• 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.
halleyscomet said:
What are the odds that Markie will cite this as proof of independent verification?
Click to expand...

Papers like these are such a weak effort. When people try to cite them it always reminds me of a classic Simpsons episode:

"Well, you sure don't look 25, but your unlaminated, out-of-state driver's license is proof enough for me."
 
SOdhner said:
Papers like these are such a weak effort. When people try to cite them it always reminds me of a classic Simpsons episode:

"Well, you sure don't look 25, but your unlaminated, out-of-state driver's license is proof enough for me."
Click to expand...

It just goes to show. You don't need to fool everyone, just the people you can use and exploit.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
New paper published in the Chinese Journal of Physics
Click to expand...

Repeating the same old claims. From the abstract:

"...emission energy was 250 times the applied energy." -- The same can be said of an internal combustion engine.

"...showed that plasma persisted even after the ignition power decayed to zero." -- It keeps burning even after you take away the match.

"Continuous megawatt-level power was recorded on a hydrino reactor..." -- However Mills recently stated that the device operates "continuously" for less than a second while self destructing.

"The calorimetrically measured power...was 400,000W." -- For a very brief period, not much energy was actually produced.

"...measured to produce a shock wave that was equivalent to about 10 times more moles of gunpowder." -- Sounds impressive but really isn't.
 
Last edited:
jrhowell said:
Repeating the same old claims. From the abstract:

"...emission energy was 250 times the applied energy." -- The same can be said of an internal combustion engine.

"...showed that plasma persisted even after the ignition power decayed to zero." -- It keeps burning even after you take away the match.

"Continuous megawatt-level power was recorded on a hydrino reactor..." -- However Mills recently stated that the device operates "continuously" for less than a second while self destructing.

"The calorimetrically measured power...was 400,000W." -- For a very brief period, not much energy was actually produced.

"...measured to produce a shock wave that was equivalent to about 10 times more moles of gunpowder." -- Sounds impressive but really isn't.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis ...... smoke and mirrors anyone?
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
It seems that even "10 times more moles of gunpowder" still isn't very much, despite sounding big and powerful. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
According to this website

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP_textbook_F08/PffP-01-energy-F08.htm

You are very much correct.

Coal has ten times the energy than TNT (the explosive) and gunpowder is less than TNT (by about a thousand joules I think).

Chocolate chips have eight times the energy of TNT. Gasoline is fifteen times.

I could get more energy out of a gram of butter than I could get from ten grams of gunpowder according to this chart.

If they're talking about explosive energy, then this site https://markforeman.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/1284/ might be a better fit, but I'm not a chemist.
 
Impact factor et al. for the Chinese Journal of Physics...

Journal Metrics
CiteScore: 0.78
Impact Factor: 1.051
5-Year Impact Factor: 0.821
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.449
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.216


:dl:
 
Mike! said:
It seems that even "10 times more moles of gunpowder" still isn't very much, despite sounding big and powerful. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Part of what I found awkward about the phrasing is that it's not clear to me what he's comparing to. Tens more than what? So who knows how big and powerful it might be.

The second thing awkward about it is that a mole is used to relate atomic weight to macroscopic weight. Gunpowder isn't an element of the periodic table, it's not even a single molecule. It's a mixture that isn't even the same from all manufacturers. Using a mole to measure something like that isn't something I've ever heard a scientist do. It's just a sciency buzzword being misused.

It would be clearer if he said "ten times more by mass" it the point has any meaning at all.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Part of what I found awkward about the phrasing is that it's not clear to me what he's comparing to. Tens more than what? So who knows how big and powerful it might be.

The second thing awkward about it is that a mole is used to relate atomic weight to macroscopic weight. Gunpowder isn't an element of the periodic table, it's not even a single molecule. It's a mixture that isn't even the same from all manufacturers. Using a mole to measure something like that isn't something I've ever heard a scientist do. It's just a sciency buzzword being misused.

It would be clearer if he said "ten times more by mass" it the point has any meaning at all.
Click to expand...

When reading it I assumed that what they meant was "ten times the explosive force by quantity". Even then it is rather obscure, as it doesn't specify what gunpowder. They vary a lot.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Although the current Wikipedia article does indeed say that, that is not what Bell's theorem actually says.

What Bell's theorem actually says is that under certain specific assumptions, all of which are assumed by classical physics, certain inequalities must hold.

Bell's theorem is true independently of the experimental evidence.

When combined with the experimental evidence that says the inequalities do not hold, the conjunction of the experimental evidence with Bell's theorem implies that at least one of the classical assumptions does not hold (from which it follows that no explanation based on classical physics can be consistent with the experimental evidence).

I believe the sentence you quoted was intended to explain the consequences of Bell's theorems in light of the experimental evidence. It does not give a correct statement of what Bell's theorem actually says, because Bell's theorem does not refer to the experimental evidence, and the conclusion you bolded cannot be derived without using experimental evidence.

(Even then, there are a couple of other assumptions, such as counterfactual definiteness, that could be rejected instead of or in addition to local realism. Selecting local realism as the assumption that must be rejected is a choice based upon considerations that lie outside of Bell's theorem and the experimental evidence, and that choice is actually mildly controversial.)

The importance of those details to this discussion is that markie has been saying Mills has given a classical explanation of the experimental evidence that show Bell's inequalities do not hold. markie's claim is false, because classical physics assumes all of the hypotheses of Bell's theorem. To come up with an explanation that is consistent with the experimental evidence, at least one of those hypotheses must be taken as false.
Click to expand...


I take it that you didn't read the linked articles then. (Nor have you read the relevant section of Mills' GUTCP. OK. )
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Markie.....take a look at one of those crystals and analyse it.

Or better yet since Mills sent so many to independant labs to be tested, show me the lab results.


OOPS not one single solitary lab found any "dihydrino" or other dihydrino compounds!

Mills saying he will send out crystals he predicted had hydrinos is NOT the same as labs returning a positive analysis claiming they actually found one.

Pay close attention. NO hydrinos were ever found. Only normal hydrogen
Click to expand...


Labs have analysed Mills' crystals. All they can do is report anomalous results, which they do. They have no frame of reference to say the results were from this or that, although some labs which are more involved like those at Rowan will say the results are consistent with Mills' theoretically predicted results of hydrino signature.

You're the one who is not paying close enough attention.
 
SOdhner said:
This is the part that really gets me. Yes, there are a lot of red flags, but even if everything else was explained away the fact that there's nothing stopping anyone from just using hydrinos for themselves and that, in spite of that being the case, nobody has done so even just to verify they exist and write a paper on it?
Click to expand...

Several university labs in the US have been involved and one (Rowan) has written papers on it. A few papers from a couple of labs in the Netherlands have touched on the plasma physics end of things, with mixed result.

Absolutely impossible to explain without the whole thing being a hoax.
Click to expand...
Really. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
 
halleyscomet said:
What are the odds that Markie will cite this as proof of independent verification?
Click to expand...


Why would I, since the experiment was conducted by Mills and others scientists in his employ? Mills has collaborated with about 20 other scientists in his various published papers.
 
markie said:
Several university labs in the US have been involved
Click to expand...

You know why being "involved" isn't what we're talking about.

The point is, if Hydrinos were real anyone anywhere could be looking for them. The novelty alone, the confirmation of a new thing, would be enough for scientists to do this. But if they were as potentially useful as Mills keeps saying then there's also HUGE motivation for corporations to fund research.

It's been thirty years and nobody that's not connected to Mills has found Hydrinos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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