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 10th May 2017, 03:12 PM   #321
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And then the bright glows begin. But where does the light emerge from? Freeze the playback right about 0:02. Clearly, in the video, the bright glow doesn't start in the center where an arc between the two silver streams might conceivably occur, but out of the viewport frame at the extreme left and right (slightly earlier at the left), about where the streams would be entering the chamber. Why there? And if the "reaction" is happening there rather than where the "electrodes" approach one another, why the need for two streams, two reservoirs, and all that tricky molten fluid engineering they're so proud of accomplishing?
That is a good point. For the purported needs of the electrode... It makes no sense whatsoever.
Aepervius 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 10th May 2017, 03:34 PM   #322
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,180
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
If the reaction is replicated by an independent lab using their own equipment, then it could be conceded that he has a way to release enough energy to blow apart a graphite dome. I'm not sure that anything in the Standard Model suggests that graphite is indestructible, however.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus 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 10th May 2017, 04:38 PM   #323
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest
He did no such thing. His claim is what the next con job is going to be, not that he expects a magic hydrino reaction to actually happen.

It's a skill - to spin people's words like this.

Quote:
then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
Since there is no "If", there is no "then". He did not suggest the "If" you are asserting.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 10th May 2017, 04:40 PM   #324
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
No one with any brains would concede that Mills ignorant and deluded ideas are valid so that answer is no, michaelsuede.
TNT can blow a graphite dome apart.
A fission bomb will blow a graphite dome apart.
A "power cell" running from mains power can blow a graphite dome apart !

Any engineer should be able to design and build a gadget running from mains power that can explode and destroy its container. There are plenty of working gadgets that could do this when they fail , e.g. exploding power pole transformers.
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 10th May 2017, 05:14 PM   #325
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,109
I think that before anybody could make any kind of definitive statement about the possibility or otherwise of blowing a graphite dome apart with the kind of power that can be generated from known means we'd need to have the specification of the dome. If it's a mile thick, then I'm sure mains power couldn't do it. If it's one micron thick then one of my farts probably could.

So whether or not it's impressive will depend on the exact specifications of the dome. Is that information available anywhere?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th May 2017, 05:15 PM   #326
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No one with any brains would concede that Mills ignorant and deluded ideas are valid so that answer is no, michaelsuede.
TNT can blow a graphite dome apart.
A fission bomb will blow a graphite dome apart.
A "power cell" running from mains power can blow a graphite dome apart !

Any engineer should be able to design and build a gadget running from mains power that can explode and destroy its container. There are plenty of working gadgets that could do this when they fail , e.g. exploding power pole transformers.

While we're on the subject of graphite properties, the oxidation threshold for a purified grade of graphite is in the range of 520-580C. That's the temperature at which graphite loses 1% mass in 24 hours and therefore represents a rough upper limit for operating temperature. I believe I've seen several operating temperatures mentioned for the dome, e.g. 3200K or 5000K. Assuming the oxidation follows Arrhenius kinetics, meaning a 10X increase in reaction rate for every 10C increase in temperature, the dome is not long for this world.

Are they going to operate in an inert atmosphere or are they going to use Sooper Dooper GraphiteTM, "now fortified with hydrinos"? Or maybe selling replacement domes is a big part of their business model.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 10th May 2017, 05:44 PM   #327
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,484
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 2

Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
While we're on the subject of graphite properties, the oxidation threshold for a purified grade of graphite is in the range of 520-580C. That's the temperature at which graphite loses 1% mass in 24 hours and therefore represents a rough upper limit for operating temperature. I believe I've seen several operating temperatures mentioned for the dome, e.g. 3200K or 5000K. Assuming the oxidation follows Arrhenius kinetics, meaning a 10X increase in reaction rate for every 10C increase in temperature, the dome is not long for this world.



Are they going to operate in an inert atmosphere or are they going to use Sooper Dooper GraphiteTM, "now fortified with hydrinos"? Or maybe selling replacement domes is a big part of their business model.


Circulation. That's the excuse I've heard about why the silver isn't vaporizing. Circulation.

I've also seen Mills supporters claim the vaporized silver is condensed in a cooling system. Mills is kinda like the Kangen Water people and the MMS scumballs. Let your fans and sellers tell lies and keep largely quiet yourself. That way you have plausible deniability when reality shatters the latest round of claims or the Feds investigate.

Last edited by halleyscomet; 10th May 2017 at 05:46 PM.
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 10th May 2017, 06:05 PM   #328
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
While we're on the subject of graphite properties, the oxidation threshold for a purified grade of graphite is in the range of 520-580C.
Given the massive ignorance of Mills and perhaps his workers, I suspect that graphite in the videos we have seen ("The blackbody graphite dome is 6”diameter and will output 330KW at 3000ºK") does not mean graphite!
Maybe carbon fiber?
Maybe black paint?
More probably a fantasy about their not constructed yet working prototype operating at 3000K.
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 10th May 2017, 06:24 PM   #329
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,484
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Given the massive ignorance of Mills and perhaps his workers, I suspect that graphite in the videos we have seen ("The blackbody graphite dome is 6”diameter and will output 330KW at 3000ºK") does not mean graphite!

Maybe carbon fiber?

Maybe black paint?

More probably a fantasy about their not constructed yet working prototype operating at 3000K.


Shhhh. They just call it "graphite" because the patents haven't all come through yet and they want to keep the REAL material secret.

I suspect there may also be a plan to get anyone who tries to pirate their tech to blow themselves up.
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 10th May 2017, 06:24 PM   #330
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 864
Quote:
Since the temperature inside the cell is something like 5,000K, any type of metal electrode would vaporize in seconds.
Wouldn't graphite sublimate or melt at 5,000°K?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 10th May 2017, 06:29 PM   #331
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Are they going to operate in an inert atmosphere or are they going to use Sooper Dooper GraphiteTM, "now fortified with hydrinos"? Or maybe selling replacement domes is a big part of their business model.
Inert atmosphere, inside and outside, with neon or argon outside and with just silver vapour and water and hydrogen inside and maybe a tad of oxygen.. wait...
hecd2 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 10th May 2017, 06:33 PM   #332
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline
Wouldn't graphite sublimate or melt at 5,000°K?
3000K according to Mr Suede in post 11 of this thread.
hecd2 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 10th May 2017, 06:35 PM   #333
jrhowell
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Wouldn't graphite sublimate or melt at 5,000°K?
By asking that sort of question you have disqualified yourself as a potential BLP investor!
jrhowell 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 10th May 2017, 06:42 PM   #334
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Inert atmosphere, inside and outside, with neon or argon outside...
Couldn't nitrogen gas be used instead? Or would that just lead to the production of cyanide?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 10th May 2017, 06:56 PM   #335
jrhowell
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
Others have already answered, but I will add this. My understanding is that the internal operating pressure of the device is expected to be sufficient to destroy the dome, even without any hydrino reaction. The only thing keeping it intact will be a pressurized outer dome filled with inert gas. There is a lot of work yet to be done to make that a reality. One miscalculation and BOOM!
jrhowell 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 10th May 2017, 07:06 PM   #336
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
My understanding is that the internal operating pressure of the device is expected to be sufficient to destroy the dome... The only thing keeping it intact will be a pressurized outer dome...
IIRC, the pressure in the dome was supposed to be around 10 atm, with the pressure outside the dome equalized. If the pressure outside the dome was only 1 atm, that would make 132 pounds per square inch of pressure on the inside of the dome. This is just a guess, but that doesn't sound like forces that a small graphite dome could withstand.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 10th May 2017, 07:07 PM   #337
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 395
Talking

Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Others have already answered, but I will add this. My understanding is that the internal operating pressure of the device is expected to be sufficient to destroy the dome, even without any hydrino reaction. The only thing keeping it intact will be a pressurized outer dome filled with inert gas. There is a lot of work yet to be done to make that a reality. One miscalculation and BOOM!
And to complete the circle of the snake swallowing its own tail, shouldn't something that potentially dangerous be required by law to have certain safeguards in place? Safety inspections, governmental approvals of lab siting and construction etc?

