ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 31st October 2018, 01:39 PM   #2201
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,911
Originally Posted by markie View Post
His first name is spelled "Randell". And I think you need a course in logical deduction.
We both know who I'm talking about. And I'm not the one who still believes that a device promised in four months back in 1991 is still about to come out any time now. Nor am I the one who said he'd revise his beliefs if said device wasn't ready by February 2019, and has now made it clear that this only meant that he'd revise the belief that it would be ready by February 2019.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 03:09 PM   #2202
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,312
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It makes total sense that in order to time efficiently explore the parameter space one would have multiple units running at one time.
So yes, he did.
And you accuse others of logical inadequacy? Either he did or he didn't. That "it makes total sense" is a complete non-sequitur.

Translated into more factually unchallenged English, your statement becomes, "So yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe that he did."

And that is not what you were asked.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 04:03 PM   #2203
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,153
Originally Posted by markie View Post
With some qualifications, yes.
First: "commercial demonstrator cell" should be understood as "demonstrator cell for a proposed commercial unit".
Now, if only Mills had said that, you might have a point. Mills said what he said, not what you want to believe he meant to say.

Quote:
Second: Mills said the cell had the 'capacity' to run at a kilowatt, so that implies to me it wasn't there yet.
No, it does not. He claimed to have a generator, running, with a 1,000 watt capacity. I have a generator, not running currently, with a 7,000 watt capacity. No implication that my generator "wasn't there yet." Same for Mills'.

Quote:
Otherwise I would think he would have straight-out said it was running at a kilowatt. But maybe it was.
More likely he was just flat out lying.

Quote:
Third: It is unclear how much of that kilowatt of heat output was actually excess energy. Maybe it had a COP of just 2 and had an input of 500 watts of electricity.
More likely he was just flat out lying.

Quote:
Fourth: It is unclear how big the thing was. Perhaps it required 1000 litres of electrolytic solution, I don't know.
I bet you are really good at Twister. Mills said, "[W]e have right now a cell running that is a commercial demonstration of this technology." That does not blend with your narrative. It agrees with mine, though.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 05:09 PM   #2204
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,534
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
No, but it is an interesting case study in how the mind of a Troo Bleever works. He'll never actually admit he was taken, no matter how often his predictions or expectations come to naught, while at the same time, he's convinced that, any day now, there will be developments that will make "some pseudoskeptics here twitchy".

And he does that in spite of the obvious evidence that every one of his predictions has been wrong, while literally none of our predictions have yet failed.
Drop the terms directly related to science, and you have a good descripton of the mentality of the die hard Trump supporters....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 05:36 PM   #2205
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,693
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I suspect that their current development focus is to come up with even faster cameras in order to extend the duration even further!


And true to BLP form, he won't bother just buying the camera from people who've already done that.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 10:58 AM   #2206
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 126
Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1081645...01_Espinho.pdf
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 01:18 PM   #2207
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1081645...01_Espinho.pdf
Indeed. The relevant text is;


Quote:
Previous investigations in microwave plasmas in mixtures of helium-hydrogen(98 - 2%) working at 1 Torr suggested the emission of novel spectral lines in the EUV region, at wavelengths 13.03 nm, 10.13 nm and 8.29 nm [55-57]. Attempts to measure these spectral lines were carried out in the present operational setup.
And;

Quote:
However, consecutive measurements in the same operational conditions confirmed that these spectral variations do not correspond to emission lines but rather to fluctuations of the background noise, as evidenced in figure 6.10b.
Fig. 6.10b is;

__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 04:18 PM   #2208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,621
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1081645...01_Espinho.pdf
The author does experimental physics that Mills and his coauthors at least neglect. Physicists know that a single run of an experiment is essentially useless because it does not distinguish between a real result and random noise. Thus spectral lines should be measured multiple times in case they are a spike in the noise.

This shows that Mills is at least incompetent (no surprise there!). Mills may be committing a worse error - allowing an unconscious confirmation bias to filter the results so that he only reports the results with the spectral lines he wants to see. If he is a scammer then there could be actual fraud - a conscious decision to hide contrary results.

The papers also show that Mills is unable to convince independent scientists of his results and publish with him. Thus he has to publish with his employees.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 06:44 PM   #2209
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 126
I apologize if this has been posted before but some may find this interesting.

