1. I agree, 5J input should be completely charaterized and documented. Mills
talked about IGBT power supplies in the upcoming prototype. These advanced
power supplies should help answer this question.
2. I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry. Larger
conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current is
lower. Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal mass
and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be lower.
The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise. If there is a large
thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower temperature rise
inside. If any, the modifications you object to would "UNDER" estimate the
output power. Besides, it matters not if there is a large conductor. You
claim that these larger conductor carried heat. Yea??? heat from where to
where. Everything is inside the calorimeter. So, unless there was a big heat
source behind the bomb calorimeter "conducting" heat from the outside to the
inside via the Large conductors ..... Besides, they characterized the temp
chart due to room temperature effects. So, I find your objections illogical
and unfounded.
3. I find all these concerns about too much heat to melt the PV panels
unreasonable and uninformed. In fact, Mills addressed this concern several
times in the video. Let me state his case better here by summarizing a few key
points.
a. The explosion energy output was characterized to be predominantly light
in the visible range. I believe the number was estimated to be 80-90% light
output. Only a small proportion is heat as evidence by the low pressure pulse
gradient measured. So, the output is predominantly light.
b. Current production triple junction PV panels can achieve 43%
conversion. This applies to natural sunlight which is not perfectly tuned to
the physics of the semiconductor used. Mills is claiming that his explosion's
light output can be tuned in wavelength to more perfectly match the PV panel,
so the efficiency should increase from 43%. I find this claim reasonable and
believable.
c. Mills claims that according to their measurements, the output intensity
of the light corresponds to approx 10,000 suns. There is no PV technology that
can take 10,000 suns. So, Mills designed an ingenious light distribution
system composed of a network of semi transparent mirrors to divide the 10,000
suns into PV panels that can only accept from 250 suns to a few thousands suns.
Hence, each PV panel is being fed 250 to a few thousand suns of intensity.
d. We know that if the PV can be designed to accept this intensity without
melting, that efficiency goes up considerably. This is proven in the industry
with concentrated solar PV panels already being sold.
e. The problem of course is heat which would degrade efficiency and/or melt
the PV panels. This is true and known - that's why manufacturers desgined
water cooling ports into PVs designed for concentrated solar applications.
With water cooling flowing behind the PV panels, heat can be controlled and PV
efficiency skyrockets. Obviously the capacity of the cooling system is matched
to the intended application. If the manufacturer advertises that his panel can
take 1000 sun continuously, then it is obvious that he has properly designed
his cooling system to removed the expected generated heat. That is a given and
thinking otherwise is just petty and unreasonable.
f. 1000 suns from our sun is the same as 1000 suns from the hydrino
explosion. Why would the expected waste heat be different? And why would it
melt the PV when it is properly sized. 1000 suns is 1000 suns irregardless of
the source. Many people here speculated, (rather erroneously) that the waste
heat would melt the suncell PV panels. This conclusion is uninformed. With
proper water cooling, heat is manageable. Dissipating 15MW of heat is quite
manageable within the expected size of 1m x 1m x 1m suncell cube. There is
nothing unreasonable here.
So, to conclude point 3, the combination of light wavelength tuning (point 3a)
, the use of a few thousand suns of concentration (point 3c & 3d) and the
appropriate water cooling (point 3e & 3f) should cause the PV efficiency to
rise way past the 43% point. I dare specualte 60-70% efficiency. Hence, there
may be less heat that needs to be dissipated than people realize. There is no
engineering concern with waste heat melting the suncell.
4. I care not whether the explosion is a hydrino transition or an LENR, Cold
fusion, quantum mechanics, soliton, BEC, dark matter, tunnelling, entanglement
resonant reaction, nano antenna nano wire nano soliton EMF, magnetic monopole,
superatom, dynamically created NAE. My dog is not in whether Hydrino is the
source or something else. I don't care. All I know for sure now is that it
appears to be overunity and is a threat to my plans. I have to take this
technology seriously. I truly wish Randy would fail so that I can make a few
million with my wave-powered design.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Higgins
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is
completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented
demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless.
Their calorimetry appears to be flawed. They have apparently modified the
calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone knows
that what carries current well also transports heat well. The heat carried by
these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction, but this was done
in a way that did not account for the heat contained in the ejecta of the
actual experiment. The result is an overestimation of the heat carried out by
the conductors and subsequently an overestimation of the COP.
I am not saying that his COP is less than 1. I think he may be realizing
excess heat. I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all. And with low
COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain. I think he
has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but the COP is
low. The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the efficiency made
sense) is pretty ridiculous. I built a 5.4 kW array for solar electric and it
had 67 square meters of collection area. Do you really think he will be able
to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter? 100kW would melt the PV cells
due to inefficiency. It is about as [im]practical as his completely flawed
plan to use MHD conversion.
Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments. His
work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili. Santilli showed that in high
current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high rate. The
transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring in this high
current discharge. Mills may actually get excess heat, but much of it may be
coming from LENR. Mills does not want this to be the case, because heat
produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents. So he doesn't look for
the transmutation products in his result, or he doesn't publish that data.
Mills may be correct about the fractional quantum states of hydrogen and they
may be complicit in LENR. But he would lose a lot of his patent value if the
heat were proved to actually be coming from LENR.
Bob Higgins
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote:
If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1. A
guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph of the
temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J. Randy then explain that the
input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was enclosed in an aluminum
sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the aluminum sphere shell also. He
then explained that if the fuel is detonated directly, that the input energy is
5J instead of 200+ J. They then explained that in this particular single
explosion, the COP was 4+.
