Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[JeanTate]

Did you not say you were a biochemist or biologist ?

How do you evaluate it is a fine work ? I would be hard pressed with my QM background to evaluate if a biochemist work is good or bad, barring alarm signals on the paper structure, so basic science.

Perhaps not.

I think that most people with a BSc, no matter which field, would quickly notice something amiss if given a biochemistry equivalent of the Mills book markie has been so keen on impressing on us, without alarm bells going off over structure.

Perhaps we owe markie thanks, for bringing to our attention just how, um, wild Mills' writing is, on the topic?

 

[markie]

How many more years with nothing of commercial value produced would it take before you started to seriously consider the possibility that it's a scam?

Fair question. I doubt I would ever seriously consider it was a scam. To me, Mills is a good man and a great man. I haven't heard of anyone who has worked with Mills who thinks he is a scammer. Now, he may be badly mistaken, and if he is, he has fooled himself and a lot of smart people. I can live with that. If Mills doesn't produce a commercial energy producing device in the next five years or so, that will upset my apple cart and I will seriously consider he is mistaken, at least about hydrino.

 

[Darat]

Fair question. I doubt I would ever seriously consider it was a scam. To me, Mills is a good man and a great man. I haven't heard of anyone who has worked with Mills who thinks he is a scammer. Now, he may be badly mistaken, and if he is, he has fooled himself and a lot of smart people. I can live with that. If Mills doesn't produce a commercial energy producing device in the next five years or so, that will upset my apple cart and I will seriously consider he is mistaken, at least about hydrino.

Evidence?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

That's something I've been bringing up in my posts to their YouTube videos. Mills has a nearly 30 year track record of failure, always promising to be a few months from a production unit.

Like a cartoon villain... "I'll get you next time, Gadget!"

 

[Darat]

Fair question. I doubt I would ever seriously consider it was a scam. To me, Mills is a good man and a great man. I haven't heard of anyone who has worked with Mills who thinks he is a scammer. Now, he may be badly mistaken, and if he is, he has fooled himself and a lot of smart people. I can live with that. If Mills doesn't produce a commercial energy producing device in the next five years or so, that will upset my apple cart and I will seriously consider he is mistaken, at least about hydrino.

Why another 5 years? And that seems to fly in the face of his claims that he has already had working generators? If you believe him why do you need to wait at all?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

It might be quite entertaining and fun to discuss Mills theories but it matters not one whit whether his maths is right or wrong, the only discussion should be a question, "Do his generators work?"

<snip>

Maybe, maybe not.

I think there's considerable value in exploring why Mills has been able to make his claims about a Free Energy Generator, and its commercialization, for so long, and to attract so many $millions from investors.

And I think his "theories" (they're not, as the term is used in science; that too is part of the "why") are an important (perhaps crucial) part of the "why".

Mills published most of his key "scientific" work in an obscure journal (Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy; I'm still trying to find out just how much actual peer-review goes on), rather than submit his revolutionary ideas to a journal where they'd get noticed (and properly reviewed). Then when a paper is published showing his core idea is fatally flawed (it has an unfixable internal inconsistency), he responds with a huge (>100 pages!) "rebuttal" ... which he does not submit to a journal where it would be reviewed. Straight out of "A Guide to Scamming"?

Another part of the "why" can be seen in markie's posts: he's an 18 year veteran of boosting Mills, and the way he responds to "skeptical critiques" is very interesting (as several ISF members has already noted) ... take a look at his initial response to RC's comment on what he found in "the book", for example.

And there's value to a much broader audience too, I think. For example, Mills' recent PR efforts have generated quite a bit of discussion, all over the internet. People curious to know more will - sometimes at least - use a search engine to find sites where they may learn more ... and this particular ISF thread surely comes near the top of many such searches!

 

[markie]

Psst: This is a skeptics' forum. Insults without specifics to back them up are kinda like spritzing water on a duck's back. We're used to it as the result of all the woo-woo nutters and quacks who come here to get served.

Unless you want to be lumped in with those idiots, you need to bring your "A" game and explain what, specifically, someone supposedly got wrong. Your "LOLZ! NOPES!" replies are singularly impotent here.

For your benefit, when I said that RC was "so wrong it isn't even funny", it was in regard to his interpretation that Mills' teaching on electron capture implied that

"electron neutrino" = electron and "photon" = proton.

You imply that merely calling someone wrong amounts to 'insults'. Yet you have no problem calling visitors with different views "woo-woo nutters and quacks".

 

[JeanTate]

As I well know, Mills did write a rebuttal to Rathke's paper, so I don't know why you are saying he didn't.

Got a link to the text of the response paper?

Can you give us a link or a reference to that rebuttal please?

It was linked upthread. basically hand waving.

Interesting.

A few minutes with a search engine does indeed turn up something which might be characterized as "a rebuttal". By Mills.

What does not turn up, however, is any such published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (of course, there may well be just such a paper; if so, please feel free to cite it, markie).

That's rather strange, wouldn't you say?

Found this post and the Mills PDF is another source of ignorance and delusion!
On the first page he disses the Schrödinger equation as "a purely mathematical model of the electron" but his "model" is also purely mathematical eek:!
Mills seems ignorant about the Schrödinger equation again. The condition that the wave function goes to zero as radial distance increases is a statement the quantum system is local.
Mills lies about his model being based on experimental observation, e.g. no observations that measure the properties of his orbitsphere.

The PDF is a long 165-odd jaw-dropp) page regurgitation of his mathematics (see above!) that almost ignores Rathke's paper. A few unsupported assertions and that is all.

Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 1 is a WP "behind the scenes" page (no need for a tutorial on how WP works, right?).

From 2005.

Search for "Mills has put out a response to Rathke in which he asserts that it is Rathke who has made the errors" to find both a link to a giant PDF and some extracts (quotes) from it. Lots of interesting stuff there ... I wonder if perhaps markie was one of the ones promoting Mills' ideas there too?

"basically hand waving" - you're too kind Aepervius; I think RC is closer to the mark, "another source of ignorance and delusion".

 

[JeanTate]

Why another 5 years? And that seems to fly in the face of his claims that he has already had working generators?

<snip>

Not only had them, but also had a commercial contract to supply one (some?) ... in 2009.

I wonder what the "cancel without penalty" clauses of that contract were?

 

[jsfisher]

For your benefit, when I said that RC was "so wrong it isn't even funny", it was in regard to his interpretation that Mills' teaching on electron capture implied that ...

No it wasn't. Your post read nothing like that.

Remember what I posted about candor? Candor good; what you continue to do bad.

 

[markie]

(snip)

Another part of the "why" can be seen in markie's posts: he's an 18 year veteran of boosting Mills, and the way he responds to "skeptical critiques" is very interesting (as several ISF members has already noted) ... take a look at his initial response to RC's comment on what he found in "the book", for example.

Those 18 years include years when I wasn't watching BLP at all. It's been off and on. In the last few years it's been on, because I think Mills has finally hit on a winner.

Regarding RC, when he said

The best interpretation of that bit of gibberish in a page of nonsense is that he is trying to describe electron capture where "electron neutrino" = electron and "photon" = proton.

then yes his best interpretation is clearly wrong. Don't want to give people the wrong impression do we.

 

[Hans]

No wonder these types of scams go on for so long when we all get drawn into pointless discussions which really are not any different from discussing whether Superman can survive an nuclear blast.

Nuclear blasts exist, superman doesn't!

It might be quite entertaining and fun to discuss Mills theories but it matters not one whit whether his maths is right or wrong, the only discussion should be a question, "Do his generators work?"

He has claimed over decades that his generators work, he has claimed to have working models for decades, yet still cannot provide any that is the answer i.e. "no."

And by the way the idea that he is getting more energy out then he puts in is according to his own video not true, they have not yet been able to stop using external power to ..er.... power the "reaction!"

There you go getting all reasonable and logical. BAD Darat!

The only way for Mills to prove his 'ideas' is produce a product. He says he has but has never actually produced one.

I wonder if markie took that name because he is a 'mark'.

For non-native English speakers: 'Mark' means a victim or prospective victim of a swindle (3)

Kinda of the end of the story really.

 

[halleyscomet]

Yeah, but if he did, he could.

(Just for the record.)

Marginally:

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...-superman-to-shrivel-up-and-absorb-the-life-o

http://comicvine.gamespot.com/forum...lnerability-vs-nuclear-bomb-in-his-s-1615944/

 

[halleyscomet]

Fair question. I doubt I would ever seriously consider it was a scam. To me, Mills is a good man and a great man. I haven't heard of anyone who has worked with Mills who thinks he is a scammer. Now, he may be badly mistaken, and if he is, he has fooled himself and a lot of smart people. I can live with that. If Mills doesn't produce a commercial energy producing device in the next five years or so, that will upset my apple cart and I will seriously consider he is mistaken, at least about hydrino.

He's been promising to be a few months from a production unit for nearly 30 years.

If he isn't a con man, he's incompetent to the point where he has no business trying to commercialize ANTYING.

"Liar" is probably the most charitable term one could apply to someone who has been making the promises he's been making for as long as he's been making them.

 

[halleyscomet]

You imply that merely calling someone wrong amounts to 'insults'. Yet you have no problem calling visitors with different views "woo-woo nutters and quacks".

You are engaging in a false equivalence. You do not know the context of the discussions to which I'm referring, so you have no way of assessing the criteria by which I call them "woo-woo nutters and quacks." You, however, are posting impotent insults to defend a man who has spent nearly 30 years claiming to be a few months from a commercial product.

Taking his public statements into account, Mills is either a con artist or too incompetent to be entrusted with managerial oversight over any of the projects he's been working on. He has left no room for a third option. Regardless of which path you choose, you have to be a rank moron to give money to a man with a nearly 30 year track record of 100% failure.

 

[halleyscomet]

Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 1 is a WP "behind the scenes" page (no need for a tutorial on how WP works, right?).

From 2005.

Search for "Mills has put out a response to Rathke in which he asserts that it is Rathke who has made the errors" to find both a link to a giant PDF and some extracts (quotes) from it. Lots of interesting stuff there ... I wonder if perhaps markie was one of the ones promoting Mills' ideas there too?

"basically hand waving" - you're too kind Aepervius; I think RC is closer to the mark, "another source of ignorance and delusion".

Damn. The link produces a 404 error. Did anyone manage to snag a copy of the PDF before it was pulled? It looks like a LOT of those links are dead now.

RIP: http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/PhysicalSolutionsNatureofAtomPhoton060805.pdf

Update:

A mirror of their site reveals no links to a similarly named PDF. It looks like Mills has successfully scrubbed the file from the Internet.

Funny how his surrogates here kept mentioning he wrote a rebuttal when Mills himself seems to have pulled the rebuttal from public view. I guess his fans here have more faith in the Mills rebuttal than Mills did himself.

 

[Darat]

Maybe, maybe not.

I think there's considerable value in exploring why Mills has been able to make his claims about a Free Energy Generator, and its commercialization, for so long, and to attract so many $millions from investors.

And I think his "theories" (they're not, as the term is used in science; that too is part of the "why") are an important (perhaps crucial) part of the "why".


...snip...

I disagree - his science is nothing but the blarney. Many scammers come out with similar crap to try and blind with science. It matters not whether the blarney has any actual science behind it.

 

[halleyscomet]

Mills and his claims got very succinctly roasted in /r/askscience earlier in 20016

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4t4ufy/company_brilliant_light_power_brlp_claims_they/

It links to a rather scathing Forbes article about Mills and his shenanigans:

Warning Signs For Energy Technology Investors 3: Yes, They Can Be That Stupid

BLP even has a very quiet subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/

 

[Horatius]

Now, he may be badly mistaken, and if he is, he has fooled himself and a lot of smart people.

The problem with that is, his behavior isn't that of someone who is honestly mistaken.

I've done work on people who try to patent things like perpetual motion machines. They can generally be divided into three classes:

1. The honest but mistaken
2. The delusional/crazy
3. The scammers

Each class approaches the process of obtaining patents in distinct ways. Mills' approach is entirely consistent with Class 3, and totally inconsistent with Classes 1 and 2. And that's been consistent for his entire career.

 

[Hans]

He's been promising to be a few months from a production unit for nearly 30 years.

If he isn't a con man, he's incompetent to the point where he has no business trying to commercialize ANTYING.

"Liar" is probably the most charitable term one could apply to someone who has been making the promises he's been making for as long as he's been making them.

One could also theorize that he (Mills) is deluded dreamer that other around him are using to make money.