Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[hecd2]

That's obviously not a valid reason, given that since Mills has demonstrated hydrogen can indeed to go a lower ground state, ipso facto, QM is wrong.

That's a stupendously large claim. I assume that there are no peer reviewed publications in respectable physics journals to back it up. In spite of the claim having been made for decades. No, of course not. Silly me.

 

[The Sparrow]

That's a stupendously large claim. I assume that there are no peer reviewed publications in respectable physics journals to back it up. In spite of the claim having been made for decades. No, of course not. Silly me.

That is because the evil oil industry conspiracy is preventing publication.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh geez, they are now claiming that they are converting hydrogen to dark matter.

ETA: "That new state of matter is from our spectroscopy measurements and analytical tests we've done over has shown that it's the identity of dark matter"

Anyone who knows even the bare minimum about dark matter and spectroscopy knows instantly the extreme quantity of bovine excrement this guy is pushing and how much he must be relying on the total lack of physics knowledge of his investors.

Yep. Dark matter as defined today does not emit or interact in the electromagnetic spectrum. For all practical intent and purpose it would be invisible (and if you take the weakly interacting route, it would still be be an extraordinary claim as we need enormous quantity of those to be passing through pool sized detectors to hope to get 1 hit).

So going to the conclusion it is dark matter from the electromagnetic spectrum is.... Interesting to say the least.

 

[Aepervius]

Here is a dark matter detector completed last year : https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/07/lux

There are others, XENON, PAndaX, see dark matter wiki for a sumamry of current result and set up.

 

[marplots]

Here is a dark matter detector completed last year : https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/07/lux

There are others, XENON, PAndaX, see dark matter wiki for a sumamry of current result and set up.

From your link: "LUX’s sensitivity far exceeded the goals for the project, collaboration scientists said, but yielded no trace of a dark matter particle."

 

[sts60]

Oh geez, they are now claiming that they are converting hydrogen to dark matter.

ETA: "That new state of matter is from our spectroscopy measurements and analytical tests we've done over has shown that it's the identity of dark matter"

Bwhahaha! Where do they say that?

Anyone who knows even the bare minimum about dark matter and spectroscopy knows instantly the extreme quantity of bovine excrement this guy is pushing and how much he must be relying on the total lack of physics knowledge of his investors.

Yeah, as you and Aepervius point out, claiming to have created dark matter is a gigantic (and bogus) claim, but claiming to have detected it with their setup at all is ridiculous, and claiming they detected it through spectroscopy is absolutely hilarious. It's like saying, "we created enough antimatter that we were able to put it in a test tube and identify it with color changes in litmus paper".

Ha ha ha! Did they really say that? That's priceless.

 

[catsmate]

Has everyone forgotten Andrea Rossi^WP and his energy catalyser? Alas, not producing useful power ... yet!

Free energy scams have been around for a long time.

 

[catsmate]

http://pesn.com/2008/05/29/9500481_Blacklight_commercially_ready/

Going commercial in 2008. Quite similar to your thread title.

Long enough ago for the gullible to have forgotten.

 

[catsmate]

My first thought was 'why not just use it as heat source for a steam turbine'.

That would make detecting the scam too easy.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, as you and Aepervius point out, claiming to have created dark matter is a gigantic (and bogus) claim, but claiming to have detected it with their setup at all is ridiculous, and claiming they detected it through spectroscopy is absolutely hilarious. It's like saying, "we created enough antimatter that we were able to put it in a test tube and identify it with color changes in litmus paper".

I don't think they do what they say, but it's not so ridiculous as it first sounds. You could "detect" something that didn't appear that should have. So, for example, you put hydrogen in and it disappears (because it turned into "invisible" hydrinos). You can say you've detected the creation of something you can't detect. Provided, of course, you accept some kind of conservation law.

I could be wrong, but I think that's how neutrinos were first suspected in particle detectors - missing stuff.

ETA: From wiki: "The neutrino[nb 1] was postulated first by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to explain how beta decay could conserve energy, momentum, and angular momentum (spin). In contrast to Niels Bohr, who proposed a statistical version of the conservation laws to explain the observed continuous energy spectra in beta decay, Pauli hypothesized an undetected particle that he called a "neutron", using the same -on ending employed for naming both the proton and the electron. He considered that the new particle was emitted from the nucleus together with the electron or beta particle in the process of beta decay."

And: "The natural explanation of the beta decay spectrum as first measured in 1934 was that only a limited (and conserved) amount of energy was available, and a new particle was sometimes taking a varying fraction of this limited energy, leaving the rest for the beta particle. Pauli made use of the occasion to publicly emphasize that the still-undetected "neutrino" must be an actual particle."

 

[Loss Leader]

The reader will notice many posts have been sent to AAH. Please do not accuse each other of posting off-topic or of libel. If you believe a post breaches the Membership Agreement for being off-topic, please report that post instead of responding to it. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Steve001]

A definite claim has been made along with a time frame. If any thread deserved to a a sticky this one is it. Let's see what really happens a year from now.

 

[sts60]

I don't think they do what they say, but it's not so ridiculous as it first sounds. You could "detect" something that didn't appear that should have....

Sure, but if they said the earlier quote, they are claiming to have detected dark matter directly, and through spectroscopy. That's literally impossible.

 

[bruto]

Free energy scams have been around for a long time.

It's too bad free energy is so expensive.

 

[tableplay]

particle physics

Like I said, makey-uppie figures. Why are we dealing with ball park numbers if this thing has been extensively tested? Why can't we just go to the physics publication it has been published in and read the exact data?

Yes I was wondering the same thing. Is there a submission to the Journal of Particle Physics proving the existence of the Hydrino ? If not I guess the excuse will be engineers at BPL have just been too busy to get the submission done . . .
Who needs the Large Hadron Collider when you have BPL.

 

[michaelsuede]

Yes I was wondering the same thing. Is there a submission to the Journal of Particle Physics proving the existence of the Hydrino ? If not I guess the excuse will be engineers at BPL have just been too busy to get the submission done . . .
Who needs the Large Hadron Collider when you have BPL.

Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges – R. Mills, R. Booker, Y. Lu, J. Plasma Physics, Vol. 79 (2013) 489–507. DOI: 10.1017/S0022377812001109.

Substantial Doppler Broadening of Atomic-Hydrogen Lines in DC and Capacitively Coupled RF Plasmas – K. Akhtar, J.E. Scharer, R.L. Mills, 2009 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 42, Issue 13, 135207 (12pp), doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/13/135207.

High-Power-Density Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) Electrochemical Cell – R. Mills, J. Lotoski, J. Kong, G. Chu, J. He, J. Trevey, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 39 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.153. pp. 14512–14530.

 

[Giordano]

Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges – R. Mills, R. Booker, Y. Lu, J. Plasma Physics, Vol. 79 (2013) 489–507. DOI: 10.1017/S0022377812001109.

Substantial Doppler Broadening of Atomic-Hydrogen Lines in DC and Capacitively Coupled RF Plasmas – K. Akhtar, J.E. Scharer, R.L. Mills, 2009 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 42, Issue 13, 135207 (12pp), doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/13/135207.

High-Power-Density Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) Electrochemical Cell – R. Mills, J. Lotoski, J. Kong, G. Chu, J. He, J. Trevey, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 39 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.153. pp. 14512–14530.

Do you have access to the actual publications? Because I do and I thought I would motor over to the articles themselves to see what they actually say:

First line of citation #1: "Under a study contracted by GEN3 Partners..." Also it only presents results that it claims it cannot explain, not any evidence for hydrinos.

First and senior authors of citation #2 are Blacklight Power directors or employs. Even so, and similar to manuscript #1, it presents a claim that their results, involving broadening of emission profile, cannot be easily explained based on current theories but in fact never mentions hydrinos per se (although some citations in its reference list do).

Citation #3 does expressively interpret their results as evidence of hydrino. But all authors of citation #3 are Blacklight Power directors or employees.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

 

[michaelsuede]

I repeat: it's a danger sign when you stubbornly repeat your erroneous claims in areas you clearly don't understand - the spacecraft navigation one was one example.

I said it was possible to navigate around the solar system using celestial navigation and a gross approximation of G, like the one that was taken by Cavendish back in 1798. I'm still struggling to understand how I'm wrong about this. Simply claiming I'm wrong is meaningless.

You didn't anticipate the counterexample, because you didn't grasp the consequences of your auxiliary claim (G varying "all over the place"), because you don't really understand the topic. If you can't deal with being wrong on a tangent, how can you ever reevaluate your buy-in on the main topic?

I don't understand what you are talking about. Measurements of G are all over the place. The Scientific American has done several articles and podcasts about this. I made this claim in reference to G not being proven to be a constant, which it is not. It is simply defined, not empirically proven, to be a constant.

In any case, I've given you a realistic (according to your words) scenario in which I would admit I was wrong. Again, when would you admit this whole thing is bogus? Not the distractions of the conversion technology; I mean the core claim of hydrino energy production. When there's no independent deployment of functioning generators in five years? Ten? Twenty?

There hasn't been an independent deployment of a Tokamak in a commercial role either. So what? How long has the Tokamak project been running for? How many billions have been spent on it again? I guess fusion isn't real either.

 

[jaydeehess]

There hasn't been an independent deployment of a Tokamak in a commercial role either. So what? How long has the Tokamak project been running for? How many billions have been spent on it again? I guess fusion isn't real either.

That hardly seems equivalent to your claims.
You are saying that by March this year a production model will be available.
No one ever claimed that wrt Tokomak.
You assured me specifically that this model will not see it's production scraped due to promises of even greater power o/p from a redesign. What other issues then can we expect to arise that will stop production?

The question then stands, if this hydrino based tech is not rolled out in one year, 5 years, 10 years will you admit it's bogus?

 

[jaydeehess]

They will hit the market in a year, but it will take a few years to ramp up production.

They will take over the energy market much like cell phones took over the phone market. It will happen quickly, but not overnight.

According to Columbia Tech, they will be field testing in 6 months and be ready for production 6 months after that.
............
So what exactly constitutes "hitting the market" according to you? They plan on initially leasing units to fixed businesses like restaurants or manufacturing centers, then moving on to setting up leasing centers in the same fashion as the solar market for residential is setup now.

So they might not offer public leases for sale like a car dealership at first, but rather negotiate with individual businesses for lease terms. If we go by my metric of units installed in customer's business, would a fully functional prototype installation count?

Oh believe me, I'll be making a stink once the first prototype generator goes public. We might see that by February or March.

60 days to a public prototype, 6 months for testing.

Ready for production and installation in businesses, 12 months from now.

If this does not happen in the year time frame, or in double that or in five or tens years, despite the definite claims of the OP, what does it say about the veracity of the underlying Nobel Prize worthy, supposed new, physics?