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

[markie]

He had it explained before.

Markie has had explained to him the failure in using a power unit to measure heat energy before.

He should know that the so called hydrino chrystals have no hydrinos in them, and he should know joules is the unit of measure for energy.

He has even had explained to him why the deception, due to the time unit being so short, it makes the power unit for a relatively small amount of energy seem large.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But if you have a problem with the watts unit that Thermacore used, it should be understood that these are continuous watts (as translated from an elevated temperature of 32C compared to control). The cell could run for months. Even so, the power density was admittedly 10 to 100 times too low for commercialization.

I don't know what you mean about hydrino crystals having no hydrinos in them. The nickel tubing, after use, had something with a binding energy of about 55eV in it, a result predicted by Mills and otherwise having no conventional explanation by Thermacore.

 

[markie]

Ah, you've forgotten which question you were dodging. Understandable. Here's what we were talking about:

So when you say something has to be valuated by outside scientists, what are your actual standards? How do you define "outside"? I don't think you can do it in a way that both works for Mills AND doesn't work for essentially any crank that comes along.

I define an outside validator as someone who is a credentialed qualified scientist who is employed elsewhere, outside of BLP. What else would I mean. Look at for instance Dr. Mark Jansson. He has stated that his job was to investigate and almost invariably debunk energy generation claims, which he has done. But with BLP he couldn't debunk it. On the contrary, he has validated BLP technology.

 

[LTC8K6]

I define an outside validator as someone who is a credentialed qualified scientist who is employed elsewhere, outside of BLP. What else would I mean. Look at for instance Dr. Mark Jansson. He has stated that his job was to investigate and almost invariably debunk energy generation claims, which he has done. But with BLP he couldn't debunk it. On the contrary, he has validated BLP technology.

Jansson is at least indirectly employed by BLP, and works with and for BLP, though.

I doubt that anyone here who has seen the paperwork on the grants and payments would call Jansson "independent" of BLP.

Except you, Markie.

 

[LTC8K6]

Jansson even refers to BLP as an "affiliate" in the paperwork.

 

[Reality Check]

A blatant lie that Dr. Mark Jansson is an independent investigator

Look at for instance Dr. Mark Jansson.

5 September 2018 markie: A blatant lie that Dr. Mark Jansson is an independent investigator.

29 August 2018 markie: Quotes an obviously lying document yet again - these are not 5 "independent third-party validations"

The electrical engineer, Peter Jansson, has been involved with Mills delusions since at least 2002.

This is my personal favorite. Peter Mark Jansson, independent validator extraordinaire, after being out of school for almost 20 years, went to Rowan and wrote a masters thesis titled, Hydrocatalysis: a new energy paradigm for the 21st century, in 1997 about then Blacklight Power with, you guessed it, the Great Randino and William Good listed as external advisors.

That thesis is available online (PDF) is anyone doubts how dependent Peter Mark Jansson is on BLP.

5 September 2018 markie: A lie that Dr. Mark Jansson is a "credentialed qualified scientist".
A climate scientist is a credentialed qualified scientist but it would be stupid to expect one to properly evaluate plasma experiments. A credentialed qualified scientist would be a quantum physicist (for the theory), plasma physicist, or someone with the background and skills to properly evaluate Mills experiments.
A "credentialed qualified scientist" would have published scientific papers in scientist journals.
Jansson is an electrical engineer who consults and teaches with no sign of papers.

 

[Reality Check]

I define an outside validator as someone who is a credentialed qualified scientist who is employed elsewhere, outside of BLP. .

A reasonable definition of an outside validator is a person with

1. The skills and background to be a validator, e.g. do not employ a plumber to evaluate heart surgery .
2. None or as little connection as possible with the research and researchers.

However "validations" are nothing to do with science and hints of a scam because the experiments are done at BLP, by BLP personnel using BLP equipment. There is too great a possibility of bias or even fraud.

The benchmark of valid scientific research is independent replication needing:

1. A replicable publication of the research.
2. The skills and background to do the replication..
3. None or as little connection as possible with the original research and researchers.
4. Publishing of the results in journals.

The lack of is independent replication for almost 30 years is part of what makes Mills research into pseudoscience.

 

[Hans]

How many times now has he brought up Jansson?

-----------------------------------------------

Just doing a search for the answer myself

I find he has mentioned him 5 times so far, the first time on the 18th of March 2017, he just cannot seem to understand that while he may considered him 'valid' most others do not and for very specific reasons.

His purpose it appears is to try and keep the 'possibility' that Mills is right alive by any means.

 

[Gamolon]

I define an outside validator as someone who is a credentialed qualified scientist who is employed elsewhere, outside of BLP.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11808732#post11808732

BLP is a business and has intellectual property. They have every right to choose who validates their technology, and yes they will even pay the validators for their work.

So a validator who gets their paycheck from a company other than BLP is credible, but a validator who gets their paycheck from a company who is getting paid by BLP to validate is NOT credible?

Do I understand this correctly?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11808732#post11808732

So a validator who gets their paycheck from a company other than BLP is credible, but a validator who gets their paycheck from a company who is getting paid by BLP to validate is NOT credible?

Do I understand this correctly?

Almost, but not really. The issue is one of independence. It is perfectly reasonable to pay a validator for a test, as long as the validator does not depend on your trade and does not have a vested interest in the resutsl.

A good example would be the eDrive testing done by NASA. NASA will test almost anything for money, and will provide expertise in setting up the test. And, if it comes to that, they won't conduct tests which they consider flakey. However, NASA does not depend on any particular client for continued operation, so there is no reason to believe that their results will be anything other than honest.

Mills "validations", on the other hand, seem to be done by organizations controlled by people who are long-time Mills supporters and/or collaborators. There's a difference.

 

[ferd burfle]

He had it explained before.





Markie has had explained to him the failure in using a power unit to measure heat energy before.

He should know that the so called hydrino chrystals have no hydrinos in them, and he should know joules is the unit of measure for energy.

He has even had explained to him why the deception, due to the time unit being so short, it makes the power unit for a relatively small amount of energy seem large.

Thanks, RBF, after I posted it occurred to me someone else probably already caught such an obvious error. Didn’t stop markie from throwing it over the transom again, though, did it? Or trying to play down the significance of the mistake?

 

[Gamolon]

Almost, but not really. The issue is one of independence. It is perfectly reasonable to pay a validator for a test, as long as the validator does not depend on your trade and does not have a vested interest in the resutsl.

A good example would be the eDrive testing done by NASA. NASA will test almost anything for money, and will provide expertise in setting up the test. And, if it comes to that, they won't conduct tests which they consider flakey. However, NASA does not depend on any particular client for continued operation, so there is no reason to believe that their results will be anything other than honest.

Mills "validations", on the other hand, seem to be done by organizations controlled by people who are long-time Mills supporters and/or collaborators. There's a difference.

I get that, but wanted to hear markie's response as my next post was going to quote this:

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.

So as it stands, per markie's previous quote, it's more than just being "employed elsewhere, outside of BLP". Looks like Jannson may HAVE a vested interest in BLP after all and his validations may be biased/exaggerated for that reason.

 

[halleyscomet]

$1bn blood-testing scam Theranos dissolved

The woman who made General "Mad Dog" Mattis into her puppy is going to get her slap on the wrist from the government.

It's a shame she didn't spend some time studying how Mills runs BLP. She may still be going strong if she had.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But if you have a problem with the watts unit that Thermacore used, it should be understood that these are continuous watts (as translated from an elevated temperature of 32C compared to control). The cell could run for months. Even so, the power density was admittedly 10 to 100 times too low for commercialization.

No. 32C is plenty if it could be maintained for months. Plenty plenty. But it can't. As I said it was explained to you before. A commercial heater that produced 32C increase in water temp would be hugely beneficial cheap non polluting energy that required no more engineering than how to rig up a radiator and a pump. Hell the Romans had technology at this level 2,000 years ago. You are simply naive to be misdirected by Mills in order to obfuscate the obvious.

I don't know what you mean about hydrino crystals having no hydrinos in them. The nickel tubing, after use, had something with a binding energy of about 55eV in it, a result predicted by Mills and otherwise having no conventional explanation by Thermacore.

Mills can predict it all he wants, but that doesn't matter unless it can't be predicted by standard means. Turns out that the desorption of CO+ inducted by electronic transitions is exactly 55eV. Oops nothing to see here.

Oh and to understand the mechanism you need only to calculate the retunneling rates of hydrogen on transition metals. This of course combined with the fragmentation of CO and those transition metal carbonyls explains it all in a way that does not need any hydrinos to explain it at all.

Bottom line is that in simple layman terms, you are looking at normal exothermic reactions and hydrogen embrittlement. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[markie]

No. 32C is plenty if it could be maintained for months. Plenty plenty. But it can't. As I said it was explained to you before. A commercial heater that produced 32C increase in water temp would be hugely beneficial cheap non polluting energy that required no more engineering than how to rig up a radiator and a pump. Hell the Romans had technology at this level 2,000 years ago. You are simply naive to be misdirected by Mills in order to obfuscate the obvious.

Did you even read the paper? Do you not realize that the base temperature was something like 250C and the entire system had to be highly pressurized to prevent boiling? A gain of 30C in this environment is not something that is going to be marketable.

Mills can predict it all he wants, but that doesn't matter unless it can't be predicted by standard means. Turns out that the desorption of CO+ inducted by electronic transitions is exactly 55eV. Oops nothing to see here.

Source? I could only find this, and in the context of Molybdenum:
"Using a photon energy of 55 eV, the broad feature at 12 eV was assigned to the 4σ-state of CO". It appears you are confusing the photon energy used in the spectrography with the bond energy.

Oh and to understand the mechanism you need only to calculate the retunneling rates of hydrogen on transition metals. This of course combined with the fragmentation of CO and those transition metal carbonyls explains it all in a way that does not need any hydrinos to explain it at all.

Bottom line is that in simple layman terms, you are looking at normal exothermic reactions and hydrogen embrittlement. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Nice try but nope. I think you're just making stuff up at this point. Read pages 33 and 34 of the paper. No sign of chemical attack on the nickel tubing. No known conventional mechanism of exothermic reaction. This particular paper doesn't describe it, but if sodium carbonate was used instead of potassium carbonate, no appreciable excess heat. Your attempt to dismiss the Thermacore results falls short.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Did you even read the paper? Do you not realize that the base temperature was something like 250C and the entire system had to be highly pressurized to prevent boiling? A gain of 30C in this environment is not something that is going to be marketable.





Source? I could only find this, and in the context of Molybdenum:
"Using a photon energy of 55 eV, the broad feature at 12 eV was assigned to the 4σ-state of CO". It appears you are confusing the photon energy used in the spectrography with the bond energy.




Nice try but nope. I think you're just making stuff up at this point. Read pages 33 and 34 of the paper. No sign of chemical attack on the nickel tubing. No known conventional mechanism of exothermic reaction. This particular paper doesn't describe it, but if sodium carbonate was used instead of potassium carbonate, no appreciable excess heat. Your attempt to dismiss the Thermacore results falls short.

Somebody please get me the rolling dog icon! ROLFLMAO An increase in energy isn't useful because it is too hot! ahahahaha


As for your second part, No I don't have a source but it should be easy enough to google, it is text book stuff. Nothing so difficult as to need a scientific paper. Damn it..ok I guess I do need to try and find you at least the right text book... as this is a skeptics site.....

Found one.
Desorption Induced by Electronic Transitions

You'll find it discussed on page 57 of part II Ion Desorption via Core Excitations There is a whole chapter on hydrogen retunneling rates on metals too. Read up. It's been 30 years since I did. So I need you to study good. I am more than a little rusty on it. (pun intended)

 

[Darat]

Groundbreaking video of second suncell

https://youtu.be/bvEOE0vu4kg

 

[jrhowell]

Groundbreaking video of second suncell

https://youtu.be/bvEOE0vu4kg

Whatever it is doing it appears to only do it once, for a fraction of a second, in the slowed down video.

I wonder how long it will be before BLP announces that the outside company that fabricated that device has failed to make one that can operate continuously and that they need to go back to the drawing board once again.

 

[Mike!]

Groundbreaking video of second suncell

https://youtu.be/bvEOE0vu4kg

That's 6 years old... The ground was apparently sent out for repairs.

 

[abaddon]

Did you even read the paper? Do you not realize that the base temperature was something like 250C and the entire system had to be highly pressurized to prevent boiling? A gain of 30C in this environment is not something that is going to be marketable.

Yay. Mills discovers revolutionary technology from the 19th century. News at eleven.

 

[LTC8K6]

Note that the massive violet space-filling plasma is independent of the electrified molten gallium stream. Horizontal shock wave striations are observed in the plasma afterglow as the hydrogen fuel is depleted. In the interim to refueling with H2 flow into the over-atmospheric argon cell gas, small sparks are observed due to the applied low voltage DC ignition. No prior known energy-releasing chemical reaction is possible. This plasma as formed and observed cannot be created with prior known technology. For detailed laboratory measurements on the hydrino power reaction, the new power source presented in this video, see our publications such as R. Mills, Y. Lu, R. Frazer, “Power Determination and Hydrino Product Characterization of Ultra-low Field Ignition of Hydrated Silver Shots”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTv_AXhDp8

Sounds wonderful, I'm in!