Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

a reply to: Rob48

It's OK.

You'll still get the benefits of cheap power from Mills' SunCell even you don't believe they are responsible for actually producing the power.

Money and electricity don't care about beliefs.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Rob48
Money and electricity don't care about beliefs.

Add science to that list. Just because Randell believes he can make mythical particles appear doesn't make it so.

As far as I can guess, he's burning metal powder (his "solid fuel catalyst). Hence pretty sparkles etc. Titanium, probably.

He claims it's a catalyst, but when I did my chemistry degree I'm sure I learned that catalysts aren't consumed in a reaction! Not so in Mills land: his "catalyst" appears to be a consumable... Hmm.

a reply to: Rob48

The catalyst is recycled. It never needs to be replaced, it just needs to be rehydrated before being run through the machine again. The rehydration process will be integrated into a closed loop system that allows the generator to run indefinitely without needing to be fueled. It will take the moisture it needs from the air.

Of course, I have to explain this to you directly because there's just absolutely no way you could ever be bothered to actually read the lab reports or watch the videos about his process, since it's much easier to just make wild assumptions and accusations.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I've read the report linked on the page with the video.

It refers, among other things, to the "Ti + H₂O solid fuel" being completely vaporised and consumed. It does not state that it is or can be recycled.

So many things don't add up about BLP.

Why would they abandon their CIHT technology which, in itself, was meant to be a wonder product?

Why, if the SunCell runs on water, does it appear to consume nano-powdered metals?

Why would they use inefficient commercial PV cells to convert light into electricity, when they had supposedly already developed a direct electricity generation system before?

Why would they measure the power density, rather than the energy density? Power density can be made arbitrarily large by making the time scale arbitrarily small.

And that's not even addressing the fundamental problem of hydrinos.


Look, I'd love to see cheap power from something as simple as this. But I'd happily wager that by 2020, hydrinos will still be a myth and there won't be so much as a kilowatt-hour produced by commercial BLP products using them.

a reply to: Rob48

Obviously you didn't read or watch anything.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well I read this and I watched this and I'm sorry but neither of them convince me one jot.

Then I read this.

What will convince me is a working generator that I can buy and that produces more power than it consumes. Is that too much to ask of a company that has been promising such a thing for 20 years?

hhhhmmmm, its been four years since this thread was started and guess what

Nothing has happened.......

I predict that 4 years from now our good friend will be posting that 'free energy is just around the corner'.

lol

a reply to: Hanslune

Yup. A rather prescient post on physicsforums.com from 2005. 2005!



They resurface every 5-10 years.

Well, that was 2005. This thread was started in 2010. It's now 2014.

I'd say every 4-5 years is closer, but other than that it's spot on.

See you for the next BLP "new technology" in 2020, chaps.

I predict that, in keeping with the trend for needless and inefficient intermediate steps, the next BLP cell will use the hydrino light as a grow-lamp to produce corn, which will then be harvested and turned into feed pellets, which will be fed to hamsters, which will run in a wheel and generate electricity.

a reply to: Rob48

Yeah, there's a lot of people who are going to look like fools for dismissing Mills soon enough.

When Mills goes to market, it will be an epic condemnation of the scientific status quo, who can't even be bothered to do any real research before dismissing things they don't like out of hand.

They don't engage in scientific skepticism, they engage in spewing dogma and shouting down dissenters.

Oh, here's some videos that actually explain what's going on:

vimeo.com...
vimeo.com...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

So lets get a commitment from you: how many years of no success before you get a tiny tiny bit suspicious?

If you won't make a commitment why?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

So lets get a commitment from you: how many years of no success before you get a tiny tiny bit suspicious?

If you won't make a commitment why?

May be you're just not understanding what's going on here.

Mills already did it.

Mills already created CIHT cells that can drive a power plant. This not something he could theoretically do, he already did it.