On the bound energies of the hydrogen atom with a more general uncertainty relation
Mario A. Gatta

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b59...7239d0d38d.pdf

Quote:
"One of the main outcomes
of this new approach, here applied, is a renewed, generalized form of the
basic position-momentum uncertainty relation which seems to permit,
if applied to an orbiting electron, the recovery of Feynman’s reasoning
criticized by Mills and the existence of energy states below −13.6 eV."
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 07:52 PM   #2210
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,621
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
I apologize if this has been posted before but some may find this interesting....
I do not remember the PDF myself from this thread.
It is a slightly dubious paper. Single author and published in the rather obscure Fondation Louis-de-Broglie It skates over the basic error by Mills of quantum states below the ground state.

The paper assumes a more general set of uncertainty relations is correct and derives a lower energy for the ground state than Feynman deduced. That is equation 26.

The paper references an unpublished preprint by a Jan Naudts from 2005. Starts with a misconception about Mills' delusions. It is not "the hydrino state". The delusion is the conventional ground state + an infinite number of hydrino states for negative quantum numbers. Naudts calculates a relativistic correction for the energy of the ground state that he labels the hydrino state.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2018, 05:58 AM   #2211
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,693
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The author does experimental physics that Mills and his coauthors at least neglect. Physicists know that a single run of an experiment is essentially useless because it does not distinguish between a real result and random noise. Thus spectral lines should be measured multiple times in case they are a spike in the noise.

I myself ran into a similar problem when doing my MSc. I was measuring certain electrical signals while a sample warmed up from about -50C. What I initially thought was a signal turned out to be electrical interference caused when my heating circuit would switch on and off. Without multiple runs, I likely would not have noticed the correlation.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2018, 11:00 AM   #2212
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Just an FYI

Here is a link to a recent doctoral thesis in which some of Mills papers are cited. Of note is that she attributes Mills novel EUV lines observed in Helium-Hydrogen plasmas to background noise. See page 125

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1081645...01_Espinho.pdf
It is important to note Espinho did not attempt what would be rightly considered a replication of Mills's experiments. Mills' experiments were more thorough and included controls and analysis of fast hydrogen and end product. If the 'background noise' that Espinho reports consists of an upward baseline trend at the limits of the instrument she was using, then yes that might well be background noise. But Mills' spectral continua humps look distinct from that, occur at predicted energies, and are absent in controls.

For instance see https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpd...009-0106-9.pdf

What I find interesting is that with Espinho's approach she very much understates what are surprising results. Never uses the word 'anomalous' or 'unknown' or 'surprising'. Not even 'population inversion'. Just says a 'deeper understanding' should be sought and more theoretical and experimental work done.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2018, 11:05 AM   #2213
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,091
Originally Posted by markie View Post
What I find interesting is that with Espinho's approach she very much understates what are surprising results. Never uses the word 'anomalous' or 'unknown' or 'surprising'. Not even 'population inversion'. Just says a 'deeper understanding' should be sought and more theoretical and experimental work done.
That's because it was actual research and not a press release geared towards enticing the next round of investors.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2018, 12:48 PM   #2214
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
That's because it was actual research and not a press release geared towards enticing the next round of investors.
^ Bingo!
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2018, 09:04 AM   #2215
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,317
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I said the specific heat of the same low molar solutions. I'm not talking about cations in isolation here.

Let's back up.
You said, "The partial molar heat capacity of Na+ is three and a half times that of K+."

Let's consider the following scenario.

Given: A 1 molar solution of of sodium carbonate, that is, 106 grams of Na2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water

Given: A 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate, that is, 138 grams of K2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water
Again, what is specifically different about those two solutions?


Originally Posted by markie View Post
Are you implying that the 1M solution of sodium carbonate will require
3.5 times the energy to raise the temperature of the solution a certain set amount of degrees as it would a 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate? It really seems as if you are implying that. Otherwise I don't understand why your knickers are in a knot.
No knots here, so any perception of knots on your part must simply be in your own "knickers".

I didn't imply anything, but stated specifically that potassium holds less heat energy than sodium. I also specifically encouraged you to try to work out the resulting equilibrium temperatures for the solutions yourself. What the potassium doesn't hold itself the rest of the solution then must.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
I'm saying it will require only just a bit more energy.
You can say anything you want, but without any supporting evidence it is just meaningless. These are the things you actually have to look at before looking for other sources of heat.

Again, I recommend you work out the temperature to energy differences for the solutions to actually support your claim. You do need to try harder.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Also, I'm embarrassed to say that I had potassium and sodium switched in the periodic table in my mind. I thought potassium was lighter. But really it is incidental.
No problem, people make mistakes. Remember you wanted this example to be an educational tool. Already we know potassium will require less energy to oxidize leaving more energy for later. Potassium also holds less heat energy than sodium so the potassium solution will be hotter given the same amount of heat energy. So far all you've said is that you just don't think those differences are sufficient, while I have certainly never said that I think they were. As you also just thought potassium was lighter it simply shows that what you just think can be unreliable. You need try harder and to actually support your claims.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 4th November 2018 at 09:05 AM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 12:30 PM   #2216
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Again, what is specifically different about those two solutions?
Not much.

Quote:
No knots here, so any perception of knots on your part must simply be in your own "knickers".
I didn't imply anything, but stated specifically that potassium holds less heat energy than sodium. I also specifically encouraged you to try to work out the resulting equilibrium temperatures for the solutions yourself. What the potassium doesn't hold itself the rest of the solution then must.
Rather, you were implying, by your fixation on the fact that a solution of potassium carbonate has a higher specific heat that the same molar solution of sodium carbonate, that it could explain Mills' and Thermacores' results.

But now it seems you want to officially distance yourself from your past implication. Good.

Now that that is settled, please note: If someone was doing an experiment with a potassium carbonate solution and with a sodium carbonate as a control, and wanting to convert the measured temperature rise of those solutions to units of energy, it is of course a *given* that he would have the specific heat figures for those solutions handy in order to do the calculation in the first place.

Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/...c-Hydrogen.pdf

The control .6M sodium carbonate solution produced only 3 watts of excess heat power. Again, to do these temperature to energy calculations one must have the specific heat for both the .6M potassium carbonate and the .6M sodium carbonate solutions on hand. (BTW, Thermacore has a possible explanation for this small excess heat found: trace amounts of potassium carbonate were found in the sodium carbonate. )

Quote:
Again, I recommend you work out the temperature to energy differences for the solutions to actually support your claim. You do need to try harder.
As I have pointed out above, it has already been done. Knowing the specific heat of each of these particular solutions is implicit in doing the energy calculations in the first place.

Sure I *could* look up the numbers myself and do an adjustment for the specific molarity (there is roughly a linear relationship between specific heat and the square root of molarity for a given solute), but why?

Last edited by markie; 6th November 2018 at 12:31 PM.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 04:45 PM   #2217
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,317
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Not much.
Except of course the cations. Again, you're not even trying.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
Rather, you were implying, by your fixation on the fact that a solution of potassium carbonate has a higher specific heat that the same molar solution of sodium carbonate, that it could explain Mills' and Thermacores' results.
Nope, given the difference in potassiums properties I certainly wouldn't discount some other reactions as a result. Heck, I have yet to even look at those "results". As I explicitly said these are just the things you have to look at first.

Also, please remember that specific heat only came up because of your reference to temperature as opposed to heat energy. So neither my implication nor my fixation.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
But now it seems you want to officially distance yourself from your past implication. Good.
Nope, I made no implication, my statements were explicit. You can't "distance yourself" form simply your own desired implications by just trying to ascribe them to others.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
Now that that is settled, please note: If someone was doing an experiment with a potassium carbonate solution and with a sodium carbonate as a control, and wanting to convert the measured temperature rise of those solutions to units of energy, it is of course a *given* that he would have the specific heat figures for those solutions handy in order to do the calculation in the first place.
What calculation? Where do you see any such calculation? The only energy calculation is just the result of multiplying their estimated 50 watts of power by the 18000 seconds in 5 hours.

From the linked paper...

Quote:
The equivalent power required to provide this temperature increase has been estimated from the slope of the calibration curve show in figure 3 to be 50 +- 3 watts.
So what was "given" is that they did something other than the calculation you assert.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/...c-Hydrogen.pdf

The control .6M sodium carbonate solution produced only 3 watts of excess heat power. Again, to do these temperature to energy calculations one must have the specific heat for both the .6M potassium carbonate and the .6M sodium carbonate solutions on hand. (BTW, Thermacore has a possible explanation for this small excess heat found: trace amounts of potassium carbonate were found in the sodium carbonate. )
Again they didn't do any such calculation and explicitly state how they estimated the power produced over the 5 hour period from the temperature.

BTW, what they actually said was an "amount of potassium as a contaminant" was found and that its origins as well as as its "contribution to the 3 watts" was unknown. How exactly do you think one would determine a carbonate contaminate in a, well, carbonate solution?

Originally Posted by markie View Post
As I have pointed out above, it has already been done. Knowing the specific heat of each of these particular solutions is implicit in doing the energy calculations in the first place.
As I have pointed out above and the authors pointed out in your link what you take as being "implicit" is explicitly not how they estimated the power from the temperature nor implicitly then the energy from simply that power times the time (in seconds)

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Sure I *could* look up the numbers myself and do an adjustment for the specific molarity (there is roughly a linear relationship between specific heat and the square root of molarity for a given solute), but why?
Well, at least that would be trying. Oh, please remember that the solution at that time also includes the defusing hydrogen gas still in solution. Which they did not include in the "calibration curve". Because of the nitrogen "cap" some nitrogen will also be dissolved in the solution, however that appears to be at least included in the calibration run.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:57 PM   #2218
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,621
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Take again Thermacores's experiment ...
Actually read and understand what you cite, markie.

That "Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate" PDF is an unpublished experiment from a company falling hook, line and sinker for Mills pre-1994 delusions. The references include cold fusion references.

They label the heat produced as anomalous because they do not know of a way that hot, pressurized hydrogen would have exothermic chemical reactions with potassium carbonate. They get a lesser heat with the presumably less reactive sodium carbonate and that is a hint that this is just chemistry. But they ignore this possibility.

The nail in the coffin though is the lack of any progress since 1994 . They conclude with an experiment to be done under a U.S. government contract, results expected spring of 1994. Where are those results, markie?
Where are the power stations using this technology, markie?

They even accidentally show a Mills paper was rejected by Physics Letters A. Reference 8 is a Mills & Wood crank paper that was "in progress" at Physics Letters A and actually published in the inappropriate Fusion Technology journal (the paper has no fusion in it!).

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2018 at 07:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 07:15 PM   #2219
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,153
Reading over the Thermacore paper, there are multiple things I find, well, odd. Consider, for example, this paragraph from page 2:

Quote:
The heater consisted of a 14.4 ohm, 1000 watt Inconel 600 jacketed Nichrome heater made by Watlow. It was wrapped around the outside diameter of the cylindrical pressure vessel and powered by a 110 VAC variable transformer Powerstat 3PN116C. The voltage (+0.1%) and current (+0.1%) were recorded with a Fluke 8600A digital multimeter. The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test.

Here are some of my observations:
  1. You'd need two meters to support the claim the measured values were constant throughout the test.
  2. Thermacore and Fluke do not agree on the accuracy of the 8600A meter. I'm inclined to believe the manufacturer.
  3. Operating the 1,000 watt heater at 35 watts seems unlikely without an unidentified additional resistance element or an extraordinarily precise variac (which the 3PN116C isn't).
  4. The resistivity of Inconel 600 varies with temperature, which casts additional doubt on the final sentence of the quoted paragraph.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost

Last edited by jsfisher; 6th November 2018 at 07:17 PM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 03:41 AM   #2220
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,991
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Take again Thermacores's experiment using .6M potassium carbonate solution, where their best cell ran for a year with 5 watts of electrical input power and a calculated output of 41 watts of excess heat power.
That's great. 35W generators are incredibly useful. Why hasn't this been brought to market?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 04:05 AM   #2221
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,091
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's great. 35W generators are incredibly useful. Why hasn't this been brought to market?


Markie’s contributions to this thread have been wonderful. He’s diligently researched one resource after another highlighting the scientific illiteracy, absurdity, and general incompetence of the Mills/BLP claims. This thread would have died long ago if not for his dogged dedication.

I’m not saying he’s a deep cover skeptic, but he posts the way I’d expect a deep cover skeptic to post.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 06:34 AM   #2222
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 126
Here is a non-Mills paper describing excess heat in a potassium carbonate solution

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/973...7c786d7ba2.pdf

Here's another but unfortunately behind a pay wall

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...2/FST92-A29736

This one rejects recombination as a possible explanation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22072896049728

Quote:
Whatever the explanation for the large amounts of excess heat reported by various groups, H2 + O2 recombination must be rejected as a tenable explanation.
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 08:04 AM   #2223
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,991
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Here is a non-Mills paper describing excess heat in a potassium carbonate solution

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/973...7c786d7ba2.pdf
FWIW, this one claims it's cold fusion.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 09:52 PM   #2224
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What calculation? Where do you see any such calculation? The only energy calculation is just the result of multiplying their estimated 50 watts of power by the 18000 seconds in 5 hours.

So what was "given" is that they did something other than the calculation you assert.

Again they didn't do any such calculation and explicitly state how they estimated the power produced over the 5 hour period from the temperature.
Correct, in this particular experiment they didn't have to do a calculation based on specific heat values for the solutions. Rather it was done directly by calibration with a heater of known energy input and then doing a simple comparison. So your distinction of heat vs temperature is only that, a distinction. Has nothing to do with this experiment. So again, I don't know why you were fixated on that.

Quote:
BTW, what they actually said was an "amount of potassium as a contaminant" was found and that its origins as well as as its "contribution to the 3 watts" was unknown. How exactly do you think one would determine a carbonate contaminate in a, well, carbonate solution?
The paper raised another possibility for what produced the small excess heat with the sodium carbonate solution. The hydrogen gas may have reduced nickel oxide in the inside of the tubing, releasing some heat.

Quote:
Oh, please remember that the solution at that time also includes the defusing hydrogen gas still in solution. Which they did not include in the "calibration curve".
Now, this is potentially a good point you mention. They estimated that the tubing would pass about .3 cubic centimetres (.3 ml) of gas into the solution per hour. This gas would raise the conductivity of the top N2 gas layer, resulting in more heat loss from the solution. But results showed a heat gain instead. I'm supposing that you are thinking that 1) the hydrogen in a KCO3 solution might alter (lower) the specific heat very significantly while not doing so with a NaCO3 solution, or 2) the hydrogen would undergo some unknown but conventional chemical reaction with KCO3 which was very exothermic, but not with NaCO3.

Both 1) and 2) are not supported by evidence. A third option, hydrino chemistry, is.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 10:17 PM   #2225
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
They label the heat produced as anomalous because they do not know of a way that hot, pressurized hydrogen would have exothermic chemical reactions with potassium carbonate. They get a lesser heat with the presumably less reactive sodium carbonate and that is a hint that this is just chemistry. But they ignore this possibility.
They ignore this possibility? How about you stick with "because they do not know". And neither does anyone, yourself included. There is simply no good answer using conventional chemistry. Only Mills's hydrino chemistry gives an evidence based answer.

Quote:
The nail in the coffin though is the lack of any progress since 1994 . They conclude with an experiment to be done under a U.S. government contract, results expected spring of 1994. Where are those results, markie?

Huh? Have you forgotten the 1994 report sponsored by the Air Force?
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf


Quote:
They even accidentally show a Mills paper was rejected by Physics Letters A. Reference 8 is a Mills & Wood crank paper that was "in progress" at Physics Letters A and actually published in the inappropriate Fusion Technology journal (the paper has no fusion in it!).
You mean this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Identification
where Shaubach also was also involved.

Mills publishes where he can. If a more mainstream journal refuses to publish, ultimately too bad for them.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 10:22 PM   #2226
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's great. 35W generators are incredibly useful. Why hasn't this been brought to market?

How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 10:33 PM   #2227
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by markie View Post
How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.
That kinda depends.

IF it is like Mills et al suggests it would be free energy. If you cannot see how that is useful, I doubt anyone can explain it to you. Such a device would have solved most of the worlds energy problems.

Of course, like everything else Mills touches, reality suggests that it is all smoke and mirrors and the device either does not produce that energy or, more likely in this case, producing the chemicals that power the reaction consumes MORE energy, in which case the device is just a poorly designed battery. Those we can do more efficiently, and thus this device, like all of Mills' attempts is useless.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 11:07 PM   #2228
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Reading over the Thermacore paper, there are multiple things I find, well, odd. Consider, for example, this paragraph from page 2:
Here are some of my observations:[list=1][*]You'd need two meters to support the claim the measured values were constant throughout the test.
That is a stretch worthy of a Yoga instructor.

