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

[optiongeek]

As with your apparent non-answer to my questions, you seem to have not addressed jsfisher’s points either. And misunderstood the Stern-Gerlach experiment too.

I'm trying to answer as well as I can - sorry if I'm not understand the nature of your question. How am I misstating the Stern-Gerlach?

 

[The Man]

Sure, but you might be waiting a long time since Mills makes no such claim.

So now Mills isn't suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space?

Pair production in this case would create a positron and an electron since charge, spin etc must be conserved.

Correct, hence the assertion I made of pair production and not just electron production. "a photon confined to a region of space" being such a lepton with that particular charge and spin would violate that conservation, even if only by 'suggestion'.

I also note that you asserted "two photons of sufficient energy" in your previous post. Hower, while I'm not aware of any restriction preventing "two photons of sufficient energy" from such an interaction it is certainly not a requirement and a single boson is the common reference. That "two photons" assertion seems disingenuous at best, apparently intending to be "suggesting" each photon becomes one of the paticale pair by being "confined to a region of space". Again, "suggesting" a violation of the very conservations you mention.

 

[UncertainH]

So now Mills isn't suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space?




Correct, hence the assertion I made of pair production and not just electron production. "a photon confined to a region of space" being such a lepton with that particular charge and spin would violate that conservation, even if only by 'suggestion'.

I also note that you asserted "two photons of sufficient energy" in your previous post. Hower, while I'm not aware of any restriction preventing "two photons of sufficient energy" from such an interaction it is certainly not a requirement and a single boson is the common reference. That "two photons" assertion seems disingenuous at best, apparently intending to be "suggesting" each photon becomes one of the paticale pair by being "confined to a region of space". Again, "suggesting" a violation of the very conservations you mention.

I would suggest you read Chapter 29 - Pair Production

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Hmm, take two photons of sufficient energy in the presence of matter to absorb the excess momentum and you get an electron and a positron. Pair production - no other ingredients except light. Been demonstrated since the 40s as I recall. So we can make matter out of light. The word "state" in the above sentence should not be confused with state space in QM. Mills is suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space.

You seem to be slanting this to make Mill's appear more tenable. You seem to be implying that two photons map to the two members of the electron/positron pair. Pair production does NOT require two photons. In fact the most common way it is demonstrated is a single photon of sufficient energy yielding two particles. And those two particles aren't always leptons.

BTW in the situation where there are two photons you potentially don't need the massive particle to absorb excess momentum but that's a different subject and not a common occurrence here on Earth.

Oops, I'm repeating The Man. Thought I'd read the thread.

 

[UncertainH]

You seem to be slanting this to make Mill's appear more tenable. You seem to be implying that two photons map to the two members of the electron/positron pair. Pair production does NOT require two photons. In fact the most common way it is demonstrated is a single photon of sufficient energy yielding two particles. And those two particles aren't always leptons.

BTW in the situation where there are two photons you potentially don't need the massive particle to absorb excess momentum but that's a different subject and not a common occurrence here on Earth.

Oops, I'm repeating The Man. Thought I'd read the thread.

Obviously I should have been far more careful in my wording. Change "two photons" to "any number of photons as long as the total amount of energy is sufficient to create the particle pair". And no the photons do not map directly to the two particles I did not intend to imply such a thing

 

[JeanTate]

I'm trying to answer as well as I can - sorry if I'm not understand the nature of your question. How am I misstating the Stern-Gerlach?

Here's what you wrote:

"We know the electron has a z-axis from the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which shows that the electron will only align up or down in a magnetic field."

At the most basic level, if I turn the magnets sideways, to be orthogonal to their original orientation, will such a Stern-Gerlach experiment show that "the electron" has an x-axis? Which shows that "the electron" will only align left or right in a magnetic field?

And didn't you yourself say that the original Stern-Gerlach experiment used neutral silver atoms, not electrons?

This might seem like nitpicking, but it is central to why your post, in response to jsfisher's, is exceedingly muddled and confused (at best).

 

[JeanTate]

Obviously I should have been far more careful in my wording. Change "two photons" to "any number of photons as long as the total amount of energy is sufficient to create the particle pair". And no the photons do not map directly to the two particles I did not intend to imply such a thing

Perhaps, then, you could try again ... start from scratch and write a clear, detailed post saying what you actually mean to say?

 

[UncertainH]

Wait ... didn’t you just write “all fundamental particles [...] are electromagnetic waves trapped in stable configurations”?

That reads as exactly the opposite of what you first wrote ...

To me, the creation of the charged positron and electron from an uncharged photon or the reverse process, the creation of an uncharged photon from the annihilation of these charged particles is like the elephant in the room when it comes to our understanding of what charge and mass are and ranks up there with the double slit experiment as being among the most important experimental results that must be explained. Yet quantum physics does nothing to actually explain what is going on except in a pure mathematical and non-physical way.

