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

[davefoc]

According to their website



David Bennett – Director
Emilio Icaza Chavez – Director
Jeremy Hux – Director
Dr. Randell L. Mills – Chairman of the Board, President and CEO Director
Barbara A. Nabial – Secretary and Treasurer

3 down, 2 remain.

Wow, can you imagine how bummed those directors that left are now that products and validation are imminent. How could they have missed Michael Suede's article?

 

[halleyscomet]

and yet no one on the entire planet has been able to detect any hydrinos

Details, details.

 

[markie]

Originally Posted by markie
For sure if it is an alias there must be a signal elsewhere. If so, what known substance is producing such a signal? I don't think there is one.

Argument from Ignorance fallacy.


Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

It's hardly ignorance. There is a very finite number of possibilities of what substance is in the getter that could be creating the presumed alias with that particular grating; afterall what is in the getter is from the explosion of simple silver and water.

One could trap simple silver vapour in the getter and see if the same aliasing is there. Or silver oxide. Or oxygen. Or hydrogen. Or water.
We could make the null hypothesis this: The aliasing is due to a conventional chemical substance such as the above. I'm predicting that such a null hypothesis would be rejected by experiment. The alternative hypothesis would be exactly what Mills is proposing.

 

[Kid Eager]

It's hardly ignorance. There is a very finite number of possibilities of what substance is in the getter that could be creating the presumed alias with that particular grating; afterall what is in the getter is from the explosion of simple silver and water.

One could trap simple silver vapour in the getter and see if the same aliasing is there. Or silver oxide. Or oxygen. Or hydrogen. Or water.
We could make the null hypothesis this: The aliasing is due to a conventional chemical substance such as the above. I'm predicting that such a null hypothesis would be rejected by experiment. The alternative hypothesis would be exactly what Mills is proposing.

Of course, by not testing for this, one avoids the removal of doubt.

Assuming, of course, we’re also not testing for false dichotomies...

 

[markie]

Yet no one has independently done so...

IIRC that's because Mills forbids it.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/...iments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

So can I assume that to your mind any lab that signs a simple IP agreement is no longer independent?

Wouldn't the labs in Belgium who performed particular hydrino experiments have also signed such an agreement? They even came and visited BLP in New Jersey. Do such things disqualify them from being independent? Do their published papers reflect that they are withholding a negative result?

 

[markie]

Make markie actually cite these sincere Rowan scientists. Hydrino only appears in one paper at Rowan university and it's to a survey paper that I don't see any independent verification in. The paper cites Mills and BLP as the source of all his information.

Well for instance you could look at the Scientific American article LTC8K6 referenced shortly before your post:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...iments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

One of the validators is Bucknell University electrical engineering professor Peter M. Jansson, who is paid for his evaluations of BLP technology through his consulting company, Integrated Systems. Jansson says that being compensated for his time “does not in any way cloud my judgment as an independent investigator of scientific discoveries.” He adds that he debunks most “new discoveries” he checks out.
“BLP scientists are doing real science, and to date, I have found no errors in their scientific methods or approaches,” Jansson says. “Over the years, I have witnessed many BLP devices clearly capable of creating excess energy at meaningful levels. I think it may take some period of time for the scientific community to absorb, digest, and accept the possibility of lower energy states of hydrogen. I think Dr. Mills has made a compelling case.”

 

[davefoc]

... Peter M. Jansson ...

Now there's a coincidence. The guy that led the testing at Rowan University and played a role with the NASA BLP test has the same name as the guy who says:

“BLP scientists are doing real science, and to date, I have found no errors in their scientific methods or approaches,” “Over the years, I have witnessed many BLP devices clearly capable of creating excess energy at meaningful levels. I think it may take some period of time for the scientific community to absorb, digest, and accept the possibility of lower energy states of hydrogen. I think Dr. Mills has made a compelling case.”

And here's another amazing coincidence: "... associate professor of electrical engineering Peter Mark Jansson, researched the BlackLight process while employed by Mills' backer Atlantic Energy, now part of the utility Conectiv." - https://www.wired.com/2002/06/nasa-takes-a-flyer-on-hydrinos/

So somebody named Peter Jannson:
1. researched BLP for Atlantic Energy and may have played a role in getting them to invest in BLP

2. Was the leader of several Rowan University validation efforts.

3. Was part of the team that ran the BLP experiment at NASA

4. Was the man who worked at Bushnell University hired by Mills to validate the BLP device.

 

[Kid Eager]

Now there's a coincidence. The guy that led the testing at Rowan University and played a role with the NASA BLP test has the same name as the guy who says:

“BLP scientists are doing real science, and to date, I have found no errors in their scientific methods or approaches,” “Over the years, I have witnessed many BLP devices clearly capable of creating excess energy at meaningful levels. I think it may take some period of time for the scientific community to absorb, digest, and accept the possibility of lower energy states of hydrogen. I think Dr. Mills has made a compelling case.”

And here's another amazing coincidence: "... associate professor of electrical engineering Peter Mark Jansson, researched the BlackLight process while employed by Mills' backer Atlantic Energy, now part of the utility Conectiv." - https://www.wired.com/2002/06/nasa-takes-a-flyer-on-hydrinos/

So somebody named Peter Jannson:
1. researched BLP for Atlantic Energy and may have played a role in getting them to invest in BLP

2. Was the leader of several Rowan University validation efforts.

3. Was part of the team that ran the BLP experiment at NASA

4. Was the man who worked at Bushnell University hired by Mills to validate the BLP device.

Well, at least there's no conflict of interest....

 

[Hans]

Results suppressed? Try ignored. And Mills has been wrong on things. He is after all still human.

What is the difference between ignored because it so wonderful and would change everything (which is the ultimate goal of scientists - to make sure nothing changes and nothing new is learned) or ignored because it's garbage?

Is he human have you checked his DNA?

 

[ferd burfle]

QT has been holding back research. Research is progressing because of diligence and smarts in the lab and experimental knowledge preservation and retrievability. One can discover the phenomena of nature without fully understanding the mechanism.

When Mills' GUTCP becomes the basis of pure research in labs around the world there will be more understanding and less of a look-up cookbook mentality.



Don't forget Mills' book itself. From page 41 of Mills GUTCP

The following observables are derived in closed-form equations based on Maxwell's equations: the magnetic moment of a Bohr magneton, Stern Gerlach experiment, electron and muon g factors, fine structure splitting, Lamb shift, hyperfine structure, muonium hyperfine structure interval, resonant line width and shape, selection rules, correspondence principle, wave particle duality, excited states, reduced mass, rotational energies and momenta, spin-orbit coupling, Knight shift and spin-nuclear coupling, closed form solutions for multielectron atoms ...

Yeah I cut it in half in an attempt to avoid the moderators knife.

Conspiracy accusations and buzzword salad. Fail.

 

[Darat]

QT has been holding back research. ...snipp.

Why and how?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Heck I've never even bought a lottery ticket in my life. I'm not the betting sort.

But if you're convinced that you're right, then it's not really a bet, is it? Not even saying "Mills will have a working prototype within the next 10 years"? How about a signature/avatar bet?

 

[JeanTate]

... tides?

Yeah, well we can ignore such tiny perturbations can't we, smarty pants.

If you follow this back, you’ll see that markie is trying to draw an analogy between the Earth-Moon system and his beloved orbitspheres and pancake electrons in atoms and ions.

Of course tides do have an effect, just that they have essentially no noticeable effect on the orbits, over a month, year, or even decade time frame, in the Earth-Moon system.

In a hydrogen, or deuterium, atom, or a singly ionized helium (3 or 4), markie might make this analogy. However, these composite particles can change on much faster timescales than the Earth-Moon system can, let’s say ~10^-15 s. And over ~10¹⁵ orbits, say, the Earth-Moon tides are anything but “tiny perturbations”!

But how is the Earth like a nucleus? An electron like the Moon?

Both nuclei and electrons have spin, a quantum property which no doubt has a magical explanation in GHCTP (or whatever it’s called), thus making the Earth-Moon system a poor analogy; and all nuclei - except that of H - have some non-spherical asymmetry (sorta the equivalent of the Earth’s equatorial bulge), leading to questions about how the equivalents of tides affect observed properties (markie seems unaware of this aspect of his analogy).

I am not writing this for your benefit, markie (though I do hope you learn something), but rather for the others who post and lurk here. In addition to “seems to know little astrophysics” (a later post), what I’ve written here seems to show that markie also seems to know little physics.

 

[JeanTate]

It's a flowing membrane of mass and charge going in all directions simultaneously on a 2D surface. So the term 'solid' doesn't do it justice. It's very dynamic. Just like you can accept the fact that EM fields can superimpose to an infinite degree, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine this sort of superposition happening on a 2D surface.

Have you heard the expression “when you’re in a hole, stop digging”?

“all directions simultaneously”? “a flowing membrane”? “superimpose to an infinite degree”?

At least the earlier discussions on orbitspheres were not as silly as this ...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Heck I've never even bought a lottery ticket in my life. I'm not the betting sort.

But if you're convinced that you're right, then it's not really a bet, is it? Not even saying "Mills will have a working prototype within the next 10 years"? How about a signature/avatar bet?

markie has made his bet, and it's a win-win:

• If BLP ever delivers on its promises, markie gets to gloat even if (because he is not the betting sort) he doesn't have any financial stake.
• If BLP never delivers, markie gets to gloat forever about how much smarter Mills (and, by association, his supporters) are than their skeptics, who will be proved wrong in the near future that remains perpetually out of reach.

BLP's skeptics are also making their bet, and it too is a win-win:

• If BLP ever delivers on its promises, they'll have to admit they were wrong, but that's a small price to pay for unlimited cheap energy.
• If BLP never delivers, they get to enjoy the never-ending entertainment markie provides.

Everyone wins, no matter what happens. That's what keeps these threads going.

 

[JeanTate]

Good find. Frankly I am surprised they described that H2 gas as 'cold' when it was being bombarded by a strong source of radiation which would reveal H2's absorption in the high UV. But I guess that the term 'cold' can be abit relative. It was cold enough to be H2 (and not H), but not the 'cold' I was was envisioning.

Point remains: H2 detection in the lab is easy. In outer space, not so much.

I think a better translation might be markie clearly know very little about astrophysics, and didn’t bother to read either paper.

Again, this is for others who post here, and lurkers (not you markie).

To be observed in absorption, you need to backlight. Dust is a good example: in images of highly inclined spiral galaxies you can often see dustlanes ... because they are backlit by stars behind the dust (from our perspective). In our own galaxy, you can “see” dust between us and a distant star by how its colors are different from the same kind of star seen up close.

So to with features in spectra: a cloud of gas, or plasma, can reveal its composition if it is backlit, by a distant star, say, or quasar. Hence, for example, the Lyman forest: large numbers of absorption lines in the spectra of very distant quasars, redward of the quasars’ Lyman-alpha (emission) line. The foreground hydrogen clouds are at enormous distances from the quasar (and even greater distances from us).

To observe H₂ absorption lines in the far-ultraviolet (FUV), you need backlighting by an FUV source, say a hot star (e.g. O or B spectral class); the H₂ clouds do not have to be anywhere near the star, or us, just between.

About “cold”: almost nothing in space is colder than 2.7K; within the ISM (interstellar medium), temperatures range from ~3.2K to 10⁵K or more. H₂ is easily dissociated, and so is found only where the ISM is “cold”. Of course, unless it’s deep inside a GMC (giant molecular cloud), it is bathed in the x-ray background, with photons of considerable higher energy than FUV. Fan of Mills markie somehow forget one of Mills nonsense “papers”, where Mills tries - and fails spectacularly - to use hydrinos to explain this diffuse soft x-ray background.

 

[JeanTate]

I was hoping you would extrapolate. Moon - > Flattened Moon -> Atomized Moon fully incompassing the earth in one extremely thin layer.

In the latter case we of course ignore the effects of friction and turbulence etc that would break up such a layer. Given this, every single atom of the atomized moon material must be moving at the same angular velocity and the same distance from the earth as the moon's centre of gravity when intact. The summed net force of gravity exerted by the earth on such an atomized moon would be the same as on the intact moon.

For maybe one orbit, sorta.

The Earth has an equatorial bulge (and other departures from spherical symmetry), and all atoms and ions - apart from H¹ - have non-spherical asymmetries, which ensure distortions in the “atomized moon” analogue in less than a second.

Mills' equation of motion for the orbitsphere is fine.

Really?!? How does a nucleus stay at the exact center of an orbitsphere?

 

[aleCcowaN]

An experiment that generates "excess energy" alla Mills:



Please, markie, direct me to the portions of the papers where loss of mass in electrodes is quantified. As another sine qua non condition the composition of such electrodes must be specified.

 

[markie]

Why and how?

Because scientists are working with a fundamentally flawed theory.

 

[markie]

But if you're convinced that you're right, then it's not really a bet, is it? Not even saying "Mills will have a working prototype within the next 10 years"? How about a signature/avatar bet?

I'm convinced I'm right regarding Mills theory specifically as it concerns excess energy from hydrino formation and hydrino product signature, among other things. Validations over the years have been a big factor.

But I'm certainly not convinced about timelines for a working prototype. Too many factors. I don't know why you are preoccupied with 'bets'.