Mills already created a hydrino catalyst that can produce enormous amounts of photonic energy from tiny amounts of ignition energy. He already has this catalyst and it has been tested repeatedly by numerous university labs across the country.

Mills already created power from this catalyst using photovoltaics.

All he has left to do is create a generator box that circulates the powder and discharges it into a photovoltaic panel. This is a relatively simple engineering problem that applies to all sorts of machining processes already in industrial use today.

This is not something he can theoretically do, he's already done it.

He will have a working prototype in less than six months from now. From there it should be less than a year before he goes to production.

Just take this system and slap some solar panels on it:



This is a third generation ignition system. I believe this system is operating at 33 hz. This will be improved up to a 2000 hz firing rate. The final system will be blinding. It will look like this when he gets done with it:



It will be one gigantic blinding flame a 1000 times brighter than the sun being dumped into a solar panel array less than a foot away from it.

Sparks, and shiny bits, do not equal free energy. It's great for leveraging dumb investors though.

Fail. If that light had any useful energy, the lexan would have melted right away.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

No he didn't, give us a date when you'll finally admit it just ain't gonna happen, lol

I have asked before - and it was ignored , but here goes again :

any 3rd party confirmation of blacklights alledged results ?

PS - to be clear - I expect true 3rd party evidences to be published / hosted independent of black light

we keep hearing claims that < insert > confirms black light - but < insert > never actually publishes their own results

this seems a common and disturbing trend in aledged free energy " schemes "

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yeah, three university labs, the Harvard CfA, and a couple of engineering firms.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

then cite primary sources from the aledged "testers " confirming the results claimed by blacklight

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Mills already created CIHT cells that can drive a power plant. This not something he could theoretically do, he already did it.

So why did he abandon that in favour of his latest novelty firework device? It makes no sense.

They don't engage in scientific skepticism, they engage in spewing dogma and shouting down dissenters.

Scientific skepticism like showing how even Mills's own explanation of hydrinos is total gobbledygook that is mathematically inconsistent? His own equations simply DO NOT WORK, and that is a mathematical fact.

I first came across BLP more than a decade ago when I was writing an article on green energy systems. It was a joke then and it is a joke now.

If and when BLP produce a device that I can buy and that works as claimed, I will shout "I WAS WRONG". Until then, it is a scam.

Also, isn't it about time he changed the name of the company (again)? He called it Blacklight because, he claimed, the energy given off by the hydrino transition occurred in the ultraviolet (aka "black light").

Now, however, the whole thing makes lots of visible sparks like, I dunno, finely divided metal powder being rapidly combusted in the presence of hydrogen ("pop pop pop!")

And remind me, what concentration do those PV cells have to be running at to get the claimed power output?

Goodness me, the more I read about this device the less sense it makes.

Check out the claimed specs, slides 57 and 58 on this PDF.

The cell for the 10MW generator is claimed to be "less than a cubic foot" (page 79) and yet from the specs, the same device requires a fuel mass flow of 5 kilograms per second! How much fuel is actually required? How much does it cost? How rapidly is it recycled? No answers to these very basic questions.

Then we are told that the light produces has the same spectrum as the sun, but 50,000 times the intensity of sunlight on Earth, and yet the operating temperature is a mere 100 degrees C?

And that this light, which even at 1000 suns intensity has to be spread across more than 60 square metres of panels arrayed in the PV assembly above the cell, can be focused through an "optical distributor" just 1 metre square without any overheating or other problems?

It's just insane.

originally posted by: Rob48
Goodness me, the more I read about this device the less sense it makes.

Check out the claimed specs, slides 57 and 58 on this PDF.

The cell for the 10MW generator is claimed to be "less than a cubic foot" (page 79) and yet from the specs, the same device requires a fuel mass flow of 5 kilograms per second! How much fuel is actually required? How much does it cost? How rapidly is it recycled? No answers to these very basic questions.

You are not supposed to read it, just believe it. If you read it you will see what a load of crap it actually is!