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

[markie]

Rathke's review of Mill's BBoBB appeared in a reputable science journal. I know of no similarly published rebuttal to Rathke (other than Rathke's own erratum to correct a sign typo).

Until such time as there is a competent rebuttal appearing in a respectable source, I will accept Rathke as undisbuted.

Rathke's review appeared in 2005 in the New Journal of Physics and can be easily found online. The editor would not publish Mill's rebuttal unless he could simultaneously publish a response from Rathke to Mills' rebuttal. Well guess what, Rathke said his job was done, he didn't want to do a response, and so Mills' rebuttal went unpublished in that journal although it can be found online.

 

[Hellbound]

Would pre-ordering a SunCell lift my spirits, do you think? I'm told they are to be commercially available soon.

Call me if you want one. I'll sell you one with that produces the same amount of energy as his for half what he's charging

 

[markie]

Thanks.

Wow!

So which ones end up courter rotating in an orbitsphere?


Which “field lines” would they be, markie?

Yet none between the membranes of a free electron and those of an orbitsphere.

Curious.

What is curious is why you say there is no interaction "between the membranes of a free electron and those of an orbitsphere." Their fields, perpendicular to their respective surfaces, will interact.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Happy to be of service:

maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics
https://math.stackexchange.com/ques...m-covering-of-a-sphere-with-uniform-geodesics

Cool!

Would very much like to read W.D. Clinger’s take on this.

I was put off by the questioner's misspellings of "principal", "Borel", and "Euclidean", so I skipped down to the answer, which I found easier to follow (forgiving the misspellings of "assume" and "Funk" in its first paragraph and similar typos in subsequent paragraphs). In particular, the answerer immediately cites the Funk transform and considers uniform measures on the sphere and great circles.

The sentence that begins "No the orthogonality" is incoherent (and it's the mathematical part that's incoherent, not the "no" instead of "now"), but the "Hence µ must have a uniform density + an odd function" sounds like a plausible consequence of what the incoherent sentence was probably trying to say. In the next sentence, I assume "associative" should be "associated", just as the period before "by flipping" should be a comma.

I'm mentioning the large number of trivial typos, misspellings, and other annoyances to explain why I eventually gave up on checking the details of the mathematics and began instead to skim the answer. All I can say is that the answer looks plausible. I would trust jsfisher's opinion on this over my own.

Oh, and markie and optiongeek: you guys really need to work on your stories ... according to what’s in the link there are, pace markie, an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes

You are of course right about that. I saw where markie had denied that, but I don't remember optiongeek denying it.

 

[Hans]

What is laughable is that you think Mills, to be reputable, needs to put up financial reports on his website. Good one.

If he wasn't a scam why would he hide that information?

There is a very good reason he doesn't share his financial information.

Would you like to guess what it is?

 

[markie]

Cool!

Would very much like to read W.D. Clinger’s take on this.

Oh, and markie and optiongeek: you guys really need to work on your stories ... according to what’s in the link there are, pace markie, an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes

Just one preferred axis. If you want to confuse yourself and consider all other axes, have at it.

 

[Hans]

Lordy. Your poor soul. I suggest getting a dog and taking a walk through the woods, perhaps camping with friends, taking a plunge in a pristine lake, communing with nature and your higher self, volunteering at a shelter, etc.

...an interesting response above markie to what was said - and this is what was said:

Yes but you LOVE that Mills does this don't you markie?

""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.""

Billc is quite correct to say:

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

Originally Posted by michaelsuede 8th January 2017, 09:46 PM

""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.""

Additionally going back to the original post that started this 'mess'.

""BrLP has contracted with Columbia Tech to have them do the prototype and manufacturing workups. CT’s Chief Technology Officer is projecting initial field testing of prototype units to take place in 6 months, with pilot commercial units available 6 months after initial field testing completes. Phase 1A design began on November 1st.""

He said that nearly two years ago....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11660706&postcount=1

Originally Posted by markie View Post

"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."

Don't you enjoy being ID'd as a shill for a scam?

 

[Hans]

Call me if you want one. I'll sell you one with that produces the same amount of energy as his for half what he's charging

Yeah maybe Mills should buy one - and take it apart to learn how to engineer making such a thing...............lol

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah maybe Mills should buy one - and take it apart to learn how to engineer making such a thing...............lol

https://dilbert.com/strip/2011-03-30

 

[Hans]

Yet more high quality nonsense!

You never cease to amuse, markie!

Hey if he does well Mills will make him a tuna fish sandwich.

 

[markie]

...an interesting response above markie to what was said - and this is what was said:

Yes but you LOVE that Mills does this don't you markie?

""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.""

Billc is quite correct to say:

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

Originally Posted by michaelsuede 8th January 2017, 09:46 PM

""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.""

Additionally going back to the original post that started this 'mess'.

""BrLP has contracted with Columbia Tech to have them do the prototype and manufacturing workups. CT’s Chief Technology Officer is projecting initial field testing of prototype units to take place in 6 months, with pilot commercial units available 6 months after initial field testing completes. Phase 1A design began on November 1st.""

He said that nearly two years ago....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11660706&postcount=1

Originally Posted by markie View Post

"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."

Don't you enjoy being ID'd as a shill for a scam?

The fact that he would infer that I am an 'agent' sent out by Mills simply because I'm optimistic about the prospects for Mills' technology shows the poor guy needs, at the very least, some sleep and some healthy diversions.

I recently discovered that even the State of New Jersey is doing some 'advertising' for Mills, even giving BLP some funding. Maybe they're in on it too?
https://njtechweekly.com/2018/12/19...unding-through-the-edas-nol-program-part-one/

 

[Dave Rogers]

I recently discovered that even the State of New Jersey is doing some 'advertising' for Mills, even giving BLP some funding. Maybe they're in on it too?
https://njtechweekly.com/2018/12/19...unding-through-the-edas-nol-program-part-one/

Nobody's arguing that Mills is an unsuccessful con man.

Dave

 

[Hellbound]

Nobody's arguing that Mills is an unsuccessful con man.

Dave

Heck, leaving aside whether you think his fantastical tales of power and hydrinos are true or false: the man has collected a salary for 30 years in return for producing nothing but promises of unicorns. The only difference between him and politicians in NJ is the name on the check

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Rathke's review of Mill's BBoBB appeared in a reputable science journal. I know of no similarly published rebuttal to Rathke (other than Rathke's own erratum to correct a sign typo).

Until such time as there is a competent rebuttal appearing in a respectable source, I will accept Rathke as undisbuted.

I'm not sure that's fair. Mills did offer a rebuttal. That it wasn't published doesn't mean that it can't be addressed.

 

[Hans]

The fact that he would infer that I am an 'agent' sent out by Mills simply because I'm optimistic about the prospects for Mills' technology shows the poor guy needs, at the very least, some sleep and some healthy diversions.

You mean he's come to realize just how scammy BLP is and that depresses him?

Oh of course your not an agent, and your not a shill, nor an interested person, in fact you have no connection or concerns about Mills and BLP at all which is why you post in this thread only, and spend your time here endlessly trying to make Mills and BLP operations seem 'possible'. You do this solely because your a good guy.....we get that.........................................................

 

[Crawtator]

https://dilbert.com/strip/2011-03-30

I actually quite like the one for the day before...

https://dilbert.com/strip/2011-03-29

 

[Hans]

Heck, leaving aside whether you think his fantastical tales of power and hydrinos are true or false: the man has collected a salary for 30 years in return for producing nothing but promises of unicorns. The only difference between him and politicians in NJ is the name on the check

Yep

As a scientist and inventor he sucks big time but as a grifter he gains high high marks!

 

[JeanTate]

I was put off by the questioner's misspellings of "principal", "Borel", and "Euclidean", so I skipped down to the answer, which I found easier to follow (forgiving the misspellings of "assume" and "Funk" in its first paragraph and similar typos in subsequent paragraphs). In particular, the answerer immediately cites the Funk transform and considers uniform measures on the sphere and great circles.

The sentence that begins "No the orthogonality" is incoherent (and it's the mathematical part that's incoherent, not the "no" instead of "now"), but the "Hence µ must have a uniform density + an odd function" sounds like a plausible consequence of what the incoherent sentence was probably trying to say. In the next sentence, I assume "associative" should be "associated", just as the period before "by flipping" should be a comma.

I'm mentioning the large number of trivial typos, misspellings, and other annoyances to explain why I eventually gave up on checking the details of the mathematics and began instead to skim the answer. All I can say is that the answer looks plausible. I would trust jsfisher's opinion on this over my own.

Thanks!

Apart from the last, my experience reviewing the document was similar to what you describe ... the typos (shall we say) are quite off putting, but if you can successfully read through/past them (which i wasn’t always able to), it looks OK. Of course you have a far better grasp of the mathematics than I do.

You are of course right about that. I saw where markie had denied that, but I don't remember optiongeek denying it.

Indeed, I should have been clearer ... optiongeek has said nothing about this, IIRC.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm not sure that's fair. Mills did offer a rebuttal. That it wasn't published doesn't mean that it can't be addressed.

Did you read Mills’ rebuttal, may I ask? If so, could you share your opinion?

I did. A long time ago. And, IIRC, it was, um, underwhelming

 

[JeanTate]

Just one preferred axis. If you want to confuse yourself and consider all other axes, have at it.

Vintage markie!

Did you actually read the document optiongeek referenced?!? Did you understand it? Do you know why you are being, um, corrected about the uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes?