no evidence whatsoever of any "pre-experiment" experimentation, but we do have a requirement for during-the-experiment measurement...and the measurement would be disruptive.

Look at the 1994 paper...

Let's not.

This is entirely about Thermacore's incompetence (or fraud) expressed in just one paragraph of the original report. There are other paragraphs yet to be considered, but this one is sufficient to dismiss any Thermacore claim as unsubstantiated.

Please stop trying to change the subject, and stop trying to insert speculation as fact to mask Thermacore's inability to conduct a valid experiment.

 

[Darat]

New article

I've not had time to read it yet.

It's a wonderful "just so" story of what Mills has achieved or rather what the author thinks and assumes Mills has achieved, only marred by the typical CT suggestions.

There's nothing new in it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's a wonderful "just so" story of what Mills has achieved or rather what the author thinks and assumes Mills has achieved, only marred by the typical CT suggestions.

There's nothing new in it.

I must admit that after I saw the author saying that he was just going to take Mills at his word on his experimental set-up, my eyes glazed over and I just half-skimmed the rest.

 

[The Norseman]

I must admit that after I saw the author saying that he was just going to take Mills at his word on his experimental set-up, my eyes glazed over and I just half-skimmed the rest.

Skim to the end where it describes the author as having been involved with Mills since years and years ago. Certainly again, no neutral piece, this.

 

[The Man]

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.

So you knew your puroted *given* to be incorrect when you gave it? Again, I wasn't "fixated on" anything.

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.

Another possibility is of course the unit or its components having different thermal properties.

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.

Techinaly results show at least less heat loss by the unit. Even though insulated the unit(s) must lose heat in order to have a stable temperature while heat is being input. That's the basis of the measurement for the input power of the heater. At thermodynamic equilibrium (a stable temperature rise above ambient) the heat lost by the unit(s) equals the heat input into the unit(s).


Nope, hydrino chemistry is not supported by evidence.

Actually my thinking, for that particular setup, is more along the lines of an emulated NiMH battery.

 

[Reality Check]

They ignore this possibility? ...

Yes, they do ignore that possibility as anyone who reads that PDF can see.

You linked to a cold fusion site with a Thermacore PDF where they do a similar experiment, get less "anomalous" heat (24.3 +/- 6.4 watts), and stick with Mills delusions. Sponsored by the Air Force. That is not really progress. But:
The nail in the coffin though is the lack of any progress since 1994 1995 !

I mean the crank paper that was listed as reference 8 in that PDF and was rejected by Physics Review Letters A. That was a delusional "Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen" paper with his employee W. Good.

Mills was recognized as producing an invalid paper by experts in the field. That forced him to shop his paper around until he found an inappropriate journal with non-expert peer reviewers.

Your paper is the basically lying "DiHydrinbo Molecule Identification" paper that Fusion Technology also foolishly published when it also had nothing to do with actual fusion technology. Coauthors of his employee W. Good and a R. Shaubach who looks like a Thermacore employee.

 

[markie]

So you knew your puroted *given* to be incorrect when you gave it? Again, I wasn't "fixated on" anything.

Embarrassingly I had only read the first paragraph and did not realize that Thermacore used a much more simple and direct method to measure excess heat than I assumed. I had thought the heater was only used to heat the solution when in fact it was also used to create a heat calibration curve for the solutions.

Another possibility is of course the unit or its components having different thermal properties.

You mean specifically different thermal properties upon the addition of high pressure H2 gas to nickel tubes through which diffused very small amounts of hydrogen to the sodium carbonate solution. Yes possibly H2 gas dissolved in the control sodium carbonate solution raised its specific heat a small amount, so it could retain more heat, thereby releasing less heat, causing a small temperature rise.

Techinaly results show at least less heat loss by the unit. Even though insulated the unit(s) must lose heat in order to have a stable temperature while heat is being input. That's the basis of the measurement for the input power of the heater. At thermodynamic equilibrium (a stable temperature rise above ambient) the heat lost by the unit(s) equals the heat input into the unit(s).

Agree with the equilibrium process. The differential heat loss of the potassium carbonate solution vs the sodium carbonate solution is already controlled for by the heater calibration. The magic happens when relatively small amounts of pressurized hydrogen gas is added inside the thin nickel tubing.

Actually my thinking, for that particular setup, is more along the lines of an emulated NiMH battery.

One difference is that there is no voltage, unless you hypothesize a voltage is formed between the inside of the nickel tube and the outside. And then you would have to ultimately deduce a conventional chemical process involving hydrogen, hydroxides, nickel and sodium or potassium, ultimately showing enough low energy product to account for the large energy release. It's been tried, but be my guest.

 

[markie]

Yes, they do ignore that possibility as anyone who reads that PDF can see.

I invite you or anyone else here to show the conventional chemistry possibility that could account for the excess heat observed. The original experimenters tried but no conventional explanation could be found.

You linked to a cold fusion site with a Thermacore PDF where they do a similar experiment, get less "anomalous" heat (24.3 +/- 6.4 watts), and stick with Mills delusions. Sponsored by the Air Force. That is not really progress. But:
The nail in the coffin though is the lack of any progress since 1994 1995 !

There has been lots of progress but you just don't believe it, presumably because it hasn't hit the marketplace yet.

I mean the crank paper that was listed as reference 8 in that PDF and was rejected by Physics Review Letters A. That was a delusional "Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen" paper with his employee W. Good.

Mills was recognized as producing an invalid paper by experts in the field. That forced him to shop his paper around until he found an inappropriate journal with non-expert peer reviewers.

An interesting exercise would be to see what breakthrough papers in the last 70 years were rejected by 'respected' mainstream publishers, only to be published in 'lesser' journals.

Your paper is the basically lying "DiHydrinbo Molecule Identification" paper that Fusion Technology also foolishly published when it also had nothing to do with actual fusion technology. Coauthors of his employee W. Good and a R. Shaubach who looks like a Thermacore employee.

It was to Fusion Technology's credit that they published the paper.
What that paper entailed is the question. It would cost $50 to access the paper online. (It was published online in 2017). Good grief. Shut down the pirates who have taken over the ship of what should be respectable and open publishing.

From some side commentary about the experiment published in Fusion Technology, it was a very different experiment than Thermacore's seven page report. Instead it involved electrolysis, and it was pulsed power, a more difficult type of experiment, trickier to measure power input.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

markie, how much electrical input did Thermacore's best cell require, and how much power did it output?

 

[jsfisher]

Embarrassingly I had only read the first paragraph and did not realize that Thermacore used a much more simple and direct method to measure excess heat than I assumed. I had thought the heater was only used to heat the solution when in fact it was also used to create a heat calibration curve for the solutions.

You do realize that the so-called "excess heat" was a bogus measure. The units should be your first clue it is nonsense. It is an estimate of the additional input power required for the heater to raise the temperature of the solution in the vessel to a certain temperature. I wouldn't think anyone was interested in the heater power, with all its losses to the environment, required to raise the temperature.

What was the real excess power being generated?

 

[markie]

markie, how much electrical input did Thermacore's best cell require, and how much power did it output?

According to Shaubach of Thermacore, their best cell had an input of 5 watts of electrical power (presumably 5 watts averaged over time given it was apparently pulsed), and 41 watts of heat output, and it ran for a year. Did it run for a year with that power yield? Don't know but tend to doubt it.

The paper that would report this cell is here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST94-A30239

For fun, a picture of Mills, Good and Shaubach who authored the paper in Fusion Technology is here:

http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/download/a_30233

 

[markie]

You do realize that the so-called "excess heat" was a bogus measure. The units should be your first clue it is nonsense.

No and No.

It is an estimate of the additional input power required for the heater to raise the temperature of the solution in the vessel to a certain temperature.

True.

I wouldn't think anyone was interested in the heater power, with all its losses to the environment, required to raise the temperature.

What was the real excess power being generated?

The "losses to the environment" for an electric heater are almost entirely ... heat.
And that heat was very well confined to the insulated apparatus. There will be heat losses for sure, as some heat from the electric heater and also the heated solution escapes through the insulation. But it is important to realize that the heat produced by the magical chemical reaction initiated when pressurized hydrogen was added inside the nickel tubing is also lost by the same means, in roughly proportional amounts. (Actually more heat will be lost through the insulation at higher excess heat temperatures, so that would really result in an *underestimate* of excess heat.)

If the experiment got 10 times more complicated they might have determined that the control solution at a *particular* thermal equilibrium temperature had a thermal power measurement of just (say) .9 times the electrical power delivered, because of losses through the insulation. No big deal. The paper was intended to be brief and convey a very significant result worthy of further exploration.