Quote:
[*]Thermacore and Fluke do not agree on the accuracy of the 8600A meter. I'm inclined to believe the manufacturer.
So instead of .1 percent accuracy it may have been a dismal .2 percent accuracy?
https://www.atecorp.com/atecorp/medi..._datasheet.pdf

Quote:
[*]Operating the 1,000 watt heater at 35 watts seems unlikely without an unidentified additional resistance element or an extraordinarily precise variac (which the 3PN116C isn't).
The variac need not be precise as much as able to hold constant, which the multimeter confirmed.

Quote:
[*]The resistivity of Inconel 600 varies with temperature, which casts additional doubt on the final sentence of the quoted paragraph.
The quoted paragraph was this:

The heater consisted of a 14.4 ohm, 1000 watt Inconel 600 jacketed Nichrome heater made by Watlow. It was wrapped around the outside diameter of the cylindrical pressure vessel and powered by a 110 VAC variable transformer Powerstat 3PN116C. The voltage (+0.1%) and current (+0.1%) were recorded with a Fluke 8600A digital multimeter. The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test.

If the power is held constant at 35 watts then the temperature and resistivity of the wire will be constant as well.
Or, if you are referring to the 14.4 ohm figure, I imagine that's what is at 1000 watts.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 05:13 AM   #2229
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,991
Originally Posted by markie View Post
How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.
The claim wasn't that the experimental apparatus was impractical for real-world applications, it was that it needed to be scaled up. This is untrue. 35W generators are freely available and used by many people today.

If you want to make the case that it's the apparatus that made it non-viable, then please explain how and why or, preferably, link to Mills or someone from Thermacore explaining how and why.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 07:27 AM   #2230
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,153
Originally Posted by markie View Post
That is a stretch worthy of a Yoga instructor.
Not sure why you would say that. Perhaps you can explain how one would use a single meter to monitor both current and voltage without disrupting the experiment each time one switches from measuring current to measuring voltage.

Any competent experimenter would recognize the problem and use two meters. Heck, just setting up the heater to draw 35 watts of power would be painful with just one meter.

Quote:
So instead of .1 percent accuracy it may have been a dismal .2 percent accuracy?
https://www.atecorp.com/atecorp/medi..._datasheet.pdf
I am not concerned with the meter's accuracy. The 0.1% figures cited in the paper speak to the competence of the experimenters. Much like Mills reporting measurements from a device incapable of those measurements, the Thermacore folks don't understand the limitations of the equipment they used.

Quote:
The variac need not be precise as much as able to hold constant, which the multimeter confirmed.
You do understand how variacs are built, right? They are not continuously variable devices; they vary in discrete steps, and not a lot of discrete steps over the full range. Did you consider the voltage needed to provide for 35 watts through a nominal 14.4 ohm load and what that would mean for the discrete step size?

You should consider the current required, too, and whether the variac can deliver that much current when dialed down that far.

Quote:
The quoted paragraph was this:

The heater consisted of a 14.4 ohm, 1000 watt Inconel 600 jacketed Nichrome heater made by Watlow. It was wrapped around the outside diameter of the cylindrical pressure vessel and powered by a 110 VAC variable transformer Powerstat 3PN116C. The voltage (+0.1%) and current (+0.1%) were recorded with a Fluke 8600A digital multimeter. The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test.

If the power is held constant at 35 watts then the temperature and resistivity of the wire will be constant as well.
Except, there's that 50 watts of excess power claimed to have come into existence during the experiment. Also, the voltage from the power grid is variable by something around 5%. Therefore, the claim "remained constant throughout the experiment" is suspect, particularly considering how disruptive it would have been to continually (notice I didn't say continuously) monitor voltage and current.


You know, with all the things that would not have worked as described, it is almost as if the Thermacore paper was written without actually performing the experiment. Almost.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 07:50 AM   #2231
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,427
What is meant by 35 watts of heat? Or excess heat?
Do we measure heat in watts?

If I had a 1000W electric heater, but the amount of heat it produces is actually what a 1035W electric heater would produce, I have 35W of "excess heat"?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 8th November 2018 at 07:56 AM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 09:53 AM   #2232
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,099
Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:48 AM   #2233
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,838
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.

BTU is a measure of energy and can therefore also be a measure of heat. Watts are unit of power which is a rate of delivering energy. Watts don't covert to BTU or vice versa. BTUs per hour can be converted to watts because that's a rate of delivering energy.


