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

[jrhowell]

Given that it looks like a COP of at least an order of magnitude.

Wow! You sure deduced a lot from that video. All I saw was a box that glows red.

 

[Reality Check]

Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic

But this is my point. Schrödinger's equation can't be solved for Helium, or Lithium, or anything else, which I'm sure you already know. ...

The real point is that this is a probably blindly parroted lie from the deluded Mills, optiongeek, and a "quite a bit better" lie.

Schrödinger's equation can be solved for Helium, or Lithium, etc. The only exact solution is for hydrogen. There are many techniques to get solutions for other elements. This is textbook physics.

Mills believes in classical physics including Newton's law of gravitation. Newton's law of gravitation "can't be solved" for more than 2 bodies (three body problem) and similarly for electromagnetism. Would your/Mills point be that makes Newton's law of gravitation or electromagnetism wrong? Of course not.

Mills gets the wrong values for several tables (hundreds of values?) of ionization energies compared to experimental values. You have the example of QM getting much closer than Mills delusions for Li. Thus a "quite a bit better" lie.

Deep ignorance about the subject of Mills lies, optiongeek. The Rydberg formula is an empirical formula for hydrogen and hydrogen-like elements. The "Laguerre" bit of his lie appears in the exact solution for the hydrogen atom.

FYI, optiongeek, 2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic ("Lorentz invariant")?

 

[Reality Check]

An actually insane introduction to Mills section on the shortcomings of QM

25 January 2017: Page 15 - A long list of abysmally ignorant criticism of the Schrödinger equation

25 January 2019: Page 15 - An actually insane introduction to Mills section on the shortcomings of quantum theory.

Mills wrote "In general, QM has proved to be a dead end towards unification of the fundamental forces including gravity and further giving the basis of the inertial and gravitational masses, the equivalence of these masses, predicting the masses of fundamental particles, and the acceleration behavior of the cosmos."

This is an insane statement because

• QM does not include gravity.
  The difficulties in creating a quantum gravity theory are shared between QM and GR.
• QM does not include gravitational masses.
  What QM has is a valid Higgs mechanism for the production of the mass of gauge bosons.
• QM does not need to explain the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses.
  That is part of GR - the equivalence principle.
• QM is not a cosmological model.
  The best explanation for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is a non-zero cosmological constant in GR.

 

[Myriad]

That's a good question. I don't know how much electrical energy it is consuming, but if I had to guess it may be an average of 1000 amps at at 5 volts, so 5kW of continuous input power (although the power may be pulsed). So five hair dryers' worth of heat energy input. For energy output one could do a very rough estimate based on the amount of red glow and assuming a certain emissivity. Given that it looks like a COP of at least an order of magnitude. This is ignoring possible energy from chemical reactions of H2 with whatever , which would be insignificant compared to the electrical input anyway.

Funny, a 1000-Watt electric stove heating element can easily heat up about 1/5 of the mass of metal shown, to about the same degree of incandescence shown.

(It's not good for the cookware.)

Do you suppose I've been cooking up Hydrino Helper all these years without realizing it?

 

[markie]

Funny, a 1000-Watt electric stove heating element can easily heat up about 1/5 of the mass of metal shown, to about the same degree of incandescence shown.

(It's not good for the cookware.)

Do you suppose I've been cooking up Hydrino Helper all these years without realizing it?

Nah. And I think you're grossly underestimating the power you are seeing on that latest video.
Rather than getting into calculations involving the Stefan Boltzmann law and emissivity (which I've never done) I'll try a more high school approach using fairly conservative estimates.

We assume the following:
1) the SunCell cube is made of iron.
2) the dimensions of the cube are roughly 40cm * 40cm * 40cm.
3) the thickness of the iron walls is roughly 1cm.
4) after one minute the iron has gone from 20 degrees C to an average temperature of 420 degrees C. (Iron starts to glow around 470C ; we'll take a temperature average of the hotter and colder areas and call it 420C.)

