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

[markie]

That is another bit of Thermacore incompetence.
They sent samples to a lab at LeHigh University. A researcher (Al Miller) ran Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis on the samples and sent a report back. That report should have been part of their report but was not. That is incompetent and suspicious. ESCA is used to measure the elements on a surface. I would expect an ESCA report to label the results with the elements that were found. But the only element on the Thermacore figure is Ni. But we know that one sample has been in contact with potassium carbonate (and hot hydrogen but ESTA cannot detect H or He). A guess would be that there would be K, C and O contaminants but maybe outside of the Thermacore figure using a 70 - 35 eV binding energy range.

We do not expect Miller to be able to confirm a minor lab run that was done in 1993.

I doesn't appear that what Al Miller (at Lehigh) did was 'minor'. He was developing methods to identify hydrino. The short Thermacore report says on page 4:

"Methods are being perfected by Lehigh University for detecting the hydrino atom. [8] One of these methods, called ESCA ... has been shown to be capable of identifying the hydrino atom absorbed on the surface of the nickel ..."

I suspect that new methods had to be employed because the binding energies involved were much higher than usual.

 

[markie]

There are 2 - the 1993 PDF and 1994 PDF. Note that these are not scientific papers. The 1993 report is a company report. The 1994 report looks like something needed by the government.

It should be realized that these two reports are internal company reports, with the later and more extensive experiment overseen by Air Force technicians. Who knows how they were leaked. I consider it fortunate we even got to see them at all. I don't expect them to be of the type of caliber to be published in a scientific journal. And I also don't expect the two individuals from Thermacore to be lying about their findings.

 

[jsfisher]

It should be realized that these two reports are internal company reports

No, it should not. Neither is an internal company report.

...
I don't expect them to be of the type of caliber to be published in a scientific journal. And I also don't expect the two individuals from Thermacore to be lying about their findings.

I would not have expected Thermacore staff to have been so incompetent, but there it is. Fraud (to include extensive lying) cannot be ruled out.

 

[The Man]

Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.

Because that "subsequent forty something page paper" is as you assert "subsequent" and thus not the other paper that was being commented upon at the time of that quote.

 

[The Man]

Yes, that is true. Table 6 explicitly states for the first test "Applied 1100 psi H₂ pressure at the start of test" [emphasis mine].

The "at the start of test" phrase is notably missing from other tests, but I'm sure the Thermacore folks were just using a convenient short-hand. "1100 psi" and "1100 psi at the start of test" mean the same thing.

I noticed that on table six before I made the post 2274 that markie replied to. As that condition is specifically stated for that a particular run it is only applicable where specifically stated.

 

[The Man]

OK, lets assume they goofed in the energy calculation. Why not go further. According to their calculation on page 46 it takes 520 joules of energy to compress the gas in the tube volume to about 1000 psi. Then, according to your calculation, they would have to (in effect) apply this 520 joules every 3.6 hours to keep the tubing at full gas pressure. That amounts to a power of less than .05 watts. Yet the power of the excess heat is 25 watts. So, even though their assumed blunder is a blunder, it is an insignificant one in terms of actual energy inventory.

Your "assumed blunder is a blunder" in and of itself, as they didn't monitor nor record energy input into maintaining pressure in the tubing they simply can't say how much energy was input there. As the tubing is essentially in a thermal bath, temperature will tend to remain the same and energy lost from the tubing to the system will tend to reduce the pressure of the hydrogen gas in the tubing.

As they do no calculations as to when hydrogen migration drops off suficanly due to a lack of pressure, provided pressure is not maintained, they have no basis to claim "the power of the excess heat is" due to their stated reaction for the lengths of time observed. Their blunders are not "assumed" and are all over the place even when given your assumption falling pressure in the tube.

 

[LTC8K6]

Cells could apparently be purchased in 1991...

"We actually purchased a total of three large electrolytic cells and conducted very controlled experiments," Jacox says. "We followed the protocols Randy suggested and followed his technique and we got the same results he had," Jacox says. "We were encouraged but we determined that what we had was probably not sufficient to break a news release, especially with [cold fusion] going sour so soon before."

That's 27 years ago, btw.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/anomalousimages/images/news/news556.html

 

[The Man]

A (possible) blunder in a calculation may or may not have have a significant practical consequence. This distinction should not be difficult.

Again, you're still not even trying.

Again it is not "A (possible) blunder in a calculation" it is question of which "significant practical consequence" their test set up has.

If pressure is maintained in the tubing then they ignore a constant source of input energy.

If pressure is not maintained in the tubing then they ignore the effect of decreasing pressure on the migration of hydrogen through the tubing.

