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

[W.D.Clinger]

Not to worry, you have company. The Roman Catholic Church was 'kind of sad' -and a little mad - at Galileo.

40 points.

I find it rather amusing that people here are turning somersaults in an effort to not believe this kind of simple history.

The acrobat's tumbles do not rotate his audience.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Does the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal match that of the hydrino reaction, namely light in the soft X-ray and eUV? I don't think so.

Last time you asked that I gave you the answer yes. Why would you perceive that answer ever changed? Or has Mills changed what spectrum he considers "proof of hydrinos"?

So hard to keep up between you just making unicorn poop up out of thin air, and him misusing equipment beyond the manufacturers tolerances.

What exactly is "proof of hydrino" wavelengths again?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Clearly not.

So why is that the claim that's still on Mills' website? Why is he attempting to generate power by pointing a solar cell at something that's less bright than a spotlight?

 

[halleyscomet]

So why is that the claim that's still on Mills' website? Why is he attempting to generate power by pointing a solar cell at something that's less bright than a spotlight?

Marketing.

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 37 (67) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator.

Another reason why Mills is almost certainly does not have a working prototype: no public record of testing - let alone certification - of safety, health, and environmental impacts.

This has been covered in many posts, both in this thread and its predecessors. BLP is located in NJ, USA. New Jersey has a long and complicated history with regard to both environmental (etc) regulations and corruption. However, partly as a result of several safety, health, and environmental scandals associated with industrial practices and waste (say), of the US States it's near the top, today, in regulations of these ... and enforcement of those regulations.

Whatever hydrinos are (assuming they actually exist), they are novel chemicals, with unknown safety, health, and environmental impacts. For BLP to have a working prototype of a hydrino-based generator, one that's ready for shipping to independent test facilities, it must have some relevant safety, health, and environmental certificates. And those - at some level - will be public. To the best of my knowledge, no such certificates exist.

Much too early for certification. That will come closer to commercialization. Right now they are at the experimental lab prototype stage, which requires no certification.

My hilite.

Setting yourself up for paying out on your bets?

New Jersey has many R&D facilities, both public (e.g. affiliated with the state university, Rutgers) and private (e.g. many Big Pharma company labs). If you get a chance to visit one, I recommend that you take it. Be sure to ask about what regulations (state and Federal) they have to comply with, and what certificates they need to have and keep up to date.

When it comes time to tell whoppers, you can usually be relied upon, markie!

 

[JeanTate]

It's not an either / or proposition. Magnetic flux probably does play a part, perhaps a major part. Mills has proposed that the corona is ionized more by radiation than temperature (collision kinetics). In other words the corona may not be at such high temperatures as we think.

My hilite.

Another whopper, markie?

What temperature do you think the corona has?

How did you estimate that temperature? Be sure to be very specific about the methods and equipment used.

 

[JeanTate]

The lower chromosphere has a lower temperature than the photosphere, such that at those temperatures only something on the order of 1 percent of the hydrogen is ionized. (The reason the chromosphere is red is because much of the neutral hydrogen is dropping from the n=3 to n=2 state. Thus it is safe to assume that a sizeable minority of the neutral hydrogen would be in ground state at these temperatures.) The photosphere would also be mostly neutral hydrogen but some of the hydrogen apparently has acquired an extra electron and this is responsible for the optical opaqueness of the photosphere.

The reason I don't think much hydrino formation occurs in the photosphere is twofold: 1) because the apparent temperature decreases with photosphere altitude, meaning (to me) there are few net energy producing reactions occurring there. 2) because the relatively cool, lower chromosphere is hardly ionized, and I would expect it to be more much more ionized if the photosphere beneath it was emitting ionizing radiation from the formation of hydrino.

Too many whoppers to even bother commenting on here, markie!

You really, really should not try to wing it, when it comes to astronomy.

 

[JeanTate]

Does the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal match that of the hydrino reaction, namely light in the soft X-ray and eUV? I don't think so.

How would you know, markie?

Anyway, the hydrinos will also emit copious EM in the mm and sub-mm part of the electromagnetic spectrum, won't they? So one doesn't need to be inside the BLP lab to test the veracity of your claims, eh? Just sit on the curb of a public road near that lab with your new 5G handset, and wait for it to become useless, due to the intensity of the mm and sub-mm emission from the copious quantities of hydrinos produced!

 

[JeanTate]

Mills is no liar.

<snip>

Hmm ... how many times has he promised hydrino-based products, only "six months" (or so) away?

Of course, silly me ... that's marketing, not lying!

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 37 (67) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator.

Another reason why Mills is almost certainly does not have a working prototype: no public record of testing - let alone certification - of safety, health, and environmental impacts.

This has been covered in many posts, both in this thread and its predecessors. BLP is located in NJ, USA. New Jersey has a long and complicated history with regard to both environmental (etc) regulations and corruption. However, partly as a result of several safety, health, and environmental scandals associated with industrial practices and waste (say), of the US States it's near the top, today, in regulations of these ... and enforcement of those regulations.

