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

[Reality Check]

Believes in a second obvious lie in an already lying Thermacore document

Yes it was prepared for the Air Force who was funding them.

That means that it was not an internal company report as you stated !
It is for public consumption. It is not a classified Air Force report. Anyone who was interested could ask the appropriate government department for a copy. And where do you think you got that document from - a public web site !

Yes About the 55eV peak, yes I agree the centre is more about 57 eV.

So you agree that Thermacore arte lying about a 55 eV peak because you finally looked at their figure and saw that the peak is not at 55 eV?

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.

But I take Thermacore's statement at face value that Lehigh university couldn't pin the energy hump to anything conventional.

27 November 2018 markie: Believes in a second obvious lie in an already lying Thermacore document.
Thermacore wrote at least 1 repeated lie in their reports about the "energy bump" (it is a spectral peak at ~57 eV). They lied to the Air Force! There is no evidence that LeHigh university did anything except standard lab analysis of supplied samples. Neither of the reports has the ESCA report.

Use your commonsense, markie. If Al Miller had written in his ESCA report that he could not attribute that 57 eV peak to anything conventional then why did Thermacore omit that in their first report? Why is that vital ESCA report not even a reference in the first report? Why did Thermacore not quote Al Miller in their second report? Did they magically discover that the ESCA report said that before the second report was written?

Ditto for the "exhaustive investigations" statement. The ESCA report was available for the 1993 report. Thermacore did not list those "investigations". Thermacore did not quote those "investigations" from the ESCA report. And what is the title of the ESCA report? It is "ESCA report" ! A rational person would conclude that a report on ESCA results would be the spectra with the known elements labeled. There would be a giant peak from Ni because that is what the sample are primarily made of. There would be lesser peaks from other known, trace elements.

Al Miller was a competent scientist. He should not be deluded enough to believe in hydrinos. He could tell a real 57 eV peak from a 55 eV peak. Thus, Thermacore insult him and lie by suggesting that he attributed an imaginary 55 eV peak to hydrinos ("Lehigh (Dr. A. Miller) has also seen these peaks on electrodes removed from Mills' electrolytic cells and has no other explanation for them other than being caused by the presence of hydrinos.").

 

[Bindamel]

Apologies if this has been previously covered, but I haven't seen it in following this thread for a while. Also, I'm starting with a brief personal story.

So, from 1993 to 1998 I worked for a small business whose (unspoken) mission was to be continually funded by the government through a little program called Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). The stated purpose of the SBIR program is to provide the equivalent of venture capital to small businesses to investigate new technologies (Phase I), develop a practical application (Phase II), and commercialize the technology (Phase III). Phase I contracts were six months with a $150,000 budget, and Phase II contracts were 2 year, $1 million budget contracts. I never saw a Phase III contract while I was there, which was intentional on the part of the company. Our Principal Investigators (PIs) were churning out Phase I proposals as fast as they could; when a Phase I was awarded, the primary role of that PI was writing a report that would get a Phase II award. In phase II, the primary role of that PI was to go back to writing Phase I reports, because our company wasn't actually looking to commercialize anything.

(This is probably an overly cynical, slightly exaggerated view, but it's not entirely inaccurate either. A lot of the younger, less jaded PIs wanted to see their ideas go to commercialization, and pushed pretty hard to make things work. They also put in more hours, because any time spent actually working on Phase II was time not getting a new Phase I. By the same token, we used to pick apart other companies' Phase I reports to figure out what they were hiding in their attempts to get to Phase II.)

So, we were essentially an SBIR "factory". Our purpose was to convince government agencies to give us money to do research. Guess why this story is relevant.

A lot is being said about the incompetence of Thermacore. I don't think they were incompetent, I think they were trying to get a Phase II award. You'll note that the second linked report from Reality Check is an SBIR Phase I final report. It's all rainbows and butterflies not because they believed in it, but because they might get $1,000,000 to play with for a couple years.

Thermacore appears to be an SBIR factory company. They were awarded 95 Phase I and 44 Phase II contracts over the course of 30+ years. (The company I worked for has almost 300/over 100 in the same time period; we were prolific.)

 

[halleyscomet]

Apologies if this has been previously covered, but I haven't seen it in following this thread for a while. Also, I'm starting with a brief personal story.



So, from 1993 to 1998 I worked for a small business whose (unspoken) mission was to be continually funded by the government through a little program called Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). The stated purpose of the SBIR program is to provide the equivalent of venture capital to small businesses to investigate new technologies (Phase I), develop a practical application (Phase II), and commercialize the technology (Phase III). Phase I contracts were six months with a $150,000 budget, and Phase II contracts were 2 year, $1 million budget contracts. I never saw a Phase III contract while I was there, which was intentional on the part of the company. Our Principal Investigators (PIs) were churning out Phase I proposals as fast as they could; when a Phase I was awarded, the primary role of that PI was writing a report that would get a Phase II award. In phase II, the primary role of that PI was to go back to writing Phase I reports, because our company wasn't actually looking to commercialize anything.



(This is probably an overly cynical, slightly exaggerated view, but it's not entirely inaccurate either. A lot of the younger, less jaded PIs wanted to see their ideas go to commercialization, and pushed pretty hard to make things work. They also put in more hours, because any time spent actually working on Phase II was time not getting a new Phase I. By the same token, we used to pick apart other companies' Phase I reports to figure out what they were hiding in their attempts to get to Phase II.)



So, we were essentially an SBIR "factory". Our purpose was to convince government agencies to give us money to do research. Guess why this story is relevant.



A lot is being said about the incompetence of Thermacore. I don't think they were incompetent, I think they were trying to get a Phase II award. You'll note that the second linked report from Reality Check is an SBIR Phase I final report. It's all rainbows and butterflies not because they believed in it, but because they might get $1,000,000 to play with for a couple years.



Thermacore appears to be an SBIR factory company. They were awarded 95 Phase I and 44 Phase II contracts over the course of 30+ years. (The company I worked for has almost 300/over 100 in the same time period; we were prolific.)

Damn.

My tax dollars went to pay for a Mills inspired smokescreen.

Damn.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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:


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.

Well, michaelsuede hasn't posted here in a long time. Last that was said in this thread, he's not paid up on his bet, either.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't know enough about Java or Mills' theory, but someone has programmed a couple of equations in Java, in order to prove that at least one aspect of it is accurate. Is this the bit where he can accurately predict something about the first 20 or so elements, but which he could actually have reverse-engineered by working from the results to create equations that work? And which don't actually work beyond those 20?

I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with either or both can chime in.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know enough about Java or Mills' theory, but someone has programmed a couple of equations in Java, in order to prove that at least one aspect of it is accurate..

Mills' deluded book has many pages of "calculated" ionization energies. I doubt whether a Java implementation of his crank equations will report anything different.

It is a waste of time to go through Mills book more than it has already been analyzed. But of course Mills is at least ignorant and probably lying.
Page 314, Table 10.1 Ionization Energies fro some three-electron atoms. He gets every ionization energy wrong ! For example, 5.40390 (experiment value) is not 5.39172 (his value) for Li. Thesis repeated up to twenty electron atoms.

This is either a blatant lie of calculating correct ionization energies or deep ignorance about basic science by not including uncertainties so that people can see if the values overlap.

 

[jsfisher]

Thermacore appears to be an SBIR factory company. They were awarded 95 Phase I and 44 Phase II contracts over the course of 30+ years. (The company I worked for has almost 300/over 100 in the same time period; we were prolific.)

Wow! So, not incompetent, but deliberate. $75,000 for that not incompetent, but deliberate report.

 

[markie]

Apologies if this has been previously covered, but I haven't seen it in following this thread for a while. Also, I'm starting with a brief personal story.

