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

[Darat]

Where is it stated we are looking at a 5kw input?

 

[Myriad]

Oh, this:

I really don't see how this is pertinent, sorry.

Heat transfer, my good man.

The rate of lateral transfer of heat in a metal plate is proportional to the thickness of the plate. So is the total heat capacity of the plate. At the same time, the rates of heat transfer into the plate from the hot side due to convection and radiation, for a given temperature differential, is independent of the thickness of the plate.

So, a thicker plate heats up more slowly (due to its higher total heat capacity) but also more evenly (due to its higher lateral thermal conductivity). A thin-bottomed cooking pan has hot spots wherever the burner underneath it is hotter. A thick one heats up evenly. It's easy to heat just a small portion of a thin metal plate very hot, e.g. for soldering, using a localized heat source such as a propane torch. You can't do that with a thick metal plate, because the whole plate (or a large portion of the plate, if the plate is very large) tends to heat up at once.

So what do we see in the video? Even heating of the cube? Even heating of one side of the cube? No, far from it. Localized hot spots, like a too-thin griddle over a too-hot fire. That's what had me rolling my eyes at the 0000-gauge plate (10 mm thick) claim. Maybe 14 gauge.

 

[markie]

And how do you know he didn't just come up with a convoluted way to ignite thermite? Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide. But he certainly can get a similar effect with the so called "shots" he used to use. And the titanium wire he used in a different version also makes very hot burns. The molybdenum too.

How do you even know which version of this scam Mills is even claiming to be using since he shows literally nothing.

Hey I well know the energy that can be released upon the oxidation of metals.
For instance to form Fe3O4 from iron metal and oxygen is very exothermic, with an enthalpy of formation close to -1120 kJ per mole of Iron. Given Iron is about 55.8 grams per mole, it's easy to calculate that (fully) burning only about 150g of iron powder a minute is required to achieve a power of 50kW.

But as I've said before, the mostly visible spectrum of burning metal simply does not match the mostly eUV spectrum of hydrino formation. Besides, there is only a fixed, trace amount of oxide in the SunCell.

 

[markie]

Ahhh, you seem to be under the misapprehension that these videos are meant to be scientific, and therefore impress scientists. It is purely for the poor saps who have invested in this woo.

Haha. These videos are intended for the enthusiasts like myself. The quantitative hard data and analysis required for 'science' comes in the form of published papers and validation reports. Yes I can make some quantitative inferences from a qualitative video, but it can only go so far.

 

[markie]

You're talking about this as if it's real.

Unless an independent source unconnected to Mills can verify any of this it's justprattle. I don't know how many times in this part of the thread the idea of independent verification has been brought up but it's been ignored each time or some source named that has some connection to Mills/BLP. That just won't fly.

So to me the baby dragon is just as plausible as hydrinos and in honor of a favorite writer I think we should name said baby dragon Goodboy Bindle Featherstone of Quirm.

The problem for you will always be, that any 'independent' party that communicates with BLP for information has just become 'dependent' on BLP, haven't they. You won't trust the 5 outside PhD's that have validated BLP's results at BLP's premises. It will be interesting to see if you will trust the DoD's assessment from their recent visit, if such an assessment is made public.

 

[markie]

Where is it stated we are looking at a 5kw input?

Nowhere, it's just a guess.

 

[markie]

Oh, this:




Heat transfer, my good man.

The rate of lateral transfer of heat in a metal plate is proportional to the thickness of the plate. So is the total heat capacity of the plate. At the same time, the rates of heat transfer into the plate from the hot side due to convection and radiation, for a given temperature differential, is independent of the thickness of the plate.

So, a thicker plate heats up more slowly (due to its higher total heat capacity) but also more evenly (due to its higher lateral thermal conductivity). A thin-bottomed cooking pan has hot spots wherever the burner underneath it is hotter. A thick one heats up evenly. It's easy to heat just a small portion of a thin metal plate very hot, e.g. for soldering, using a localized heat source such as a propane torch. You can't do that with a thick metal plate, because the whole plate (or a large portion of the plate, if the plate is very large) tends to heat up at once.

So what do we see in the video? Even heating of the cube? Even heating of one side of the cube? No, far from it. Localized hot spots, like a too-thin griddle over a too-hot fire. That's what had me rolling my eyes at the 0000-gauge plate (10 mm thick) claim. Maybe 14 gauge.

Those 'localized hotspots' used to burn through the wall. Now that the wall is presumably thicker and more conductive and the plasma better controlled, the heat is dissipated more evenly, witness for instance the SunCell Sphere video.

 

[jrhowell]

But as I've said before, the mostly visible spectrum of burning metal simply does not match the mostly eUV spectrum of hydrino formation. Besides, there is only a fixed, trace amount of oxide in the SunCell.

Your ability to see inside of an opaque box continues to be amazing!

Haha. These videos are intended for the enthusiasts like myself.

No, they are marketing materials trolling for investors.

 

[Mike!]

I must have missed it but where in the video is the details of the power in? And the power out? Or is this meant to be the heat generator?

I miss all the arcing and sparking...

For me it's the mysterious dark matter smoke.

