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

[halleyscomet]

Wow, markie knows nothing about patents. Why am I not surprised?

I have yet to encounter a Mills supporter who has even a basic understanding of what patents are and how they work.

 

[Hans]

If hyrinos were real I would.

Hell, why don't YOU slap together the science fair project to prove Hydrinos exist? You claim to believe they're real.

Way way to proactive. His job is to sit still and believe really really hard.

 

[halleyscomet]

Way way to proactive. His job is to sit still and believe really really hard.

Being a sideline cheerleader is FAR less effort than trying to DO something.

It's amazing how many people claim to believe in these world changing technologies or discoveries yet never manage to do any experiments to prove it themselves. I have more respect for the Bigfoot true believers who go out into the woods to look for them than I do for sideline fanboys who sit around cheering and gloating while never doing the allegedly easy tests to prove their preferred woowoo true.

 

[Shepherd]

The Examiner wouldn't. That's why I said they'd get a patent. But that patent would be legally invalid, and that would come up if the patentee ever ended up in court.

The examiner doesn't have the resources to build and test the device as described in the patent, but the patentee's competitors sure as hell do. And when they sit down and try to replicate the patentee's work, it will be blindingly obvious that the patentee has failed in their duty to properly disclose their best mode. And the courts absolutely will give that evidence due consideration, and can invalidate the patent if convinced.

(snip)

What I've made bold in your post may no longer be true in the U.S. due to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that went into effect on September 16, 2012.

Best mode: Although an inventor is still required to "set forth" the best mode for accomplishing the invention, failure to disclose a best mode is not a basis for invalidating or rendering unenforceable an issued patent.[12] The law formally retains the best mode requirement, but by making insufficient disclosure no longer an allowable defense against patent infringement, the law renders best mode unenforceable. This has left many patent lawyers wondering why the requirement was kept at all.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act

Section 15 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does not eliminate the requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for a disclosure of the best mode, but does amend 35 U.S.C. 282 (the provisions that sets forth defenses in a patent validity or infringement proceeding) to provide that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable. As this change is applicable only in patent validity or infringement proceedings, it does not alter current patent examining practices set forth in MPEP 2165 for evaluation of an application for compliance with the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.

My bolding.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/06/best-mode-requirement-preferences/id=65879/

I'm not an expert or anything. I was just aware that there were some fairly recent changes in U.S. patent law.

 

[abaddon]

Markie, you claimed a Feb 2019 deadline. Until then, you can simply stop with this nonsense and shut all of us up with a working, commercially viable device.
That is only a few short months away, so surely after 30 years of fake bs you can wait that long? Right?

After all, you did set that deadline. You, yourself, right? So wait a few months and let us all witness the tapdance. Feb 2019 is only a few months away.

 

[markie]

It's "essential to the operation of the patent" as contemplated by the patentee. And again, yes, "the devils are often in the details" and those details matter when you're applying for a patent.

Such issues are rare in the patent world, but they do happen.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ing-the-system-loses-viagra-patent-in-canada/

Not revealing the main active ingredient is no mere 'detail'. Pfizer was rightly punished for not disclosing what made their product work. How it got through in the first place is puzzling to me. Maybe the pharmaceutical industry has some friendlies in the US patent office.

 

[abaddon]

Not revealing the main active ingredient is no mere 'detail'. Pfizer was rightly punished for not disclosing what made their product work. How it got through in the first place is puzzling to me. Maybe the pharmaceutical industry has some friendlies in the US patent office.

I don't care about your fakery. Will you be doing what you said in Feb. 2019?

 

[markie]

Being a sideline cheerleader is FAR less effort than trying to DO something.

It's amazing how many people claim to believe in these world changing technologies or discoveries yet never manage to do any experiments to prove it themselves. I have more respect for the Bigfoot true believers who go out into the woods to look for them than I do for sideline fanboys who sit around cheering and gloating while never doing the allegedly easy tests to prove their preferred woowoo true.

I've put more effort into reading Mills' book and experiments than perhaps anyone here. I don't believe things so easily as you may think. Believe it or not I don't believe everything that Dr. Mills says.

If I did perform an experiment and reported positive results of excess heat with potassium carbonate you would think even less of it than the experiments at Thermacore and Rowan and elsewhere, for instance:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf

 

[halleyscomet]

I've put more effort into reading Mills' book and experiments than perhaps anyone here. I don't believe things so easily as you may think. Believe it or not I don't believe everything that Dr. Mills says.



If I did perform an experiment and reported positive results of excess heat with potassium carbonate you would think even less of it than the experiments at Thermacore and Rowan and elsewhere, for instance:



https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf

Then write up your research and submit it for publication.

 

[The Man]

Well you have a point up to a point. Both the mass and the specific heat of the same low molar solutions of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate would be (I think) higher for the former. But just by a bit. Not nearly enough to account for the temperature difference observed. Also, you seem to be confusing the specific heat of the two solid metals with what they would be in a weak solution as carbonate cations.

Nope, no confusion just using what information was immediately available. So you just "think" the difference is "just by a bit" and "Not nearly enough to account for the temperature difference observed". Meaning your assertion has no factual or citable bases. The situation is over twice as bad for the cations. The partial molar heat capacity of Na⁺ is three and a half times that of K⁺.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/v96-069

Do, please, try harder.

 

[markie]

I don't care about your fakery. Will you be doing what you said in Feb. 2019?

I'm already pretty certain that BLP won't have a device by February that would satisfy skeptics. Too many setbacks have delayed the timeline. So I've already started eating my crow chrumble pie, slowly.

Nevertheless I'm encouraged that they have effectively closed the system last month, so no large scale venting. By February I'm expecting they'll have reached another milestone, perhaps something that would make a pseudoskeptic squirm. Here's hoping.

 

[markie]

Nope, no confusion just using what information was immediately available. So you just "think" the difference is "just by a bit" and "Not nearly enough to account for the temperature difference observed". Meaning your assertion has no factual or citable bases. The situation is over twice as bad for the cations. The partial molar heat capacity of Na⁺ is three and a half times that of K⁺.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/v96-069

Do, please, try harder.

That is interesting, nice find. But when I said the temperature would vary "just by a bit" I was referring of course to the differential heat capacity effects on the temperature of the whole solution. The figures cited in that paper are per mole of cation, not per moles of total solution. Huge difference.

 

[The Man]

That is interesting, nice find. But when I said the temperature would vary "just by a bit" I was referring of course to the differential heat capacity effects on the temperature of the whole solution. The figures cited in that paper are per mole of cation, not per moles of total solution. Huge difference.

Still not even trying I see.

As the difference is specifically those moles of cation, they are the, well, difference. The heat capacity of the rest of the solution that is the same is, well, the same. No you didn't say "temperature would vary "just by a bit"" you said "Both the mass and the specific heat of the same low molar solutions of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate would be (I think) higher for the former. But just by a bit." As the "higher for the former" referred to the "mass and the specific heat" so too did the "But just by a bit." Simply, deliberately and demonstrably misrepresenting what you said is not trying harder. Feel free to work out the equilibrium temperatures of the whole solutions starting at a uniform heat energy for yourself if that is what you want.


Again, do, please, try harder.

 

[Hans]

I'm already pretty certain that BLP won't have a device by February that would satisfy skeptics. Too many setbacks have delayed the timeline. So I've already started eating my crow chrumble pie, slowly.

Nevertheless I'm encouraged that they have effectively closed the system last month, so no large scale venting. By February I'm expecting they'll have reached another milestone, perhaps something that would make a pseudoskeptic squirm. Here's hoping.

....you do know its a scam and can never work right? No amount of time is ever going to be sufficient to obtain pineapples from a penguin's butt.

 

[markie]

Still not even trying I see.

As the difference is specifically those moles of cation, they are the, well, difference. The heat capacity of the rest of the solution that is the same is, well, the same. No you didn't say "temperature would vary "just by a bit"" you said "Both the mass and the specific heat of the same low molar solutions of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate would be (I think) higher for the former. But just by a bit." As the "higher for the former" referred to the "mass and the specific heat" so too did the "But just by a bit." Simply, deliberately and demonstrably misrepresenting what you said is not trying harder. Feel free to work out the equilibrium temperatures of the whole solutions starting at a uniform heat energy for yourself if that is what you want.


Again, do, please, try harder.

I said the specific heat of the same low molar solutions. I'm not talking about cations in isolation here.

Let's back up.
You said, "The partial molar heat capacity of Na+ is three and a half times that of K+."

Let's consider the following scenario.

Given: A 1 molar solution of of sodium carbonate, that is, 106 grams of Na2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water

Given: A 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate, that is, 138 grams of K2CO3 dissolved in 1 litre (1 kg) of water

Are you implying that the 1M solution of sodium carbonate will require
3.5 times the energy to raise the temperature of the solution a certain set amount of degrees as it would a 1 molar solution of potassium carbonate? It really seems as if you are implying that. Otherwise I don't understand why your knickers are in a knot.

I'm saying it will require only just a bit more energy.

Also, I'm embarrassed to say that I had potassium and sodium switched in the periodic table in my mind. I thought potassium was lighter. But really it is incidental.

 

[Darat]

Being a sideline cheerleader is FAR less effort than trying to DO something.

It's amazing how many people claim to believe in these world changing technologies or discoveries yet never manage to do any experiments to prove it themselves. I have more respect for the Bigfoot true believers who go out into the woods to look for them than I do for sideline fanboys who sit around cheering and gloating while never doing the allegedly easy tests to prove their preferred woowoo true.

Especially when according to Markie anyone could prove hydrinos exist by a device that would be at the level of a school science fair project!

 

[Darat]

Not revealing the main active ingredient is no mere 'detail'. Pfizer was rightly punished for not disclosing what made their product work. How it got through in the first place is puzzling to me. Maybe the pharmaceutical industry has some friendlies in the US patent office.

Details aren't your strength are they?

 

[Darat]

I'm already pretty certain that BLP won't have a device by February that would satisfy skeptics. Too many setbacks have delayed the timeline. So I've already started eating my crow chrumble pie, slowly.

Nevertheless I'm encouraged that they have effectively closed the system last month, so no large scale venting. By February I'm expecting they'll have reached another milestone, perhaps something that would make a pseudoskeptic squirm. Here's hoping.

"won't have a device by February that would satisfy skeptics" it's shorter to write "won't have a working device by February" and it means exactly the same thing.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm already pretty certain that BLP won't have a device by February that would satisfy skeptics. Too many setbacks have delayed the timeline. So I've already started eating my crow chrumble pie, slowly.

Nevertheless I'm encouraged that they have effectively closed the system last month, so no large scale venting. By February I'm expecting they'll have reached another milestone, perhaps something that would make a pseudoskeptic squirm. Here's hoping.

Does the fact that Mills' supporters have been saying this, or versions of it, for nearly 30 years really not give you pause?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Markie, you claimed a Feb 2019 deadline. Until then, you can simply stop with this nonsense and shut all of us up with a working, commercially viable device.
That is only a few short months away, so surely after 30 years of fake bs you can wait that long? Right?

After all, you did set that deadline. You, yourself, right? So wait a few months and let us all witness the tapdance. Feb 2019 is only a few months away.

He's already walked that back.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12438497#post12438497

Ceasing to believe what? That the SunCell would be self looped by this February?
I already believe that is unlikely at this point. However it may have advanced enough even by that time to be making some pseudoskeptics here twitchy.

When the deadline was originally agreed on, it was the deadline for markie admitting he had been "taken" by Mills. Now he flat-out denies that that is the case, and if linked to the original post where he said that, he just ignores the evidence.

Not the best way to convince people that you are honest.