So, from 1993 to 1998 I worked for a small business whose (unspoken) mission was to be continually funded by the government through a little program called Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). The stated purpose of the SBIR program is to provide the equivalent of venture capital to small businesses to investigate new technologies (Phase I), develop a practical application (Phase II), and commercialize the technology (Phase III). Phase I contracts were six months with a $150,000 budget, and Phase II contracts were 2 year, $1 million budget contracts. I never saw a Phase III contract while I was there, which was intentional on the part of the company. Our Principal Investigators (PIs) were churning out Phase I proposals as fast as they could; when a Phase I was awarded, the primary role of that PI was writing a report that would get a Phase II award. In phase II, the primary role of that PI was to go back to writing Phase I reports, because our company wasn't actually looking to commercialize anything.

(This is probably an overly cynical, slightly exaggerated view, but it's not entirely inaccurate either. A lot of the younger, less jaded PIs wanted to see their ideas go to commercialization, and pushed pretty hard to make things work. They also put in more hours, because any time spent actually working on Phase II was time not getting a new Phase I. By the same token, we used to pick apart other companies' Phase I reports to figure out what they were hiding in their attempts to get to Phase II.)

So, we were essentially an SBIR "factory". Our purpose was to convince government agencies to give us money to do research. Guess why this story is relevant.

A lot is being said about the incompetence of Thermacore. I don't think they were incompetent, I think they were trying to get a Phase II award. You'll note that the second linked report from Reality Check is an SBIR Phase I final report. It's all rainbows and butterflies not because they believed in it, but because they might get $1,000,000 to play with for a couple years.

Thermacore appears to be an SBIR factory company. They were awarded 95 Phase I and 44 Phase II contracts over the course of 30+ years. (The company I worked for has almost 300/over 100 in the same time period; we were prolific.)

Appreciate you sharing. Yes you are rather cynical, and you may project too much, but it is good knowing nonetheless.

Your company was not actually looking to commercialize anything? Wow. So much for the American way. I feel badly for the fresh faced PIs.

Thermacore's long report was not all rainbows and butterflies. Lots of their test configurations did not produce excess heat, and they were at a loss to explain the huge variation of results with different parameters. Also, I noted that they repeated in the report they were seeking future *internal* funding to further explore. Maybe they were just being coy and really hoping for the big phase 2 funding? Perhaps. But to say they didn't believe their results is rather over the top cynical. Still, thanks for sharing.

PS You implied that companies had access to the Phase 1 reports of other companies. Give that, Thermacore's Phase 1 report would have been essentially semi public. Wouldn't have figured that. Good to know.

 

[markie]

That means that it was not an internal company report as you stated !
It is for public consumption. It is not a classified Air Force report. Anyone who was interested could ask the appropriate government department for a copy. And where do you think you got that document from - a public web site !


So you agree that Thermacore arte lying about a 55 eV peak because you finally looked at their figure and saw that the peak is not at 55 eV?

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.


27 November 2018 markie: Believes in a second obvious lie in an already lying Thermacore document.
Thermacore wrote at least 1 repeated lie in their reports about the "energy bump" (it is a spectral peak at ~57 eV). They lied to the Air Force! There is no evidence that LeHigh university did anything except standard lab analysis of supplied samples. Neither of the reports has the ESCA report.

Use your commonsense, markie. If Al Miller had written in his ESCA report that he could not attribute that 57 eV peak to anything conventional then why did Thermacore omit that in their first report? Why is that vital ESCA report not even a reference in the first report? Why did Thermacore not quote Al Miller in their second report? Did they magically discover that the ESCA report said that before the second report was written?

Ditto for the "exhaustive investigations" statement. The ESCA report was available for the 1993 report. Thermacore did not list those "investigations". Thermacore did not quote those "investigations" from the ESCA report. And what is the title of the ESCA report? It is "ESCA report" ! A rational person would conclude that a report on ESCA results would be the spectra with the known elements labeled. There would be a giant peak from Ni because that is what the sample are primarily made of. There would be lesser peaks from other known, trace elements.

Al Miller was a competent scientist. He should not be deluded enough to believe in hydrinos. He could tell a real 57 eV peak from a 55 eV peak. Thus, Thermacore insult him and lie by suggesting that he attributed an imaginary 55 eV peak to hydrinos ("Lehigh (Dr. A. Miller) has also seen these peaks on electrodes removed from Mills' electrolytic cells and has no other explanation for them other than being caused by the presence of hydrinos.").

Calling it a 'peak' is really a misnomer in the first place. Had a profile more like a speed bump over a range of at least 6 eV. Also, it wasn't lost on me that 'peak' the graph from Lehigh's Dr. Miller was labeled "Hydrino Peak" in quotation marks. Meaning, so called hydrino peak. I certainly wouldn't argue whether Miller was open to hydrino theory or not, but it does seem he wanted to get to the bottom of that bump in the bond energy reading. That he could not attribute that bump to anything he knew should be, at least, intriguing.

No worries though, lots of other more definitive spectroscopic results of hydrino identification would follow over subsequent years.

 

[jsfisher]

Thermacore's long report was not all rainbows and butterflies. Lots of their test configurations did not produce excess heat, and they were at a loss to explain the huge variation of results with different parameters. Also, I noted that they repeated in the report they were seeking future *internal* funding to further explore. Maybe they were just being coy and really hoping for the big phase 2 funding? Perhaps. But to say they didn't believe their results is rather over the top cynical. Still, thanks for sharing.

Markie, guess what word appears nowhere in the SBIR report. Has lying become some common for you that you don't even bother with any sort of fact check to hide your bare assertions behind?

PS You implied that companies had access to the Phase 1 reports of other companies. Give that, Thermacore's Phase 1 report would have been essentially semi public. Wouldn't have figured that. Good to know.

Yeah, who would have figured that any research commissioned by the US federal government would be destined for public domain status. (And, no, not semi-public.)

 

[markie]

Damn.

My tax dollars went to pay for a Mills inspired smokescreen.

Damn.

LOL.

To help you feel better, Mills himself AFAIK has never received a dime of government funding.

To help you feel worse, Marchese from Rowan University did receive Phase 1 funding from NASA around 2002 or thereabouts. He was investigating the possibility of hydrino powered spacecraft propulsion.

 

[jsfisher]

Calling it a 'peak' is really a misnomer in the first place.

Then why did you insist, repeatedly, about it being a peak and at 55eV?

...
Also, it wasn't lost on me that 'peak' the graph from Lehigh's Dr. Miller was labeled "Hydrino Peak" in quotation marks.

Oh! nice spin attempt. Perhaps you should mention that the labeling was by Thermacore, not by Al Miller...or would that be too honest for you?

Meaning, so called hydrino peak. I certainly wouldn't argue whether Miller was open to hydrino theory or not, but it does seem he wanted to get to the bottom of that bump in the bond energy reading. That he could not attribute that bump to anything he knew should be, at least, intriguing.

Lying for Jesus are we?

 

[markie]

I don't know enough about Java or Mills' theory, but someone has programmed a couple of equations in Java, in order to prove that at least one aspect of it is accurate. Is this the bit where he can accurately predict something about the first 20 or so elements, but which he could actually have reverse-engineered by working from the results to create equations that work? And which don't actually work beyond those 20?

I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with either or both can chime in.

That Java program will work for atoms of any nuclear Z value with 1 or 2 electrons. So take Gold with 79 protons. Imagine that it is almost entirely ionized, with 77 electrons gone and only 2 remaining. The program will output the ionization energies for those last two electrons. Although, I doubt they have even been experimentally determined.

It is probably just a matter of time before the author will eventually code for the ionization energies of 3, 4, 5, etc electron atoms as well, using Mills' formulae.

 

[markie]

Mills' deluded book has many pages of "calculated" ionization energies. I doubt whether a Java implementation of his crank equations will report anything different.

It is a waste of time to go through Mills book more than it has already been analyzed. But of course Mills is at least ignorant and probably lying.
Page 314, Table 10.1 Ionization Energies fro some three-electron atoms. He gets every ionization energy wrong ! For example, 5.40390 (experiment value) is not 5.39172 (his value) for Li. Thesis repeated up to twenty electron atoms.

This is either a blatant lie of calculating correct ionization energies or deep ignorance about basic science by not including uncertainties so that people can see if the values overlap.

The calculated ionization energies are close enough to be very impressive, considering Mills doesn't take into account higher order effects.

Looking at the references for chapter 10, the two books consulted for the often semi empirical ionization energies are from 1970 and 1977. Perhaps there are more recent and accurate values?

In any event Mills' results represent an immense improvement over what QM can muster.

 

[markie]

Markie, guess what word appears nowhere in the SBIR report. Has lying become some common for you that you don't even bother with any sort of fact check to hide your bare assertions behind?

Going by memory. OK they weren't 'seeking' internal funding, they were operating on internal funding to further investigate. No biggie.

Yeah, who would have figured that any research commissioned by the US federal government would be destined for public domain status. (And, no, not semi-public.)

Well I would have figured that the specifics of a company's research would be private since it could contain valuable IP. It should be private! Otherwise unethical companies like Bindamel's will be stealing your tax dollars, as they were, and only pretending to work towards a commercial product on government funds, knowing full well that competitors were monitoring them. Meanwhile, all their truly promising projects would be privately funded and kept from government and public eyes.

 

[markie]

Then why did you insist, repeatedly, about it being a peak and at 55eV?

I insisted it should be called a peak rather than something else? Where? Reality check : It was called the 55eV peak because that's what the paper called it.

Oh! nice spin attempt. Perhaps you should mention that the labeling was by Thermacore, not by Al Miller...or would that be too honest for you?

The data was Miller's and so also presumably the graph and the labelling. Why you think otherwise is interesting.

Lying for Jesus are we?

If you want to get religious I'm thinking HC would do a good job dissuading you.

 

[halleyscomet]

LOL.



To help you feel better, Mills himself AFAIK has never received a dime of government funding.



To help you feel worse, Marchese from Rowan University did receive Phase 1 funding from NASA around 2002 or thereabouts. He was investigating the possibility of hydrino powered spacecraft propulsion.

That’s it. I’m contributing to the “Hydrino and the Bible” book some Creationists I know are working on. Last I heard the project was stalled on some of the math for claiming Hydrinos explain why the sun’s corona is hotter than the core. Having read some of Randy’s bloated valise, I’m confident I have more than sufficient math skills to produce material of comparable quality.

 

[Bindamel]

Well I would have figured that the specifics of a company's research would be private since it could contain valuable IP. It should be private!

Generally speaking, he who pays the bill, gets the product. The company I work for now has projects funded by major private companies. Guess who gets the results of those efforts?

Otherwise unethical companies like Bindamel's will be stealing your tax dollars, as they were, and only pretending to work towards a commercial product on government funds, knowing full well that competitors were monitoring them. Meanwhile, all their truly promising projects would be privately funded and kept from government and public eyes.

I like the way you turned the phrase so that it was my company. We actually referred to it as "workfare" at our level. I was a staff engineer, running experiments and analyzing data for the PIs, who were all PhD level scientists.

There are a lot of companies that use the SBIR program for good instead of evil, and the rules tightened up quite a bit even while I was working there, so I wouldn't get too excited. Thermacore may have truly been trying to succeed commercially, but even if they were...


...looking through Thermacore's projects over that time period, it looks like they were mostly interested in high performance materials, almost as if the Mills thing was a side job.

 

[jsfisher]

I insisted it should be called a peak rather than something else? Where?

You might want to read what I actually wrote.

...
The data was Miller's and so also presumably the graph and the labelling. Why you think otherwise is interesting.

It is obvious from the typography that you are wrong. Also, Miller should not have known which sample was which nor what experimental conditions the samples had endured.

Thermacore labelled the graph for publication with "Hydrino peak", "Virgin tubing", and "K₂CO₃".

Why you ignore the obvious in favor of wishful thinking and nonsensical excuses is interesting.

 

[jsfisher]

Going by memory. OK they weren't 'seeking' internal funding, they were operating on internal funding to further investigate. No biggie.

Yes, it was a biggie. You were trying to promote your fairy tale it was an internal document by fabricating an internal purpose for it, to seek internal funding.

Your original statement was contrary to fact. Your attempt to backpedal was contrary to fact.