Can somebody tell me, Is there a cat in that glowing box? Given how much I see Schrödinger's name brandied about in this thread, I was thinking there must a cat in there too.

 

[jsfisher]

Can somebody tell me, Is there a cat in that glowing box? Given how much I see his name brandied about in this thread, I was thinking there must a cat in there too.

So, what you are saying is that it may not be a dead (or not) horse that's being beaten?

 

[MEequalsIxR]

The problem for you will always be, that any 'independent' party that communicates with BLP for information has just become 'dependent' on BLP, haven't they. You won't trust the 5 outside PhD's that have validated BLP's results at BLP's premises. It will be interesting to see if you will trust the DoD's assessment from their recent visit, if such an assessment is made public.

An independent lab is just that. The process of verification is mature enough there are generally accepted protocols and methods but you should know that. I'd be shocked if you didn't.

But believing the maker of a claim when all material is through the one making the claim is not science and it's not going to convince many.

I could claim I have a colony of Leprechauns living in my house and list people who have seen them. Even come up with some testimonials from people who have seen them. Maybe even a letter from a doctor who examined them. Would you be convinced? I could even make a youtube video if I was motivated enough would that convince you?

What would it take to convince you they were real? The same burden of proof I'd be held to is the same burden of proof BLP or any claimant needs to meet. My example may be a bit absurd but by design - I'd really have to have some extraordinary proof. And because Mills/BLP is making claims that veer from what is generally accepted the burden of proof is even higher.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

Oh, almost forgot. If the DoD published a report actually verifying the claims that would go a long way in taking the claims seriously. But no, not absolutely convinced but a ways down the road to being convinced.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What would it take to convince you they were real? The same burden of proof I'd be held to is the same burden of proof BLP or any claimant needs to meet. My example[Leprechauns] may be a bit absurd but by design - I'd really have to have some extraordinary proof. And because Mills/BLP is making claims that veer from what is generally accepted the burden of proof is even higher.

Actually if you want to be technical about it, Leprechauns have far more evidence for their existence than Hydrinos.

Sure its absurd and anecdotal evidence from biased eyewitness accounts of mostly drunk Irishmen... But that's orders of magnitude more people than have seen a hydrino.

 

[Darat]

Nowhere, it's just a guess.

“it's just a guess"

Yet you were so certain that it is showing excess energy production....

Let's sum it up then what the video actually does show:

An apparently metal box appears to glow red hot in patches in a noisy environment.

Not a demonstration of anything that can be verified.

 

[Kid Eager]

“it's just a guess"

Yet you were so certain that it is showing excess energy production....

Let's sum it up then what the video actually does show:

An apparently metal box appears to glow red hot in patches in a noisy environment.

Not a demonstration of anything that can be verified.

If it was a tiny angry dragon, that would explain a lot. They make a lot of noise when they're angry, and dragging energy from zero point layers of quantum foam does make a bit of a racket as well.

You're lucky they kept it in a box. Attempting that in a open room usually results in intenstinal wallpaper.

 

[markie]

“it's just a guess"

Yet you were so certain that it is showing excess energy production....

Let's sum it up then what the video actually does show:

An apparently metal box appears to glow red hot in patches in a noisy environment.

Not a demonstration of anything that can be verified.

I totally agree that excess energy cannot be verified from that video. No brainer.
Still we can deduce the power output within reason when combined with information from other videos.

 

[Darat]

I totally agree that excess energy cannot be verified from that video. No brainer.

Still we can deduce the power output within reason when combined with information from other videos.

No you can't.

 

[jadebox]

No you can't.

C'mon ... Just because the net usable information in those videos is zero doesn't meant you can't get net usable information out of them!

 

[markie]

I meant to ask you this quite some time ago, but now's a good time too.

markie, for all your posting on the shell theorem and orbitspheres, I think you have failed - utterly - to communicate successfully. As in something like: no one who has responded to any of your posts on this topic has said they accept your ideas (as having any validity, wrt classical physics and some basic mathematics).

How do you yourself feel about this total failure? To what do you ascribe your inability to successfully communicate?

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic. It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions. For instance : If I presumed and imagined a scenario where the negative shell was somehow inherently rigid and unmoveable and static, then yes indeed a proton would float around within the shell without any location preference. You guys are presuming and imagining such a shell, while I am not. My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however because it has orbital tangental velocity, and by the laws of orbital mechanics it has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton, a distance dependent on its velocity. Not only that, the orbital velocity is declared to be inviolable, as a boundary condition. So if the electron shell is mildly perturbed the electron velocity must remain the same, and so by orbital mechanics its distance from the nucleus must remain the same. This means that if the electron is mildly perturbed the entire atom is perturbed and moves. Only when the disturbance to the shell exceeds the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron can the electron's orbit be broken and the electron escape the proton.

 

[JeanTate]

I totally agree that excess energy cannot be verified from that video. No brainer.
Still we can deduce the power output within reason when combined with information from other videos.

What "information" would that be?

Do the "other videos" have the same, or similar, provenance?

What metadata accompanies those?

What do you mean - objectively and quantitatively - by "within reason"?