Known:
5) The specific heat of iron is .45 (Joules/gram)/Celsius
6) The density of iron is 7.8 grams/cm^3

Derived:
7) The weight of the six sided SunCell Cube is 6 * (40cm)^2 * 1cm * 7.8 g/cm^3 =~ 75kg (from 1,2,3,6)
8) The energy required to raise 75kg of iron 400 degrees C is .45 * 75*10^3 * 400 = 1.35E7 Joules (from 4,5,7)
9) The average power applied over one minute to achieve an energy of 1.35E7 Joules is 1.35E7 Joules /60s = 225kW.

Surprising isn't it. Even if there is 10kW of power going into the SunCell it looks like there is about 20 times more power coming out.

 

[Hans]

Nah. And I think you're grossly underestimating the power you are seeing on that latest video.
Rather than getting into calculations involving the Stefan Boltzmann law and emissivity (which I've never done) I'll try a more high school approach using fairly conservative estimates.

We assume the following:
1) the SunCell cube is made of iron.
2) the dimensions of the cube are roughly 40cm * 40cm * 40cm.
3) the thickness of the iron walls is roughly 1cm.
4) after one minute the iron has gone from 20 degrees C to an average temperature of 420 degrees C. (Iron starts to glow around 470C ; we'll take a temperature average of the hotter and colder areas and call it 420C.)

Known:
5) The specific heat of iron is .45 (Joules/gram)/Celsius
6) The density of iron is 7.8 grams/cm^3

Derived:
7) The weight of the six sided SunCell Cube is 6 * (40cm)^2 * 1cm * 7.8 g/cm^3 =~ 75kg (from 1,2,3,6)
8) The energy required to raise 75kg of iron 400 degrees C is .45 * 75*10^3 * 400 = 1.35E7 Joules (from 4,5,7)
9) The average power applied over one minute to achieve an energy of 1.35E7 Joules is 1.35E7 Joules /60s = 225kW.

Surprising isn't it. Even if there is 10kW of power going into the SunCell it looks like there is about 20 times more power coming out.

""See see it really works.""

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So far, the discussion has simply confirmed that the equations are accurate.

Au contraire.

Even within our brief discussion of the last few equations that fed into Table 10.1, optiongeek has had to admit three errors, and that he had to implement those equations "as they are intended" rather than as they are written:

Actually, I did notice the error as it originally appeared in Eq. 10.25. I reported it to Mills and he updated his value. Apparently neither of us noticed the error had been propagated to Table 10.1. This was some years ago and I can't find my email now but I'll let Dr. Mills know the error metastasized.

It's been a while since I did this, but I believe you are correct.

Naturally I implemented the equations as they are intended rather than performing a literal transcription of the page text.

On each of the half dozen or so occasions when I have examined equations or derivations that optiongeek or markie have touted as correct, I have found errors.

To distract from that inconvenient fact, and to distract from the even less convenient decades of false claims and broken promises generated by BLP as its only real output, optiongeek offered this challenge:

For posterity, Mills' assumptions and first principles are described on page 41:

• Conservation of mass-energy
• Conservation of linear and angular momentum
• Maxwell's equations
• Newton's laws
• Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity
• Four-dimensional space-time
• Fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant
• Fundamental particles, including photon, have h_bar of angular momentum
• Newtonian gravitational constant G
• Spin of the electron neutrino

If you really want to disabuse me of the notion that Mills has done something special here, try to find the aberration between this list and the results produced from GUTCP such as the ionization energy of Li.

No rational discussion can disabuse you of the irrational notions you affirm against all evidence, but I'll say a few words about the highlighted assumptions, just for giggles.

In reverse order of the list above:

Of course, optiongeek has been unable to identify any actual errors in the science he/she rejects.

Well - for starters, how does the Schrodinger equation predict spin? That seems like a pretty glaring hole.

You think it's okay for Mills to assume "the spin of the electron neutrino" (page 41), but you think it would be an "actual error" if the Schrödinger equation doesn't predict spin?

You think it's okay for Mills to assume "Fundamental particles including the photon have ħ of angular momentum", which is of course taken straight out of the quantum mechanics Mills rejects, but it's not okay for that to be part of standard quantum mechanics unless it's derivable from an equation Mills rejects?

Without double standards, you wouldn't have any standards at all.

Several relationships between fundamental constants and the fine structure constant can be used to define the fine structure constant. If I recall an earlier part of this thread correctly, Mills has come up with his own idiosyncratic formula for the fine structure constant, which does not approximate the fine structure constant to within the uncertainty in measured values of that constant (but it's possible that inaccurate formula came from markie or optiongeek rather than Mills).

Yes, Mills says he assumes four-dimensional spacetime, just as he claims to employ the Schwarzschild metric, but the Schwarzschild metric makes no sense at all outside of the general theory of relativity, which Mills ridicules (page xxvi). Mills also says "the proper time is equal to the coordinate time according to Schwarzschild metric", which is bushwah.

And while Mills says he accepts "Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity" as one of his "first principles" (page 41), he explicitly endorses "the absolute nature of spacetime" (page xxvi). Apparently Mills doesn't know that the whole point of Lorentz transforms is to transform between the equally valid frames of reference (coordinate systems) that Mills rejects by endorsing an absolute frame of reference.

All of the above is evident just from reading the preface and introduction to Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos. Chapter 1 then builds a house of cards atop the orbitsphere idea markie has been defending so hilariously in this thread. From what I've seen, everything else in Volume I depends on that house of cards.

But optiongeek is impressed by the "simplicity" of equations (10.42), (10.43), (10.46), (10.47), and (10.48), and is willing to overlook the obvious errors in those equations because they produce results that are only slightly less accurate than a simple cubic polynomial approximation. optiongeek dismisses the fact that those equations are considerably less accurate than quantum mechanics, because (1) optiongeek has been taken in by Mills's rhetorical attack on numerical methods and (2) optiongeek is more than willing to imagine conspiracies that, in optiongeek's imaginary world, would account for the accuracy of calculations based on quantum mechanics.

No, I am not going to disabuse optiongeek of his notions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nah. And I think you're grossly underestimating the power you are seeing on that latest video.
Rather than getting into calculations involving the Stefan Boltzmann law and emissivity (which I've never done) I'll try a more high school approach using fairly conservative estimates.

We assume the following:
1) the SunCell cube is made of iron.
2) the dimensions of the cube are roughly 40cm * 40cm * 40cm.
3) the thickness of the iron walls is roughly 1cm.
4) after one minute the iron has gone from 20 degrees C to an average temperature of 420 degrees C. (Iron starts to glow around 470C ; we'll take a temperature average of the hotter and colder areas and call it 420C.)

Known:
5) The specific heat of iron is .45 (Joules/gram)/Celsius
6) The density of iron is 7.8 grams/cm^3

Derived:
7) The weight of the six sided SunCell Cube is 6 * (40cm)^2 * 1cm * 7.8 g/cm^3 =~ 75kg (from 1,2,3,6)
8) The energy required to raise 75kg of iron 400 degrees C is .45 * 75*10^3 * 400 = 1.35E7 Joules (from 4,5,7)
9) The average power applied over one minute to achieve an energy of 1.35E7 Joules is 1.35E7 Joules /60s = 225kW.

Surprising isn't it. Even if there is 10kW of power going into the SunCell it looks like there is about 20 times more power coming out.

Hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. You didn't even include the burning metals. What is Mills using this time? Titanium wire? Tungsten anodes and cathodes? Molybdenum? Magnesium? Aluminum?

Whatever he uses, it's what is producing the heat. The electricity is just the inappropriately used welding equipment Mills uses to ignite the metals and get them burning.

Of course we cant actually see how much fuel Mills uses, or how much electricity he uses to ignite the metal, or what kinds of metals he is using, or what he does with the metals after..or anything really.

Meaning your comment about 20 times is completely 20 times unicorn poop.

How big is that? Well I hear unicorn poop burns hot. So 20 times unicorn poop is really hot!

 

[Reality Check]

Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic

Well - for starters, how does the Schrodinger equation predict spin? That seems like a pretty glaring hole.

Missed this quite deluded question from optiongeek, parroting Mills lies and delusions in his book.
25 January 2017: Page 15 - A long list of abysmally ignorant criticism of the Schrödinger equation

The Schrodinger equation does not and needs not predict spin. There is no hole.

What happened in the real world was that Dirac made the Schrodinger equation relativistic. The result is the Dirac equation. As an added bonus we get a mathematical model of the physical spin of 1/2.

This empathizes how deluded Mills book is. Real scientists take empirical evidence and construct a scientific theory to explain it. Newton took the orbits of planets, etc. and wrote F=GMm/r^2. Maxwell took the results of experiments and other bits of theory and wrote his laws. etc. Mills just rammed some QM spins into his delusions.

On the other hand, we have a real scientific theory that includes all possible spins.

FYI, optiongeek, 2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic ("Lorentz invariant")?

 

[wollery]

Nah. And I think you're grossly underestimating the power you are seeing on that latest video.
Rather than getting into calculations involving the Stefan Boltzmann law and emissivity (which I've never done) I'll try a more high school approach using fairly conservative estimates.

We assume the following:
1) the SunCell cube is made of iron.
2) the dimensions of the cube are roughly 40cm * 40cm * 40cm.
3) the thickness of the iron walls is roughly 1cm.
4) after one minute the iron has gone from 20 degrees C to an average temperature of 420 degrees C. (Iron starts to glow around 470C ; we'll take a temperature average of the hotter and colder areas and call it 420C.)

Known:
5) The specific heat of iron is .45 (Joules/gram)/Celsius
6) The density of iron is 7.8 grams/cm^3

Derived:
7) The weight of the six sided SunCell Cube is 6 * (40cm)^2 * 1cm * 7.8 g/cm^3 =~ 75kg (from 1,2,3,6)
8) The energy required to raise 75kg of iron 400 degrees C is .45 * 75*10^3 * 400 = 1.35E7 Joules (from 4,5,7)
9) The average power applied over one minute to achieve an energy of 1.35E7 Joules is 1.35E7 Joules /60s = 225kW.

Surprising isn't it. Even if there is 10kW of power going into the SunCell it looks like there is about 20 times more power coming out.

You're missing the biggest assumption of all:

You have to assume that what is happening inside the cube is actually what Mills claims is happening inside the cube.

 

[Kid Eager]

You're missing the biggest assumption of all:

You have to assume that what is happening inside the cube is actually what Mills claims is happening inside the cube.

Exactly this. All the video demonstrates is that metal when heated turns red. Anything conclusions beyond that are wishful thinking at best and more likely making **** up to fit in with the conclusion you want.

It's entirely plausible that there is a very angry baby dragon inside that box, using the "validation" parameters already established by Mills.

 

[markie]

Exactly this. All the video demonstrates is that metal when heated turns red. Anything conclusions beyond that are wishful thinking at best and more likely making **** up to fit in with the conclusion you want.

It's entirely plausible that there is a very angry baby dragon inside that box, using the "validation" parameters already established by Mills.

I've shown that roughly 200kW of power was required over the course of a minute in order to raise the temperature of the 75kg SunCell containment vessel 400 degrees C.

From whence comes that minute's worth of 200kW? Someone hypothesizes a baby dragon. Someone else claims burning metals. Perhaps someone else will say it's all from the grid. I think a few reasonable people here are now seriously entertaining something they never thought they would.

 

[8enotto]

It has become clear this suncell will not be a self sustaining controlled reaction.

It is a huge heating element or transformer of sorts with a estimated temp result, not clearly measured, and a "looks like" input to output ratio.

Indeterminate types of electrode or cathode so indeterminate field service possibility making it unfit for a production model.

Advanced math aside it fails all practicality parameters. Yawn.....

 

[MEequalsIxR]

[snip]
From whence comes that minute's worth of 200kW? Someone hypothesizes a baby dragon. Someone else claims burning metals. Perhaps someone else will say it's all from the grid. I think a few reasonable people here are now seriously entertaining something they never thought they would.

I'll have to admit you're absolutely correct. I never thought a baby dragon could bring that much metal up that hot.

 

[Myriad]

Nah. And I think you're grossly underestimating the power you are seeing on that latest video.
Rather than getting into calculations involving the Stefan Boltzmann law and emissivity (which I've never done) I'll try a more high school approach using fairly conservative estimates.

We assume the following:
1) the SunCell cube is made of iron.
2) the dimensions of the cube are roughly 40cm * 40cm * 40cm.
3) the thickness of the iron walls is roughly 1cm.
4) after one minute the iron has gone from 20 degrees C to an average temperature of 420 degrees C. (Iron starts to glow around 470C ; we'll take a temperature average of the hotter and colder areas and call it 420C.)

Known:
5) The specific heat of iron is .45 (Joules/gram)/Celsius
6) The density of iron is 7.8 grams/cm^3

Derived:
7) The weight of the six sided SunCell Cube is 6 * (40cm)^2 * 1cm * 7.8 g/cm^3 =~ 75kg (from 1,2,3,6)
8) The energy required to raise 75kg of iron 400 degrees C is .45 * 75*10^3 * 400 = 1.35E7 Joules (from 4,5,7)
9) The average power applied over one minute to achieve an energy of 1.35E7 Joules is 1.35E7 Joules /60s = 225kW.

Surprising isn't it. Even if there is 10kW of power going into the SunCell it looks like there is about 20 times more power coming out.

Two of your figures are highly questionable.

Why do you think the walls of the cube are a centimeter thick? I have three different reasons for thinking otherwise. First, there is nothing specified about the operation of the cell that requires it to be pressure or vacuum sealed, and the construction of the cell doesn't appear to be a pressure vessel. So there's no reason for that much thickness.

I'll leave the other two reasons for you to guess. Here's a hint for the second one that fits the electric stove motif from my previous post. Some cooking pots are made with rather thin metal bottoms, and some have very think metal bottoms. The thick ones are heavier, and thus harder to clean and to store; they cost more time and fuel heating up, and they take longer to cool down, risking overcooking if the food isn't removed from the pan promptly. And the thick ones are way more expensive. And yet, experienced cooks and professional chefs prefer the thick ones. Can you guess why?

The second questionable figure is that the vessel starts out at room temperature at the start of the video. The video starts with the equipment (the noise-maker parts, at least) already running and we have no idea how long it's been running for at that moment. The first red glow starts appearing almost immediately. So either the device for some reason is putting out way more heat in the first ten seconds than it is for the rest of the run, or the vessel was already hot (just not yet incandescent) at the start of the video clip. Which do you think is more likely?

So let's say at the start of the video it's at an average of 380 C instead, and increases to an average of 470 C (the latter being a higher temperature than you used, but a fair estimate I think).

Let's redo your calculation with a 1 mm thickness and 90 degree increase. That comes to, let's see... 5.06 kW.

(Now, I hope you know better than to reply, "Ah, so you're confirming the video shows sixty Watts of excess hydrino energy!" Because as you mentioned, we actually have no idea, and no way to reliably find out, how much energy is being put in, which makes all these calculations, as much fun as they are, pointless anyhow.)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'll have to admit you're absolutely correct. I never thought a baby dragon could bring that much metal up that hot.

No NO NO! It's Unicorn Poop burning I tell ya! Not baby dragons. Baby dragons would blast a hole right through the box!

 

[Hellbound]

No NO NO! It's Unicorn Poop burning I tell ya! Not baby dragons. Baby dragons would blast a hole right through the box!

Ah, but see, you have to consider that unicorn poop will only burn with hte application of baby dragon's breath.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Ah, but see, you have to consider that unicorn poop will only burn with hte application of baby dragon's breath.

Well you are sitting in a flaming lawn chair, so I guess that makes you the expert.

 

[Worm]

I've shown that roughly 200kW of power was required over the course of a minute in order to raise the temperature of the 75kg SunCell containment vessel 400 degrees C.

No, that's what you've hypothesized, based a lot of assumptions and downright guesses.

Might be true (I doubt it) but you haven't 'shown' anything - you've guessed.

 

[wollery]

It's also assumed that the vessel is made of iron and that the glow is due to said iron being heated up to high temperatures.

I absolutely guarantee that there are other ways to make a container that looks like that and glows the same way.