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

[Matthew Cline]

I have in mind the chromosphere, particularly at times of solar flare. The chromosphere is immediately above the photosphere and experiences a huge temperature gradient from (relatively) cool (cooler than the photosphere and where CO can exist) in the lowest layer to very hot in the outer.

The chromosphere has a lower percentage of neutral hydrogen (being that it's hotter) and has a lower density of hydrogen, so wouldn't it have a lower rater of hydrino reaction than in the photosphere?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The chromosphere has a lower percentage of neutral hydrogen (being that it's hotter) and has a lower density of hydrogen, so wouldn't it have a lower rater of hydrino reaction than in the photosphere?

That depends on if we are using the pink unicorn poop or the orange unicorn poop model of hydrino production.

 

[Mike!]

That depends on if we are using the pink unicorn poop or the orange unicorn poop model of hydrino production.

It's this kind of nonsense that lends credibility to Mills and his shills. Seriously, everyone knows Unicorns poop rainbows.

 

[markie]

The chromosphere has a lower percentage of neutral hydrogen (being that it's hotter) and has a lower density of hydrogen, so wouldn't it have a lower rater of hydrino reaction than in the photosphere?

The lower chromosphere has a lower temperature than the photosphere, such that at those temperatures only something on the order of 1 percent of the hydrogen is ionized. (The reason the chromosphere is red is because much of the neutral hydrogen is dropping from the n=3 to n=2 state. Thus it is safe to assume that a sizeable minority of the neutral hydrogen would be in ground state at these temperatures.) The photosphere would also be mostly neutral hydrogen but some of the hydrogen apparently has acquired an extra electron and this is responsible for the optical opaqueness of the photosphere.

The reason I don't think much hydrino formation occurs in the photosphere is twofold: 1) because the apparent temperature decreases with photosphere altitude, meaning (to me) there are few net energy producing reactions occurring there. 2) because the relatively cool, lower chromosphere is hardly ionized, and I would expect it to be more much more ionized if the photosphere beneath it was emitting ionizing radiation from the formation of hydrino.

 

[markie]

Have you asked yourself why this valuable information resource has been virtually scrubbed from internet existence?

I'm sure you would just love to suppose it is because Dr Mills has something to hide. Forget that the forum was there for years.

Take it as a sign that a new day has dawned. (I do.)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm sure you would just love to suppose it is because Dr Mills has something to hide. Forget that the forum was there for years.

Take it as a sign that a new day has dawned. (I do.)

There is nothing to hide Markie. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[markie]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 37 (67) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator.

Another reason why Mills is almost certainly does not have a working prototype: no public record of testing - let alone certification - of safety, health, and environmental impacts.

This has been covered in many posts, both in this thread and its predecessors. BLP is located in NJ, USA. New Jersey has a long and complicated history with regard to both environmental (etc) regulations and corruption. However, partly as a result of several safety, health, and environmental scandals associated with industrial practices and waste (say), of the US States it's near the top, today, in regulations of these ... and enforcement of those regulations.

Whatever hydrinos are (assuming they actually exist), they are novel chemicals, with unknown safety, health, and environmental impacts. For BLP to have a working prototype of a hydrino-based generator, one that's ready for shipping to independent test facilities, it must have some relevant safety, health, and environmental certificates. And those - at some level - will be public. To the best of my knowledge, no such certificates exist.

Much too early for certification. That will come closer to commercialization. Right now they are at the experimental lab prototype stage, which requires no certification.

 

[markie]

This comes from personal communication with Dr. Mills on the now defunct SoCP. The archives have been removed as well so I'm afraid all we have to go on is my memory. My apologies if you find that insufficient.

I remember the same as Optiongeek. Dr. Mills had communicated on several occasions at the SoCP Yahoo Group the theme of negative resistance and its key role in the high reaction kinetics of the Suncell.

 

[markie]

Yeah I saw that when you wrote it the first time. It's yet another misdirection.

This part that you wrote is true though:


Exactly true. Self limiting because there is only so much potential energy available. Release it slow and it lasts a bit longer, and release it fast and it is explosively fast release, even in several versions burning up his equipment, but in every case, the stored potential energy available is significantly less than Mills misdirects... because hydrinos don't exist.

This is the part that MUST happen before EVERYTHING else, account for the potential energy released and rule out any mundane explanations FIRST.

You don't get to just make up a whole new set of physics just to avoid admitting the experimental error in the original experiments. It is ridiculous woo. Only after exhaustive ruling out of EVERY other possible source for this energy, and EVERY other independent lab also similarly cant explain the phenomenon could you even begin to entertain the thought of imagining new physical laws to explain it.

No new physical laws. Just novel, brilliant applications of previously established classical 'law'.

 

[markie]

Please see this recent post. The reaction kinetics are unfavorable (i.e. rate limited) unless there is a Negative Differential Resistance. When you supply high current, you get NDR and the feedback changes from negative to positive. The hydrino reaction can exist without it, but the reaction rate isn't commercially viable.

Furthermore, and probably most importantly, the high current pulse serves to flush out the charge buildup (from ionized catalyst) that would otherwise inhibit the reaction kinetics.

 

[markie]

There is a chance Mills is taking a page or two from Thomas Edison. His reactors seem to be an extension of the process of inventing the light bulb.

A filament of metal with electric power making it glow. Different metals and gasses making for different results.