There's a lot of things wrong with Mills claims but the phrase "35 watts of heat" isn't a big mistake. Lots of people would say that instead of the correct "35 watts as heat".
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:54 PM   #2234
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,283
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.
Brilliant!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:48 PM   #2235
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Not sure why you would say that. Perhaps you can explain how one would use a single meter to monitor both current and voltage without disrupting the experiment each time one switches from measuring current to measuring voltage.

Any competent experimenter would recognize the problem and use two meters. Heck, just setting up the heater to draw 35 watts of power would be painful with just one meter.
It's a given to me that they played with the experiment many times before running the official experiment that is reported. For instance they would have optimized the temperature at which to run the device in order to optimize the temperature gain. This temperature would correspond to a certain dial setting on the Variac. Given this variac setting they checked (confirmed) the voltage with the multimeter. Then after rearrranging the multimeter wires they would check the current. This is all before the experiment would even begin. They would establish that given this setup both the voltage and current repeatedly held steady for an arbitrary amount of time.

Then they ran the official experiment and simply assumed this constancy. There would be no reason for it to change. So when the paper says, "The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test" it may be saying they just left it alone at a constant.

Quote:
I am not concerned with the meter's accuracy. The 0.1% figures cited in the paper speak to the competence of the experimenters. Much like Mills reporting measurements from a device incapable of those measurements, the Thermacore folks don't understand the limitations of the equipment they used.
Really, you don't know that.

Quote:
You do understand how variacs are built, right? They are not continuously variable devices; they vary in discrete steps, and not a lot of discrete steps over the full range. Did you consider the voltage needed to provide for 35 watts through a nominal 14.4 ohm load and what that would mean for the discrete step size?
If you look at the particular variac used, judging by its dial it looks continuous to me. Here's a similar one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4lxc6cgw8E

Quote:
You should consider the current required, too, and whether the variac can deliver that much current when dialed down that far.
According to
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/15...452.1541710834
it can deliver up to 10 amps.

Quote:
Except, there's that 50 watts of excess power claimed to have come into existence during the experiment. Also, the voltage from the power grid is variable by something around 5%. Therefore, the claim "remained constant throughout the experiment" is suspect, particularly considering how disruptive it would have been to continually (notice I didn't say continuously) monitor voltage and current.
As I've said before I don't think they had need to monitor the current during the official experiment. It would have remained steady.
About any small varying voltage from the power grid, I would have thought the variac would correct for that.
The 50 watts of claimed excess heat would indeed have altered the resistance of the heater coil. The experiment did not account for this. It would have increased the resistance of the heater coil, hence lowering the power delivered to the heater. How much would it have increased the resistance?
Since the temperature coefficient of resistance for Nichrome is low, at .0004 /C, the temperature rise of 81 degrees going from a nominal 14.4 ohm resistance heater coil would increase the resistance by 14.4 ohms * .0004 * 81 =~ . 47 ohms. So not that much.

Quote:
You know, with all the things that would not have worked as described, it is almost as if the Thermacore paper was written without actually performing the experiment. Almost.
As I understand it the paper wasn't intended for publication and so was lacking the detail or rigour that might normally be present. One has to read between the lines a bit. But it conveys in short form the basic idea and the results nicely enough that if a potential sponsor were to see it, the experiment could be taken to the next level.
This seems to have happened when the Airforce sponsored the much more thorough 1994 report.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 04:01 PM   #2236
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Indeed, a watt of heat is a nonsensical unit as stated, but in theory, at least, watts and BTU or other heat quantities can be converted to each other, so one might, if generous, hope that the scammers her did the conversion from the BTU's measure to the watts of electrical power that might result. Perhaps they measured the distance their experimental pig flew before hitting the ground.
Or you could read the 7 page report and see that no BTU conversion was necessary. 35 Watts from the heater raised the temperature to a constant 233 C.
20 Watts raised the temperature a certain lesser amount. Since it is a linear relationship and two points define a line one can easily deduce the wattage required to have raised the temperature 86C up from 233C.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 06:41 PM   #2237
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,153
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It's a given to me that they played with the experiment many times before running the official experiment that is reported. For instance they would have optimized the temperature at which to run the device in order to optimize the temperature gain.
Sure, it is a lot easier to imagine all sorts of things that might have happened to lend credibility to your narrative. Competent experimenters, however, don't leave those details out of their report.

Quote:
This temperature would correspond to a certain dial setting on the Variac.
The point is that no, no it wouldn't. There is enough variability of conditions that continual measurement would be required to confirm power input and temperature.

Quote:
Given this variac setting they checked (confirmed) the voltage with the multimeter. Then after rearrranging the multimeter wires they would check the current. This is all before the experiment would even begin. They would establish that given this setup both the voltage and current repeatedly held steady for an arbitrary amount of time.
There is nothing in the report to support your fantasy. And it is not simply "rearranging the multimeter wires" to measure current; it involves disconnecting the heater from the variac. The heater is powered off while things are rearranged...not that that would affect anything, right?

Quote:
Then they ran the official experiment and simply assumed this constancy.
That is not the best way to lend credence to the report, to claim Thermacore assumed a result. It is almost like you are saying Thermacore didn't do the experiment at all.

Quote:
There would be no reason for it to change.
Never run a real experiment, have you? Things change, and they change whether you can imagine a reason for it or not.

Quote:
So when the paper says, "The heating power was calculated from these measured values and remained constant throughout the test" it may be saying they just left it alone at a constant.
Let's stick to what was written. The report claims the measured values were constant throughout the experiment, not that they were assumed to remain constant.

Quote:
Really, you don't know that.
Yes, I do know that. Mills reported results from a device incapable of measuring those results. Thermacore cited capabilities of the device it was using that the device didn't have.

Quote:
If you look at the particular variac used, judging by its dial it looks continuous to me. Here's a similar one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4lxc6cgw8E
Well, looks can be deceiving. Nonetheless, I overstated the "discrete steps" condition. The variac spans more windings at a time a carbon brush than I recalled; it results in an adjustment that is closer to continuous than I was thinking.

I acknowledge my mistake.

Quote:
As I've said before I don't think they had need to monitor the current during the official experiment.
That would constitute either incompetence or fraud on Thermacore's part.

Quote:
About any small varying voltage from the power grid, I would have thought the variac would correct for that.
You have made it clear you have assumed a lot of things. Competent scientists measure. (And despite your assumption, variacs are not voltage regulators.)

Quote:
The 50 watts of claimed excess heat would indeed have altered the resistance of the heater coil. The experiment did not account for this. It would have increased the resistance of the heater coil, hence lowering the power delivered to the heater. How much would it have increased the resistance?
Since the temperature coefficient of resistance for Nichrome is low, at .0004 /C, the temperature rise of 81 degrees going from a nominal 14.4 ohm resistance heater coil would increase the resistance by 14.4 ohms * .0004 * 81 =~ . 47 ohms. So not that much.
You are assuming again. You have assumed all sorts of things about the heater temperature, the heat transfer mechanisms and the heat dissipation to the environment, and so on.

Experimenters don't assume. Well, the competent ones don't.

Quote:
As I understand it the paper wasn't intended for publication and so was lacking the detail or rigour that might normally be present. One has to read between the lines a bit. But it conveys in short form the basic idea and the results nicely enough that if a potential sponsor were to see it, the experiment could be taken to the next level.
This seems to have happened when the Airforce sponsored the much more thorough 1994 report.
As I understand it, the paper is a farce, more likely a fraud, and perhaps describes something that didn't actually happen. We both agree, though, that the report might hook a potential sponsor.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 11:46 PM   #2238
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,099
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Or you could read the 7 page report and see that no BTU conversion was necessary. 35 Watts from the heater raised the temperature to a constant 233 C.
20 Watts raised the temperature a certain lesser amount. Since it is a linear relationship and two points define a line one can easily deduce the wattage required to have raised the temperature 86C up from 233C.
You have just proved that a conversion is not necessary by doing it. Huh?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 02:04 AM   #2239
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
FWIW, this one claims it's cold fusion.
We should never forget that the cold fusion explosion and the resulting disappointment and "over unity" generators is where Mills originated from. He was lucky that he picked a slightly different approach to many so has been able to "reinvent" himself...

"cold fusion? Over unity? Not me.." as he turns and winks at his true believers.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 02:05 AM   #2240
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by markie View Post
How about you describe for us what was involved in the experimental apparatus that produced 35W of excess heat for a year, and then tell us specifically how that would be so incredibly useful in the real world.
35W excess heat in a year, that could be accounted for by part of the apparatus being in a sunny part of the lab!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.