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

[markie]

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?

If you recall, it was RC who protested Mills equation of motion for the orbitsphere, as RC said that it describes the equation of motion for an point like object obeying an inverse squared force relationship with a centre. I merely tried to show that the same formula applies not only to a point but to a spread out object.

Now you seem to be inferring that Mills' orbitsphere should be producing tidal effects. No it shouldn't, because the mass of the orbitsphere is evenly distributed as a spherical shell.

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).

Well of course the analogy is limited in its application. It was meant to address only a simple problem RC had with the equation of motion.

Mills must take into account many factors to get (say) the ionization energies correct. You are correct that he hasn't taken into account the non spherical geometries of more complex nuclei, which would contribute a very small effect. As I recall, he plans to flesh out the nuclei structure at a later time when he has more time.

 

[markie]

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.

Well I do like a win win, and I don't mind that you get entertained for free. But: 1) I'm not really into gloating ; 2) Certain skeptics merely admitting they were wrong really doesn't cut it. That's like someone accusing a neighbour of being a wife beater, and then when it is shown he is not, admitting his accusation was a mistake. Somehow that's not good enough.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Why and how?

Because scientists are working with a fundamentally flawed theory.

Why and how? [This time don't evade to answer]

 

[markie]

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.

Nice video showing a superficial similarity, burning iron. But what would a spectroscopic analysis reveal? Nothing out of the ordinary.

If you read the latest paper, where a hydrated silver pellet was exploded in a spot welder, you won't find an analysis of mass loss in the spot welder tip. That is because, by inspection, there isn't any. Or - if there was - it would be entirely negligible compared to the mass of the silver metal in the pellet.

 

[markie]

Why and how? [This time don't evade to answer]

I refer you to page 15 of the Introduction to Mills' 2016 GUTCP, the section entitled: Shortcomings of Quantum Theory and Reasons for a Complete Revision of Atomic Theory

 

[aleCcowaN]

I refer you to page 15 of the Introduction to Mills' 2016 GUTCP, the section entitled: Shortcomings of Quantum Theory and Reasons for a Complete Revision of Atomic Theory

Do you endorse that word by word?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nice video showing a superficial similarity, burning iron. But what would a spectroscopic analysis reveal? Nothing out of the ordinary.

Sure. That's a very simple setting. Can you list what would be "the ordinary" there? Or are you just playing it be ear as almost everything you drop here?

If you read the latest paper, where a hydrated silver pellet was exploded in a spot welder, you won't find an analysis of mass loss in the spot welder tip. That is because, by inspection, there isn't any. Or - if there was - it would be entirely negligible compared to the mass of the silver metal in the pellet.

"By inspection". Don't be ridiculous! All elements must have been weighed properly before and after the experiment, including the air that reaches the site of the reaction.

 

[Hans]

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.

I have to admit that I come here for the unintended comedy provided by markie in seemingly endless amounts.

 

[Hans]

As I recall, he plans to flesh out the nuclei structure at a later time when he has more time.

'more time' so thirty years hasn't been enough time to get anything done huh - how old is now or does the magical Hydrino provide immortality?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

2) Certain skeptics merely admitting they were wrong really doesn't cut it. That's like someone accusing a neighbour of being a wife beater, and then when it is shown he is not, admitting his accusation was a mistake. Somehow that's not good enough.

It is therefore necessary to worship the wife beater throughout eternity.

 

[Mike!]

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'.

Oh, Oh! I know, I know!
It's called, "Putting your money where your mouth is."

 

[Horatius]

Well I do like a win win, and I don't mind that you get entertained for free. But: 1) I'm not really into gloating ; 2) Certain skeptics merely admitting they were wrong really doesn't cut it. That's like someone accusing a neighbour of being a wife beater, and then when it is shown he is not, admitting his accusation was a mistake. Somehow that's not good enough.

Actually, it's more like accusing a neighbor of being a wife beater after years of hearing hitting sounds and female screaming through the walls, and then, only after years of telling him he should lay off beating his wife, he finally tells you that they're really into S&M.

Okay, sure, we were wrong about him being a "wife beater", but if he spends years acting just like a wife beater, without any attempt to appear not like a wife beater, we really don't need to offer an apology for our mistake, because he was going out of his way to contribute to our misunderstanding.

As has been pointed out here many, many times, Mills' behavior is virtually indistinguishable from that of every other free energy fraud we've ever seen, and despite years of "trying to prove" his claims, he still, year after year, makes the same BS claims, pushes the same BS "proofs", and ignores every serious criticism directed his way.

We've told him, and others like him, exactly what he needs to do to prove to us he's not a fraud, and yet, he continues to act just like the frauds. So, if, wonder of wonders, he finally gets his head out of his ass long enough to actually show us something real, well, then, he gets no apology, and deserves no apology, because the years of being called a fraud are largely his own damn fault.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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'.

