• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked the same question of cold fusion advocates at least 20 years ago. I'm still waiting for an answer.


Cold fusion people still don't really know the physics behind what appears to be happening. Because of this they are still producing only weakly positive COP results.
 
Parrots Aspect experiment lies from Mills book

No lies. 1 is true, and 2 is true for a single photon.
25 July 2018 markie: Parrots Aspect experiment lies from Mills book
This is quantum entanglement which cannot be predicted by classical physics. Aspect et. al did not use "a single photon".

One real world fact he misses is that the Aspect experiment is the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem that together tell us that no local hidden variable theories can duplicate the predictions of QM. If we do averages over many measurements as in the Aspect experiment then the predictions of QM and classical physics differ. The experiments thus essentially rule out classical physics as an explanation for quantum entanglement.

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
 
Last edited:
Still does not understand that Mills lies about dark matter interacting via EM

Dark matter has been observed (indirectly) in nature. Past tense. No problem.
25 July 2018 markie: Still does not understand that Mills lies about dark matter interacting electromagnetically so that it can be his hydrino delusion.

The dark part of dark matter is the absence of evidence that dark matter has electromagnetic interactions. Mills hydrino delusion has electromagnetic interactions. Thus "Dark Matter: The Hydrino® observed in nature" is a lie. That is the problem :eek:!
 
Last edited:
The heat source and power density is proven. All that remains is to fix some nagging issues on the engineering side of things. Then he can hook it up to a boiler.

And in six months, he'll claim to have fixed the "nagging issues on the engineering side of things," but in the course of the fix he'll have decided that simply hooking it up to a boiler wouldn't be the most efficient way possible to use the power output, so he'll have come up with a proposal for direct generation of electricity that requires some different "nagging issues on the engineering side of things" to be fixed. And six months after that he'll conveniently forget that the heat source and power density were proven and will confidently announce that he's really close to producing a cell that can run continuously for more than a second, yet again. We know how the "jam tomorrow" con works; it's been on a continuous loop for the last thirty years.

Dave
 
Mills predictions are within experimental limits and the limits of the accuracy of the fundamental constants used in his equations.

You say "no checks at all". You're just making that up. Mills calculations are in his book for all to see. I have seen no refutation of any of his predictions.

How is QM doing for predicting with any accuracy the masses of the fundamental particles, or the ionization energies of atoms with Z greater that 1? Pretty bad.

How come he can't produce replicable experimental data for his theories?
 
The heat source and power density is proven. All that remains is to fix some nagging issues on the engineering side of things. Then he can hook it up to a boiler.

As ever is in these energy scams... just some pesky engineering problems to figure out and we'll have perpetual motion over unity almost free energy....
 
And in six months, he'll claim to have fixed the "nagging issues on the engineering side of things," but in the course of the fix he'll have decided that simply hooking it up to a boiler wouldn't be the most efficient way possible to use the power output, so he'll have come up with a proposal for direct generation of electricity that requires some different "nagging issues on the engineering side of things" to be fixed. And six months after that he'll conveniently forget that the heat source and power density were proven and will confidently announce that he's really close to producing a cell that can run continuously for more than a second, yet again. We know how the "jam tomorrow" con works; it's been on a continuous loop for the last thirty years.

Dave

According to markie, he's not looking for "efficient", he's looking for "elegance". Who needs to be efficient when you can be elegant?
 
According to markie, he's not looking for "efficient", he's looking for "elegance". Who needs to be efficient when you can be elegant?

But, of course, wehen he achieves the most elegant solution, he'll realise that efficiency is more important, leading to another six-month delay.

Dave
 
Mills predictions are within experimental limits and the limits of the accuracy of the fundamental constants used in his equations.

You say "no checks at all". You're just making that up. Mills calculations are in his book for all to see. I have seen no refutation of any of his predictions.

<snip>
You missed my point; here it is again (minor edits):

Here's a suggestion: you, markie take Mills' so-called predictions, and search for the most recent papers which report the experimental results on the values for these. Be sure to note the confidence limits.

Put them into a table.

Mills gets a "Check" only when his prediction is within the experimental limits, no exceptions; specifically, "close" is not "Check" (RC has already posted an example).

If you, markie are really keen, you, markie could carefully note which "predictions" were truly made before any measured values were published.


IOW, I was suggesting that you, markie do an independent verification of Mills' claims. Something like what RC has done (Mills got no "Check"s); he presented a refutation of one of his "predictions" (did you not read his post?).
 
The heat source and power density is proven. All that remains is to fix some nagging issues on the engineering side of things. Then he can hook it up to a boiler.
(my bold)

Problems which, if I read my history right, were originally solved in the 18th century, by folks with far less technology at hand than that available today, and in the period of a few years (maybe months, my recollection of the timelines is rusty).
 
Markie,
Dark matter has *not* been 'observed.' It's only inferred, postulated, because we see nothing that can explain the gravity not accounted for by that matter we do detect.

Mills has leapt into that knowledge gap with his hydrino/dark matter crap.

On the practical side, you admit to "pesky" details holding things up. What about the "pesky" stuff which must have been overcome many years ago and in numerous instances when he announced prototype and even commercial product on 6-month timelines?

If we generously entertain the notion that he's continually deluded himself into believing that he's but a half year from glorious success, than he must feel as though he's in a waking nightmare, where that 6-month horizon endlessly remains 6 months distant, perpetually just beyond his grasp. A half year that's lasted decades. Could drive some men mad, that.

Unless that just-on-the-cusp-of-success is a desired feature, and not a pernicious detraction.
 
The "nagging issues on the engineering side" stem from the fact that Mills's reactors are analogous to wood-burning stoves made of wood. As soon as you fix the "component longevity" problem, the "anomalous energy" benefit disappears, and vice versa.
 
If we generously entertain the notion that he's continually deluded himself into believing that he's but a half year from glorious success, than he must feel as though he's in a waking nightmare, where that 6-month horizon endlessly remains 6 months distant, perpetually just beyond his grasp. A half year that's lasted decades. Could drive some men mad, that.

Being delusional could help a lot with that situation NOT being a waking nightmare. If he's bananas, then he can plod merrily along, never really comprehending that he's been 6 to 18 months from a production model for over 20 years. Mental illness could also explain how he was able to write the meandering and internally inconsistent "Grand Unified Theory" valise he's been parading around for his faithful acolytes.

I used to work with a guy who operated like that. To this day I don't think he was deliberately trying to con anyone, but the results were similar to a deliberate con. He always let enthusiasm for what he thought could be done become the reality of what would be done. He'd then promise his pipe dreams to everyone he interacted with. The problem was, his fantasy land vision of the future never took reality into account. To make matters worse, he was very bad at communicating his promises to the people implementing them. He'd then have a temper tantrum when his dreams never materialized.

Naturally, he burned through professional and personal relationships at quite a clip. I wonder how high the staff turnover is at BLP...
 
Mills has already proven it to those with eyes to see; that is, those who take the vast collection of experimental results, validated by other parties, at face value. The 'world' will take notice when a device is working, producing anomalous amounts of energy at power densities good enough for the marketplace.

Well he had no numerous occasions stated that before - that he was six months from production.....just keeping the 'possibility' alive right? So he can get more money eh?
 
The heat source and power density is proven. All that remains is to fix some nagging issues on the engineering side of things. Then he can hook it up to a boiler.


Is the 'nagging issue' the fact it doesn't actually work the way he wants it to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom