• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
researcher_translation.png
 
No, it should not. Neither is an internal company report.

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.

And who then was the intended audience? In should be obvious that Thermacore was pursuing this technology in house (with external government funding for the second, larger experiment) for their own potential profit.
I don't see incompetence. I see a company report limited by time and resources, as in ... real life.
 
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.

Extrapolating from Thermacore's calculation I've shown that the heat released from the energy required to maintain hydrogen pressure in the tubing is not a significant factor in the energy balance. So their blunder, if it occurred, did not have a significant practical consequence.

Now, it would have been nice to see thermal power output over the twenty one (?) days to see how it may have decreased over that time, but I can't have everything.

PS note that the calculation is a theoretical, ideal one regarding pressure and heat. It has naught to do with the efficiencies of the gas compressor, which may be what you are thinking.
 
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?

If BLP ends up marketing certain hydrino compounds for one purpose or another, of course they will have to undergo environmental testing, like anything novel in the materials marketplace.

For power generation the waste product is inert dihydrino gas which leaks out through the walls of the SunCell and via buoyancy escapes into outer space.
In high school many of us did electrolysis experiments where hydrogen gas bubbled out. Should be have been concerned, apart from a pop here and a little explosion there ;) ?
 
Thanks.
If BLP ends up marketing certain hydrino compounds for one purpose or another, of course they will have to undergo environmental testing, like anything novel in the materials marketplace.

For power generation the waste product is inert dihydrino gas
So you say. With no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim ... other than total reliance on what Mills himself has said, right?

which leaks out through the walls of the SunCell and via buoyancy escapes into outer space.
Again, so you say.

In getting approval for commercial sale, do you honestly think the various government agencies charged with protecting health and the environment (in NJ, the US, the EU, ...) will accept this sort of thing?

In high school many of us did electrolysis experiments where hydrogen gas bubbled out. Should be have been concerned, apart from a pop here and a little explosion there ;) ?
Nice try, but sorry, no cigar.

If hydrinos exist, their chemistry is unknown to everyone except Mills, and some of his employees (and you?). If they exist, no prudent person would rely solely on Mills’ Big Book of BooBoos for assurance that their release from commercial generators is entirely benign.

You really do yourself no favors by using this sort of flawed reasoning; why not be honest enough to say you seriously doubt Mills, if only because of his obvious disregard of the possible health and environmental impacts.
 
Extrapolating from Thermacore's calculation I've shown that the heat released from the energy required to maintain hydrogen pressure in the tubing is not a significant factor in the energy balance. So their blunder, if it occurred, did not have a significant practical consequence.

Nope, again, since no measurement was made of "the energy required to maintain hydrogen pressure" you have no basis to claim that it "is not a significant factor in the energy balance".

Again their blunder in that case is simply that they didn't monitor a source of input energy.

Now, it would have been nice to see thermal power output over the twenty one (?) days to see how it may have decreased over that time, but I can't have everything.

"everything"? Collecting data is the whole point of an experiment, without it, they, and subsequently you, have nothing.

Fortunately the other test does show such data. Not only do we see tubing pressure as a flatline constant for the five hours but we also see the temperature profile spike to almost vertical where the reduction of the pressure differential inside to outside the tube should be reducing if not eliminating hydrogen migration.

They give the starting pressure of the nitrogen cover gas at 17 bar (~257 psi) but don't state what the pressure release valve was set to or what pressure the vessel was at when pressure was released before acuationg that valve.


Of course they don't show that data on the other tests, since in that test where they did show it, it clearly doesn't support their asserted reaction dynamics.



PS note that the calculation is a theoretical, ideal one regarding pressure and heat. It has naught to do with the efficiencies of the gas compressor, which may be what you are thinking.

Nope, no one mentioned "the efficiencies of the gas compressor" or even asserted that there need be a "gas compressor" to maintain pressure. That fantasy thinking is simply and entirely yours.

Agin, do please, try harder.
 
Thanks.

So you say. With no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim ... other than total reliance on what Mills himself has said, right?


Again, so you say.

In getting approval for commercial sale, do you honestly think the various government agencies charged with protecting health and the environment (in NJ, the US, the EU, ...) will accept this sort of thing?

A novel power source comes to market. Of *course* it will come under scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies. It's just that they will ultimately find nothing dangerous about dihydrino gas.

If hydrinos exist, their chemistry is unknown to everyone except Mills, and some of his employees (and you?). If they exist, no prudent person would rely solely on Mills’ Big Book of BooBoos for assurance that their release from commercial generators is entirely benign.

Mills has documented hydrino chemistry thoroughly in his book and his published papers. This is not mutually exclusive to the government doing its job and evaluating any potential environmental and health impacts of hydrino.
 
So close to the Pons and Fleischmann announcement of 1989, BLP has had to swim upstream against the stigma associated with cold fusion. That a lab had to resort to 'clandestine' testing of BLP cells should be an eye opener to the psychological pressures at work in our scientific culture.

The incompetent nature of the testing and data presented "should be an eye opener to the" real reason they'd want to keep it "'clandestine'". That their own data doesn't support their own claims about the asserted reaction or the relations they use in their own calculations.
 
Nope, again, since no measurement was made of "the energy required to maintain hydrogen pressure" you have no basis to claim that it "is not a significant factor in the energy balance".

Again their blunder in that case is simply that they didn't monitor a source of input energy. (snip)


I did my calculation on the heat generated by maintaining hydrogen pressure in the tubing. Since you protest, provide your own calculation to prove your point, rather than handwaving.

Nope, no one mentioned "the efficiencies of the gas compressor" or even asserted that there need be a "gas compressor" to maintain pressure. That fantasy thinking is simply and entirely yours.


