Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[aleCcowaN]

We could redirect the reverse ionized hydrinos through the rear deflector dish, but that could cause a tachyon burst that could cause the spontaneous decay of local chronons.

Nothing a baryon sweep couldn't solve.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Mills first established his company in 1991, over 25 years ago. Ever since, the cycle just repeats. Wild claim, sucker investors, claim a better version, do nothing. Rinse, lather, repeat. Last I checked, this strategy realised 60 odd million from gullible investors just like the now defunct Steorn fiasco.

I don't see how this malarkey is any different from the other, or any of the other "take the money and run" schemes. Like Steorn, milk it for all the money the marks are willing to chuck in, declare bankruptcy and run away with the loot all the while blaming any convenient scapegoat.

I wonder how deep is michaelsuede in all this ... feigned hype and admiration can't hide the careful lay-out of his posting here. When he says they don't need money I think they may need some smoke screen to prevent the owners of previous money from suing.

 

[michaelsuede]

In thinking about economics rather than physics, the discussions of how cheap these devices will be is odd too. If one had produced such a wondrous device, why price it so, so far below the current competition?

It's not that cheap. The initial prototype build-out will cost about 25 grand to do. It only becomes cheap once mass production induces economy of scale.

Initially you will only be able to lease the units, and they will be tied via the internet to BrLPs offices, where they can monitor the system status and power production.

The systems will be installed and maintained by third party distributors, much like the solar industry works today. I'm sure those guys don't work for free either.

Believe me, BrLP isn't going to be giving these things away for free. They will most likely be the world's first trillion dollar company.

In the long run we will see energy prices and unit costs drop down to next to nothing, where units are available for full purchase and have the same size and cost as a small AC unit does today.

 

[aleCcowaN]

They will most likely be the world's first trillion dollar company.

More Marketin'eese and snake oil.

 

[Horatius]

I find really hard to believe the OP genuinely believes in this project.

Go read this post and then come back here and say all that again.

 

[abaddon]

If such a device actually worked it would have been possible long ago to produce, as a proof of concept, a device that unattached to anything continuously produced large amounts of heat over a period of weeks. It would be obvious that something inexplicable was going on. Instead we get experiments that run very short times and are documented to produce only a tiny amount supposed excess heat that requires calorimetry to detect. The conclusion is obvious.

The discussion of a supposed device that produces enormous amounts of waste heat is laughable. It was mentioned that sufficient insulation would solve this problem when it would obviously only make things much worse. If heat produced exceeds heat removed then temperature will rise. Eventually the device will just melt. What it would actually need is big honking radiators or immersion in flowing water to remove the excess heat as fast as possible.

(Personally I think Steorn was more entertaining.)

Sorry. The bleevers will bleev. It is an article of faith. If you, I or anyone else had such an energy source, it would be get patent and market the mother-loving hell out of it. But no, these lunatics propagate a continuous bait and switch ad infinitum just to sucker in the "marks"..

Oddly, (or perhaps not), it has a cycle all of it's own, but instantly recognisable.

1. Make wild claim.
2. Claim working model.
3. Suck in the gullible.
4. Claim it didn't work because reasons.
5. Hide for about 4 years.
6. Repeat the claims to garner new gullible marks.

People make money out of it.

I refer to it as the sales balaclava terrorism. Many times over my career, I have had to rein in sales lunatics making unreasonable claims. I see this as no different.

Wild claim, no evidence.

 

[halleyscomet]

Go read this post and then come back here and say all that again.

Ah, so he's extremely gullible and susceptible to conspiratorial thinking.

 

[Horatius]

If you, I or anyone else had such an energy source, it would be get patent and market the mother-loving hell out of it.

This now is actually an interesting question: Lets say you did manage to produce some new source of energy which breaks the laws of physics as currently understood.

What would it take to get a patent for that device or process? The fact that it apparently breaks the laws of physics would mean that any reasonable analysis of the patent application (being merely a document, and not a working physical model, after all) would conclude that the device was inoperable as described, and thus not patentable.

How would one go about securing a patent in that case?

I know exactly how I would do it, but I wonder if certain others in this thread will know.

 

[abaddon]

Ah, so he's extremely gullible and susceptible to conspiratorial thinking.

Yup. The very of opening an Adobe 1.3 doc in Illustrator would reveal layers which the PDF cannot possibly support but which Illustrator imposes on a non native format is utter nonsense.

We have been over this ploppery ad infinitum.

And it really matters not a whit in any event. In a week or so, Obama will be a former president and Mr. Tango will be incumbent president.

Sure, there will be those wingnuts who claim that Obama will declare "marshall" law and appoint himself president for life.

The same was said of Bush, both of them, and Clinton and so forth. It warrants no consideration.

 

[michaelsuede]

This now is actually an interesting question: Lets say you did manage to produce some new source of energy which breaks the laws of physics as currently understood.

What would it take to get a patent for that device or process? The fact that it apparently breaks the laws of physics would mean that any reasonable analysis of the patent application (being merely a document, and not a working physical model, after all) would conclude that the device was inoperable as described, and thus not patentable.

How would one go about securing a patent in that case?

I know exactly how I would do it, but I wonder if certain others in this thread will know.

Pretty easy to do since we have patent treaties that grant reciprocity.

 

[Aepervius]

Pretty easy to do since we have patent treaties that grant reciprocity.

I think the answer is : You need a working prototype ready and available for the patent office (or which ever trusted university) to independently verify it works on their own.

And those patent treaty AFAIK don't protect invalid patent.

That's why software patent which do exists in the US,a re not valid in other countries where in spite of reciprocity treaties , software patent are not recognized.

 

[MikeG]

Pretty easy to do since we have patent treaties that grant reciprocity.

You're answering a question which wasn't asked. The question was about patent applications which defy the laws of physics, not about patents in other countries.

 

[MikeG]

I think the answer is : You need a working prototype ready and available for the patent office (or which ever trusted university) to independently verify it works on their own. ......

That isn't the way patents work. They don't look at prototypes, working or otherwise. They register drawings and descriptions. I barely recognised my own invention in my patent when I first read it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I would take it to General Electric and get a licensing deal that nade me huge amounts of money.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That isn't the way patents work. They don't look at prototypes, working or otherwise. They register drawings and descriptions. I barely recognised my own invention in my patent when I first read it.

In short, another reply from michaelsuede that boils down to "it's not a scam" by acting as if everything is normal and on check in spite it's obvious a scam.

 

[halleyscomet]

In short, another reply from michaelsuede that boils down to "it's not a scam" by acting as if everything is normal and on check in spite it's obvious a scam.

I wonder if he's invested any of his money in this insanity.

 

[MikeG]

In short, another reply from michaelsuede that boils down to "it's not a scam" by acting as if everything is normal and on check in spite it's obvious a scam.

To be fair to michaelsuede, my reply was to a post by Aepervius.

 

[Horatius]

Pretty easy to do since we have patent treaties that grant reciprocity.

Please explain how this "reciprocity" works with relation to patents.

 

[Aepervius]

That isn't the way patents work. They don't look at prototypes, working or otherwise. They register drawings and descriptions. I barely recognised my own invention in my patent when I first read it.

Then you patent all single part of the machine, none of which has a claim of free energy. Since they break law of physic they should be novel enough in a way or another.

So you have not patented the whole but since you hold every single part... You still have the patent which counts.

 

[Horatius]

I think the answer is : You need a working prototype ready and available for the patent office (or which ever trusted university) to independently verify it works on their own.

That isn't the way patents work. They don't look at prototypes, working or otherwise. They register drawings and descriptions. I barely recognised my own invention in my patent when I first read it.

A working model presented to the office likely would work, but I agree that such presentations are rare. The various patent offices just don't have the in-house resources needed for long-term testing of industrial models. While being possible, it's not the way I was thinking of.