Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[michaelsuede]

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?

Oh I think it is entirely equivalent.

The ITER team has blown over 14 billion just to make a proof of concept that can't even run over-unity. The ITER was initially formed back in 1985, so that's 32 years ago. So 32 years and 14 billion flushed down the toilet and they don't even have a working proof of concept yet.

Mills has taken half the time with a hundredth of the resources to go from theory to functional reactor, and now on to a functional generator. Yet I don't see you complaining that fusion reactors aren't real. In terms of progress, Mills team makes the ITER team look like a bunch of turtles.

 

[MikeG]

......Mills has taken half the time with a hundredth of the resources to go from theory to functional reactor......

You have produced not a single jot of evidence to support this claim. Any chance you could correct this teensy weensy little oversight? If he's got a reactor, he's got some actual figures, not "ball park" stuff. How about linking to these?

 

[Myriad]

This thing is not fuel free - it converts hydrogen into hydrinos. That's a concern when you are going to start converting olympic-sized swimming pools worth of water. I like water.

I haven't yet seen how these hydrinos are supposed to be disposed of. Remember how great nuclear sounded until someone pointed out we have to store all the waste?

I don't want hydrinos getting into the environment, causing damage. What is he doing with them now?

I was thinking the same thing. Atoms don't have to be above their ground states to react chemically, so how reactive is Hydrino or Hydrino2? Does it react with oxygen to form Hydrino2O, and if so, what effect does that have on water contaminated by it? Does it affect metabolic pathways? Does it bio-accumulate? Do even parts-per-trillion concentrations smell strongly of cat vomit? How can it be filtered out? How can it be stored?

The EPA might have something to say about this, but their hands are tied, as long as there's no evidence the stuff actually exists.

 

[michaelsuede]

You have produced not a single jot of evidence to support this claim. Any chance you could correct this teensy weensy little oversight? If he's got a reactor, he's got some actual figures, not "ball park" stuff. How about linking to these?

You mean other than three peer-reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, four validation papers from three separate universities, several public demonstration videos where the reactor is test fired and measured against bomb calorimetry and a spectrograph, and a video where 1/4th inch thick tungsten rods are vaporized in seconds.

But as you say, "not a single jot of evidence to support this claim"

 

[MikeG]

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

You may have overlooked this post:

It seems that BLP (used to be Black Light Power), has been making precisely the same claims (commercially ready in the next 12 to 18 months) since 2008:

Wiki.

He's been making precisely the same claim (ready in 12 to 18 months) for 9 years now. Does that not tell you anything?

 

[MikeG]

You mean other than three peer-reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, four validation papers from three separate universities, several public demonstration videos where the reactor is test fired and measured against bomb calorimetry and a spectrograph, and a video where 1/4th inch thick tungsten rods are vaporized in seconds....

You've seen the critique of those papers, just a few posts up the thread, no doubt. Oh, and scientists don't normally announce the breaking of the laws of physics with a youtube clip.

 

[michaelsuede]

You've seen the critique of those papers, just a few posts up the thread, no doubt. Oh, and scientists don't normally announce the breaking of the laws of physics with a youtube clip.

Yeah, you announce it in three separate peer-reviewed journals, which is what he did.

You'll have to link me directly to this critique of his papers. I must be blind because I can't see it.

 

[abaddon]

Oh I think it is entirely equivalent.

The ITER team has blown over 14 billion just to make a proof of concept that can't even run over-unity. The ITER was initially formed back in 1985, so that's 32 years ago. So 32 years and 14 billion flushed down the toilet and they don't even have a working proof of concept yet.

Mills has taken half the time with a hundredth of the resources to go from theory to functional reactor, and now on to a functional generator. Yet I don't see you complaining that fusion reactors aren't real. In terms of progress, Mills team makes the ITER team look like a bunch of turtles.

Incorrect, Mills started in 1991, 25 years ago, and has nothing to show for 25 years of nonsense.

 

[michaelsuede]

Incorrect, Mills started in 1991, 25 years ago, and has nothing to show for 25 years of nonsense.

You mean nothing to show for it except:

• three peer-reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals
• four validation papers from three separate universities
• several public demonstration videos where the reactor is test fired and measured against bomb calorimetry and a spectrograph
• and a video where 1/4th inch thick tungsten rods are vaporized in seconds - which no known energy source is capable of doing.

 

[marplots]

I was thinking the same thing. Atoms don't have to be above their ground states to react chemically, so how reactive is Hydrino or Hydrino2? Does it react with oxygen to form Hydrino2O, and if so, what effect does that have on water contaminated by it? Does it affect metabolic pathways? Does it bio-accumulate? Do even parts-per-trillion concentrations smell strongly of cat vomit? How can it be filtered out? How can it be stored?

The EPA might have something to say about this, but their hands are tied, as long as there's no evidence the stuff actually exists.

That's a common problem - government inertia - that I hope to see solved in the new Trump administration. I sincerely doubt the FDA has a handle on hydrino toxicity/pollution. However, I bet if we tip off Mr. Trump, he'll personally get involved.

Remember, there is no danger more feared than spurious, fictive danger linked to the unknown and unproven.

And thank you for pointing out it isn't just the element that raises concerns, but the compounds. Starting with mono-hydrino hydroxide, extending through di-hydrino oxide and on to thousands of hydrinated hydrinocarbons. Almost any organic molecule is subject to the chemical depredations of this as-yet-not-actually-existing atom.

Like the ads say, "Be sure to ask your doctor, folks!"

 

[Myriad]

Oh I think it is entirely equivalent.

The ITER team has blown over 14 billion just to make a proof of concept that can't even run over-unity. The ITER was initially formed back in 1985, so that's 32 years ago. So 32 years and 14 billion flushed down the toilet and they don't even have a working proof of concept yet.

Mills has taken half the time with a hundredth of the resources to go from theory to functional reactor, and now on to a functional generator. Yet I don't see you complaining that fusion reactors aren't real. In terms of progress, Mills team makes the ITER team look like a bunch of turtles.

It is BLP's claims, not the theory of fusion, that suffers by this comparison. Clearly, physicists managed to establish firm evidence that fusion reactions exist and convert mass to energy, based on theoretical foundations and observations of natural systems (e.g. the sun), before they produced any man-made fusion reactions (via hydrogen bombs) and without producing a commercially viable fusion power plant at all (so far).

Likewise we can be pretty sure that tadpoles generate and use (metabolic) energy to twitch their tails, without having ever conceived of or built a commercially viable tadpole-tail-twitch-fueled electrical power plant.

Why would the first clear evidence that energy release from hydrogen decay into hydrinos is a real phenomenon be seeing commercial generators run on it? That makes no sense. It's like some late 19th century petroleum chemists saying, "we've discovered a hydrocarbon we call gasoline, but we won't be able to demonstrate its existence until we've perfected the 'quad-wheel internal combustion vehicle' that'll use it for fuel." Nonsense. Show us some in a beaker. Show it producing heat and pressure when burned in a vessel under controlled conditions. The steering wheel and cup holders can be developed later.

 

[michaelsuede]

That's a common problem - government inertia - that I hope to see solved in the new Trump administration. I sincerely doubt the FDA has a handle on hydrino toxicity/pollution. However, I bet if we tip off Mr. Trump, he'll personally get involved.

Remember, there is no danger more feared than spurious, fictive danger linked to the unknown and unproven.

And thank you for pointing out it isn't just the element that raises concerns, but the compounds. Starting with mono-hydrino hydroxide, extending through di-hydrino oxide and on to thousands of hydrinated hydrinocarbons. Almost any organic molecule is subject to the chemical depredations of this as-yet-not-actually-existing atom.

Like the ads say, "Be sure to ask your doctor, folks!"

There is no pollution. The reactor will be closed and under vacuum. Hydrinos themselves are non-reactive and vent into space since they are lighter than air.

Of course, the only way to test for hydrino oxides and the like is to base the tests off Mills theory, which according to you is wrong. So good luck finding a test the EPA/FDA can agree on.

 

[abaddon]

You mean nothing to show for it except:

• three peer-reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals
• four validation papers from three separate universities
• several public demonstration videos where the reactor is test fired and measured against bomb calorimetry and a spectrograph
• and a video where 1/4th inch thick tungsten rods are vaporized in seconds - which no known energy source is capable of doing.

Great. After 25 years of this crap, where can I buy one of these devices that have been promised for a generation?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sounds amazing. What's the patent number so I can look it up?

I believe BrLP has dozens, if not hundreds of patents filed. So you might need to be more specific.

You do believe? What kind of belief is it? The "I believe in God" kind, the one that includes no evidence of a God?

 

[michaelsuede]

Great. After 25 years of this crap, where can I buy one of these devices that have been promised for a generation?

Well, I'd start by asking the ITER why fusion isn't a reality yet. You'll get the same response from the ITER team as you will from Mills and his team.

 

[applecorped]

This has been highly entertaining in an Onion sort of way

 

[abaddon]

Well, I'd start by asking the ITER why fusion isn't a reality yet. You'll get the same response from the ITER team as you will from Mills and his team.

You mean endless excuses?

 

[michaelsuede]

You mean endless excuses?

touché

 

[aleCcowaN]

• several public demonstration videos where the reactor is test fired and measured against bomb calorimetry and a spectrograph

Were those videos made near to broadcasting antennas?

• and a video where 1/4th inch thick tungsten rods are vaporized in seconds - which no known energy source is capable of doing.

Was that video made near to broadcasting antennas?

I mean, it's never lupus...

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Great. After 25 years of this crap, where can I buy one of these devices that have been promised for a generation?

You'll need to send them a lot of money first, but they'll be operational really soon. They're so reliable, they've been almost operational for decades now. Just a few more of your bucks is all they need to go public with this Nobel prize winning, laws of physics breaking, world transforming tech they've been sitting on for years without ever putting it to practical use.

Unless of course they discover that solar panels aren't the best way to harness this spectacular free energy. Then they'll be forced to shelve their groundbreaking work that's worth billions untill they've found another scapegoat... er... I mean viable way to put this tech into cars before they revolutionize all aspects of our lives forever.

Because there's no way they could get funding for a contraption that can only produce unlimited free energy on an industrial scale. They need your precious dollars instead.
But it really works, I promise.