Weren't you the one who complained "they didn't monitor a source of input energy", which by implication is the energy used keep the hydrogen at pressure in the tubing, that is, the energy used by the gas compressor?
 
A novel power source comes to market. Of *course* it will come under scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies.
Um, you realize that is a high-grade "gotcha", don't you?

You are on record as saying ~February 2019 is when Mills will put commercial generators on the market (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Yet no "scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies" has been done; certainly Mills has not even hinted that such scrutiny is even planned.

Whence the confidence that all such scrutiny can be accomplished in just a few months?

It's just that they will ultimately find nothing dangerous about dihydrino gas.



Mills has documented hydrino chemistry thoroughly in his book and his published papers. This is not mutually exclusive to the government doing its job and evaluating any potential environmental and health impacts of hydrino.
Curious.

In an earlier post, you provided a link to something on hydrino compounds. As I read that document, and from my (very limited) understanding of what a Mills hydrino-based generator will be, I see grounds for thinking your earlier claim ("For power generation the waste product is inert dihydrino gas") is, well, bollocks.

Inside the reactor chamber (or whatever produces hydrinos) there will be some combo of the following elements, many in compound form (not an exhaustive list): H, C, O, Fe, Ni, Co, Ag, W, Pt, ... and Na, Ca, and K. The last three will be introduced as dissolved salts in the supply of fuel (water); commercial units will not be run exclusively on highly distilled water! Many of these same elements are in the equipment Mills describes as what he used to produce the hydrino compounds!

So it is entirely reasonable to expect that inside the reactor chamber of a commercial power source hydrino compounds will be produced. And without extensive testing, no one - not even Mills - can predict what, and in what quantities.

To borrow from The Man, do please, try harder.
 
An Al Miller was "developing methods to identify hydrino" delusion

I doesn't appear that what Al Miller (at Lehigh) did was 'minor'. He was developing methods to identify hydrino.
26 November 2018 markie: An Al Miller was "developing methods to identify hydrino" delusion.

As far as we know, Al Miller was merely doing standard lab analysis of samples that his lab was given. There is no sign of Al Miller publishing anything on Mills' hydrino delusions.
 
A novel power source comes to market. Of *course* it will come under scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies. It's just that they will ultimately find nothing dangerous about dihydrino gas.


That's not how it works nowadays. Not like 100+ years ago. Then, it was: "Hey, we've just isolated a previously unknown material, and it glows, which is really cool, so we're going to immediately put it into widespread use. We don't think it has any harmful health effects, on the contrary we think based on wild guessing that the radiation "revitalizes cells," so we're also using it as an ingredient in health tonics."

Now, the scrutiny happens before the novel substance comes to market.

Not always, of course. The relevant government agencies aren't always as proactive about such things as they should be. It might take a suit by private interests to enjoin sales and use of the new technology pending proof of environmental and health safety. It's a good thing there aren't powerful established companies making big money from power generation, who might be motivated to drum up some astroturf lawsuits to hold off competition from hydrino power for a few years. Oh, wait...

Mills has documented hydrino chemistry thoroughly in his book and his published papers. This is not mutually exclusive to the government doing its job and evaluating any potential environmental and health impacts of hydrino.


The government's job isn't to test anything. It's to force BLP (or whomever) to test things to the government's satisfaction as a condition of being permitted to market them.
 
It should be realized that these two reports are internal company reports, ...
We know that these are "internal company reports" that contain a blatant lie and incompetence that anyone can understand, markie. But try actually reading the reports. They are obviously intended for a general audience. They are not marked as internal or private. The 1994 report was prepared for the Air Force!

22 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes Thermacore at least incompetence by not making the ESCA report available.
22 November 2018 markie: Cannot understand the LeHigh graph that Thermacore lied about.

The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak because the peak is at about 57 eV!
The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.
 
Last edited:
I did my calculation on the heat generated by maintaining hydrogen pressure in the tubing. Since you protest, provide your own calculation to prove your point, rather than handwaving.

Again as variations in "hydrogen pressure in the tubing" isn't recorded or monitored your "calculation" simply assumes "the heat generated by maintaining hydrogen pressure in the tubing".

Once again my point is that their blunder in that case is simply that they didn't monitor a source of input energy. Your continued and simple ignorance of that point ain't me "handwaving".



Weren't you the one who complained "they didn't monitor a source of input energy", which by implication is the energy used keep the hydrogen at pressure in the tubing, that is, the energy used by the gas compressor?

Ah, so you are aware of the actual point and your ignorance of such above is demonstrably and simply deliberate.

To maintain gas pressure you only need a source vessel of higher pressure and a pressure reduction/control valve.

Certainly some compresor somewhere has to at least pressurize a storage tank that in turn pressurizes a transport tank which in turn pressurizes the onsite storage tank. However, as noted, an onsite gas compressor is not required and for various reasons may even be undesirable.
 
No, it should not. Neither is an internal company report.

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.

And who then was the intended audience? In should be obvious that Thermacore was pursuing this technology in house (with external government funding for the second, larger experiment) for their own potential profit.
I don't see incompetence. I see a company report limited by time and resources, as in ... real life.

Wow. You've abandoned any honesty entirely? I'd think the text, "Prepared for: / Aero Propulsion and Power Directorate / Wright Laboratory / Air Force Material Command (CSC) / Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7659", might just give you a clue about the intended audience.

Thermacore's incompetence has been well-documented; even you, markie, have accused it of incompetence. The case for fraud is growing, too.
 
Wow. Markie is STILL trying to defend Thermacore’s excreted BS?

That’s both depressing and predictable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom