• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike! said:
Revised future comment: "Graphite Black Body Radiator. Electrodes are streams of Vaporized silver." ;)
Click to expand...



How the vaporized silver manages to function as an electrode is left to the imagination of the mark.
 
Well, certainly using silver at very high temperatures year after year has caused a lot of silver to vaporize, hence the high costs

auditor: where are these 2000 kilograms of silver bought last year?
boss' minion: they have vaporized as part of our normal processes
boss (behind a curtain): mhmhmhwehehehehe!
 
Horatius said:
It's a common failing amongst the purveyors of Fake Science, and their various supporters, that they don't understand the interconnected nature of science, and the world science attempts to describe.

Because all those questions you raise are perfectly valid, and completely ignored.

I brought up the issue of hydrinos creating fusion myself, because that's certainly a possibility. Mills and his fanboys wave that away, but it matters. We know that muon catalyzed fusion exists.
Click to expand...
For interested readers, the WP article on this is a good place to learn more.

Fusion can occur in an ion comprising two deuterons and a muon, a D2+ (likewise DT+, T2+, HD+, and HT+, but not H2+); catalysis is possible because once the nuclei fuse the muon is released and can form a new muonic ion. Hydrinos could not act as catalysts (well, maybe they could, but not obviously so), but they certainly could induce fusion the same way muons can. In fact, in fractional quantum states which put the electron closer to the nucleus than in muonic deuterium, they should be more effective than muons.

Even if you think the quantum theory used to explain that phenomenon is wrong, the phenomenon itself still exists. Independent researchers at multiple different labs have carried out the same experiments, and found the same results. So any theory of how hydrinos work either has to explain why they don't also show this fusion behavior, or it's likely wrong.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And a lack of interest in pursuing this would be (is) ... puzzling.

And that applies to all the other aspects of nuclear physics and chemistry.

But his fanboys will never admit that, because it would suggest that, more likely than not, hydrinos are just a fantasy.

{snip}
Click to expand...
D'accord.
 
IMHO they don't care about hydrinos at all. They don't need the explanation to make sense. The need the explanation to make impression. And they are clearly good at it, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do it for 20 years.
This shouldn't be discussion about physics. It should be discussion about psychology and sociology of investments.
 
Horatius said:
The key here is, most people in our society assume that "scientists" are all smart. At least above-average smart, if not genius level smart.

And by and large, scientists don't complain about that perception, because why would they? :D

But here's the thing: Science is just like like any other job. No one disputes that there are bad plumbers, bad mechanics, bad waiters, bad bartenders, bad bureaucrats, bad accountants, bad lawyers, you name it. And just as with every other job, there are just some bad scientists out there. People clever enough to remember what they need to pass a test, clever enough to follow the instructions in their lab book to get the expected result, but not quite clever enough to quite grasp the essence of science, what it means to expand on knowledge, rather than just replicate previous work.

I'm willing to bet everyone who ever went through a college or university science degree could tell you stories of people like that. I know I can.

And yet, those people still often graduate with a degree, and they get jobs. Not the greatest job, but every lab out there needs bottle washers. There's value in being able to follow directions, and carry out an established procedure, if for no other reason than it frees up better scientists to work on better things.

And I suspect Mills looks for people like that: smart enough to follow his instructions and "get the expected results", but not smart enough to question any of the inconsistencies in his narrative. Mills gets his "confirmation", they get a better paying job, and everyone (other than his investors) goes home happy.
Click to expand...
I've started to look in some detail at the four sources ms gives in the OP ("Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work"), and I think there's another aspect. Perhaps there are "physics professors" (scare quotes because this includes some people who are not) who are both smart enough to follow his instructions, and also smart enough to question inconsistencies, but they chose not to.

In the common view of what a scientist is, perhaps they might be called "ethically compromised", or "economical with the truth".

For the investors - or at least a significant minority of them - I see something quite curious.

It's true that many investors did not get a university degree in physics; but many surely have degrees in other branches of science. And many are surely quite smart, and bring healthy skepticism and critical thinking to key decisions. Perhaps they did question Mills et al. on some of the implications of hydrinos, similar to what's been mentioned in this thread; perhaps they did wonder why they have been pursuing this particular 'very cheap power' opportunity to the (apparent) exclusion of all others (including winning several Nobel Prizes); perhaps ... But here's the thing: there are surely more than a handful who are smart enough, motivated enough, wealthy enough, connected enough ... to pursue some of these other opportunities independent of Mills et al. And they'd not be bound by non disclosure agreements, because all the key stuff on hydrinos is available publicly, much of it for free.

Or perhaps all such smart investors have done their investigating, and are no longer backing Mills et al.? :confused:
 
JeanTate said:
What I had most in mind, when I wrote that post, was the four sources ms provides in the OP, "Rowan University's report", ... I'll go through this, and the documents, in more detail later.

At least three of the four seem quite unambiguous about the role of "hydrinos", at the very least as a central component or feature. While not all of those who (seem to) have signed are physics professors - and one does not give his affiliation as a university (he is - head of? - a consulting company) - it'd be astonishing if they all are ignorant of how revolutionary fractional quantum states would be (or could be).
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Here's the relevant part of the OP:

michaelsuede said:
{snip}
Don't be fooled by the naysayers who haven't done their homework like I have. {snip}

I’ve been following BLP closely for nearly a decade now. I’m convinced Mills is the real deal. Contrary to what Forbes claims, numerous independent labs have verified his claims. {snip} Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work:

Rowan University’s report
Rowan University’s report II
UNC Asheville’s report
University of Illinois report

{snip}
Click to expand...
I'll look in some detail at only two of these four, in this post and later, the "Rowan University's report" and the "UNC Asheville's report".

Some general observations:
  • only one of the reports - "University of Illinois report" - is text searchable
  • "Rowan University's report II" is misnamed; it's from an independent, private company (perhaps ms made a mistake?)
  • three of the four (the "University of Illinois report" is the exception) have "Redacted" in the URL
  • the "University of Illinois report" does not use the word "hydrino"; all three of the others do

The "Rowan University’s report" lists the author as "K.V. Ramanujachary, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry". From the Rowan University website:
  • "Dr. K. Ramanujachary" is "Professor, Inorganic Chemistry"
  • "My research is aimed at understanding the relationship between the crystalline structure and electronic properties of materials. Specific research areas include the study of luminescence properties of new materials and the study of the implication of magnetic ordering on the electronic properties of materials. We also examine the potential of new materials with tailored bandgap for photo-assisted catalytic processes."
  • http://www.rowan.edu/centers/materials/rama.htm

the "UNC Asheville's report" lists the author as "Randy Booker, PhD, Department of Physics". From the University of North Carolina at Asheville website:
  • "The Department of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Asheville consists of seven full-time faculty members. Areas of research include molecular, atomic, nuclear, elementary particle, environmental, educational and computational physics, along with astronomy and astrophysics."
  • "Randy Booker, PhD" ([email protected]) is listed as a staff member, "Professor of Physics"
  • "Randy, former chair of our department (2000-2010), currently teaches modern physics, upper-level experimental physics, and astronomy. In the past he has taught in the UNC Asheville Masters of Liberal Arts Program. His research interests include the microwave spectra of molecules found in the Earth's atmosphere and the interstellar medium."
  • https://physics.unca.edu/faces/faculty/booker

Myself, I'd be astonished to learn that neither Prof Ramanujachary nor Prof Booker were unaware of any of the potentially revolutionary implications of hydrinos, such as we've covered in this thread so far. Maybe we could ask them, when we send them an email or two (later)?

Finally, for this post: both Rowan University and the University of North Carolina at Asheville are public universities (per their websites). Can anyone confirm that this means "the state" (New Jersey, North Carolina; possibly the US government too) provides both financial and other support? I'm curious to learn to what extent taxpayers are funding these two guys' salaries (etc).
 
In my research into hydrinos, I've found quite a few interesting documents. I'd like to share two three.

"Hydrino Theory, Which Overturns Quantum Theory, Is In Turn Overturned By Doofusino Theory", by Scott Aaronson (link). I'm not sure when it was written, but I do like the very last sentence: "I find myself agreeing with a gushing reviewer of Mills' book on Amazon.com: "The significance of this scientific landmark cannot be understated.""

A. Rathke (2005), "A critical analysis of the hydrino model", New Journal of Physics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 127 (2005) (ADS link; arXiv version; ESA link). This is good for finding many important papers on hydrinos, including what I think are the key Mills et al. ones and some by what ms refers to as "naysayers" ("Don't be fooled by the naysayers who haven't done their homework like I have"; I doubt that ms even knew of the existence of this paper before he read my post, but I'd be delighted to hear that I'm wrong).

ETA: One more: Phelps&Clementson (2012), "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al.", The European Physical Journal D, Volume 66, Issue 5, 2012, id.120 (ADS link; you can get the full paper from here, no paywall). The abstract is quite brief, but informative:
Phelps&Clementson said:
An explanation of the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu, most recently in [Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 65 (2011)], is presented using conventional atomic, plasma, and discharge physics. It is argued that the observed EUV emissions during their pulsed discharges originate from transitions in ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes. Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particles.
Click to expand...
Perhaps even silver ions show up among the EUV emissions? :p
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
<snip>
Myself, I'd be astonished to learn that neither Prof Ramanujachary nor Prof Booker were unaware of any of the potentially revolutionary implications of hydrinos, such as we've covered in this thread so far. Maybe we could ask them, when we send them an email or two (later)?
<snip>
Click to expand...

TBH, I'm often surprised at the ignorance of a particular field of science, from some scientists in a (reasonably) closely related field. I'm not sure if it might be due to having to concentrate so much of their careers on a particular field, that they can't see the wood for the trees.

I would put Alfven, Scott, Perratt, Juergens in that list. No doubt very good in their particular well defined field (some better than others!), but starting to struggle a bit outside of it. In the case of those four, I think it may also be a case of becoming so obsessed(?), enamoured(?) with their own subject, that they try to apply it in an area where it is not warranted, and their lack of knowledge of that area doesn't sound the alarm bells that it would to others.

A similar scenario was commented on recently in the electric comet thread, regarding Dr. Franklin Anariba, and his electric comet musings. Seemingly an otherwise competent scientist, albeit in a not particularly related field.

With the chaps mentioned in your post, I'm wondering how much of what Mills is claiming to be doing that they fully understand. The other alternative is that they do understand, and it is either a) legit, or b) it isn't, but they are in it for what they can make out of it.

b) is not a particularly appetising thought.
 
jonesdave116 said:
With the chaps mentioned in your post, I'm wondering how much of what Mills is claiming to be doing that they fully understand.
Click to expand...


I suspect that answer to that is "actually very little". Mills has spent almost 30 years producing literally thousands of pages of scientific-sounding gobbledygook. Most people who have sat down and tried to parse out what he's actually saying have admitted that it make little or no sense to them. But of course, we all know at least one Cliff Claven type who insists he understands everything, no matter what.



The other alternative is that they do understand, and it is either a) legit, or b) it isn't, but they are in it for what they can make out of it.

b) is not a particularly appetising thought.
Click to expand...


And there's another part of why it's so hard to counter ******** like this. We're socialized to feel bad about calling someone out as a probable fraud, for fear that we might be wrong.
 
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.

During this Dec 16th 2016 lecture in the UK, Mills discusses the process of invention that lead up to the creation of the SunCell.

https://youtu.be/CtA4FdRrCkY?t=2745

This was a long iterative process that slowly evolved over several decades as experiment and theory allowed for steady progress to be made. Most of the long delay came down to achieving an adequate power density that would make power generation economically feasible.
 
A lot more has been asked and ignored.

When a lay person like myself needs to judge between parties disputing a field outside of my erudition, I am well guided by the way they respond to critiques.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino
Click to expand...



Actually, none of us have asked "why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino".


What we've actually asked, and only gotten BS answers for, is why none of his earlier devices, which (he has claimed) ALL produced an over-unity output of energy, and were within "a year to 18 months" of commercial deployment, have never actually been sold, leased, licensed, copied, reproduced or out right stolen.

But you go ahead and keep waving those hands. I'm (sadly) completely sure that there are still people out there with money to waste who will believe your ********.
 
"Yeah, this is great and all, 852 feet, but until we can fly a few hundred people at once, non-stop, between the US and Europe, we might as well not even try to sell even one airplane." - The Wright Brothers, Never.
 
Aepervius said:
As far as I remember , vaporized metal can still be conductive in certain edge cases - for example if they are in plasma form. Heck, even non metal can be, gas at low pressure , in neon lamp.
Click to expand...



The conductivity isn't what I'm concerned about. My concern is the fact that a cloud of conductive plasma and multiple discrete electrodes are, from an electrical engineering predictive, very different things.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.
Click to expand...


Thats not what I asked.

I asked what you thought of the safety and health issues raised in this thread about hudrinos.

I asked why the massive heat generation capability of this alleged generator wasn't being commercialized, given the ease with which it would be exploitable if the science and technology were real.

I even asked you some of these questions in a PM.

You chose to ignore those questions and others like them. What you gave us was what appears to be a canned response unrelated to the actual questions being asked if you.

You've revealed more about your relationship with Mills and his "theories" than I think you intended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom