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

[markie]

Are you referring to the spectra that Mills first reported having detected using equipment incapable of detecting them?

Mills was lying then. He lied before then. He has been lying ever since then.

Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results. Why not take an enlightening look at the papers rather than speaking out of a rather dark place.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I didn't have to be there. Five validators were there at overlapping times in 2016 to oversee the Suncell reaction experiments, including the spectroscopies: Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Booker, Dr. Jansson, Dr. Renick and Dr. Nansteel.
See links to their reports here: https://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

You're linking to the liars website. Unless you're some kind of idiot or are actually one the scamming liars you should damn well understand we want links to independent verification from honest people.

 

[Hans]

....and markie tries to beat the dead horse into twitching a bit...........gentlemen are we going over the same failed stuff YET again?

Trying to find a 'possibility' again markie?

Do you know what the word:

B O R I N G

MEANS?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Or, you could get informed and look at this 2004 preprint from Mills, Lu, Nansteel, He, Voigt, Good and Dhandapani

http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/49_2_Philadelphia_10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%) plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3 . Other sources of hydrogen such as hydrocarbons were eliminated by mass spectroscopy (MS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The 1 H NMR resonance of H2 (1/ p) is predicted to be upfield from that of H2 due to the fractional radius in elliptic coordinates [7-8] wherein the electrons are significantly closer to the nuclei.

Great. Then that means he can easily produce a vial of the pure cryodistilled dihydrino liquid for testing anywhere in the world. That quote says, "The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a higher temperature than H2". So no need to claim dihydrinos in various other mixtures of gasses. Trivially easy to distill up some dihydrino liquid, and ship it in cold storage to any number of independant labs around the world for testing. So trivially easy for you to

Show me

Since this breakthrough when verified would easily bring in billions to Mills to help him develop a working unit, and Mills has been working on this for 30 years, we can reasonably conclude that Mills did exactly that as soon as he was able. So once again:

Show me

or admit this is all just a lie.

 

[Kid Eager]

Or, you could get informed and look at this 2004 preprint from Mills, Lu, Nansteel, He, Voigt, Good and Dhandapani

http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/49_2_Philadelphia_10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%) plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3 . Other sources of hydrogen such as hydrocarbons were eliminated by mass spectroscopy (MS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The 1 H NMR resonance of H2 (1/ p) is predicted to be upfield from that of H2 due to the fractional radius in elliptic coordinates [7-8] wherein the electrons are significantly closer to the nuclei.

Lol. Lololollity lol. Snork. Preprint followed by 14 years of crickets isn’t the ringing endorsement you seem to believe it is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results. Why not take an enlightening look at the papers rather than speaking out of a rather dark place.

New spectrometers can detect the results, and the results they detect just happen to be the same as what the results were said to be when they were measured on equipment that couldn't actually detect them? Seems like quite the coincidence, no?

 

[halleyscomet]

Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results. Why not take an enlightening look at the papers rather than speaking out of a rather dark place.

Dude. If they’re getting the same results from new gear as they got on the gear that was INCAPABLE OF GENERATING THOSE RESULTS then the results are clearly fudged. You’re citing a major red flag as proof of the claims. It’s like pointing to video of a priest having sex with four women, two men, and a partridge in a pear tree as proof that he’s celibate.

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 27 (57) (-5) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie and tlp/Holvestott.

michaelsuede's bet, starting from 9th January 2017, 09:02 PM


Then, at 9th January 2017, 09:07 PM:


Skipping a bit, at 9th January 2017, 09:42 PM (my hilite):


9th January 2017, 09:59 PM (again, my hilite):



Finally, at 9th January 2017, 11:43 PM:



And the rest, as they say, is history.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 26 (56) (-6) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie and tlp/Holvestott.

Something of interest, particularly wrt whether Mills has a history of lying (source; this is cited in a post early in the 2017 thread, my hilite):

"In the January 1992 issue of Fusion Facts Dr. Randell L. Mills was named as a Fusion Scientist of the Year 1991. Here is a quote from the article: "On April 26, 1989, Dr. Mills had filed a patent for 'Energy/Matter Conversion Methods and Structures.' Dr. Mills states, '...we scaled it up greater than a factor of a thousand and we have right now a cell running that is a commercial demonstration of this technology. We're pushing right now ... we have a contract we're pursuing that will give us a one kilowatt -- a one thousand watt home heating unit within four months. We have the electrochemical power cell -- it is running. It has the capacity of putting out a thousand watts. And we are waiting for the heat exchanger unit to interface with that [power cell] and we will have a prototype of a home heating unit.'""

So, in a bit over three months' time, it will be the 30th anniversary of Mills' claim to already have "a commercial demonstration of this technology" (or at least the filing of a patent central to that demonstration).

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Riiiiight. Which is c) you trust Mills implicitly.

Or perhaps not: have you ever seen the spectrum from a SunCell? As in, you were at a BLP facility when a SunCell was being tested. Spectroscope to hand.

I didn't have to be there. Five validators were there at overlapping times in 2016 to oversee the Suncell reaction experiments, including the spectroscopies: Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Booker, Dr. Jansson, Dr. Renick and Dr. Nansteel.
See links to their reports here: https://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

Riiiiight. Which is c) you trust Mills implicitly. Thanks for the confirmation.

Out of curiousity - I don't expect any answers - during this time ("overlapping times in 2016"), how many of these guys ("Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Booker, Dr. Jansson, Dr. Renick and Dr. Nansteel") were employed by BLP (or associated company)? For how long? What contracts did any of them have, with BLP (etc) during this period? How many are BLP (etc) investors, and what are their shares? Who paid for the "validation reports"? Who owned the equipment the "validations" were done on/with?

Etc.

As you know, it is now (and has been for some time) standard for researchers to declare any financial (etc) interests they may have that are material to the research they are doing (often it's who paid for at least part of the research, e.g. an NSF grant); you can often find such in the Acknowledgements sections of papers.

Did any of these guys make any such declarations?

Cart before horse.

I have this recollection of reading some papers, following up on Mills’, reporting a failure to replicate his results. I must be imagining things ...

Yeah age can do that.

Hmm ... I was being polite ...

We've been around this wash, rinse, repeat cycle before. More than once. I have no desire to go round it again.

Bottom line: there are papers reporting attempts to replicate what's in at least some of Mills' papers; they all report failure.

 

[JeanTate]

I see tlp is still posting to this thread.

So Bump²

Bumpity bump bump time, for tlp this time:

You might want to try again.

Here's your claim, which my post concerns:

"Dark matter/dihydrino gas is generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun."


So, time to ask you the same questions I ask optiongeek:

And you know "GUTCP has an explanation for it [dark matter/dihydrino gas being generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun]" (and consistent with the relevant experimental results) because:
a) you personally checked it 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?

When can I expect some answers, tlp?

When can I expect some answers, tlp?

 

[JeanTate]

Another Bump²

Bumpity bump bump.

Thanks.

My hilite.

And you know that these derivations (etc) are rigorous 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?


<snip>

Do you intend to even attempt to answer my questions, optiongeek?

I see that optiongeek is still posting here.

Do you intend to even attempt to answer my questions, optiongeek?

 

[markie]

New spectrometers can detect the results, and the results they detect just happen to be the same as what the results were said to be when they were measured on equipment that couldn't actually detect them? Seems like quite the coincidence, no?

Look at the papers. What happens is that hydrino formation results in a high energy continuum of eUV radiation. This radiation then highly ionizes present atoms like oxygen, which then regain their electrons, emitting at discrete energies. Translating this to the observed spectra: one sees the continuum radiation hump from hydrino production, and along this hump, protruding above it, are the known discrete lines of known elements in the eUV, just where they should be. So the spectrometer is working just fine.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Look at the papers.

When you cite some that don't come from liars. The papers are completely faked. They come from a known liar who has a 30 year track record of misinformation. And you yourself constantly repeat misinformation. You yourself told a lie about who had validated these spectra.

 

[JeanTate]

Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results. <snip>

And you know that they used "[m]uch more capable spectrometers now" 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 of this work
c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant)
d) something else?

Lots of people have already said this, markie, and I'll add my $0.02's worth.

With regard to hydrinos and a hydrino-based generator, Mills has a ~30 year history of lies. Or if you prefer, false statements regarding the existence of working (prototype) devices, commercial or not.

As far as anyone can tell, none of his claims about the existence of hydrinos has been objectively, independently verified (I look forward to "full disclose" wrt Dr Ramanujachary et al. and their "validation reports", from you).

And as far as I know, none of the many devices Mills has talked about (call them "proto hydrino-based generators") has ever been tested, by a truly independent lab.

When pressed on the basis of your claims, wrt these topics, your answers, so far, have all been shown to be c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant) ... you have never been present at any test; you have never seen any of the spectrometers; you have never seen any of the spectra (directly from the instruments); you have never conducted your own, independent experiments or tests; and so on.

So, what's the point of you continuing to make claims that you cannot, in all honesty, back up?

But hey, there's this: in 26 (56) (-6) days' time, you get to gloat, call us a bunch of {insert your fave insults here}, and demand that we all eat lots of crow. Right?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Look at the papers. What happens is that hydrino formation results in a high energy continuum of eUV radiation. This radiation then highly ionizes present atoms like oxygen, which then regain their electrons, emitting at discrete energies. Translating this to the observed spectra: one sees the continuum radiation hump from hydrino production, and along this hump, protruding above it, are the known discrete lines of known elements in the eUV, just where they should be. So the spectrometer is working just fine.

