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

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Oh are we back at the inert hydrino? So all the hydrino compounds claimed by Mills are lies then?

 

[markie]

Fair enough.

How I make my research is a complete unknown to you.

I am not surprised that you will not name the supporters he got. Your answer implies that his only support is from his inner circle. That is as meaningful as having your mother as a character witness. Since I do not trust Mills I obviously do not consider his partners reliable. I would like to remind you that Mills have lied on more than one occasion. (You call it optimism or 'forward thinking statements' if I recall.)

Have Mills been able to convince anyone with relevant competence, except his inner circle, since the 90´s? If not, that IS a rather strong reason to suspect that there is nothing there.

See, I can tell you haven't even tried. People like Dr. Jonathan Phillips, Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Randy Booker, Dr. Peter Jansson, Nick Glumac and Dr. Conrads have all experienced Mills and his work firsthand and backed him in one way or another. Will you find that on Wiki? No. You will have to look at the original research. But since you are not a scientist you probably won't.

A wonderful example of why you should never write in affection. One believes one to be clever and instead it just becomes a turd.

1. It is completely ot. 2. It has nothing to do with me or my post. 3. It equates predicting financial crashes with suspecting scams. 4. You could not avoid being condescending or maybe you really think avoiding scams is a kind of magic?

My point about the 2008 crash had naught to do with scam. It had to do with the issue of trusting mainstream sources and so called experts who are distant from what is going on and are less informed that you would think.

 

[markie]

Fairness?
Is it fair to acquire millions of dollars to research a dead end? Money that actually could help change the world? Really?

To be fair Mills needs put in prison. That's fair.

Be sure if I stole 1/100th the money Mills has stolen through deception, I would be sitting in jail typing this.

But Mills gets a free pass to try and steal even more? This is fair? really?

You can also be sure I actually do have a way to change the world with an investment of 1/100th what Mills scammed for. I bet there are at least 100 others sitting in the same position as me. It is absolutely infuriating.

Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.

 

[markie]

@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.

The reaction is in-between chemical and nuclear in energy. Much closer to chemical. Since it has to do with electrons it really is chemical.

 

[markie]

I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?

Different kind. You won't be able to heat this and see discrete lines like you can with ordinary compounds.

 

[markie]

Oh are we back at the inert hydrino? So all the hydrino compounds claimed by Mills are lies then?

By inert I am referring to the most common form of hydrino, which is dihydrino gas. However, hydrino hydride compounds are also quite stable, more stable than normal hydrides.

 

[wollery]

Different kind. You won't be able to heat this and see discrete lines like you can with ordinary compounds.

So hydrino compounds don't vibrate or rotate?

Wow, this really is some weird state of matter!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

 

[LTC8K6]

Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.

I submit that Mills is wildly successful.
He has to be the best ever.

He's made an incredible amount of profit over the last 30 years without producing much of anything at all.

Without even describing much of anything at all.

He wrote one main theory, I think, which no one else has managed to use to produce anything at all, either.

I'd like to shake his hand for his profitability.

I'm frankly getting older and getting tired of trying to stop people from throwing their money into such bonfires.

I'm close to deciding to stop debunking altogether. I am slowly moving to the idea that it's a colossal waste of my time.

The scams never seem to end. The line of suckers never gets shorter. The sycophant crowds never get smaller. The paid / invested shills never go away.

In fact, the same scams just keep coming around again and again.

When Mills fails to produce anything, let's say 5 years from now, Markie you will still be on boards pretending.

What do I know though? Maybe Planet X is actually going to kill us all next week.

 

[hgus]

@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.

That sums it up nicely I think.

 

[hgus]

My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. ....

....Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? ....

My point about the 2008 crash had naught to do with scam. It had to do with the issue of trusting mainstream sources and so called experts who are distant from what is going on and are less informed that you would think.

Oh no. You were not! Refering to my 'spidey senses' do not make any sense in that context. You were being condescending and your irritation was showing.

See, I can tell you haven't even tried. People like Dr. Jonathan Phillips, Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Randy Booker, Dr. Peter Jansson, Nick Glumac and Dr. Conrads have all experienced Mills and his work firsthand and backed him in one way or another. Will you find that on Wiki? No. You will have to look at the original research. But since you are not a scientist you probably won't.

I know my limitations, I hope at least. 'Do your own research' is only meaningful if one have the basic knowledge to understand what one is researching. In this case I have not. So why should I read papers and experiments that I could not hope to evaluate? That would just be arrogant and deluded. But I do tend to trust mainstream science and most of your detractors on this thread. Funny isn't it? I have trust issues with Mills and you with everybody except Mills.

IF Hydrinos were real I would expect to see something like this. An initial strong scepticism and denial. Then a discussion on the merit of Hydrinos and after that a slow increase in acceptance as confirmatory research starts to appear. And then when critical mass is reached it would be generally accepted. But what do we see with hydrinos? An initial interest from outside groups and then nothing.

 

[markie]

So hydrino compounds don't vibrate or rotate?

Wow, this really is some weird state of matter!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Sure they can vibrate and rotate, as I've said before. For example dihydrino is predicted to have a specific rotational energy ; it rotates very quickly due to its small bond length.
Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University has measured this. Check out Mills, Fraser and Yu's paper in the Chinese Journal of Physics from earlier this year.

 

[markie]

Oh no. You were not! Refering to my 'spidey senses' do not make any sense in that context. You were being condescending and your irritation was showing.

I'm very seldom condescending, it is reserved for special cases. So FYI you're reading me wrong. I wasn't being condescending and I'm not irritated.

I know my limitations, I hope at least. 'Do your own research' is only meaningful if one have the basic knowledge to understand what one is researching. In this case I have not. So why should I read papers and experiments that I could not hope to evaluate? That would just be arrogant and deluded. But I do tend to trust mainstream science and most of your detractors on this thread. Funny isn't it? I have trust issues with Mills and you with everybody except Mills.

Actually, I tend to be quite trusting with most everyone.

IF Hydrinos were real I would expect to see something like this. An initial strong scepticism and denial. Then a discussion on the merit of Hydrinos and after that a slow increase in acceptance as confirmatory research starts to appear. And then when critical mass is reached it would be generally accepted. But what do we see with hydrinos? An initial interest from outside groups and then nothing.

That's a reasonable position. Likewise, you are assuming the scientific culture today is consistently reasonable in the way it vets. It sometimes isn't.
As UncertainH quoted from Wiki a few days ago:

After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[4] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

FYI Julian Schwinger was a Nobel Prize winner and a formidable intellect in physics.

 

[wollery]

Sure they can vibrate and rotate, as I've said before. For example dihydrino is predicted to have a specific rotational energy ; it rotates very quickly due to its small bond length.
Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University has measured this. Check out Mills, Fraser and Yu's paper in the Chinese Journal of Physics from earlier this year.

Then they will have unique, observable, spectral lines.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

 

[hgus]

That's a reasonable position. Likewise, you are assuming the scientific culture today is consistently reasonable in the way it vets. It sometimes isn't.
As UncertainH quoted from Wiki a few days ago:

After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[4] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

FYI Julian Schwinger was a Nobel Prize winner and a formidable intellect in physics.

Mills is known to have lied about his business. His business modus operandi is shady. His theory is not accepted anywhere outside his inner circle. And he has not produced a single tangible thing, only promises. And yet you expect me to give him the benefit of the doubt? He lost my trust the first time he lied. After that his word is ash. But actions speaks loader then words, but there is no action, is there? 30 frigging years of no action!!

In Mills case I would say that the scientific culture is working as intended. In the start his ideas got a look into. There was nothing there and the interest waned and died.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

It looks like Figure 2 from the long experiment is identical to the graph from the previous, shorter experiment. My take is that coil 4 was indeed examined at LeHigh university and the same 55 eV peak result was found as with the previous experiment. But for one reason or another Thermacore just reposted the old graph.

No they did not "just repost(ed) the old graph". They specifically claimed that the figure represented the current experiment. From page 6,

ESCA analyses were also done by Lehigh on samples of nickel tubing removed from coil #4^[7]. The results of these analyses show the characteristic hydrino peak at 55 eV. This peak is shown in Figure 2, confirming that excess heat can be produced by diffusion of hydrogen through nickel contacting K2CO3 as well as by electrolysis.

If you want to pick nits (and I suspect that Markie will) it is possible to argue that the figure shows the "characteristic hydrino peak" in a generic sense, and does not directly claim that it represents this particular experiment.

That doesn't wash. Any normal reading of the quote will come away with the impression that the figure shows the data mentioned.

There is a technical term for this: dishonesty. Not only that, exactly this behavior (representing the same data as applying to more than one experiment) is what brought down Harvard superstar John Darsee in 1981.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why? One might ask why it was that Helium was doubted to exist even ten years after it's discovery.

Because that's how science works. You'll notice in that story you posted that the common thread is that the scientists accepted what the evidence showed to be true, and that there was lots of independent verification.

So this doesn't really support your theory that scientists ridicule Mills because they're scared of the truth. Instead it supports what everybody else is saying - that if there were replicable results, then people would be convinced by them. And that is all ignoring the fact that you finished your quote just before the article started talking about those who did believe it when it was announced because they saw the evidence for themselves, and that this example is the best you could come up with and even then it's only 10 years before it was completely accepted by everybody.

 

[JeanTate]

Then they will have unique, observable, spectral lines.

And, as Mills has claimed, the sky will glow brightly in these wavelengths, as Dark Matter is hydrinos...

 

[JeanTate]

@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.

One more for hugs: lots (but not all) of what markie has posted these last few days has been posted here (or in a predecessor thread) before. Some of us who’ve been around this carousel before have stopped repeating ourselves in rebuttal; in one sense, markie is mimicking Mills: wash, rinse, repeat.

Interesting though, not much attempt to defend Mills in terms of his Nobel Prize deserving “theory” ... for those of us who’ve looked carefully at it, it’s crackpot nonsense, deeply flawed by its internal inconsistencies.

So that leaves just the experimental tests, and the wildly incredible observational inconsistencies; strange that markie focuses on the former and ignores the latter.

Oh, and he’s oddly silent on the health and environmental impacts of the many kilograms of hydrinos Mills has let escape from his lab in NJ ... it’s almost as if he believes there’s nothing to worry about ... because there are no hydrinos!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.

It is personal with me, the same as when woo artists claim to psychic heal cancer and prey on those who are sick and desperate. All forms of fraud are stealing from those deserving. A lose lose for EVERYONE. Even you Markie. That;s right, even you lose when Mills successfully steals research money. It is just like stealing from legit alternative energy research making us all poorer.

Oh and PS
Mills can never succeed because hydrinos don't exist. His only chance to ever do anything meaningful in his whole life is drop the whole thing and start over trying to develope something that is actually real and might potentially advance human knowledge. Maybe in the field of medicine? Otherwise Mill's entire life becomes a sad waste of time, energy and a good mind. shameful

 

[Trebuchet]

Oh yes, everybody here would just love for Mills' claims to be true. That is why, despite no one offering a plausible scientific explanation for the excess heat in this one simple, early experiment from 1994, the only response from pseudoskeptics is to assume that the excess heat observed is somehow a mistake or a result of fraud.

Who the hell needs an explanation? It's been 24 years, stick the damn thing in a boiler and make some steam!