Either way their blunder has significant practical consequences. Either unmonitored energy input or diminishing availability of reactant for the purported reaction.

 

[jsfisher]

Either way their blunder has significant practical consequences.

The errors speak to the abilities and the intent of Thermacore. Either those at Thermacore were completely incompetent, in which case no part of the reports can be trusted, or those at Thermacore were lying about the results, in which case no part of the reports can be trusted.

 

[jsfisher]

Why not mention that the subsehttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2blues/editor/menupop.gifquent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before?

Five coils, so should there not have been one calibration graph for each coil test condition? Or was Thermacore just being incompetent?

Also, the heater element was not within the solution. Moreover, we are told that the vessel used with Coil #4 "was fabricated nominally the same as the first vessel," yet there are no details about the nominal differences. You cannot make any assumption about heater placement for the second cell.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

First of all, their wouldn't be a hydrino fluoride. This is because if hydrino is reactive it is in an anion form and will bind with a cation, which is as far as I know has always been a catalyst, such as potassium. But halogens can be involved as a part of the the crystal in which the hydrino hydride occurs. For instance there is potassium chloro hydrino hydride crystal.

See https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cad4/4d13bb5b0d42c017573ce65ca3a6d815ddcb.pdf

"Identification of Compounds Containing Novel Hydride Ions by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy"

Secondly, the hydrino hydride crystal compound will be *less* reactive than the ordinary hydrogen hydride compound counterpart because the binding energy is much higher.

Let me see if I understand correctly ...

In just a few months' time, commercial hydrino-based generators (or similar) will go on sale.

They will all produce hydrinos, as a waste/by-product.

Hydrinos are known to form compounds, unlike helium. The types of compounds produced, their properties, and quantities, are currently not known (other than to Mills, his employees, and you). In particular, there is nothing known about the health or environmental impacts of any of these waste products, other than bland assurances from you, based on your personal understanding of the underlying theory, that they are benign.

Is that about right?

 

[Diablo]

This stuff is just garbage, basically.

 

[Mike!]

Thanks.

Let me see if I understand correctly ...

In just a few months' time, commercial hydrino-based generators (or similar) will go on sale.

They will all produce hydrinos, as a waste/by-product.

Hydrinos are known to form compounds, unlike helium. The types of compounds produced, their properties, and quantities, are currently not known (other than to Mills, his employees, and you). In particular, there is nothing known about the health or environmental impacts of any of these waste products, other than bland assurances from you, based on your personal understanding of the underlying theory, that they are benign.

Is that about right?

I think everyone can agree, Nonexistium is a completely benign substance.

 

[jadebox]

I think everyone can agree, Nonexistium is a completely benign substance.

But, it is fun getting the believers to argue that unicorn poo isn't harmful.

 

[Myriad]

Thanks.

Let me see if I understand correctly ...

In just a few months' time, commercial hydrino-based generators (or similar) will go on sale.

They will all produce hydrinos, as a waste/by-product.

Hydrinos are known to form compounds, unlike helium. The types of compounds produced, their properties, and quantities, are currently not known (other than to Mills, his employees, and you). In particular, there is nothing known about the health or environmental impacts of any of these waste products, other than bland assurances from you, based on your personal understanding of the underlying theory, that they are benign.

Is that about right?

This issue was discussed early (pages 6 and 10 et. seq.) in the original thread. The bottom line is, if the cells actually generated energy from the creation of hydrino, the company would have a decade or two of work ahead to establish the environmental impact, material safety, and health safety parameters of hydrino before they'd be permitted to market them. (They can claim hydrino is completely safe, but OSHA, the DoT, the EPA, etc. aren't going to just take their word for it!)

 

[LTC8K6]

Peak power output during a test shot of the reactor was 5 million watts, with a sustained output of over a million watts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11660722#post11660722

 

[LTC8K6]

For comparison, the CHIT cell prototype generator was producing 10 watts of continuous power. The SunCell prototype reactor is dumping out 1 million watts continuous power, with a planned 100 kw generator output.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11661447#post11661447

That's two strong claims of 1 megawatt sustained and continuous power output.

 

[JeanTate]

The point, well a point, is that this is yet more evidence that even staunch Mills fans do not seem to believe hydrinos actually exist, let alone will power commercial generators early in 2019.

 

[Hans]

markie's purpose here is to try create the illusion that there is an actual debate on this subject. That Mills is somehow right about something, and he tries and tries to make hydrinos a "possibility". All that is needed to allow him to keep insisting that the possibility will someday workout - and the previous 30 years of failure is actually - success!!!

 

[Mike!]

But, it is fun getting the believers to argue that unicorn poo isn't harmful.

Well duh, everyone that rainbow colored stuff is toxic as ****.