The issue of heat dissipation being the achilles heel of the suncell appears to be a persistent criticism on why the Suncell will not work commercially. I think this opinion is misinformed and this problem really is relatively easy to solve. The Suncell may fail based on some other issue - like the effective recycling of the catalyst or the issue of Input power or some other issue. I don't think heat dissipation is one of them.
First, here's the wiki talking about Concentrated PV. It talks about current efficiencies reaching 44%. Zenith Solar has achieved efficiencies reportedly in the 72% range in their combined heat and electricity concentrated PV designs. So, the claimed efficiencies are not BS. They're here already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_photovoltaics Here's are articles about an IBM concentrated PV system that they claim has a combined efficiency of 80%. The triple junction PV cell can take up to 5000 suns. Water is pump through the PV to cool it. (Don't be distracted by the huge parabolic dish. The dish is simply there to concentrate the sun. The real achievement is how they were able to prevent the melting of the PV cell with water.) The heated cooling water is then collected to provide clean water and air conditioning. I don't see why the PV cells can not be built into 1m x1m x1m panels and stacked in the suncell like Mills claims. Water can be pumped to remove heat. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/24/high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-from-ibm-promises-80-efficiency-potable-water-and-air-conditioning/ http://dailyfusion.net/2013/04/new-high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-will-collect-80-of-solar-energy-6391/ Here's another commercial product the uses micro channels for water cooling. This one is able to handle 2000 suns of concentration with a reported efficiency of 75%. http://spie.org/x102789.xml The above are just a few examples of how engineers have been able to manage the heat issue with PV panels used for up to a few thousand suns. The challenges have already been solved as evidenced by existing products. With the hydrino explosion reportedly with 10,000 suns concentration, Mills designed an optical distribution network of partially transparent mirrors to distribute the light intensity to all PV. Eash PV will be receiving its own alloted concentration of light. At that level, its own built in cooling system will be able to dissipate its own waste heat. What comes out to the Suncell would be 10Mw of electricity and 15MW of heated water which can obviously be used for a lot of things. Air Conditioning needs of a medium size building alone would use up a sizable proportion of the 15MW of heated water. A suitable cooling tower can easily dissipate 15MW of heat. I just don't see heat dissipation to be a major issue. It is an engineering problem that already has a solution. And let's not be hanged up on the 1x1x1 meter size. Clearly, this is just an arbitrary size. A 10MW suncell could be 10x bigger and would still be revolutionary. Heck, it could be 100x bigger and would still run multiple circles around everything we've currently got, including the hotcat or the mythical hyperion. And need I remind everybody, that I WANT THE SUNCELL TO FAIL. Jojo PS. For some of you interested in a more formal study of the heat dissipation issue, here's one http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~fonteb/EP/Other/References/Zhu2011-WaterImmersionSystem.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve High To: Vortex Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? 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 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+.