My hilite. You cant assume this radiation, even if real, is hydrinos until you first eliminate all other possibilities.

We already went through this multiple times.
1) The equipment originally was used in a way that was not recommended by the manufacturer, putting readings in doubt.
2) Even if the readings were correct, they do not necessarily mean hydrinos. anomalous does not mean hydrino, it means unexpected to MIlls. It can easily be explained in other ways by other scientists and engineers in other fields. He has a poorly controlled reaction with a complex multitude of reactants beyond even what he declares in his papers, since he never actually declares precisely what materials from his own equipment are burning up. Although as with the Mo container, sometimes we learn at least some of the contaminants that are adding to the reactions when his equipment blows up or melts down.
3) He (and you) repeatedly claim hydrinos can be detected long after these chaotic explosions either in hydrino crystal compounds and/or cryodistilled dihydrino liquid. But never have any of these samples ever been verified by any independant labs, and at least one of the readings to claim proves the crystals have hydrino compounds actually is exactly comparable with binding energies found for CO bound in hydrogen embrittled stainless steel. (the carbon in the steel reacts with the O from the H2O. The ionized hydrogen penetrating the steel and forming pockets changes the crystalline structure of the metal) If any reading has 2 explanations, and one is already covered by the known physical laws, no need to make up whole new physics and entirely new fabricated states for elements to explain them.
4) Lastly, you have never once in any form produced any evidence for either a hydrino, or a Mills machine that produces more energy than is input. EVER

and I have offered years ago to eat crow or even literally eat my hat if this ever did happen, and my crusty ol hat still lives, the only thing you can do to stop embarrassing yourself is

Show me

put up or shut up

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Look at the papers.

That Mills was claiming to have detected things that the equipment he was using couldn't detect comes straight from "the papers", and the manufacturer's specifications.

 

[markie]

When you cite some that don't come from liars. The papers are completely faked. They come from a known liar who has a 30 year track record of misinformation. And you yourself constantly repeat misinformation. You yourself told a lie about who had validated these spectra.

How about you phone or email those validators at their respective universities and ask them if their validation reports, including the spectrometry, are faked. Or ask the half dozen or so coauthors of the most recent papers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Didn't someone a while ago contact one of the people Mills claimed independently validated his work, and the response was basically "I don't remember him, but we process a lot of data here and it's possible that we processed some of his"?

 

[Horatius]

The last time this came up, a few months after the deadline, Horatius said that michaelsuede hadn't paid up. Horatius was going to try to get in contact with him, but I don't think we've heard from him since, either.

I contacted him, and sent him my e-mail address, but nothing came of it. I'm not sure if he didn't get that message or what, and I didn't care enough about $100 to go chasing him around the internet trying to get paid.

The important thing is that he lost, and everyone not a BLP fanboi can see that.

 

[markie]

My hilite. You cant assume this radiation, even if real, is hydrinos until you first eliminate all other possibilities.

We already went through this multiple times.
1) The equipment originally was used in a way that was not recommended by the manufacturer, putting readings in doubt.

Later equipment would confirm the readings were good enough.

2) Even if the readings were correct, they do not necessarily mean hydrinos. anomalous does not mean hydrino, it means unexpected to MIlls. It can easily be explained in other ways by other scientists and engineers in other fields. He has a poorly controlled reaction with a complex multitude of reactants beyond even what he declares in his papers, since he never actually declares precisely what materials from his own equipment are burning up. Although as with the Mo container, sometimes we learn at least some of the contaminants that are adding to the reactions when his equipment blows up or melts down.

It is not unexpected to Mills. He predicted it before he went looking.
There is no continuum radiation without hydrogen, in a vast range of conditions. Pretty simple.

3) He (and you) repeatedly claim hydrinos can be detected long after these chaotic explosions either in hydrino crystal compounds and/or cryodistilled dihydrino liquid. But never have any of these samples ever been verified by any independant labs, and at least one of the readings to claim proves the crystals have hydrino compounds actually is exactly comparable with binding energies found for CO bound in hydrogen embrittled stainless steel. (the carbon in the steel reacts with the O from the H2O. The ionized hydrogen penetrating the steel and forming pockets changes the crystalline structure of the metal) If any reading has 2 explanations, and one is already covered by the known physical laws, no need to make up whole new physics and entirely new fabricated states for elements to explain them.

The problem is this: You're ignoring that much more than XPS was done to identify hydrino. Your CO hypothesis doesn't pass those tests.

4) Lastly, you have never once in any form produced any evidence for either a hydrino, or a Mills machine that produces more energy than is input. EVER

and I have offered years ago to eat crow or even literally eat my hat if this ever did happen, and my crusty ol hat still lives, the only thing you can do to stop embarrassing yourself is

Show me

put up or shut up

There has been nearly 30 years of hydrino evidence, you have just chosen not to carefully examine it or believe it.