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

[Hellbound]

Well, they're profitable so long as you value your integrity at $0.

You know, I've always said that integrity is the key.

Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, they're profitable so long as you value your integrity at $0.

Well, you know what they say; integrity and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. But not in Starbucks.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Actual chemist here. Stop it - you're killing me.

Perhaps you could offer some insight - what could the reaction that we see actually be?

 

[Hans]

You know, I've always said that integrity is the key.

Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

Yeah I've never been able to suppress that. If I had I would have been producing 'archaeological crazy stuff' for the fringe for large amounts of money for decades......sigh the utter tyranny of honesty.

Egyptian colonies in Greenland, the existence of Nato'wa confirmed, Macedonian colonies in the Pamirs (found by Victorian explorers, etc., etc., so much pseudo science I could have spewed out.

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah I've never been able to suppress that. If I had I would have been producing 'archaeological crazy stuff' for the fringe for large amounts of money for decades......sigh the utter tyranny of honesty.

Egyptian colonies in Greenland, the existence of Nato'wa confirmed, Macedonian colonies in the Pamirs (found by Victorian explorers, etc., etc., so much pseudo science I could have spewed out.

Tell me about it. That pesky integrity.

Damn you morality and ethics! *shaking fist at sky*

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Perhaps you could offer some insight - what could the reaction that we see actually be?

Cotton candy? Laundry lint? Ceiling hadn't been dusted for cobwebs in a while?

Seriously, what demands an explanation there?

 

[Dancing David]

You must be really smart then.

How about, rather than being killed by your incredulity, being constructive and offering an informed opinion of your own about the web like substance being formed.

It's safe to assume you don't know that magnesium and beryllium can form hydrides that are chain like. They are covalent polymeric hydrides.

So it's not a stretch for me to hypothesize that the substance in question is a polymeric hydrino hydride.

How about Mills stops dorking around a produces some actual results?

Then they have a Nobel prize and save the world.

 

[Hans]

How about Mills stops dorking around a produces some actual results?

Then they have a Nobel prize and save the world.

The Nobel committee's award is much less than can fleeced from gullible believers. Ask markie how much in investment has flowed into Mill's various renamed companies, paying him and other lucrative salaries to produce - nothing and to produce nothing for 30 years.

Markie what does Mill pay himself out of investor's money? There is nothing illegal in that by the way so why would you not tell us? How much, percentage wise, is paid out for infrastructure, salary, pensions, health care vs actual research?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Cotton candy? Laundry lint? Ceiling hadn't been dusted for cobwebs in a while?

None of those things form from smoke.

Seriously, what demands an explanation there?

What chemical reaction could cause the formation of a fibrous material like that from smoke.

It seems to me that it's one thing to opine that what we're seeing is nonsense that has nothing to do with hydrinos, but another altogether to be able to say "that looks exactly like what happens with chemical reaction x". The former is almost certainly true, but the latter is a much stronger argument, in the same way that saying "the way that reactor is said to work is nonsense therefore what we're seeing isn't a reactor in action" is a weaker argument than "the way that reactor is said to work is nonsense and that looks exactly like an arc welder, therefore what we're seeing isn't a reaction in action".

 

[markie]

The Nobel committee's award is much less than can fleeced from gullible believers. Ask markie how much in investment has flowed into Mill's various renamed companies, paying him and other lucrative salaries to produce - nothing and to produce nothing for 30 years.

Markie what does Mill pay himself out of investor's money? There is nothing illegal in that by the way so why would you not tell us? How much, percentage wise, is paid out for infrastructure, salary, pensions, health care vs actual research?

How should I know such things? I'm no insider. But, I would think that BLP's corporate investors who perform due diligence and risk assessment have access to information that makes BLP a worthwhile investment. I would also think that BLP runs a pretty lean and productive operation relative to other companies. They have my admiration for conducting groundbreaking research - both pure and applied - for decades, all without government funding at taxpayers expense. You may think they have produced 'nothing' for 30 years, but that is true only as it relates to a commercial product thus far. They have amassed intellectual property and trade secrets that are thrilling to contemplate.

Take a peek at BLP's advisory board at http://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/

It looks like they are well advised.

 

[JeanTate]

How should I know such things? I'm no insider. But, I would think that BLP's corporate investors who perform due diligence and risk assessment have access to information that makes BLP a worthwhile investment. I would also think that BLP runs a pretty lean and productive operation relative to other companies. They have my admiration for conducting groundbreaking research - both pure and applied - for decades, all without government funding at taxpayers expense. You may think they have produced 'nothing' for 30 years, but that is true only as it relates to a commercial product thus far. They have amassed intellectual property and trade secrets that are thrilling to contemplate.

Take a peek at BLP's advisory board at http://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/

It looks like they are well advised.

Is there any significant downside for any of those individuals to be on said board? I can’t think of any.

Significant upside? Well, let me count the ways ...

IP and trade secrets? None are independently, and objectively, verifiable, are they? Short of a viable commercial product, that is ...

 

[LTC8K6]

How should I know such things? I'm no insider. But, I would think that BLP's corporate investors who perform due diligence and risk assessment have access to information that makes BLP a worthwhile investment. I would also think that BLP runs a pretty lean and productive operation relative to other companies. They have my admiration for conducting groundbreaking research - both pure and applied - for decades, all without government funding at taxpayers expense. You may think they have produced 'nothing' for 30 years, but that is true only as it relates to a commercial product thus far. They have amassed intellectual property and trade secrets that are thrilling to contemplate.

Take a peek at BLP's advisory board at http://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/

It looks like they are well advised.

Are they being paid by BLP?

 

[Darat]

Perhaps you could offer some insight - what could the reaction that we see actually be?

We could just wait for Mills to have it independently analysed, it may be interesting to read that report to take our minds of the impending heat death of the universe!

 

[Mike!]

None of those things form from smoke.



What chemical reaction could cause the formation of a fibrous material like that from smoke.

It seems to me that it's one thing to opine that what we're seeing is nonsense that has nothing to do with hydrinos, but another altogether to be able to say "that looks exactly like what happens with chemical reaction x". The former is almost certainly true, but the latter is a much stronger argument, in the same way that saying "the way that reactor is said to work is nonsense therefore what we're seeing isn't a reactor in action" is a weaker argument than "the way that reactor is said to work is nonsense and that looks exactly like an arc welder, therefore what we're seeing isn't a reaction in action".

I knew I'd seen something similar at some point in my life, and I remembered what is was today. Burning plastic. In my pyromaniac stage of youth, we were always looking for something cool looking to burn. One of our favorite things to light on fire and carry around was a wiffleball bat. I'm not sure what form of high impact plastic it was made from, but it would produce a wispy black smoke that had a cobweb like quality to it, and some amount of remaining mass that when it landed, looked very much like a black version of what we see remaining in the present case of Mills "demonstration". My guess is some plastic based insulation burned away, and what we see is the wispy unburnt remains. But I'm no scientist.

 

[Hans]

How should I know such things? I'm no insider.
But, I would think that BLP's corporate investors who perform due diligence and risk assessment have access to information that makes BLP a worthwhile investment. I would also think that BLP runs a pretty lean and productive operation relative to other companies. They have my admiration for conducting groundbreaking research - both pure and applied - for decades, all without government funding at taxpayers expense. You may think they have produced 'nothing' for 30 years, but that is true only as it relates to a commercial product thus far. They have amassed intellectual property and trade secrets that are thrilling to contemplate.
[/url]

It looks like they are well advised.

With thirty years of failure and not a penny returned to investor - yeah 'great' company. Probably good for generating losses for tax schemes too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I knew I'd seen something similar at some point in my life, and I remembered what is was today. Burning plastic. In my pyromaniac stage of youth, we were always looking for something cool looking to burn. One of our favorite things to light on fire and carry around was a wiffleball bat. I'm not sure what form of high impact plastic it was made from, but it would produce a wispy black smoke that had a cobweb like quality to it, and some amount of remaining mass that when it landed, looked very much like a black version of what we see remaining in the present case of Mills "demonstration". My guess is some plastic based insulation burned away, and what we see is the wispy unburnt remains. But I'm no scientist.

That's definitely a good start. I'm not sure it entirely lines up with what we can see in the video, and nor can I find out what plastic wiffle bats would be made out of, but this is certainly the most promising answer so far.

 

[Dragon]

Well, "smokewebs" are definitely a thing - I've seen them myself - they looked like black cobwebs.
In a nutshell they are caused by burning plastics recombining as polymer chains when the smoke cools and are very common after domestic fires. Google will give you a better explanation and images.
I'd be surprised if those filaments in the video aren't formed by that sort of process.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, "smokewebs" are definitely a thing - I've seen them myself - they looked like black cobwebs.
In a nutshell they are caused by burning plastics recombining as polymer chains when the smoke cools and are very common after domestic fires. Google will give you a better explanation and images.
I'd be surprised if those filaments in the video aren't formed by that sort of process.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/43894/smoke-cobweb-formations

[Smoke webs] form under certain conditions called wet smoke, which involves low heat, or smoldering type environments.

That doesn't seem to apply.

http://elitedrying.com/index_files/Page555.htm

Plastic particulates connect in chains forming heavy “smoke webs” often seen in ceiling corners.

Another vote for plastic.

I would have to say that if it really is plastic, then that would seem to definitively rule out the possibility of people genuinely believing that they've stumbled onto something exciting and new, as it would appear that the filament that burns up would have to be made from plastic rather than metal.

 

[Pixel42]

I would have to say that if it really is plastic, then that would seem to definitively rule out the possibility of people genuinely believing that they've stumbled onto something exciting and new, as it would appear that the filament that burns up would have to be made from plastic rather than metal.

I think it's entirely possible that Mills really did think he was on to something when he first started out. It might well have gone from genuine investigation, to a bit of fudging whilst still sincere, to a lot of fudging as the truth began to dawn, to an outright scam, without there ever being a moment when he made a conscious decision to create such a scam. Now, of course, he has to go on with it, as the point where he could have legitimately called a halt has long passed.

 

[ferd burfle]

Well, "smokewebs" are definitely a thing - I've seen them myself - they looked like black cobwebs.
In a nutshell they are caused by burning plastics recombining as polymer chains when the smoke cools and are very common after domestic fires. Google will give you a better explanation and images.
I'd be surprised if those filaments in the video aren't formed by that sort of process.

I wonder if you could cause fumes from an acrylic, like cyanoacrylate, to polymerize from vapor phase? Introduce an inert gas into, or pull a vacuum on vapors in a chamber to cause polymerization in the absence of oxygen?