In this, at least, you're canny. A production model has been 18 months off for 30-odd years now.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I like how being held to the same standards as every other scientist on the face of the planet is equivalent to being called a wife-beater, but only when it's Mills who is on the receiving end.

 

[halleyscomet]

Because scientists are working with a fundamentally flawed theory.

And yet that theory has produced working technology, while all Mills and his Keystone Cops grade “engineers” have done is produce devices that oxidize metal in ways they refuse to quantify and examine.

You must truly be desperate to mock theories that have produced real technology in order to defend Mills, who has produced nothing of value.

Mills will go down in history as the most successful implementer of a particular type of con. It’s a shame it’s unlikely to be named after him. “Theranos” is a cooler sounding name for a con than “Hydrino” or “Mills.”

 

[halleyscomet]

I like how being held to the same standards as every other scientist on the face of the planet is equivalent to being called a wife-beater, but only when it's Mills who is on the receiving end.

To be fair, we don’t know much about his personal life. Is he even married? To a woman? He can’t be a wife beater if he’s single or has a husband, now can he?

The fact that he’s either a con artist or a blithering idiot doesn’t mean domestic violence is automatically one of his sins. Stalin, by all accounts, was a loving husband and attentive father.

I think Markie’s suggestions about Mills beating his wife are over the top and unnecessary, but that’s just, like, my opinion man.

 

[jonesdave116]

Mills will go down in history as the most successful implementer of a particular type of con. It’s a shame it’s unlikely to be named after him. “Theranos” is a cooler sounding name for a con than “Hydrino” or “Mills.”

Yeah, but "You've been Millsed" has a ring to it!

 

[Hans]

Actually, it's more like accusing a neighbor of being a wife beater after years of hearing hitting sounds and female screaming through the walls, and then, only after years of telling him he should lay off beating his wife, he finally tells you that they're really into S&M.

Okay, sure, we were wrong about him being a "wife beater", but if he spends years acting just like a wife beater, without any attempt to appear not like a wife beater, we really don't need to offer an apology for our mistake, because he was going out of his way to contribute to our misunderstanding.

As has been pointed out here many, many times, Mills' behavior is virtually indistinguishable from that of every other free energy fraud we've ever seen, and despite years of "trying to prove" his claims, he still, year after year, makes the same BS claims, pushes the same BS "proofs", and ignores every serious criticism directed his way.

We've told him, and others like him, exactly what he needs to do to prove to us he's not a fraud, and yet, he continues to act just like the frauds. So, if, wonder of wonders, he finally gets his head out of his ass long enough to actually show us something real, well, then, he gets no apology, and deserves no apology, because the years of being called a fraud are largely his own damn fault.

We can thank him for the unintended comedy value he has provided - unfortunately this is created while stealing/wasting other people's money.

I'm really looking forward to what the new name his company will have and whether he will up his game or try to use the same methodology of continual failure he has in the past.

 

[halleyscomet]

We can thank him for the unintended comedy value he has provided - unfortunately this is created while stealing/wasting other people's money.

I'm really looking forward to what the new name his company will have and whether he will up his game or try to use the same methodology of continual failure he has in the past.

I don't foresee another name change. He has the con pretty well laid out now. I suspect the last name change was the result of a bit of panic over the ability to look up his past claims. By now he knows he has a ready supply of people who will invest based upon his presentations and charisma. At this point in the con his past works in his favor by weeding out the potential investors who could ask troubling questions.

There are only three things that can stop him now.

1. Law enforcement or regulatory agencies get involved. This is what brought down Theranos. Mills however has played his cards well in this regard. He's small enough to avoid becoming a major scandal and unlike Theranos, his con doesn't put anyone's lives at risk.

2. An enraged former investor gets a gun and shoots up the lab. This will probably work to the advantage of anyone who survives an attack. The morass of conspiracy theories that will emerge will leave Mills a martyr. It would only stop Mills in a very technical sense if he's dead. His con will live on.

3. He finally dies. Everyone dies. His con will live on. Conspiracy theories will arise around his death regardless of how old he is when he kicks the bucket. He will fade into the mythology of Free Energy and Cold Fusion.

All three possibilities empower future iterations of the Mills con by allowing the loss of Mills to be used as an excuse for the lack of future working devices. The government or the gunman destroyed critical research. There were secrets Mills took to his grave. The possibilities are extensive.

 

[The Norseman]

1. Law enforcement or regulatory agencies get involved. This is what brought down Theranos. Mills however has played his cards well in this regard. He's small enough to avoid becoming a major scandal and unlike Theranos, his con doesn't put anyone's lives at risk.

See, that's the interesting thing. He once did, in fact, begin a scam(s) based on some sort of medical scanning technology; most likely to capitalize on his medical background, but probably knew enough of the amount of unavoidable medical scrutiny any machine would draw and fairly quickly abandoned it with never a breath that it was even a thought in his mind (or at least, made attempts to downplay it even though a bunch of magazines and such published articles playing up these wondrous scanners at one time).