Mills takes it farther with higher voltage or amperage but adds s new twist. He starts his stuff on fire. A different result also as all he really makes is money.

Correction. Mills and his team through the years have 'made' all kinds of validated prototypes, published papers, molecular modelling software and a classical, predictive theory of unified physics.

 

[markie]

That's all misdirection. What really happens is the Ti wire burns and it even catches some of the machine on fire too.
Here is what titanium looks like burning:

Look familiar?

Once again I must emphasize that NEVER has Mills even showed any reason to make up new physics to explain what happens in his so called reactors. ALL of them can easily be explained by ordinary physics and chemistry, misuse of equipment, poorly designed controls etc....

That gobbly gook you started this comment with is pure unicorn poop. Just made up numbers on a page that do not explain reality at all.

Does the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal match that of the hydrino reaction, namely light in the soft X-ray and eUV? I don't think so.

 

[markie]

And this thread is still in the Science forum because...?

I'm only asking because I have seen this thread at the top of the Science forum list for years (along with Electric Comet) and it just seems kind of sad.

Not to worry, you have company. The Roman Catholic Church was 'kind of sad' -and a little mad - at Galileo.

 

[markie]

I'm not a chemist either, but my understanding is that the term nascent water refers to water in a vapor. I found that a more useful term to research is hydrogen bond - particularly as it pertains to water. To get nascent water, the hydrogen bond must be eliminated, which can be done in energetic environments. You wouldn't order nascent water from a supplier, you create it in an arc-plasma.

Nascent water means literally newly formed water. This water has not had the time or chance to establish hydrogen bonding with other molecules. Only nascent water - without the hydrogen bonding - has the correct energy to resonantly receive energy from atomic ground state hydrogen. When this occurs (as you know) the hydrogen becomes destabilized and then drops to a hydrino state, releasing even more energy.

 

[markie]

The claim is that it is. The corona is very hot, and the claim is that that's due to hydrinos, rather than the commonly accepted explanations of soundwaves caused by the photosphere, or the interaction between the magnetic flux and the corona.

It's not an either / or proposition. Magnetic flux probably does play a part, perhaps a major part. Mills has proposed that the corona is ionized more by radiation than temperature (collision kinetics). In other words the corona may not be at such high temperatures as we think.

 

[markie]

Maybe this has been addressed before, but how does Mills deal with the polar nature of the water molecule? To match up with observations, wouldn't the charge distribution of the orbitspheres of the hydrogen atoms have to be greater near the oxygen atom and less away from the oxygen atom? If so:

1. With the charge distribution of the orbitsphere being non-uniform and non-symmetrical, what would be keeping the proton at the center?
2. With the charge distribution being non-uniform and non-symmetrical the shell theorem would no longer apply. Isn't the shell theorem supposed to be why the different points of the orbitsphere don't interact with each other? Or no, wait, free electrons are supposed to be disks, to which the shell theorem doesn't apply, yet the points on the disk also don't self interact?

Let's put it this way ; Mills calculates the potential energy of H2O as 81.6 eV ; that translates to the energy required to separate H2O into one oxygen (stripped of an electron), two (fast) protons, and three electrons. (This 81.6 eV is a multiple of 27.2 eV, which is necessary for being a catalyst.) Part of that 81.6 eV serves to keep the proton at the centre of each hydrogen atom. Polarization does influence the calculations ; it changes the energy keeping the proton at the centre.

Re the shell theorem: Non interaction on a 2D charged surface doesn't require the shell theorem. (I may have once implied the opposite, but if so that wasn't my intent.)

 

[markie]

C’mon, man. This is what bugs me about woo. You seem fairly intelligent, but you post stuff like this. You know it’s bs, but you’re too committed

It's not bs, and you give no reason why you think it is.

 

[markie]

Just double-checking on what Mills' actual claim was: https://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/

Is it really your contention, markie, that Mills has pointed a normal video camera at something that's thousands of times brighter than the sun, and that people are looking at this without wearing any eye protection at all?

Clearly not. The gallium SunCell has had many iterations to test for various things, but all of them it seems have been run at relatively low power compared to the power - no - object reactions involving molten silver runs in an open environment. So no, the light coming out of that window does not have the intensity of 'thousands' of suns. Much less. Any workers nearby would probably be wearing protective eyewear to at least protect against the UV.

 

[markie]

Markie, when dealing with a known liar, it is wise to reverse the burden of proof. If Mills was a student at MIT, or not, is part of his credibility as a researcher. Therefore it is part of his sales pitch, and should not be taken for granted on his words alone. Unless proven the claim should be ignored. If proven to be false on the other hand....

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. - Wise words when dealing with people who wants your and others money.

Mills is no liar. You assume too much.
Mills being at MIT is itself no big deal. The bigger deal is that he was influenced by Haus, his prof. He asked Haus if he could look at Haus' prepublication draft of the non radiation condition work, which Haus welcomed. Haus later would peruse an early version of Mills' book. Haus was interviewed twice by Tom Stopler, who authored the 2005 book Genius Inventor : The Controversy over the Work of Randell Mills in Historical and Contemporary Context

I find it rather amusing that people here are turning somersaults in an effort to not believe this kind of simple history.

 

[8enotto]

I keep waiting to read he has achieved a controlled and self supporting reaction. That is what is key to the whole concept. Any type of reaction be it hydrinos or whatever.

Feeding in outside power on tests or start up is fine but does not meet the goal long term.