Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[halleyscomet]

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

It's a possibility.

According to some of the reports. he owned a 91-acre farm at one point. I wonder if he still owns it...

 

[Craig B]

That will generate even more power as the light will be moving at the speed of light PLUS the speed you drive.

Will it? Is this a joke?

 

[jadebox]

But after that it [the hydrino] is hard to detect, even in the lab. You have to know what to look for, and therefore how to look for it.

Like N-rays?

-- Roger

 

[halleyscomet]

Like N-rays?



-- Roger

EXACTLY like N-rays.

 

[Darat]

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



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

What do you mean "finally hit on a winner", if you are basing that on what he has said he produced that winner 20 years ago. Or do you access to non public information about his previous "winners"?

 

[CriticalThanking]

Will it? Is this a joke?

Yes, he meant it as a joke. Instead, point 2 light beams at one another, meaning their approach speed is twice the speed of light and therefore double the energy.

 

[hecd2]

I can see that bound electrons are treated as spherical surfaces (with non-uniform charge and mass density, characterised by spherical multipoles defined on the associated Legendre polynomials) in the Introduction (I.63 to I.65). (By the way, these expressions are the ones that Rathke shows are not solutions to the wave equation - don't forget to give us a link or reference to Mills's rebuttal).

However in Chapter 10, the chapter where Mills ostensibly works out the orbital radius and ionisation potential of atoms with electrons numbering from three to 20, he treats the electron as a point particle...Given that one foundation of his hypothesis is that the electron exists as an infinite series of multipoles on a sphere, and that in this chapter, in which he performs the trumpeted task of predicting the ionisation potentials of a vast number of multi-electron atoms up to 20 electrons, he treats the electron as a point mass and charge (in other words, as a point particle), then there seems to be a rather disturbing inconsistency in his hypothesis. Since his predictions are plainly based on conditions which are grossly inconsistent with his foundational idea, then aren't we justified in raising our eyebrows?

I see what you mean, the he is using formulae that are conventionally for point charges. I don't think that necessarily means the same formula wouldn't apply. For example, if that infinitesimal point was ever so slightly extended to a tiny two dimensional patch, it may work out the same, then, by extension to an entire orbitsphere. I'm just guessing at Mills' logic here, which doesn't seem explicit.

Well isn't that lame? It's not even vaguely plausible that he could integrate on the sphere as you describe, and get the same result as a point charge orbiting the nucleus (which is what the expressions in question describe, as plain as the nose on your face).

He could only do that if the putative extended electron had some unphysical characteristics. It would have to have uniform mass and charge density (OK, that part's easy). The magnitudes of the mass velocity and current vectors would have to be everywhere the same, and everywhere have zero divergence (in order to maintain the uniform density condition). These are not criteria which can be met on a 2-sphere (see for example the hairy ball theorem - every smooth vector field on a sphere has at least one singular point - where the field goes to zero). He is quite unjustified in using these expressions for a point particle, and I'm justified in reiterating the fundamental internal inconsistency of his "theory".

 

[Reality Check]

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

Maybe you have still not read or understood what Mills wrote in his book or even my posts !

21 February 2017: Page 1509 on the composition of the universe has the ignorant gibberish of "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon.".
That is not "teaching on electron capture". It is ignorant gibberish.
My charitable interpretation was that it could be typos: "electron neutrino" = electron and "photon" = proton". But given the gibberish is repeated and the ignorance and delusions in the rest of book, this is unlikely.

25 January 2017: A long list of abysmally ignorant criticism of the Schrödinger equation on page 15
20 February 2017: Page 1638 A lie of "Quantum mechanics failed to predict the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment" when the experiment was before the new QM (old QM did not include spin)!
20 February 2017: Mills delusion that what QM explains can be explained by classical physics.
20 February 2017: Mills delusion that an electron with a measured radius of less than a proton is as big as an atom.
20 February 2017: Why Mills papers suggest an ignored crank idea.
25 January 2017: Mills idiocy of trying to throw away quantum mechanics for purely classical physics.
21 February 2017: Ignorantly using the Haus condition for a collection of point particles on a single particle he imagines to have extent.

Page 1638 "Inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics" onward has more ignorance, lies and gibberish.
23 February 2017: Page 1638: 1) A lie since quantum electrodynamics does explain the nonradiation of bound electrons.
23 February 2017: Page 1638: 2) Gibberish about SR and "electric energy".
23 February 2017: Page 1638: 3) is half a lie with "solutions of negative rest mass and negative kinetic energy". The Dirac equation allows solutions with negative energy. In quantum field theory they appear as annihilation operators. This is an experimentally verified QED feature since electrons exist and annihilate with positrons.
23 February 2017: Page 1638: 4) is half a lie. In QED electron mass is a parameter, not a prediction. Computation of quantities did lead to infinities but renormalization removes them
23 February 2017: Page 1638: 5) is ignorant. Dirac's sea is an outdated concept that is not used in QED. QED starts with an actual vacuum with no particles at all in it.
23 February 2017: Page 1638: The Lamb shift is actually called the Lamb shift (not "so called") !
23 February 2017: Page 1638: Argument from (dead) authority - Dirac's opinion about renormalization does not makes its successes invalid.
23 February 2017: Page 1638: A lie that modern quantum mechanism is not based on "physical laws".
23 February 2017: Page 1639: A lie that modern quantum mechanism is not predictive - QED has the bet tested prediction in physics!
23 February 2017: Page 1639: A lie that modern QM has not dealt with the nature or structure of fundamental particles. The empirical evidence for their nature and structure is the foundation of QM.
23 February 2017: Page 1639: Irrelevant rant about "certain philosophical interpretations" that are actually the scientific interpretations of QM.

Need I go on !

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Well, you could always try the link in ms' post ...

 

[hecd2]

Well, you could always try the link in ms' post ...

The abstract does not begin with the same words as the now memory-holed one. Were there two separate rebuttals?

 

[JeanTate]

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/

Thanks for this!

The first link includes a link to a "Good Math, Bad Math" blog post, dated 29 December, 2011 Hydrinos: Impressive Free Energy Crackpottery

 

[JeanTate]

The abstract does not begin with the same words as the now memory-holed one. Were there two separate rebuttals?

I do not know.

However, there are quotes from the "memory-holed one" in the WP Archive page I provided a link to earlier, and the PDF in ms' post's link is (as of a few minutes' ago) still available. I'll see what sorts of similarities there are ...

ETA: The four text strings in the WP Archive do exist in the "ms PDF" (modulo spaces etc). However, they are on completely different pages (the ones from the "ms PDF" are all in the Conclusion section). So there's certainly some similarity, but no doubt that they are, in fact, two distinct "Rathke rebuttals".

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding RC, when he said



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

Really?

Would you care to explain, in some detail please? Perhaps you could start by quoting (copy/pasting) a relevant para or two from the source ...

I'd like to second what jsfisher wrote:

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

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

FWIW, markie, when I've taken the trouble to fact-check what you've posted here in this thread, I've been somewhat surprised at how often I mentally awarded you at least two pinocchios ...

 

[Reality Check]

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

You are right, markie. I withdraw my "best interpretation" to make it clear to people that Mills write ignorant gibberish in his book.
The next Mills fairy story: Page 1509 on the composition of the universe has the ignorant gibberish of "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon.".

 

[Aepervius]

It's a possibility.

According to some of the reports. he owned a 91-acre farm at one point. I wonder if he still owns it...

It was his father's although I assume in the intervening 30 years his father probably dead of age.

 

[halleyscomet]

You are right, markie. I withdraw my "best interpretation" to make it clear to people that Mills write ignorant gibberish in his book.

The next Mills fairy story: Page 1509 on the composition of the universe has the ignorant gibberish of "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon.".

That's not science. That's a word salad.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Project much? I'm not the one assuming the worst in people.

One thing about manipulative people - behind their little "zinger" put-downs are pretty childish tactics. In this case, when you point out the childish thief's behavior, the thief says "you call everyone a thief".

No, just the people stealing money.

Tens of millions of dollars over 30 years, and just show me the tears he's shed for a single person or a single dollar. A key insight on these dark triad personalities: Zero empathy for others. You can't feel bad about stealing.

I can't do that to people. But I do study personality disorders/character disorders and am happy to inform skeptics that understanding these personality types is very important in understanding their "work".

We are instructed that nobody knows better than the con man that he is lying. Uri Geller knows he cannot bend spoons. Voodoo chicken-liver palmers know they are not pulling organs out of humans. Spirit channelers know they are not talking to the dead, etc.

This man has not one whit of belief in his product. He has a belief in the con-game he is playing, and it has been a remarkable run. That's why even a high-school level business plan hasn't been put together in over three decades.

 

[Darat]

It was his father's although I assume in the intervening 30 years his father probably dead of age.

Or hydrino poisonings?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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!"

Exactly so. It's sure fascinating to watch.

They blow a filament. Markie is mocking that term, but it is precisely what they are doing. Someone used the expression "carnival" level puffery, yes. Amazing.

A con man has to act cool and collected while saying outrageous things. But under that cool exterior what you have is a predator who has no scruples about lying to dupe people out of money.

 

[SezMe]

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.

What has changed? What new idea or device has come into being that allows you to think he "has finally hit on a winner". And what about that new thing differentiates it from the previous decades of ideas or devices?

ETA: Darat asked much the same.