Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[catsmate]

Yes, and intercontinental airship flights. Built and managed by gnomes with brass goggles.

If BLP's magic heater actually worked this might actually be viable with giant heated air aerostatic craft.

 

[Horatius]

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?

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.

As a follow-up to my above post. Some people have asked if it's really credible that so many scientifically and technically trained people could be either this bad at their jobs, or this complicit with a scam.

As an example of just such people, in large numbers, consider this recent event in the Conspiracy Theory world:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11677725#post11677725

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...tects--engineers-for-911-truth-300394148.html

There was a building collapse in Tehran, due to a major fire, but rather than re-consider their theories on how such collapses are impossible, the organization Architects &Engineers for 911 Truth decided to double down on their beliefs, and assert that explosives were likely used to cause this collapse.

This is an organization that claims to represent over 2000 trained architects and engineers, and it's clear that a whole lot of them must either be fundamentally incompetent, delusional, or complicit in a deliberate fraud.

So, yeah, it's entirely possible to find a bunch of people like that to support almost any outrageous claim.

 

[catsmate]

As a follow-up to my above post. Some people have asked if it's really credible that so many scientifically and technically trained people could be either this bad at their jobs, or this complicit with a scam.

As an example of just such people, in large numbers, consider this recent event in the Conspiracy Theory world:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11677725#post11677725

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...tects--engineers-for-911-truth-300394148.html

There was a building collapse in Tehran, due to a major fire, but rather than re-consider their theories on how such collapses are impossible, the organization Architects &Engineers for 911 Truth decided to double down on their beliefs, and assert that explosives were likely used to cause this collapse.

This is an organization that claims to represent over 2000 trained architects and engineers, and it's clear that a whole lot of them must either be fundamentally incompetent, delusional, or complicit in a deliberate fraud.

So, yeah, it's entirely possible to find a bunch of people like that to support almost any outrageous claim.

And remember N-rays.

 

[MikeG]

........
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 agree with most of what you wrote, but this phrase overlooks the fact that replicating previous work is an incredibly important part of science, and that many good scientists spend rather a lot of their time trying to replicate the work of others in order to corroborate it, or help disprove it.

 

[Giordano]

Certainly there are bad scientists, as in any field. But most relevant to this thread is that I have found that most scientists tend to trust what others tell them because most scientists are seeking "truth" and assume others are as well. Results are peer-reviewed for possible errors in interpretation or lack of correct controls, but seldom for outright fraud. This, as Randi once pointed out, makes scientists great targets for film-flam artists. As I believe is the case here.

Also scientists are human beings and therefore can be deluded when faced by exciting results that they wish to be true. Thus N-rays, cold fusion, etc. One thing I learned during my training was to inherently distrust any results that appear to support your favorite theory: try to disprove your theory, not to prove it. Add the distorting effects of money and fame to this and it is not surprising that certain theories/results will initially be "confirmed" by some scientists, especially those made "insiders," before the overheated excitement wears off and more skeptical analysis and interpretation reveals the harsh reality.

The best scientists are aware of these problems and constantly seek to always rise above them. But not all scientists achieve this goal all the time (and some simply don't achieve it at all).

Disclaimer- of course I have no idea how much, if any, of this applies specifically to the hydrino story.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Explain to me again how a light bulb getting hot and making a very bright flash as it burns out in a matter of seconds solves the energy crisis? Apparently I missed it the first time.

 

[The Man]

Explain to me again how a light bulb getting hot and making a very bright flash as it burns out in a matter of seconds solves the energy crisis? Apparently I missed it the first time.

Evidently it has little to do with solving the energy crisis or that would have been done already. It seems to be mostly about (in pretense that is) sticking it to 'big power'. That's why some, small scale, centralization is OK (apartment building was mentioned) but large scale power distribution is right out.

