Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

a reply to: Rob48

Got to agree, claimed 100billion watts per litre, Yeah not sure about you but id rather not be anywhere near that thing if that was even 1% true. The black body radiation curve doesn't really make sense either, and appears to be arbitrarily scaled up, notice a lack of numbers or units on the axis that shows it.

Main issue is a simple matter of heat, photo absorption, specifically in the IR, causes general heating... most glass is not 100% transmissive at infra red wavelengths, there is always some heat transfer.

The object would melt if it does what it says. The document appears as already pointed out to just make massive claims without really talking about the realities.

a reply to: Rob48

dam you

I was going through that ticking off the WTF bats-crap crazy stuff

numbers and claims appear and smell like they have been pulled straight out there arse

the numbers aside - does the equation for the alledged " fuel flow " even make any sense ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Rob48

the numbers aside - does the equation for the alledged " fuel flow " even make any sense ?

It seems to have been worked backwards from the claimed energy density of the fuel and the desired output, with no consideration of whether it is practical or not.

They are claiming 1000 J optical output per aliquot of fuel.

Each aliquot weighs 200 mg so they are claiming 1000 / 0.2 = 5000 J per gram, or 5 MJ per kg of fuel.

So, to get a 25 MW optical output (and hence a 10 MW electrical output at 40% efficiency), all you need to do is shove 5 kg of fuel through every second! Simple!

And remember the operating frequency is still 2000 Hz, so you need to repeatedly dispense 2.5 grams of fuel into the cell each time, 2000 times per second, not to mention being able to circulate and regenerate one ton of solid fuel every three minutes or so.

And yet as far as I can see there is NO MENTION whatsoever of this incredible mass transport system. Oh but there are lots of product brochures for solar panels, so that's OK.

In the words of Vic 'n' Bob, "But how does it work?"


And another thing.

The optical output is claimed to be 25 MW. The electrical output, at 40% efficiency, is 10 MW.

This leaves 15 MW of power disappearing somewhere, in one small unit. Where are inefficiencies usually found? Production of waste heat, perhaps?

For comparison, I use about 1 MWh of energy per MONTH in my house. So, there is more than enough waste heat being created in this little machine EVERY HOUR to keep my house lit and heated for an entire year.

How is it getting rid of 15MW of waste heat to prevent it from melting or catching fire? And what happens to all that lovely heat that could be used to generate even more power? No mention of it. Why not?

So mnemeth1 can we have a commitment from you?

Say two years?

On August 6th 2016 if BL is still making wild claims and has nothing to show for it will you THEN agree they are a complete fraud?

There is a few threads dedicated to Dr. Mills and Blacklight. If he is 16 weeks away from a prototype:
1. What is the big thing in the video called if it's not a prototype
2. We are going to have energy for Christmas.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: ignorant_ape

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

AnarchoCapitalist can you share the source of what university labs or where you obtained such information and where does it say he is getting a prototype made in 16 weeks?

originally posted by: ChefSlug
There is a few threads dedicated to Dr. Mills and Blacklight. If he is 16 weeks away from a prototype:
1. What is the big thing in the video called if it's not a prototype
2. We are going to have energy for Christmas.

1. A sideshow, with sparkly lights to distract investors while he picks their pockets.
2. Or a giant turkey.

AnarchoCapitalist can you share the source of what university labs or where you obtained such information and where does it say he is getting a prototype made in 16 weeks?

If you actually look at the validation, they don't validate the devices, they just replicate some funny results from badly designed experiments that are meant to back up the hydrino hokum.

I'm going to have so much fun saying "I told you so."

Perhaps an entire thread of nothing but meme "I told you so" pictures will be appropriate in celebration of freeing humanity from the grid.

a reply to: xxshadowfaxx

Brilliant because he took notes from Tesla...i meant stole idea's from Tesla.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well the way I see it, I'll be too impressed by free power being a reality to be too bothered by that

But yes, I'll happily join in and post a photo with "I Was Wrong" drawn across my forehead if this thing works.