Whatever hydrinos are (assuming they actually exist), they are novel chemicals, with unknown safety, health, and environmental impacts. For BLP to have a working prototype of a hydrino-based generator, one that's ready for shipping to independent test facilities, it must have some relevant safety, health, and environmental certificates. And those - at some level - will be public. To the best of my knowledge, no such certificates exist.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 36 (66) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie.

The most recent iteration of discussion of BLP and its claims began on 8th January 2017, 10:46 PM, in a post by michaelsuede

He writes (My hilites): "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."

and

"BrLP already has the “light bulb” portion of this generator fully prototyped and working. Obviously that’s the hard part since the rest of the parts for the generator already exist from off-the-shelf suppliers. Mills is projecting production units to be ready for delivery by the second half of 2017, with a fully prototyped working generator ready for field testing by the first half of 2017. Once Mills rolls out that first generator, be prepared for a monumental media **** storm to hit the public."

(there's a LOT more; jolly good read)

Needless to say, history records rather different outcomes.

And it took only ~one day before links to discussions of earlier versions of Mills' claims were posted.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

michaelsuede never did pay up on that bet he made, did he?

 

[Darat]

Correction. Mills and his team through the years have 'made' all kinds of validated prototypes, published papers, molecular modelling software and a classical, predictive theory of unified physics.

And never yet produced a working prototype of even a heater....

 

[Matthew Cline]

Part of that 81.6 eV serves to keep the proton at the centre of each hydrogen atom. Polarization does influence the calculations ; it changes the energy keeping the proton at the centre.

How does that energy keep the proton at the center? What are the exact mechanics keeping the proton from moving towards the greater concentration of negative charge when the negative charge distribution is non-symmetrical?

 

[LTC8K6]

And never yet produced a working prototype of even a heater....

Well, when a heat exchanger is beyond your capability...

 

[optiongeek]

How does that energy keep the proton at the center? What are the exact mechanics keeping the proton from moving towards the greater concentration of negative charge when the negative charge distribution is non-symmetrical?

Mills provides the force balance equations for the H₂O molecule in Chap. 13 of his book. The math required is roughly Algebra II level.

 

[JeanTate]

Mills provides the force balance equations for the H₂O molecule in Chap. 13 of his book. The math required is roughly Algebra II level.

And you know these equations are correct (i.e. are consistent with the relevant experimental results) because:
a) you personally checked them out,
b) you asked someone you know is unaffiliated with Mills et al. and who you independently know has deep knowledge and experience,
c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant),
d) something else?

 

[optiongeek]

And you know these equations are correct (i.e. are consistent with the relevant experimental results) because:
a) you personally checked them out, b) you asked someone you know is unaffiliated with Mills et al. and who you independently know has deep knowledge and experience,
c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant),
d) something else?

If you like, I can share a spreadsheet where I have independently replicated the derivation of the atomic properties of 1 thru 20 electron ions using Mill's math.^* The math for molecules like H₂O uses the same fundamental equations. I have a day job so I haven't yet independently replicated any of the molecules in spreadsheet form that I can share with you, but I have reviewed them in some detail. What would you like to know?

^*If you recall, I earlier indicated that my Nobel-winning prof told my Freshman chemistry class that these calculations were impossible. The fact that I can replicate them in a spreadsheet is a hard stop on me to considering Mills a fool or a fraud until someone can show me how Mills has managed to trick my Excel program with his "bogus" math.

 

[JeanTate]

If you like, I can share a spreadsheet where I have independently replicated the derivation of the atomic properties of 1 thru 20 electron ions using Mill's math. The math for molecules like H₂O uses the same fundamental equations. I have a day job so I haven't yet independently replicated any of the molecules in spreadsheet form that I can share with you, but I have reviewed them in some detail. What would you like to know?

Um ... you wrote "the force balance equations for the H2O molecule", and I asked about "these equations".

I did NOT ask about "the atomic properties of 1 thru 20 electron ions"!

(my hilite) So the answer to my specific question ("And you know these equations are correct (i.e. are consistent with the relevant experimental results) because") is ...?

 

[optiongeek]

I did NOT ask about "the atomic properties of 1 thru 20 electron ions"!

Why don't you ask about these? These are far more interesting.

 

[JeanTate]

Why don't you ask about these? These are far more interesting.

Partly because they have been discussed to death already in this extended thread (you did take my advice, to actually read all the posts in all three threads, didn't you?), but mostly because you made a direct claim in response to what someone else wrote.

You will notice a fairly constant theme in many of my posts here: if a Mills fan presents what they represent as some claim or other by Mills (etc), I will challenge that fan ... what - other than they read something Mills wrote - did they do to verify it? You will have noticed that markie, in particular, fares very badly when he tries to back up his/Mills astronomy-related claims (to take just one example).