 

[Marcus]

I know it's already been mentioned in this thread, but whatever happened to Rossi? I seem to remember proponents here assuring us that they would be back to recant and apologize for their gullibility if the latest delivery dates were not met. It's 2017, we should all be able to buy a free energy unit for our homes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What? You never got yours?

 

[Marcus]

Stupid me, still paying those pesky power bills.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I know it's already been mentioned in this thread, but whatever happened to Rossi? I seem to remember proponents here assuring us that they would be back to recant and apologize for their gullibility if the latest delivery dates were not met. It's 2017, we should all be able to buy a free energy unit for our homes.

You think it works like this:

Claim. Approve. Profit or apologize.

But it's more like:

Claim. Profit. Spend. Start again.

 

[Marcus]

You think it works like this:

Claim. Approve. Profit or apologize.

But it's more like:

Claim. Profit. Spend. Start again.

I know Rossi will keep going, he makes his living off his scam.

I don't think it's impossible that a participant in this forum could have an epiphany though.

 

[marplots]

I know it's already been mentioned in this thread, but whatever happened to Rossi? I seem to remember proponents here assuring us that they would be back to recant and apologize for their gullibility if the latest delivery dates were not met. It's 2017, we should all be able to buy a free energy unit for our homes.

Now that you mention him, I seem to recall his device using Raney Nickel and Hydrogen too. Could it be that both these devices are using the same chemical con?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Evidently it has little to do with solving the energy crisis or that would have been done already. It seems to be mostly about (in pretense that is) sticking it to 'big power'. That's why some, small scale, centralization is OK (apartment building was mentioned) but large scale power distribution is right out.

Oh silly me. I thought "big power" was out because they have very accurate metering? And public utilities are audited for costs as well. So expensive light bulbs used to generate a flash of heat and light are right out before we even start.

 

[The Man]

Oh silly me. I thought "big power" was out because they have very accurate metering? And public utilities are audited for costs as well. So expensive light bulbs used to generate a flash of heat and light are right out before we even start.

Yep, it's (as stated here before) those pesky regulations power stations have to comply with, reliability probably being a part of such regulations. Meaning the unit would actually have to produce power in order to be installed at such a station.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

He's already demonstrated this. The only problem is that you will not believe it until you have a generator parked in your driveway powering your home. Even then, you probably still won't believe it.

Whoa whoa whoa, this might have already been said but...this guy has proven Quantum Mechanics wrong? Damn, he's a shoe-in for the next Nobel Prize nomination right? What papers has he published this proof in?

 

[Mongrel]

Yep, it's (as stated here before) those pesky regulations power stations have to comply with, reliability probably being a part of such regulations. Meaning the unit would actually have to produce power in order to be installed at such a station.

Don't forget the narrative. It's much better to be rising up to defy The Man\Big Pharma\Evil money-grubbing whatever and their 'rules' on evidence and accountability than to be ground under the thumb\boot heel.

And if you ask for evidence, well at least they're doing something not just caving into the demands or blindly paying their bills.

 

[The Man]

Don't forget the narrative. It's much better to be rising up to defy The Man\Big Pharma\Evil money-grubbing whatever and their 'rules' on evidence and accountability than to be ground under the thumb\boot heel.

And if you ask for evidence, well at least they're doing something not just caving into the demands or blindly paying their bills.

Yeah, a narrative I'm used to, defiance of The Man and no one else paying the bills is just SOP at our house.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The lecture OP linked to was deceptive, calling itself a demonstration. It was a slide show.

Endless assertions of free fuel, no moving parts, clean, and a lot of techno mumbo-jumbo when the purpose is supposed to be explaining to common folk how it works. Anyone can read a wiki on internal combustion engines, on nuclear power, solar power, hydro, etc. and understand how they work.

If you claim water flows uphill and I can't understand your explanation, it isn't because I am stupid.

The lecturer claimed 100kW units would be produced in the first half of 2017. So this bet being laid here is at least six months too late and more than that really. There is a working prototype before production. The production model is not the first one that works, lol.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes. In the good o'le times they just tried to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.