For decades there has been a vast amount of work done to try and offer better explanations. Recent advances in optics may hold some clues including braided light, mobius polarized light, optical tweezers, photonic molecules, .. all pushing the limits of theory. Topological phenomenon in nano-materials is also uncovering new and novel configurations of matter and energy.

Here is yet another (non-Mills) paper that explores a possible theoretical explanation for an extended electron model and the origin of charge and mass:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...4-current_from_topological_EM_fields/download

Perhaps the best motivation for this paper comes from the fundamental example of annihilation of electrons
and positrons to purely electromagnetic radiation:
e
+ + e
− −→ γ + γ (1)
So far there is no theory that can describe the internals of the electron and positron or the quantized nature of
the two photons produced in this simple looking reaction. No single theory can cover the details on either side
of the equation, let alone being able to give any description of the intermediate evolution of the “stuff”14 that is
transmuted from matter into pure radiation.
Indeed, the answers that the present body of knowledge in physics has to offer about the nature of the photon
and the electron15 is very unsatisfactory. In fact it is worse than that: self-energy divergences, non-locality of
events and poor understanding of quantum spin are just a few examples (but not the least).

Their theory suggests that there are stable topological configurations of electromagnetic energy that could rise to charge and mass. It is by no means complete but may help in understanding what Mills means by lepton being a "special state" or "trapped" photon.

 

[optiongeek]

Here's what you wrote:

"We know the electron has a z-axis from the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which shows that the electron will only align up or down in a magnetic field."

At the most basic level, if I turn the magnets sideways, to be orthogonal to their original orientation, will such a Stern-Gerlach experiment show that "the electron" has an x-axis? Which shows that "the electron" will only align left or right in a magnetic field?

By "z-axis", I am referring to the direction of the magnetic field through which the particles transit

And didn't you yourself say that the original Stern-Gerlach experiment used neutral silver atoms, not electrons?

Yes, that's right. Silver atoms were used initially, but subsequent experiments used other particles such as Hydrogen. The net result was to confirm that electrons appear to have +/- 0.5 h_bar of spin in the z-axis (the measured axis). You can find multiple sources describing the electron spin as having come from the Stern-Gerlach experiment (sorry, still can't post links)

This might seem like nitpicking, but it is central to why your post, in response to jsfisher's, is exceedingly muddled and confused (at best).

I'll try to be more direct. The more specific you can be in your criticism, the easier it will be for me to respond.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I don't think Mills is deluded. That would require him to believe this BS.

The rule with con men is that nobody knows better than the con man himself what a lying fraud he is.

Legally, the important matters concern the money transactions between the fleeced and the con man: what is the contract: what is being conferred upon the person forking over the dough?

They do not produce financial reports, so the answer is nothing. This is the website:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/

The only thing that matters, regarding money, is nonexistent. They have a comic book section titled "Fourth Quarter 2018 Update" with a link to the "Business Update".

If you handed this to a first semester accounting student he would say it came from the Theater or Art department or perhaps the English department as a piece of fiction.

It is not recognizable as any kind of English-speaking world financial report. We do not know if there is any existing stock at all or whether there are bonds, notes of debt, whether they own any land or buildings, laboratories or so much as a box of twinkies in inventory.

It couldn't be clearer that Mills is a con man with just one glance. He has made up names for "reports" that have no paralell in the real world. This report, the "Business Update" is a hydrino in the accounting trade. No accountant has ever heard of whatever this "report" is supposed to be.

Do these fake "reports" Mills fabricates signal delusion or con man? Is he an idiot or a crook?

Thirty years and he cannot come up with a single bona-fide financial report? This is like saying he cannot give reports in English, only in unknown languages.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

There is no Briliant Light Power company of any kind registered in New Jersey, the location of their fabulous manufacturing plant.

At their location, 493 Old Trenton Road, Cranbury NJ is a building that approximately matches their claim of having a 53,000 sq ft. facility.

Maybe Mills lives there. But there is no "Brilliant Light Power inc." in the state of New Jersey. See for yourself:

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/revenue/searchfile.shtml


That would be an outstanding reason for not having financial statements. Your company has to exist in order to have financial statements.

No red flag here at all.

Edit: I don't see any history for a Black Light Power either, but they used the same address before becoming Brilliant Light Power.

So where are they incorporated, since they claim to be incorporated?

 

[The Man]

I would suggest you read Chapter 29 - Pair Production

Again, I have no interest in Mills book.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I found them.

Registered in Delaware. That already tells me something. I will hunt and peck a little. look for SEC filings.

 

[The Man]

To me, the creation of the charged positron and electron from an uncharged photon or the reverse process, the creation of an uncharged photon from the annihilation of these charged particles is like the elephant in the room when it comes to our understanding of what charge and mass are and ranks up there with the double slit experiment as being among the most important experimental results that must be explained. Yet quantum physics does nothing to actually explain what is going on except in a pure mathematical and non-physical way.

For decades there has been a vast amount of work done to try and offer better explanations. Recent advances in optics may hold some clues including braided light, mobius polarized light, optical tweezers, photonic molecules, .. all pushing the limits of theory. Topological phenomenon in nano-materials is also uncovering new and novel configurations of matter and energy.

Here is yet another (non-Mills) paper that explores a possible theoretical explanation for an extended electron model and the origin of charge and mass:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...4-current_from_topological_EM_fields/download



Their theory suggests that there are stable topological configurations of electromagnetic energy that could rise to charge and mass. It is by no means complete but may help in understanding what Mills means by lepton being a "special state" or "trapped" photon.

Most here already understand "what Mills means by lepton being a "special state" or "trapped" photon". Again, for an electron it means violating those conservations you mentioned before. Proposing some such or other mechanism for that violation doesn't make it any less of a violation. It doesn't matter how many, few or whatever photons you want to introduce as a photon can't be a electron unless it can become an electron. Asserting Mills isn't claiming a photon becomes and electron simply means Mills isn't claiming a photon can be an electron, "special state" or "trapped" or whatever.

 

[optiongeek]

post removed

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I found an SEC filing that tells us something:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1035531/000089534516000524/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

They are not registered as either an energy, power, or manufacturing company. Because they are none of those. They can't make anything, especially not electricity or generators. They are registered as "other technology".

This filing is telling the SEC that they are not a public company. They are strictly a private offering with at that time a total of $10.2 Million in stock outstanding and hope to raise $25 million total. They claim the minimum investment is $40,000.

As a private company they do not have to make public reports. So they can make comic books and call them reports.

Under this type of filing they are making what is called a 506(b) exemption which means anyone they sell stock to that is not an "accredited" investor (meaning a licensed investment corporation with SEC standards) has to meet a sophistication requirement.

So there we have the fraud avenue for Mills. His sophistication requirement is that investors do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Any stock sold under this exemption to a rube, Mills' target, still has to meet reporting requirements but Mills does not have to make them public. He has to give them to the rube. I would sure like to get my hands on something but I'll bet everyone signs nondisclosure forms.

Mills cannot do any kind of general advertising for stock sales. So he has to do things like send out agents or groupies to discussion boards and dangle free energy, the perpetual motion machine out there as bait and hopefully that will lead people to the comic book section, his financial reporting.

He claims to have a CPA that graduated from a religious school, Moravian. This is going to be the person directly in charge of the comic book section and investor qualifications.

She's been with Mills since 2005, so 13 years. It is difficult for me to believe she does not know what is going on.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

I found an SEC filing that tells us something:

Under this type of filing they are making what is called a 506(b) exemption which means anyone they sell stock to that is not an "accredited" investor (meaning a licensed investment corporation with SEC standards) has to meet a sophistication requirement.

So there we have the fraud avenue for Mills. His sophistication requirement is that investors do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Any stock sold under this exemption to a rube, Mills' target, still has to meet reporting requirements but Mills does not have to make them public. He has to give them to the rube. I would sure like to get my hands on something but I'll bet everyone signs nondisclosure forms.

Mills cannot do any kind of general advertising for stock sales. So he has to do things like send out agents or groupies to discussion boards and dangle free energy, the perpetual motion machine out there as bait and hopefully that will lead people to the comic book section, his financial reporting.

Accredited investors only have to fill out forms declaring their eligibility to be an accredited investor. All high-wealth individuals can be accredited investors (high income and over 1 million net worth). In addition, in my jurisdiction, "friends and family" of a seller of stock could also buy, regardless of wealth.

As for the rest -- I agree. I got introduced to Mills by a colleague who was trying to set up a hedge fund to buy up BLP stock owned by a bank, that had foreclosed on another hedge fund (the cost? A 30% discount over the last-in investor. The company valuation at the last-in price was about $25 Billion, and the claim was that it will be worth Trillions).

I went to a sales presentation (which included a video call to Brett Holverstott) to make sure none of my friends got scammed. As far as I know, the fund never got off the ground.

 

[BillC]

Mills cannot do any kind of general advertising for stock sales. So he has to do things like send out agents or groupies to discussion boards and dangle free energy, the perpetual motion machine out there as bait and hopefully that will lead people to the comic book section, his financial reporting.

This is about the most depressingly telling post I have seen in this whole soul-destroying thread.

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. If you're able to short energy sector stocks and hold the position long term, you will definitely make your money back.

It's a win for the scientists/engineers and it's a win for the entrepreneur who gains some supposed scientific credibility or traction for a good cause - green energy - and a great potential money stream in a world needing an energy change.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Another impressive video:

 

[jrhowell]

It is not recognizable as any kind of English-speaking world financial report. We do not know if there is any existing stock at all or whether there are bonds, notes of debt, whether they own any land or buildings, laboratories or so much as a box of twinkies in inventory.

The quarterly reports are not meant to be financial reports. They are marketing materials to rope in new investors that are updated quarterly to make it look as if they are on the verge of having a real product when they actually do not have anything.