A skeptic should always be happy to be proved wrong IMHO. But equally those making amazing claims should also admit when they are wrong. We'll see. Remember, we've been here before. That news article from 2008 quotes Randell:

We are projecting that we will be at the scale of power generation necessary for a power plant to replace the gasoline pumped in a day at a station with hydrogen from water in approximately 24 months.

BTW I got a reply from Dr Mills about the cooling issue. Apparently the water cooling tech built into the off-the-shelf PV units, so that's OK. Even though he has 60 sq metres of panels stacked at a spacing of less than 1 inch apart, in a small box. And the waste heat is enough to boil 6 litres of water a second.

a reply to: Rob48

Hey if quantum mechanics is just some pesky old-geezer wah-wah-wah noise, then why not throw out thermodynamics?

At that power output photovoltaics are obviously insane as you'd clearly destroy the coating in a flash. Even if you had a 99% reflective aluminium mirror, if you had 50,000 times the sustained solar flux on Earth, how long until you melted the mirror?

An engineer would think about heating up a large heat exchanger to drive a turbine, like actual functioning power plants, where the laws of thermodynamics aren't just suggestions.

You can get an idea of what that might be like by looking at concentrated solar thermal power plants. Gee, they're big, expensive and they glow white hot.

What these threads on 'free energy" devices all show is just how much some people want to believe in free energy fairies. They re not interested in facts, they just want "free energy' and will fall for any youtube video that claims to demonstrate it.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I'm going to have so much fun saying "I told you so."

Perhaps an entire thread of nothing but meme "I told you so" pictures will be appropriate in celebration of freeing humanity from the grid.

I for one would be quite happy to say I was wrong - if we were to get such a technology but would you be willing to say - at some point in the future:

This guy is a fraud?

It would seem you are not - is that why you are running away from making a commitment or do you have some connection with Blacklight that doesn't permit you to do so?

originally posted by: mnemeth1


Yeah, I use the term in a lose sense here.

It isn't really "free", its just really really cheap.

The energy released in the reactions is 'free' energy in the sense that it gives back far more than you need to put into it. The closed systems they are talking about building could be classified as perpetual motion machines.

More energy comes out than you put in.

So if you some how feed the energy produced back in to make more? Shazam! Right?

originally posted by: hellobruce
What these threads on 'free energy" devices all show is just how much some people want to believe in free energy fairies. They re not interested in facts, they just want "free energy' and will fall for any youtube video that claims to demonstrate it.

People's belief in MAGIC is still strong even in the modern world. They may call it something else, label it with some other technical sounding name but in the end it's just magic.

originally posted by: PhoenixFreeman

originally posted by: mnemeth1


Yeah, I use the term in a lose sense here.

It isn't really "free", its just really really cheap.

The energy released in the reactions is 'free' energy in the sense that it gives back far more than you need to put into it. The closed systems they are talking about building could be classified as perpetual motion machines.

More energy comes out than you put in.

So if you some how feed the energy produced back in to make more? Shazam! Right?

Yes, and that's the one demonstration that none of these people ever manage to do. Wonder why!

No conversational necromancy intended, but space does bend or warp due to gravity. We can see this through how light travels in and around celestial bodies.

Also, this does not violate any laws of energy. From what I understand, there is a chemical process through which energy is being harnessed. Where is the violation? Is E > M or what?

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
No conversational necromancy intended, but space does bend or warp due to gravity. We can see this through how light travels in and around celestial bodies.

It is only interpreted as such and not necessarily true

a reply to: Nochzwei

Please explicate.

As I understand and have come to accept it, the speed and momentum of light is not effected by gravity because it has no mass or rest mass, but its trajectory can be warped and altered due to gravity "bending space" around large celestial bodies that possess gravity. In fact, it is believed that black holes demonstrate this precisely. It is believed that their gravity is so strong that light cannot escape, hence the gravitational presence of a black hole, but the absence of light.

Where am I wrong? Or am I right and you merely want to share another perspective with me?

Maybe message me since this might appear to turn off topic.

originally posted by: xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You know, It doesn't matter if Einstien was right or wrong. He was a brilliant man.

How about showing him a little bit of respect?

Some theorists say it was all his wife's work, after the poor lady died, he did not do much, did he?

Simply, Time compresses around large objects, so light follows a curved longer path due to this time compression curves
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis