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

[markie]

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.

The fatal and obvious flaw in your 'reasoning' is that you assume it is easy to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.

Nobody has done this kind of work before. Mills is the first.

 

[The Man]

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.

To repeatedly "overlook potential obstacles" specifically makes one a 'can't-do' "type of person" and it is a very bad "idea to tone down his forecasts". As it enables his inability to see "potential obstacles" let alone be stopped by obstacles overcome hundreds of years ago. You continue to just make excuses for someone who can't even get a heat exchanger designed and in consistent energy production has yet to out preform a candle. "That's all.".




Heck, as a Project Engineer running such product design and development projects. If one of the Engineers, Drafters, Techs, production personnel, vendors or whatever failed to meet deadlines, they were free to set themselves. At first I would try to see if they were still capable of meeting the task, perhaps offer a less critical role. Happens again, then definitely on a sub-critical element or off the project. Again still, sorry I just can't rely on you even in that role. Fortunately, I always worked with very qualified and professional people, so it never came to that.

 

[markie]

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

Well then, get cracking. Analyze the papers and tell us where they went wrong.

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

Aren't you the one who said Aha when I mentioned pitting on the large copper electrode wheels?

Why? I'm quite familiar with calorimeters.

Good, then it should be easy for you to tell us where Mills and company and validators went wrong.

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

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?

You speak as if they don't do calibrations and controls in the calorimetry.
Again, show us where they went wrong.

If you are claiming that the apparatus is getting oxidized, then yes, relative masses matter. If the mass of metals in the pellet dwarfs any mass lost to oxidation in the electrodes, then oxidation of the electrodes hardly makes a significant difference, especially considering the very significant energy gains.

 

[markie]

To repeatedly "overlook potential obstacles" specifically makes one a 'can't-do' "type of person" and it is a very bad "idea to tone down his forecasts". As it enables his inability to see "potential obstacles" let alone be stopped by obstacles overcome hundreds of years ago. You continue to just make excuses for someone who can't even get a heat exchanger designed and in consistent energy production has yet to out preform a candle. "That's all.".




Heck, as a Project Engineer running such product design and development projects. If one of the Engineers, Drafters, Techs, production personnel, vendors or whatever failed to meet deadlines, they were free to set themselves. At first I would try to see if they were still capable of meeting the task, perhaps offer a less critical role. Happens again, then definitely on a sub-critical element or off the project. Again still, sorry I just can't rely on you even in that role. Fortunately, I always worked with very qualified and professional people, so it never came to that.

I highly doubt you are doing pioneering work. Just engineering different versions of what has been done before.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

It used to be appropriate to call these unsupported assertions but these have been explained so often and so thoroughly that it's clear you are deliberately lying. Naturally no one is paying attention to you. And even if you were to ward off the charge of lying by claiming monumental stupidity that still wouldn't warrant taking anything you say seriously. For god sakes, if what you just claimed were true that paper would be worth a Nobel Prize even if his ludicrous claims of complications were true.

 

[The Man]

The fatal and obvious flaw in your 'reasoning' is that you assume it is easy to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.

Nobody has done this kind of work before. Mills is the first.

Bull crap, my furnace produces "a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.". Mills ain't "the first" at any of this, heck I doubt even with the cheap energy scam.

 

[Kid Eager]

deleted.

 

[The Man]

I highly doubt you are doing pioneering work. Just engineering different versions of what has been done before.

Incorrect, some of the product designs weren't even possible before. Heck, even just "engineering different versions of what has been done before" can be "pioneering work" when involving different and newer materials as well as new production methods. I highly doubt you or mills have had any actual production or product design and development experience.

 

[Reality Check]

You guys are not paying attention. ...

We are paying attention to your touting of BLP propaganda rather than learning the easily understood science that makes that into propaganda.

If hydrinos do not exist then all BLP have is some physics causing anomalous heat that they have not managed to turn into a marketable device for over 30 years. So what if they have a device where silver catalyzes reactions? We know that catalytic converters produce (expensive) heat!

That hydrinos do not exist is absurdly easy to understand. Put the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book to one side for the moment.
Consider the fact that we have been scattering particles from atoms for at least 110 years. At no time has this scattering detected his "orbitspheres".
Consider the fact that radioactive nuclei decay and send particles through his "orbitspheres" without any noticeable effects.
Consider the probable fact that (AFAIK) that low energy scattering shows scattering from a fuzzy cloud of electrons consistent with QM, not his rigid "orbitspheres".

 

[Reality Check]

The fatal and obvious flaw in your 'reasoning' is that you assume it is easy to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.

Nobody has done this kind of work before. Mills is the first.

That is really ignorant because we have devices producing stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power. For example every power station that exists!
With a couple of lies:

• People have been "this kind of work" for many decades.
  For example, people have been designing nuclear reactors for maybe 70 years.
• Mills has never produced such a device as you know.
  Mills has been failing to produce devices (plural) for 30 years.

 

[The Man]

Well then, get cracking. Analyze the papers and tell us where they went wrong.

Sure, based on those papers and his other works the hydrino is where he went wrong.

Aren't you the one who said Aha when I mentioned pitting on the large copper electrode wheels?

Could be but I expect I would have said more than just "Aha".

Good, then it should be easy for you to tell us where Mills and company and validators went wrong.

Why, do you expect there was something wrong with the calorimeters?

You speak as if they don't do calibrations and controls in the calorimetry.
Again, show us where they went wrong.

Nope, I made no assertions about the "calibrations and controls in the calorimetry". So whoever it was you were hearing "speak as" such, it weren't me.

If you are claiming that the apparatus is getting oxidized, then yes, relative masses matter. If the mass of metals in the pellet dwarfs any mass lost to oxidation in the electrodes, then oxidation of the electrodes hardly makes a significant difference, especially considering the very significant energy gains.

Ahh so now your assertion of "(In chemistry, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of electrons." is less important than just "mass of metals in the pellet" again? I thought we had cleared up that you weren't contending that mass was converted to energy?

Apparatus is getting oxidized is one possibility.

Not accounting for all input energy another (that's energy, not power).

Not accounting for all materials in and and reactions from the the pellet still another.

That's just off the top of my head, but for someone with such "very significant energy gains" still unable to produce just the most basic product, I wouldn't put anything below them (as error or intent).

 

[halleyscomet]

The fatal and obvious flaw in your 'reasoning' is that you assume it is easy to produce a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.

1. Mills has REPEATEDLY claimed he had stable reactions and prototypes ready for market. You are justifiably calling him a lair.

2. If he doesn’t have stable reactions yet then trying to design a generator around a reactor that doesn’t work is stupid. Not unwise. Not inefficient. Mills is being flat out stupid. You can’t build an internal combustion engine when you can’t even figure out how to burn the fuel reliability. Mills trying to design and optimize a generator before he has the basic reactor working is a special kind of stupid that generally gets the moron blown to bits by his own equipment.

You guys are not paying attention. Over the years Mills *has* produced devices that continually produced excess electricity and excess heat.

So which is it? Has he produced a stable reaction or hasn’t he? Can you at least attempt to not contradict yourself so quickly?

As for the “validation” reports you keep wanking over, they’re nice but not proof of anything in a scientific sense. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. I can only conclude you are ignoring this uncomfortable fact deliberately.

 

[davefoc]

It used to be appropriate to call these unsupported assertions but these have been explained so often and so thoroughly that it's clear you are deliberately lying. Naturally no one is paying attention to you. And even if you were to ward off the charge of lying by claiming monumental stupidity that still wouldn't warrant taking anything you say seriously. For god sakes, if what you just claimed were true that paper would be worth a Nobel Prize even if his ludicrous claims of complications were true.

It does seem that way. In the 2013 paper Markie cited the device was producing 5 watts of excess power (20 times input power after 60 days). Those results are so unequivocally positive that they would be unequivocally reproducible and Mills main problem should be how to deal with the massive fame and wealth that the validation of his claims would result in.



Unless, the results listed in table 1 were bogus and Mills invention doesn't actually work and there is either the intentional misrepresentation of the results or there is the unintentional misinterpretation of the results. It seems pretty obvious that something like that is afoot here. Four years after producing perhaps the most amazing device ever invented and still almost nobody has ever heard of Mills.

 

[markie]

Incorrect, some of the product designs weren't even possible before. Heck, even just "engineering different versions of what has been done before" can be "pioneering work" when involving different and newer materials as well as new production methods. I highly doubt you or mills have had any actual production or product design and development experience.

If you can reliably timeline, the newer materials have already been established by someone else, the new production methods already established by someone else, and you are just utilizing it as new to your company. That's not pioneering, sorry.

 

[markie]

Bull crap, my furnace produces "a stable, continuous reaction of suitably high power.". Mills ain't "the first" at any of this, heck I doubt even with the cheap energy scam.

Please pay attention. The context is hydrino chemistry in extreme conditions. Your furnace does none of that.

 

[markie]

1. Mills has REPEATEDLY claimed he had stable reactions and prototypes ready for market. You are justifiably calling him a lair.

Prototypes are by definition not ready for market, so what you say is nonsense.
Again, he has had experimental devices working, but not anything resembling something ready for market. Let that sink in.

2. If he doesn’t have stable reactions yet then trying to design a generator around a reactor that doesn’t work is stupid. Not unwise. Not inefficient. Mills is being flat out stupid. You can’t build an internal combustion engine when you can’t even figure out how to burn the fuel reliability. Mills trying to design and optimize a generator before he has the basic reactor working is a special kind of stupid that generally gets the moron blown to bits by his own equipment.

Perhaps you should talk to the guy who was preaching the benefits of parallel development. Believe it or not, Mills and BLP do work in parallel. Who would figure that they work on the basic Suncell reactor functions, on the MHD functions, on hydrino production functions, and probably other functions, all on the same work day! Amazing.

 

[markie]

We are paying attention to your touting of BLP propaganda rather than learning the easily understood science that makes that into propaganda.

If hydrinos do not exist then all BLP have is some physics causing anomalous heat that they have not managed to turn into a marketable device for over 30 years. So what if they have a device where silver catalyzes reactions? We know that catalytic converters produce (expensive) heat!

That hydrinos do not exist is absurdly easy to understand. Put the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book to one side for the moment.
Consider the fact that we have been scattering particles from atoms for at least 110 years. At no time has this scattering detected his "orbitspheres".
Consider the fact that radioactive nuclei decay and send particles through his "orbitspheres" without any noticeable effects.
Consider the probable fact that (AFAIK) that low energy scattering shows scattering from a fuzzy cloud of electrons consistent with QM, not his rigid "orbitspheres".

It seems you are confusing nuclear scattering experiments with something else.
How big is the hydrogen atom again, RC? Oh right, you won't answer that one.

 

[markie]

It does seem that way. In the 2013 paper Markie cited the device was producing 5 watts of excess power (20 times input power after 60 days). Those results are so unequivocally positive that they would be unequivocally reproducible and Mills main problem should be how to deal with the massive fame and wealth that the validation of his claims would result in.

Yeah, I wonder how many "top level" labs were just chomping at the bit to replicate Mills CIHT cells and results. How naive.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah, I wonder how many "top level" labs were just chomping at the bit to replicate Mills CIHT cells and results. How naive.

And how stupid to suggest he's being naive. Top level labs would be dying to get rich and contribute to Nobel Prizes, if it were at all possible for it to be true. So would low level labs, foreign countries, universities, energy corporations, and even currently non energy companies. They'd all be chomping at the bit.

Mills is claiming technology that could dominate the trillion+ dollar energy economy. There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of people/corporations who could put him in to business right now with stuff he has actually claimed to have produced. Not the promised stuff, just the stuff he's actually claimed to have produced is worth much more than he has scammed so far.

Mills is a fraud, stop lying for him (or, yourself, whichever).

 

[Reality Check]

Repeats his ignorance of the size of a hyrogen atom

It seems you are confusing nuclear scattering experiments with something else.

It seems that you are determined to remain ignorant about the real world where an atom is not an atomic nucleus. They have electrons as well.

Chuck a charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere". We have known since 1909 that does not happen.

A charged particle is emitted from a decaying atomic nucleus and in Mills world it will go through and presumably destroy his "orbitsphere".

Chuck a low energy charged particle at an atom and in Mills world it will bounce off his "orbitsphere" . We will see scattering from a sharp atomic sized surface. AFAIK this does not happen. We see scattering off a fuzzy could of electrons.

How big is the hydrogen atom again, RC

Since you insist:
26 June 2018 markie: Repeats his ignorance of the size of a hydrogen atom!

As I wrote before:
5 June 2018 markie: An irrelevant question not to do with his parroting of Mills lies or the lies in Mills book.

My guess is that Mills has the insanity of a hydrogen atom with a set radius and markie wants to ignorantly parrot that delusion as well.

Or maybe an ignorant attempt at the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?
The Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom happens to be different from the covalent radius and Van der Waals radius because they are different radii! It would be ignorant to claim that the radius of a hydrogen atom is unknown. It is the fallacy of false dichotomy to claim that this "unknown" radius supports Mills delusions.

May be added to:
53 items of ignorance and some lies from markie from his blind faith in Mills. which includes
12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
24 February 2017 markie: Do you know about the Geiger–Marsden (Rutherford) experiment and its successors?