After all we don't want innocent people in the next building being injured by this device (assuming it ever did anything at all- and I think we all (mostly) know the answer to that)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop 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 10th May 2017, 07:14 PM   #338
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,237
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Couldn't nitrogen gas be used instead? Or would that just lead to the production of cyanide?
No, that would cause nidrinos to form, so that the logic of the hypothesis could be sustained...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 10th May 2017, 07:36 PM   #339
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,527
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
While we're on the subject of graphite properties, the oxidation threshold for a purified grade of graphite is in the range of 520-580C. That's the temperature at which graphite loses 1% mass in 24 hours and therefore represents a rough upper limit for operating temperature. I believe I've seen several operating temperatures mentioned for the dome, e.g. 3200K or 5000K. Assuming the oxidation follows Arrhenius kinetics, meaning a 10X increase in reaction rate for every 10C increase in temperature, the dome is not long for this world.

Are they going to operate in an inert atmosphere or are they going to use Sooper Dooper GraphiteTM, "now fortified with hydrinos"? Or maybe selling replacement domes is a big part of their business model.
Nah petrified strawberry jello - that stuff is indestructible.
Hans 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 10th May 2017, 07:39 PM   #340
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,527
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
No, that would cause nidrinos to form, so that the logic of the hypothesis could be sustained...
That brings up an idea that Mills can use to scam for more money - anti-hydrinos.

The next version of his fraud can use anti-hydrinos and hydrinos annihilating one another to produce power. It could be worth zillions!

Michael this is your chance to get in at below the ground floor - the sub-basement in fact. You don't need to thank me.
Hans 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 10th May 2017, 07:47 PM   #341
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,053
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
I think the 12,000 amps that they have to put in could blow a lot of things apart.
__________________
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?
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 10th May 2017, 09:18 PM   #342
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,237
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I think the 12,000 amps that they have to put in could blow a lot of things apart.
... but not a dead Norwegian Blue, of course.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 11th May 2017, 01:36 AM   #343
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: 24,842
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
I think you're confusing the dome actually being blown apart with an announcement that the dome has been blown apart. I don't think any of us are expecting the former.

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 11th May 2017, 03:38 AM   #344
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 864
If jets of liquid silver are used as electrodes because any solid electrodes would melt under the operating temperatures, why not use a lasers to create plasma channels? Seems like it would be a lot easier than jets of molten silver.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 11th May 2017, 03:54 AM   #345
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,484
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
If jets of liquid silver are used as electrodes because any solid electrodes would melt under the operating temperatures, why not use a lasers to create plasma channels? Seems like it would be a lot easier than jets of molten silver.


That imagery is harder to fake?
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 11th May 2017, 04:26 AM   #346
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,053
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
3000K according to Mr Suede in post 11 of this thread.
Silver won't do too well at 3000K either...
__________________
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?
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 11th May 2017, 04:35 AM   #347
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
That imagery is harder to fake?
Or maybe because it doesn't look as impressive. Take a look at this video of electricity going through plasma channels created by UV lasers. I mean, it's neat, but not something to wow investors with.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 11th May 2017, 05:35 AM   #348
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,484
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Or maybe because it doesn't look as impressive. Take a look at this video of electricity going through plasma channels created by UV lasers. I mean, it's neat, but not something to wow investors with.


Good point. This is about cool sounding tech and sci-fi visuals, not real world practicality.
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 11th May 2017, 06:18 AM   #349
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,368
One still doesn't know why the videos are filmed with no understanding on how to video very bright sources.

There is no technical reason for the videos to always be so overexposed. Goodness sake - bunging a lens from a pair of sunglasses in front of the lens of the video camera would help! Hardly requires expensive equipment or a room full of technicians.

Once again the simplest of technical knowledge seems to evade Mills and his team. Even if he actually had something and wasn't trying to flog an over-unity generator he would never be able to get a generator working - he and his team are in regards to technical knowledge and engineering utterly incompetent,.

Or is there another reason for badly filmed videos, lack of detail, lack of results of input and outputs and so on...... ?
__________________
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 11th May 2017, 07:01 AM   #350
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Quote:
Or is there another reason for badly filmed videos, lack of detail, lack of results of input and outputs and so on...... ?
Sure. What you cannot see, you cannot call BS upon. By having it all obsfucated, they could simply pretend to have something, without giving the possibility to debunk.

but from the tone of the sentence i guess I just wrote what you tone implied.
Aepervius 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 11th May 2017, 07:31 AM   #351
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,156
Guys, bad news. I have done my own experiments and found hydrinos to be extremely dangerous.

These experiments at least as trustworthy and scientific as the ones done by Brilliant Light Power. More so, because this contains no mathematical errors and I can clearly and accurately document my methods.

First, I imagined a hydrino - because I wanted to replicate the research so far. Once that was done I tried to continue imagining it and found that hydrinos, in their natural state (imaginary), are HIGHLY unstable. Some samples simply vanished, but some spontaneously changed into other imaginary substances such as ICE-9 or Solaronite, both of which are extremely dangerous.

If, as they claim, Brilliant Light Power can do as they claim and make the currently imaginary hydrino real, then there is a serious risk of accidentally creating other imaginary molecules with the power to destroy all life on Earth - or worse. Thankfully, so far they have not demonstrated the existence of non-imaginary hydrinos so we're safe for the moment.

...

I'm not entirely joking, and I'm not just trying to be a snarky jerk. The fact is, you can't have a safety study of something you haven't even proven exists. I've seen some people here suggesting that (if it were real) hydrinos could have all sorts of unexpected risks. And they're right. If I, unrelated to any get-rich schemes, announced some new form of matter the very first thing everyone would be asking about (beyond "Is this guy legit?") is *what are the properties of this stuff?*

It's not exactly a trivial question. As others have pointed out, there's no reason to assume hydrinos would behave like regular hydrogen. There's no reason to think that it wouldn't have unique properties and interactions. If this were real, we'd give this dude the Nobel and then we'd study the hell out of it to find out if it's safe, what we can do with it, whether or not we can make nitrinos or carbinos or whatever, etc.

If he can just prove that they're even real, I would love to get started on all that.
SOdhner 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 11th May 2017, 08:14 AM   #352
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,560
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And then the bright glows begin. But where does the light emerge from? Freeze the playback right about 0:02. Clearly, in the video, the bright glow doesn't start in the center where an arc between the two silver streams might conceivably occur, but out of the viewport frame at the extreme left and right (slightly earlier at the left), about where the streams would be entering the chamber. Why there? And if the "reaction" is happening there rather than where the "electrodes" approach one another, why the need for two streams, two reservoirs, and all that tricky molten fluid engineering they're so proud of accomplishing?
What I find interesting is that the light is also appearing outside the chamber. Look at the lower left and right corners of the video.
phunk 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 11th May 2017, 09:16 AM   #353
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,104
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
What I find interesting is that the light is also appearing outside the chamber. Look at the lower left and right corners of the video.

You're right. WTF?

The corner light flickers exactly in synch with the light "inside" the chamber, so it's not just e.g. the external power supply connection arcing on its own. It's too close to the brightness seen in the viewport to be the same light we're seeing through the viewport, reflected (it would have to be reflected at least twice to appear in the corners of the video that way).

Meanwhile, stepping through the video and pausing during moments when the camera isn't completely saturated shows that the light is always concentrated at the left and/or right, never in the center where the arc between the silver streams is supposed to be.

Neither of these phenomena has any explanation consistent with what we're being told is supposed to be happening in this video.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 11th May 2017, 10:37 AM   #354
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,560
To me it seems like the "brilliant light" isn't being created by a reaction in the chamber at all, it's shining in from either side. As would be expected if they were faking it. They just didn't think through how they framed that video.

edit: Also the overexposure makes sense if it's faked, it would be obvious that it was being illuminated rather than emitting light if we had a better view.

Last edited by phunk; 11th May 2017 at 10:40 AM.
phunk 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 11th May 2017, 10:38 AM   #355
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
A question, guys....

Isn't an extremely hot exploding device kinda counter-productive is you're aiming to sell an energy generating system?
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind 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 11th May 2017, 11:20 AM   #356
jrhowell
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Isn't an extremely hot exploding device kinda counter-productive is you're aiming to sell an energy generating system?
Well, yes.

But it is perfect for a perpetual investment generating system!
jrhowell 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 11th May 2017, 12:58 PM   #357
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,109
I'm not sure anything is shining in from outside. I mean, if this is the same reaction that has been tested outside, then there must be a reaction of some kind (after all, some of the scientists were actually independent, but just using equipment that BLP had provided rather than making their own, right?).

More to the point, it looks to me as if the light is coming from the point where the silver meets the carbon, shining out through the sides. Look at this still:



I think the light is originating where the white cross is (more or less) and shining through the wall (which obviously isn't solid) in the direction of the yellow arrow. That's why the light outside is less bright than the light inside.

Also this one:



You can see the light shining through on the opposite side before there's any luminescence there.

I don't think the takeaway is that they're shining in light from outside. I think there's some genuine luminescence going on there. I just don't think the dome is closed at all, both on the top and on the sides.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 11th May 2017, 05:12 PM   #358
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think the takeaway is that they're shining in light from outside. I think there's some genuine luminescence going on there. I just don't think the dome is closed at all, both on the top and on the sides.
That sure forwards an outstanding explanation for the odd framing of the light show. Why does it need to be framed so that you can't see the entire device?

It is attended with so little information, in such a censored way, that golly it almost calls their honesty into question.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 11th May 2017, 09:07 PM   #359
ViewsofMars
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 63
I just got back from Nick's Cove in California!! https://nickscove.com/

Great fun! I had a very relaxing time and began to think about the U.S. Department of Energy! I wonder if Mills is misusing what the Department of Energy states:

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION: ELECTROLYSIS

Electrolysis is a promising option for hydrogen production from renewable resources. Electrolysis is the process of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This reaction takes place in a unit called an electrolyzer. Electrolyzers can range in size from small, appliance-size equipment that is well-suited for small-scale distributed hydrogen production to large-scale, central production facilities that could be tied directly to renewable or other non-greenhouse-gas-emitting forms of electricity production.

HOW DOES IT WORK?
Like fuel cells, electrolyzers consist of an anode and a cathode separated by an electrolyte. Different electrolyzers function in slightly different ways, mainly due to the different type of electrolyte material involved.


POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE ELECTROLYZERS

[. . .]

ALKALINE ELECTROLYZERS

[. . . ]

SOLID OXIDE ELECTROLYZERS

[. . . ]

WHY IS THIS PATHWAY BEING CONSIDERED?
Hydrogen produced via electrolysis can result in zero greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the source of the electricity used. The source of the required electricity—including its cost and efficiency, as well as emissions resulting from electricity generation—must be considered when evaluating the benefits and economic viability of hydrogen production via electrolysis. In many regions of the country, today's power grid is not ideal for providing the electricity required for electrolysis because of the greenhouse gases released and the amount of fuel required due to the low efficiency of the electricity generation process. Hydrogen production via electrolysis is being pursued for renewable (wind) and nuclear energy options. These pathways result in virtually zero greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions.

Potential for synergy with renewable energy power generation
Hydrogen production via electrolysis may offer opportunities for synergy with variable power generation, which is characteristic of some renewable energy technologies. For example, though the cost of wind power has continued to drop, the inherent variability of wind is an impediment to the effective use of wind power. Hydrogen fuel and electric power generation could be integrated at a wind farm, allowing flexibility to shift production to best match resource availability with system operational needs and market factors. Also, in times of excess electricity production from wind farms, instead of curtailing the electricity as is commonly done, it is possible to use this excess electricity to produce hydrogen through electrolysis.

[. . . ]

###
https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hy...n-electrolysis
//https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis\\
ViewsofMars 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 12th May 2017, 11:00 AM   #360
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Not treated as a point? I'm reasonably confident that the symmetrical collapse of a thin spherical shell of charge (the orbitsphere) would not radiate because the electrical field lines outside the shell are the same before, during and after the collapse. The world sees the orbitsphere as a point charge at its centre, and symmetric changes of radius do not cause any changes in electrical field and therefore do not emit photons via a bremsstrahlung-like process.

Of course, this discussion is the equivalent of discussing detailed properties of the tooth fairy, as we have seen earlier in this thread that the concept of the orbitsphere is fundamentally inconsistent. We can get all hirsute again if you like.

In the far field the fields before and after might look about the same, but they aren't. The smaller orbitsphere would have denser field lines originating out of the orbitsphere. Also, you are neglecting the proton in the centre of the orbitsphere. The more distant orbitsphere has more potential energy than the smaller orbitsphere, so energy must be released.
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
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 08:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.