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

[ferd burfle]

Thanks.

So you say. With no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim ... other than total reliance on what Mills himself has said, right?


Again, so you say.

In getting approval for commercial sale, do you honestly think the various government agencies charged with protecting health and the environment (in NJ, the US, the EU, ...) will accept this sort of thing?


Nice try, but sorry, no cigar.

If hydrinos exist, their chemistry is unknown to everyone except Mills, and some of his employees (and you?). If they exist, no prudent person would rely solely on Mills’ Big Book of BooBoos for assurance that their release from commercial generators is entirely benign.

You really do yourself no favors by using this sort of flawed reasoning; why not be honest enough to say you seriously doubt Mills, if only because of his obvious disregard of the possible health and environmental impacts.

my hilite

A prudent company would look for affordable testing methods to screen for show stoppers in this regard. While animal feeding studies are quite expensive and can take years, a screening test such as the Ames mutagenicity test is relatively inexpensive since it uses bacteria grown in petri dishes. This method would apply to the purported hydrino compounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test

 

[hgus]

my hilite

A prudent company would look for affordable testing methods to screen for show stoppers in this regard. While animal feeding studies are quite expensive and can take years, a screening test such as the Ames mutagenicity test is relatively inexpensive since it uses bacteria grown in petri dishes. This method would apply to the purported hydrino compounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test

An excellent idea. But Mills do not need the test to get the investments he wants. The believers are already convinced that Hydrinos is safe. Safety test would only be meaningful if Mills want to go commercial.

Markie: You have not yet explained why the scientific culture can't handle Mills claims.

 

[markie]

Um, you realize that is a high-grade "gotcha", don't you?

You are on record as saying ~February 2019 is when Mills will put commercial generators on the market (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Good lord no. February 2019 was my prediction (made grudgingly) for a date that BLP would have a prototype that was provably (to a reasonable skeptic) producing useful amounts of power. Going from a working prototype to a product used in the industrial sector will take at least a few more years. A product for residential use at least a few years after that.

Yet no "scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies" has been done; certainly Mills has not even hinted that such scrutiny is even planned.

Whence the confidence that all such scrutiny can be accomplished in just a few months? Curious.

Large manufactures of industrial or consumer product are quite aware of the steps required to meet various compliance standards. It is not so much the domain of original research companies like BLP to do so. At least that is my thinking.

In an earlier post, you provided a link to something on hydrino compounds. As I read that document, and from my (very limited) understanding of what a Mills hydrino-based generator will be, I see grounds for thinking your earlier claim ("For power generation the waste product is inert dihydrino gas") is, well, bollocks.

Inside the reactor chamber (or whatever produces hydrinos) there will be some combo of the following elements, many in compound form (not an exhaustive list): H, C, O, Fe, Ni, Co, Ag, W, Pt, ... and Na, Ca, and K. The last three will be introduced as dissolved salts in the supply of fuel (water); commercial units will not be run exclusively on highly distilled water! Many of these same elements are in the equipment Mills describes as what he used to produce the hydrino compounds!

So it is entirely reasonable to expect that inside the reactor chamber of a commercial power source hydrino compounds will be produced. And without extensive testing, no one - not even Mills - can predict what, and in what quantities.

To borrow from The Man, do please, try harder.

I can see hydrogen, a fixed trace amount of oxygen, gallium or silver, and something like tungsten, but that's about it. Commercial units will be run on H2 gas, which can be derived from water or alkanes.

Yes of course it's near impossible to predict some outcomes, like what crud if any may build up in the reactor over time from trace contaminants. But as far as I know any waste product must escape out via diffusion through the reactor wall. The only thing doing that will be dihydrino gas and perhaps some hydrogen gas.

 

[markie]

And how in the world could you possibly know that? And what about all those other hydrino compounds you go on about?

My informed opinion, based on the relative harmlessness of hydrogen gas. Also, Dr. Mills seems to be in very good health. Regarding hydrino hydride compounds, they would need greater scrutiny, although they should be less reactive than normal corresponding hydride compounds.

 

[markie]

That's not how it works nowadays. Not like 100+ years ago. Then, it was: "Hey, we've just isolated a previously unknown material, and it glows, which is really cool, so we're going to immediately put it into widespread use. We don't think it has any harmful health effects, on the contrary we think based on wild guessing that the radiation "revitalizes cells," so we're also using it as an ingredient in health tonics."

Now, the scrutiny happens before the novel substance comes to market.

Not always, of course. The relevant government agencies aren't always as proactive about such things as they should be. It might take a suit by private interests to enjoin sales and use of the new technology pending proof of environmental and health safety. It's a good thing there aren't powerful established companies making big money from power generation, who might be motivated to drum up some astroturf lawsuits to hold off competition from hydrino power for a few years. Oh, wait...

The government's job isn't to test anything. It's to force BLP (or whomever) to test things to the government's satisfaction as a condition of being permitted to market them.

I largely agree, imagine that.

 

[Dabop]

Good lord no. February 2019 was my prediction (made grudgingly) for a date that BLP would have a prototype that was provably (to a reasonable skeptic) producing useful amounts of power. Going from a working prototype to a product used in the industrial sector will take at least a few more years. A product for residential use at least a few years after that.
snip

And around we go again....

 

[markie]

We know that these are "internal company reports" that contain a blatant lie and incompetence that anyone can understand, markie. But try actually reading the reports. They are obviously intended for a general audience. They are not marked as internal or private. The 1994 report was prepared for the Air Force!

22 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes Thermacore at least incompetence by not making the ESCA report available.
22 November 2018 markie: Cannot understand the LeHigh graph that Thermacore lied about.

The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak because the peak is at about 57 eV!
The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.

Yes it was prepared for the Air Force who was funding them. It would be privy to Thermacore and a division of the Air Force. I don't know why you think it was intended for public consumption.

About the 55eV peak, yes I agree the centre is more about 57 eV. Why it is such a wide swath of energy I don't know, perhaps diffraction effects. But I take Thermacore's statement at face value that Lehigh university couldn't pin the energy hump to anything conventional.

 

[markie]

Again as variations in "hydrogen pressure in the tubing" isn't recorded or monitored your "calculation" simply assumes "the heat generated by maintaining hydrogen pressure in the tubing".

Once again my point is that their blunder in that case is simply that they didn't monitor a source of input energy. Your continued and simple ignorance of that point ain't me "handwaving".

Neither did they monitor the source of input energy from background gamma radiation. Why? It wouldn't make even close to an appreciable difference. Similarly a back of the envelope calculation shows that the heat given off by maintaining hydrogen at pressure in the tube is relatively insignificant compared to the heat produced by the magical hydrogen reaction taking place.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes it was prepared for the Air Force who was funding them. It would be privy to Thermacore and a division of the Air Force. I don't know why you think it was intended for public consumption.

You said it was an internal report. It wasn't an internal report. It was a report for Wright-Patterson. This "public consumption" ruse is just another attempt by you to deflect attention from your actually words.

About the 55eV peak, yes I agree the centre is more about 57 eV. Why it is such a wide swath of energy I don't know, perhaps diffraction effects. But I take Thermacore's statement at face value that Lehigh university couldn't pin the energy hump to anything conventional.

Still putting words into Al Miller's mouth, I see, but let's do as you say and take Thermacore's statement face value: Lehigh didn't (not couldn't) provide a conventional explanation of a graph feature, the feature that did not occur at Mills' predicted spot below 55eV.

Also, neither Lehigh nor Thermacore provided any explanation as to why the plot for the virgin tubing is generally lower than that for the post-experiment tubing. Finally, Thermacore, as a matter of further incompetence, didn't test tubing from any of the other four coils.

 

[markie]

my hilite

A prudent company would look for affordable testing methods to screen for show stoppers in this regard. While animal feeding studies are quite expensive and can take years, a screening test such as the Ames mutagenicity test is relatively inexpensive since it uses bacteria grown in petri dishes. This method would apply to the purported hydrino compounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test

That and other tests. For instance lead and benzene aren't mutagenic but are clearly toxic.

 

[markie]

You said it was an internal report. It wasn't an internal report. It was a report for Wright-Patterson. This "public consumption" ruse is just another attempt by you to deflect attention from your actually words.

Still putting words into Al Miller's mouth, I see, but let's do as you say and take Thermacore's statement face value: Lehigh didn't (not couldn't) provide a conventional explanation of a graph feature, the feature that did not occur at Mills' predicted spot below 55eV.

Also, neither Lehigh nor Thermacore provided any explanation as to why the plot for the virgin tubing is generally lower than that for the post-experiment tubing. Finally, Thermacore, as a matter of further incompetence, didn't test tubing from any of the other four coils.

I'll take at face value the report that says on page 6, my bold:

Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanations for this peak"

Believe it or not, not everything is doable given the time and financial restraints of real life.

 

[markie]

That and other tests. For instance lead and benzene aren't mutagenic but are clearly toxic.

Silly me, benzene is a mutagen of course.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A novel power source comes to market. Of *course* it will come under scrutiny for environmental effects by the pertinent protection agencies. It's just that they will ultimately find nothing dangerous about dihydrino gas.

Shouldn't Mills have alerted them as soon as he started making it? A company producing a novel new gas is still potentially dangerous. Whether or not commercial units are available is irrelevant to whether or not the waste material is dangerous.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's worth pointing out that Mills has described some hydrino compounds thusly: "incredibly powerful explosives or rocket propellants". I'd have thought there would definitely need to be an assessment of the safety of that kind of thing, and I'd be amazed if Mills didn't need a license in order to produce, handle, and store such materials.

 

[jsfisher]

I'll take at face value the report that says on page 6, my bold:

Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanations for this peak"

Believe it or not, not everything is doable given the time and financial restraints of real life.

At least you are now sticking to what Thermacore actually reported rather than making up your own crap to avoid reality. Where are those exhaustive evaluations, by the way? All we have here is how Thermacore interpreted the ESCA result from Al Miller.

And if Thermacore didn't have time to competently conduct the experiment, then Thermacore should not have reported its incompetent result. Resource constraints are not an excuse for fraud.

 

[Hellbound]

It's worth pointing out that Mills has described some hydrino compounds thusly: "incredibly powerful explosives or rocket propellants". I'd have thought there would definitely need to be an assessment of the safety of that kind of thing, and I'd be amazed if Mills didn't need a license in order to produce, handle, and store such materials.

I'm trying to decide how funny it would be if someone dropped an anonymous tip about unlicensed explosives manufacturing to the ATF

 

[LTC8K6]

So close to the Pons and Fleischmann announcement of 1989, BLP has had to swim upstream against the stigma associated with cold fusion. That a lab had to resort to 'clandestine' testing of BLP cells should be an eye opener to the psychological pressures at work in our scientific culture.

It sounds far more like something Mills perpetuated, and required, to allow the purchase.

Mills almost certainly is the source of the "clandestine" requirements.

That's still the case today.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sustained in this context is on the order of a few seconds with dripping molten silver. It was sustained relative to the one time microseconds burst of a hydrated silver pellet. See
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf
for details.

You failed to mention your definitions of

"sustained" and "continuous".

No one, outside of skeptics, would think either one meant "a couple of seconds".

Well, since I have some experience with you and Mills, I knew that you didn't mean "sustained" or "continuous", and you just used those words in the hopes that no one would check, or that another investor might be impressed and fail to look closer.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Good lord no. February 2019 was my prediction (made grudgingly) for a date that BLP would have a prototype that was provably (to a reasonable skeptic) producing useful amounts of power. Going from a working prototype to a product used in the industrial sector will take at least a few more years. A product for residential use at least a few years after that.

It's interesting to read the original prediction made back in January 2017 in the post that kicked off the first thread in this series:

...
I'm here to let you know that free energy generators will be hitting the market within a year, with mass production ramping up rapidly within two years.
...

So that would be a January 2018 date for hitting the market, and January 2019 for mass production ramping up rapidly.

It's almost December 2018, and once again Mills has ... nothing. Not even prototype.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[The Man]

Neither did they monitor the source of input energy from background gamma radiation. Why?

Because background gamma radiation isn't part of their asserted reaction. Also they are not deliberately concentrating "background gamma radiation" and inputting it into the system. While the input of hydrogen is deliberate, deliberately concentrated and a critical part of the asserted reaction, yet that deliberately input source of energy is unmonitored.

It wouldn't make even close to an appreciable difference. Similarly a back of the envelope calculation shows that the heat given off by maintaining hydrogen at pressure in the tube is relatively insignificant compared to the heat produced by the magical hydrogen reaction taking place.

Once again, that calculation only assumes what is required in "maintaining hydrogen at pressure in the tube".

Do, please, try harder.