Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[Reality Check]

Only Mills and this theory have the key to provide the fitting answers.

You know very well that Mills ignorant and deluded theory does not explain anything.

 

[Reality Check]

41 items of ignorance and some lies from markie from his blind faith in Mills.

1. 5 Jun 2018 markie: Ignorantly parrots a Mills delusion that neutrinos are massless when they are measured to have mass.
   
2. 5 Jun 2018 markie: Ignorantly parrots a Mills delusion that massless neutrinos change flavors through interaction with matter.
   
3. 5 June 2018 markie: An irrelevant question not to do with his parroting of Mills lies or the lies in Mills book.
   
4. 5 June 2018 markie: A "I really doubt their mass has been measured" lie when I linked to the measurement of their masses (mass difference squared)!
   
5. 7 June 2018 markie: Brings up the idiocy of Holverstott's book!
   
6. 7 June 2018 markie: Denies the documented evidence of "god of the gaps" thinking in Mills many papers.
   
7. 11 June 2018 markie: Parrots Mills lies about a Witteborn and Fairbank letter (it was a failure to measure the gravitational mass of electrons).
   
8. 11 June 2018 markie: Parrots a Mills delusion that electrons can have no gravitational mass.
   
9. 11 June 2018 markie: More parroting of Mills delusions in chapters 34 and 35.
   
10. 11 June 2018 markie: A delusion that Mills explained why the Witteborn explanation was untenable.
    
11. 12 June 2018 markie: Makes Mills lies about the Witteborn and Fairbank experiment more explicit.
    
12. 12 June 2018 markie: A lie about Mills delusions making predictions for the experiment on free falling electrons

Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper

5 June 2018: Page 1580: A delusion of a "fifth" force producing a sort of antigravity.

5 June 2018: Page 1591: Insane gibberish about quarks and gluons, e.g. "orbitspheres" and "trapped photons".

5 June 2018: Page 1591: A lie about the radius of a proton which is ~0.8 fm (proton rms charge radius) not 1.3 fm.

12 June 2018: Page 1563: The lying delusion that free electrons have no gravitational mass.

12 June 2018: Page 1563: Mills lies that Witteborn et. al. 1967 measured the gravitational mass of freely falling electrons.

12 June 2018: Page 1563: Mills lies that the Schiff-Barnhill effect is on bound electrons.

12 June 2018: Page 1563: Mills is ignorant about the effects of gravity on the atomic lattice and other effects

12 June 2018: Page 1563: Mills free electrons = no gravitation mass delusion is truly delusional when chapter 34 is that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.

12 June 2018: Page 1558: An insane delusion of ""An electron is formed from a photon"!

12 June 2018: Page 1558: Gibberish about bound and free electrons and "positively curved, flat, or negatively curved" surfaces.

12 June 2018: Page 1563: Mills stupidity that a binding energy of electrons in metals can be just be compared to gravitational potential energy.

 

[Reality Check]

A unsupported assertion about the energy of copper electrodes, etc. burning

Nice try. It may sound reasonable on the surface, but oxidation of the equipment is out of the question as a significant source of energy.

25 June 2018 markie: A unsupported assertion of copper electrodes, etc. burning being unable to produce "significant" energy.

Read what you replied to, markie. The highlighted text is that the copper electrodes (not any silver) in the demo melted. Hot copper reacts with many things.

Silver is not a noble element. Just writing "oxidation of silver cannot be a source of significant energy" does not make it a fact.

You should be more worried abut what looks like Mills and his employees ignorance about silver's role as a catalyst of oxidation.

 

[davefoc]

...
12 June 2018: Page 1558: An insane delusion of ""An electron is formed from a photon"!
....

If Wikipedia is to be believed an electron/positron pair can be created from a photon with sufficient energy that is near an atomic nucleus.

I take it that this is not exactly what Millls is claiming with regard to this?

 

[davefoc]

25 June 2018 markie: A unsupported assertion of copper electrodes, etc. burning being unable to produce "significant" energy.

Read what you replied to, markie. The highlighted text is that the copper electrodes (not any silver) in the demo melted. Hot copper reacts with many things.

Silver is not a noble element. Just writing "oxidation of silver cannot be a source of significant energy" does not make it a fact.

You should be more worried abut what looks like Mills and his employees ignorance about silver's role as a catalyst of oxidation.

I wrote this for the Wikipedia article:

In 1996, NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported, which, whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.

I think this supports Markie's claim that experiments are done that sometimes have unexplained heat production and I think it supports Reality Check's idea that unaccounted oxidation could be an explanation for so called unexplained heat production. Or maybe I'm just confused.

Assuming I'm not confused this goes to the heart of the dispute I think. Measuring heat production in short lived experiments and accounting for all the possible causes is difficult. The simple solution to this problem is to run the mechanism that has an unexplained short lived excess energy creation continuously. Mills's claims that he has something ready for productization before that step has been accomplished is either an act of fraud or an act of gross unjustified faith in his theories. Perhaps Markie would agree with that?

 

[markie]

By all means please show the measurements of such "mass differential" for all the materials cited and their direct relation to the energy produced.

"the mass of the water used in the slurry, let alone the mass of slurry."? Do you contend that the entirety of those masses were converted to energy?

"the mass of the hydrated silver pellet in the pan"? Do you contend that the entirety of that mass was converted to energy?

What happens to "any cumulative mass damage to the electrodes"?

Hint: some of it is deposited on other surfaces. Something to keep in mind as your work up your actual deeper than the surface analysis.

Whether it is a pellet on a pan that is ignited, and spectroscopic measurements made of optical power output, or whether it is a pellet in a bomb calorimeter and measurements made of heat output after ignition, the protocol is similar: One looks up enthalpies of formation and determines the maximum possible exothermic reactions that could take place given the chemical constituents of the pellet. So one would expect that the energy actually produced in the explosion to be less than theoretical. But what if it is more, much more? You say that it is the result of apparently unforeseen oxidation of the parts of the apparatus. If so, you should be contacting bomb calorimetry specialists and letting them know.

I am not contending that mass is converted to energy. (In chemistry, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of electrons. In our nuclear power, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of nucleons. ) All I'm contending is that the possible conventional exothermic reactions from the pellet far surpass any such reactions from the container apparatus. You seem to be postulating the reverse.

 

[markie]

I wrote this for the Wikipedia article:
I think this supports Markie's claim that experiments are done that sometimes have unexplained heat production and I think it supports Reality Check's idea that unaccounted oxidation could be an explanation for so called unexplained heat production. Or maybe I'm just confused.

Before silver Mills was using other hydrated metals, and they too worked. Silver was chosen in part because it was especially non reactive at high temperatures.

Assuming I'm not confused this goes to the heart of the dispute I think. Measuring heat production in short lived experiments and accounting for all the possible causes is difficult. The simple solution to this problem is to run the mechanism that has an unexplained short lived excess energy creation continuously. Mills's claims that he has something ready for productization before that step has been accomplished is either an act of fraud or an act of gross unjustified faith in his theories. Perhaps Markie would agree with that?

In short, I don't agree.
Mills has faith in his theories, alright. But, it is not unjustified imo. And, he is a can - do, optimistic type of person. Such people are known to overlook potential obstacles. So it is a good idea to tone down his forecasts imo. That's all.

I agree that a solution is to run the energy producing mechanism long term, continuously, at relatively high power, with reagents recycled rather than vented. Makes energy inventory clear. But, it is not simple. Another solution is to produce hydrino compounds in bulk. Judging by the look of things lately, the latter may occur sooner than the former.

 

[davefoc]

..
Mills has faith in his theories, alright. But, it is not unjustified imo. And, he is a can - do, optimistic type of person. Such people are known to overlook potential obstacles. So it is a good idea to tone down his forecasts imo. That's all.
...

It seems that you agree with me, at least partially. Mills ideas about productization were based on unjustified optimism. I think that unjustified optimism lie at the heart of why he ignores contrary evidence and maintains faith in his theories although I don't rule out the possibility that he is a conscious fraud. You think that the unjustified optimism only applied to the part of the process that involves productization. I don't know why you think he has unjustified optimism in one part of the process and not another part of the process. I see it as good evidence that his analytical capability is so skewed by his confirmation bias that it is not reasonable to trust any of his claims.

 

[Reality Check]

I take it that this is not exactly what Millls is claiming with regard to this?

Mills wrote in the start of a "the fifth force" chapter (actually page 1557)

An electron is formed from a photon, and it can only change its bound states in discrete quantized steps caused by a photon at each step.

What he means is that his "orbitsphere" thingy is a sort of bound photon that he imagines to be to be a sphere with the charge, spin and mass of an electron.

Page 68: "When an electron is formed from a photon as given in the Leptons section, the angular momentum is conserved in the projections of the orthogonal great circle current loops that serve as the basis elements of the orbitsphere."

Page 1585: LEPTONS: "Only three lepton particles can be formed from photons corresponding to the Planck equation energy..."

Mills particle production gibberish is different. It appears in his Gravity section!
"During particle production, a particle having the gravitational escape velocity g v is formed from a photon traveling at the speed of light."

There is also "Only three quark families can be formed from photons..."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That kind of 'continuous' is only continuous relative to a single explosion. They had silver continuously injected in between electrodes for a continuous, but short, reaction. The idea of the experiment was to show that the nature of energy release in a continuous reaction was similar to the energy from the explosion of a single pellet. It should be a given that when I said continuous I meant for a prolonged period of time, not something on the order of seconds.

You're equivocating. Or Mills is. Or both.

Yeah and if you walk into a room after closing the door behind you that's overunity as well. How silly.

I don't think you understand what a closed system is.

You can't keep using terms that have specific definitions to mean something other than those definitions. At least not if you want to give the impression that a) you know what you're talking about and b) that you're being honest.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Oh that interview from early 2014. That was when Mills was exploding hydrated metal slurry between large rotating electrodes. Yes that was somewhat continuous, in that it could run for, what, a minute or so, as long as the slurry was fed in. He did demo a proof of concept device to an audience at BLP shortly after that interview. But it ultimately had problems in that the electrodes were being damaged, and the amount of slurry that would have to be used for a closed system - with recycled, rehydrated slurry - was on the order of 100 kg if I recall.

All of which is entirely beside the point. Let's go back a few days, to the point when you stated,

Through the years Mills has attempted perhaps 5 distinct methods of coaxing hydrogen to drop to a lower energy state in a way that would be continuous and of sufficient power density. No luck so far.

I responded that that is clearly untrue, since the 'clunker' (as you put it) exhibited both extremely high energy density and continuous operation, both per Mills's interview. You immediately attempted to sidetrack the conversation by bringing up the photonics/kinetics distinction.

I've referred to that pre prototype device earlier in this thread as the 'clunker' as I recall. Those were the days when Mills was considering MHD, and before he realized the reaction was more light producing than it was kinetic, that is, explosive.

It was a nice bit of deflection, and I partly fell for it. When I requested that you support it, I played into your hands, to my embarrassment. I should immediately have made clear that, regardless of source, if it were true it would provide further proof that Mills did NOT change course, dump at least a year of effort and take up yet another completely new approach because he could not operate "in a way that would be continuous and of sufficient power density. "

Another way to put it is that dropping the MHD approach, with its' claimed 90% efficiency, was not "just" dropping MHD, it also dropped the hydrated slurry approach and went haring off on a different tack entirely. Without the motive/excuse which you so assuredly claim.

Why would I lie about that?

Because, in making your claim about the arc of Mills's efforts, you were using the time-honored technique of Just Making Stuff Up. And as far as I can tell, you still are, and are fighting tooth and nail to avoid admitting it.

And why do you make it seem it is an either/or proposition between photonic and kinetic (moving plasma), when it is both?

Because, as I've said, it is part of a larger decision, that of unceremoniously dropping at least a year of work without acknowledging the reason. And yes, it IS a binary decision: hydrated slurry or molten silver.

I suppose I could dig through the Yahoo group and find where Mills said c2014 that on further analysis he found more energy was produced in light energy than in moving plasma. But what's the point? What difference would it make to you, really?

Note that finding that statement would not answer the original question. In light of Mills's statements about 90% efficiency in the MHD process, it would call into question Mills's competence, if not his honesty. But it would establish that, even without Just Making Stuff Up, your recollection and analysis of Mills's efforts is badly flawed. If you cannot remember accurately the last Paradigm Shift from Mills, why should anyone take your word on the previous cases?

You speak as if Mills is not fully aware of the inefficiencies of producing electricity from heat energy. He knows much more than you or I on the matter.

Mills is also quite aware of the inefficiencies of harvesting light energy from a blackbody radiator. This is no doubt why he is revisiting the MHD concept for electricity production. But the SunCell as a simple heater will come first.

And now you're doing it again. You know, Just Making Stuff Up. The Suncell is not and never has been a simple heater. A simple heater doesn't need photoelectrics which add cost and complexity with no improvement on efficiency.

"This is no doubt why he is revisiting the MHD concept". Now that's a nice bit of self-assured blather. "No doubt" in whose mind? Yours? And what, exactly, are your qualifications? You've never made this clear. You can't even keep the details of Mills's motivations consistent, yet you expect others to simply accept your oracular pronouncements.

How about you tell me what it would do for you if I provided it?

It's never a good idea to respond to a request to cite your sources with that sort of patronizing displacement. From your point of view, doing so would cement your moral authority, and put a critic in his place. Why would my motives matter?

But I'll answer the question - it would confirm that you are unaware of the implications of your statements (but we knew that anyways). It would confirm that your eagerness to support Mills's positions, no matter how twisty or irrational (assuming honesty on his part), drives you to ignore your own statements and take up self-contradictory positions with assurance and certainty.

Granted, you now have a choice to make. Do you satisfy your own point of view, or mine?

 

[halleyscomet]

Anything current: Give him some time!
Anything not current: Oh that was a long time ago.

His strategy of constantly shifting course and changing methods seems to work really well for this kind of deflection. Still, you'd think his supporters would eventually ask why he has to shift around so much without ever actually producing anything commercial.

The people educated enough to ask those questions have already been filtered out by the Mills pitch. He appeals to morons who read sciency sounding things and are swayed not by a consistent theory, but BS that insists it's consistent. People who can see through his BS and nonsense never got to the point where the NEED to be asking questions like that.

It's similar to the bad spelling and grammar in 419 pitches. The goal is to filter out the people smart enough to not fall for the con.

From what I've seen, most die-hard Mills supporters tend towards conspiratorial thinking. The idea of being privy to "secret" knowledge is more important to most of them than if that "knowledge" is accurate. Trying to talk sense into most Mills supporters is like trying to talk sense into a #PizzaGate believer. In general, it's not going to happen. The theorist's belief in the theory, be it Reptillian shape shifters living under the Denver International Airport, Hydrinos, or #Pizzagate, is a religious belief, not an evidence based one.

 

[markie]

All of which is entirely beside the point. Let's go back a few days, to the point when you stated,

I responded that that is clearly untrue, since the 'clunker' (as you put it) exhibited both extremely high energy density and continuous operation, both per Mills's interview. You immediately attempted to sidetrack the conversation by bringing up the photonics/kinetics distinction.



It was a nice bit of deflection, and I partly fell for it. When I requested that you support it, I played into your hands, to my embarrassment. I should immediately have made clear that, regardless of source, if it were true it would provide further proof that Mills did NOT change course, dump at least a year of effort and take up yet another completely new approach because he could not operate "in a way that would be continuous and of sufficient power density. "

Another way to put it is that dropping the MHD approach, with its' claimed 90% efficiency, was not "just" dropping MHD, it also dropped the hydrated slurry approach and went haring off on a different tack entirely. Without the motive/excuse which you so assuredly claim.



Because, in making your claim about the arc of Mills's efforts, you were using the time-honored technique of Just Making Stuff Up. And as far as I can tell, you still are, and are fighting tooth and nail to avoid admitting it.



Because, as I've said, it is part of a larger decision, that of unceremoniously dropping at least a year of work without acknowledging the reason. And yes, it IS a binary decision: hydrated slurry or molten silver.



Note that finding that statement would not answer the original question. In light of Mills's statements about 90% efficiency in the MHD process, it would call into question Mills's competence, if not his honesty. But it would establish that, even without Just Making Stuff Up, your recollection and analysis of Mills's efforts is badly flawed. If you cannot remember accurately the last Paradigm Shift from Mills, why should anyone take your word on the previous cases?



And now you're doing it again. You know, Just Making Stuff Up. The Suncell is not and never has been a simple heater. A simple heater doesn't need photoelectrics which add cost and complexity with no improvement on efficiency.

"This is no doubt why he is revisiting the MHD concept". Now that's a nice bit of self-assured blather. "No doubt" in whose mind? Yours? And what, exactly, are your qualifications? You've never made this clear. You can't even keep the details of Mills's motivations consistent, yet you expect others to simply accept your oracular pronouncements.



It's never a good idea to respond to a request to cite your sources with that sort of patronizing displacement. From your point of view, doing so would cement your moral authority, and put a critic in his place. Why would my motives matter?

But I'll answer the question - it would confirm that you are unaware of the implications of your statements (but we knew that anyways). It would confirm that your eagerness to support Mills's positions, no matter how twisty or irrational (assuming honesty on his part), drives you to ignore your own statements and take up self-contradictory positions with assurance and certainty.

Granted, you now have a choice to make. Do you satisfy your own point of view, or mine?

Take a deep breath. Neither you or I, especially you, are privy to important details surrounding decisions Mills makes. Yet you continue to judge his motives.
You assume that Mills switch to silver was concurrent to the switch from MHD to photovoltaics. This is not the case. Mills was still using the mechanically driven slurry approach into the photovoltaic phase. He dropped the slurry approach for a much more elegant and compact molten and vapourized silver method.
Photovoltaics was easier, but it had it had obvious drawbacks. MHD requires more original work and will take longer, but now it appears Mills feels it will be worth it.

You say he is throwing away a year's worth of work. Hardly. The main work is the same: creating a closed, high energy, continuous system of energy generation. Regardless of the way that energy is harvested. So get a grip.

I am not contradicting myself, and neither is Mills. The story is more complex than you know.

Not that it will matter, but this is where Mills reported why he changed from an MHD approach to photovoltaic, from August 2014:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/2982

The earlier magnetohydrodynamic designs assumed a large portion of the energy would be released as thermal energy rather than radiative energy.

Pressure volume work from an expanding plasma.

But, the expanding plasma was measured to have a pressure of less than 2 PSIg which corresponds to about 1 J/ignition compared to greater than 500 J of light.

Now he is revisiting MHD, because in part (I surmise) the environment has changed; from a relatively low pressure vessel with exploding hydrating slurry, to a high pressure vessel with ionized silver plasma.

 

[jrhowell]

Photovoltaics was easier, but it had it had obvious drawbacks. MHD requires more original work and will take longer, but now it appears Mills feels it will be worth it.

You and Mills are trying to shift the focus to irrelevancies.

It is a complete waste of time to focus on engineering ways to exploit the energy released by the hydrino reaction when it has not yet been demonstrated in a unambiguous way that such a thing even exists.

After 30 years there is only one reasonable explanation for this behavior.

 

[halleyscomet]

Photovoltaics was easier, but it had it had obvious drawbacks.

For example, it's an incredibly stupid, inefficient idea that, at its best, would have yielded a fraction of the energy Mills could get from attaching an 1800's steam engine to the alleged heat source.

If I were an investor I'd be PISSED that this dingbat was wasting millions pursuing a design that meets some arbitrary concept of elegance when he could just STABILIZE THE REACTION AND HAVE A COMMERCIALLY VIABLE HEAT SOURCE!!!!

There are two possible interpretations for the lack of a commercial heater based on Hydrino technology.

1. Hydrinos aren't real, meaning Mills is a con man or a moron.

2. Mills is a narcissistic Steve Jobs wanna-be more interested in being a fussy little **** than producing a viable product.

3. Mills can't stabilize the reaction, meaning ANY AND ALL work on a commercial reactor design is not just premature, but presumptuous and futile to the point where any competent board of directors would remove him for wasting all that time and money. At best Mills is committing fraud if he uses claims of a stable reaction and a working prototype as part of his fund raising operations.

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

There you have it Markie. The situation in a nutshell. No amount of fawning posts about Mills is going to change reality. Reality is what reality is. And the reality is that Mills after more than twenty years has an unmitigated record of failure to prove any of his claims or meet any of his promises.

You have come to believe you have some special knowledge that allows you to see that in the midst of this unmitigated failure is some real accomplishments and discoveries. Why do you think you have this special knowledge? Are you a physicist or a chemist? Have you seen unequivocal independent experiments that bolster Mills's claims? Do you have experience in super precise heat measurement or spectroscopy? Have you met any of the people that have worked at BLP? Have you met the people that have been on the board that parroted Mills's claims who are now long gone from the board? Do you know what they have to say about their time at BLP?

I suspect the answer to all the above questions is no. You have come to believe Mills because part of your ego is wrapped up in this special knowledge you believe you have. But that special knowledge you believe you have may not be real. All over the internet there are people trumpeting their special knowledge that prove big foot exists or that the earth is flat. Sometimes we fool ourselves into believing we have special knowledge because we like to have special knowledge not be cause there is a reasoned objective reason to believe our special knowledge is true. Are you sure you haven't just fallen into the same kind of trap the flat earthers, the WTC conspiracy theorists and the bigfooters have?

 

[halleyscomet]

You say he is throwing away a year's worth of work. Hardly. The main work is the same: creating a closed, high energy, continuous system of energy generation. Regardless of the way that energy is harvested.

Because unless he's a con man Mills is a *********** moron who wouldn't know remedial business sense if it jumped up and bit off his nose.

If he had a prototype capable of sustaining a stable reaction he should have been selling it as a heat source 20 years ago.

He is a medical doctor playing physicist on someone else's dime. Even if his science were right, the last 30 years are proof he is incapable of developing a working product.

 

[davefoc]

...

If he had a prototype capable of sustaining a stable reaction he should have been selling it as a heat source 20 years ago.

...

This is perhaps the most important argument against the validity of Mills's claims. Mills doesn't need to be worried or even thinking about mechanisms for using the excess heat generation he claims for his inventions. Creating a new and powerful source of energy is more than enough. There is a vast world of people out there that know how to turn heat into electrical energy and there is a vast world of people out there that know how to use photons to generate electricity.

He just needs to produce an invention that can produce energy continuously with less resources than current methods and he will have secured his fame and fortune. And numerous times he has claimed that he has done exactly that. So where are these inventions that Mills's claims are based on? Why is he still putting out press releases instead of licensing his inventions? Far and away the most likely answer is the same answer that is true for all the other free energy guys: Because their claims are false and they don't know how to generate energy in any new or useful way.

Markie has all sorts of rationalizations as to why Mills hasn't produced a device to continuously produce power even though Mills claims he has invented them. Reality Check and others have gone into the nits of why Markie's rationalizations are not justified, but even without that kind of in depth knowledge the relentless misrepresentations of Mills and his failure to ever deliver on any of his promises is damning. It is just not possible to distinguish Mills from any other free energy scammer by the available evidence except that the BLP scam has lasted longer and has been better financed than most.

 

[The Man]

Whether it is a pellet on a pan that is ignited, and spectroscopic measurements made of optical power output, or whether it is a pellet in a bomb calorimeter and measurements made of heat output after ignition, the protocol is similar: One looks up enthalpies of formation and determines the maximum possible exothermic reactions that could take place given the chemical constituents of the pellet. So one would expect that the energy actually produced in the explosion to be less than theoretical. But what if it is more, much more?

Then, as I have said before, the calculation of the expected energy output is simply wrong.

You say that it is the result of apparently unforeseen oxidation of the parts of the apparatus.

No I haven't, but it is certainly a possibility to consider.

If so, you should be contacting bomb calorimetry specialists and letting them know.

Why? I'm quite familiar with calorimeters.

I am not contending that mass is converted to energy.

Then perhaps you should not have used mass as a delineating factor in your previous post.

(In chemistry, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of electrons. In our nuclear power, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of nucleons. ) All I'm contending is that the possible conventional exothermic reactions from the pellet far surpass any such reactions from the container apparatus. You seem to be postulating the reverse.

And yet as you just asserted above what if the generated power is greater than "the possible conventional exothermic reactions from the pellet". So again it simply means the total calculation of the expected energy output, including "the possible conventional exothermic reactions from the pellet" and the equipment is wrong. Their proportional relation to each other, particularly by mass, is irrelevant. As you seem now to assert you knew otherwise, why did you profess that before?

 

[markie]

This is perhaps the most important argument against the validity of Mills's claims. Mills doesn't need to be worried or even thinking about mechanisms for using the excess heat generation he claims for his inventions. Creating a new and powerful source of energy is more than enough. There is a vast world of people out there that know how to turn heat into electrical energy and there is a vast world of people out there that know how to use photons to generate electricity.

He just needs to produce an invention that can produce energy continuously with less resources than current methods and he will have secured his fame and fortune. And numerous times he has claimed that he has done exactly that. So where are these inventions that Mills's claims are based on? Why is he still putting out press releases instead of licensing his inventions? Far and away the most likely answer is the same answer that is true for all the other free energy guys: Because their claims are false and they don't know how to generate energy in any new or useful way.

Markie has all sorts of rationalizations as to why Mills hasn't produced a device to continuously produce power even though Mills claims he has invented them. Reality Check and others have gone into the nits of why Markie's rationalizations are not justified, but even without that kind of in depth knowledge the relentless misrepresentations of Mills and his failure to ever deliver on any of his promises is damning. It is just not possible to distinguish Mills from any other free energy scammer by the available evidence except that the BLP scam has lasted longer and has been better financed than most.

You guys are not paying attention. Over the years Mills *has* produced devices that continually produced excess electricity and excess heat. They have been validated. The problem is that the power density was too low to be marketable. Also, they were experimental devices, very different from a device made for practical application and ready to 'license'. Get that into your heads, if you are able.

For information on the CIHT cell see

https://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CIHT-cell-011613-combined.pdf