Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[LTC8K6]

Over 3 years ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768299&postcount=58

 

[LTC8K6]

Don't worry, soon you won't have to fumble. And, the phase in of hydrino technology is going to take a lot of time. Perhaps in ten years your electricity costs will have decreased by fifty percent. Whoopie.

Your confidence seems quite muted now.

 

[bruto]

50 percent, maybe, in ten years. That's going to be a hard sell compared to solar, especially in ten years.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Over 3 years ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768299&postcount=58

That post needs to be addressed by proponents, and not handwaved.

 

[jonesdave116]

From the "independent" (lol) report:

We fabricated and tested CIHT cells capable of continuously producing net electrical output that confirmed the fifty-fold stable power density increase and hydrino as the product.”

Really? How did they do this? And if, in some fantasy world (the same one that Mills and Markie appear to inhabit), they had actually done this, why, in the name of all that is scientific, would they issue a dry, technical report, that isn't even within the peer reviewed scientific literature? This would undoubtedly be the biggest scientific breakthrough since Rutherford split the atom, or Einstein's GR/ SR. And they issue a tech report that nobody will see, or hear of!!!!
I'm sorry, but this BS just gets sillier the more I hear of it. It is almost certainly a con. The only other option is that Mills and his "independent" testers are unbelievably incompetent. I favour the former option.

 

[jonesdave116]

Something else I stumbled across, which may or may not have been mentioned before:

From the book 'The Arts of Truth' by Rud Istvan, 2012, referring to Mills' accepted patent application (prior to the second one being initially accepted and then withdrawn):

It contains exactly one reference to an experiment confirming hydrinos; a 1995 Mills paper published in a cold fusion journal that went defunct in 2001 after that phenomenon was debunked. Below is the issued patent's exact citation:
The article by Mills and Good <reference snipped> describes the determination of excess heat release during the electrolysis of aqueous potassium carbonate by the very accurate and reliable method of heat measurement, flow calorimetry; describes the experimental identification of hydrogen atoms in fractional quantum energy levels--hydrinos--by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS)....

The invention of XPS won a Nobel Prize in 1981. XPS cannot detect hydrogen or helium; it only works for lithium and heavier elements. Mills' paper cannot have measured what it claims using XPS. The bamboozled patent examiner overlooked this rather important detail.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...&q=dr. peter jansson rowan university&f=false
(scroll up a bit)

Seems rather similar to something I've heard before. Oh yes, that would be Kunze (2008) having to point out that the spectrometer used in other papers that Mills published simply wasn't capable of making measurements at the wavelengths he was claiming to detect. That is, those produced by his fictional hydrinos.
In short, when you pick away at claims of detections, it seems they simply don't exist. Indeed, can't even be detected by Mills apparatus. And when you pick further away at "independent" verifications, they turn out to be not so independent. Indeed, not even verifications.
Fair play to Mills, though, he's conned a lot of investors, and no doubt done quite well for himself out of this long running scam.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There is a small subset of the academic world that has validated Mills' findings. For the rest of the physical chemistry academic world, they either don't know about it, or are content to wait and see. You far overestimate the responsiveness of academia to external challenge and change. They are largely preoccupied with their own matters.

There is another subset of the academic world called post-graduate students who are preoccupied with finding novel fields to study. Most of them more capeable scientists than the apparently bumbling Dr Mills.

But they wont see details of Mills' validations because they are not scrupulously detailed reports of methods and what they did to rule out other explanations, laid out in a manner that other scientists may follow, and published in a journal beffiting such a profound discovery.

You can understand what we are saying here, cant you. You know this is all a load of crap.

 

[Horatius]

Over 3 years ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768299&postcount=58

That post needs to be addressed by proponents, and not handwaved.

Yes, that's a near-perfect example of why the independent confirmation that markie sneers at is so essential. Note that, as the independence of the team attempting confirmation increases, their positive results decrease. Which is exactly what we'd expect if this were all a mistake or a scam, and the exact opposite of what we'd expect if this were a real phenomenon.

And for what it's worth, is just about exactly what we saw when Pons and Fleischmann attempted to confirm their original Cold Fusion results.

 

[hecd2]

And for what it's worth, is just about exactly what we saw when Pons and Fleischmann attempted to confirm their original Cold Fusion results.

At least Pons and Fleischmann appear to have been honestly mistaken, and published enough details of what they were doing to allow dozens of labs to repeat their work in the months following their announcement. And a significant proportion of the replications reported positive (or at least anomalous) results, although a small majority reported negative results. It took a little while longer for the consensus to be reached that there was nothing there.

 

[Myriad]

At least Pons and Fleischmann appear to have been honestly mistaken, and published enough details of what they were doing to allow dozens of labs to repeat their work in the months following their announcement. And a significant proportion of the replications reported positive (or at least anomalous) results, although a small majority reported negative results. It took a little while longer for the consensus to be reached that there was nothing there.

Yep. And the nature of those anomalous and positive results, mostly caused by subtle chemical and physical effects within the electrodes that were not accounted for at first, resulting in "excess" energy being reported, is instructive for the case at hand.

Mills's reactors involve an ever-changing variety of electrode materials and atmospheric conditions, unspecified "ignition" mechanisms, very high low-voltage electrical currents, and temperatures beyond the normal usage or failure temperatures for such materials and devices. I doubt Mills (or anyone, for that matter) has the expertise to accurately account for the energy balance of all the chemical and physical reactions within his cells as they melt down and burn out (in a "continuous" way, of course ). Even if he actually wanted or intended to do that.

That's why I liken their reported power outputs to those of house fires. There's usually plenty of "excess" energy available by incinerating your test apparatus.

 

[hecd2]

Yep. And the nature of those anomalous and positive results, mostly caused by subtle chemical and physical effects within the electrodes that were not accounted for at first, resulting in "excess" energy being reported, is instructive for the case at hand.

Mills's reactors involve an ever-changing variety of electrode materials and atmospheric conditions, unspecified "ignition" mechanisms, very high low-voltage electrical currents, and temperatures beyond the normal usage or failure temperatures for such materials and devices. I doubt Mills (or anyone, for that matter) has the expertise to accurately account for the energy balance of all the chemical and physical reactions within his cells as they melt down and burn out (in a "continuous" way, of course ). Even if he actually wanted or intended to do that.

That's why I liken their reported power outputs to those of house fires. There's usually plenty of "excess" energy available by incinerating your test apparatus.

Yes, and what's more the excess energy as reported by P&F was tiny and that led to the initial disagreement amongst researchers attempting to replicate.

But Mills claims vast quantities of excess energy, so any and every independent replication should reach the same conclusion (assuming there's something there other than the "house fire"), and once the Harvard and Princeton and UCLA and Cambridge and Imperial researchers have published their confirmations, then a Nobel prize, fame and fortune automatically follow.

 

[markie]

You don't know the temperature of the cells and you don't know the incident power density and the graphite dome is radiating off the peak sensitivity of the cells, so the claim that they'll be operating at above 40% efficiency is rubbish, isn't it?

CPV cells operate at about 40 percent efficiency in the field, and there is a lot of heat hitting them. So no, I don't think it's rubbish.

 

[halleyscomet]

CPV cells operate at about 40 percent efficiency in the field, and there is a lot of heat hitting them. So no, I don't think it's rubbish.

So who are the morons who invested $10 Million in Mills in the latest round of investment?

Where does he keep finding people who are that stupid with that much money?

 

[markie]

Utter rubbish. Do you know how many labs around the world attempted to independently verify the Pons and Fleischmann claims? Do you know how many published the results of their independent verifications? If academia think there is something revolutionary in claims they'll drop everything to test it. In this case they don't, because apart from a few paid shills, everyone who is qualified can see what complete garbage Mills's claims are.

ETA: Multiply ninja'd up-thread.

Pons and Fleischmann was a different time, different scenario. The claim came from academia, from a university, and came from someone (Fleischmann) who was very well known and highly regarded in the physical chemistry field. Of course the claim was taken seriously.

Mills is operating in an almost entirely different context. Also, the waters have been poisoned since P&F. Universities don't want their reputation soiled.

 

[markie]

It is striking how in many ways this revolutionary technology and the paradigm shaking scientific discovery upon which it is founded are portrayed so mundanely by its supporters.

After over 20 years Mills supporters like myself are quite used to the idea of a paradigm shift. Actually it's more like a paradigm reversal. Mills theory is much more conservative that QM. And we're sober enough to know that the consequences of such a shift do not happen overnight.

 

[markie]

In the visible and the ultraviolet?!! Put that spade down.

And rovibrational transitions is not what the patent claims.

Haven't looked at the patent(s?), just responding to the mistaken idea that hydrino doesn't emit photons. May reply later on this as time permits.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Pons and Fleischmann was a different time, different scenario. ...

But according to you, multiple scientists have seen concrete proof of the existence of a fractional energy state (hydrinos). I would think that that would definitely get their attention.

Also, the waters have been poisoned since P&F. Universities don't want their reputation soiled.

Are the universities so paranoid that, even with concrete evidence of the existence of fractional energy states, that they won't take any risks? They don't have to attempt to replicate an experiment, where the replication might not work. They just have to be able to demonstrate that hydrino gas has [fill in properties here], and they can get hydrino gas from Mills.

 

[markie]

In addition to the comments above, this statement in laughably ignorant on another level as well: Imagining that "Finding the hydrino" is the only "discovery" that replicating BLP's work could lead to, so why bother if it's already been found?

As we've pointed out many times before in this thread, if the hydrinos were real, they would inevitably lead to many world-shattering discoveries, all of which have been ignored by BLP, and any one of which would be more than enough to build a career on for an up-and-coming science student. So the idea that such students wouldn't be interested because "It's already been done" is nonsense.

Others have mentioned the interest in Cold Fusion that was shown back in the day. My favorite example is contemporaneous with that: High temperature superconductors. Ceramic based HTCs were discovered in the late 80s, and instead of everyone else going "Drat, they beat us to it!", they instead spawned a vigorous research community that is still producing new work today.

A single, ground-breaking discovery is the start of the scientific work, not the end of it.

If the discovery is real, of course.

As an aside, note that high temperature superconductivity was not anticipated by QM.

Mills recently did a lecture to students. He is anticipating that they will be the ones working on the repercussions and applications of his classical theory.

 

[markie]

The magical Hydrino^TM, what can't Mills claim they'll do?

Well technically it is not a hydrino but rather a free electron, of the hyperbolic space geometry kind.

 

[Horatius]

Universities don't want their reputation soiled.

Which Universities had their "reputations soiled" by trying to replicate P&F?

And exactly why would trying to replicate Mills cause their reputation to be soiled? Exactly how does that work?

"We proved once and for all that Mills is an utter fraud who has been bilking investors for decades. The State's Attorney has thanked us for our public service, and has commenced prosecution of Mills et al. on the basis of our evidence."

"We proved once and for all that Mills is an unsung genius who has revolutionized all of science as we have known it, and provided an easy route to cheap, clean, plentiful energy for the foreseeable future. We look forward to the bright future that ongoing collaborations with Mills will surely create."


Which of those extremes will soil their reputation? Where in the middle does the soiling start and/or finish?

And would the reality, "Yeah, we paid a couple of grad students to try and replicate it, but the thing just sat there looking odd" soil anyone's "reputation"?