It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the energy emitted from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15 megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box.I still think that's going to take some work.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *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 <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> > 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+. >> >>
