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

[markie]

January 2017:


May 2018:

Spot the discrepancy.

Dave

MS describing that apparatus as a fully working prototype is not my idea of a fully working prototype. When the system is closed and operating at reasonable high power for a reasonably long power of time, then I might call it a working prototype.

 

[jrhowell]

For over 25 years Mills has left an undeniable trail

And yet you deny the obvious.

 

[markie]

How is the magnetic field generated?

If your implication is that the electromagnets for the MHD will require additional input power, well of course they will.

 

[The Man]

If your implication is that the electromagnets for the MHD will require additional input power, well of course they will.

Ah, so then the charge separation you refer to, caused by the magnetic field, and resulting in "an electric current is generated from this" external "additional input power" that you were already aware of? Why the pretense then?

 

[CORed]

I'm not sure if this is the one markie meant, but he's applied for another patent:

GAMMA-RAY AND TRI-HYDROGEN-CATION COLLISIONAL ELECTRON BEAM TRANSDUCER

Of course, I'm not sure what that title has to do with the main independent claim:



https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018031934&redirectedID=true

If you click around there, you can download a pdf copy of the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority, which usually forms the basis for the International Preliminary Report on Patentability. The last paragraph on the last page is of particular interest, where the examiner discusses the industrial applicability of the claimed subject matter.

Let's just say that it's extremely uncommon for an examiner at the WO/IPRP stage to argue that all the claims on file lack industrial applicability.


ETA:

here are the other independent claims:

Okay, what the heck is a "pseudoelectron". Is it a real particle that I have somehow managed never to hear of in all my science education and reading, or is it a figment of Mills' imagination, like a hydrino?

 

[The Man]

The latter seems accurate, evidently just the result of pseudoscience.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You say that, and yet:

For over 25 years Mills has left an undeniable trail of experimental evidence to show the hydrino exists. Spectral signatures from hydrino formation, tests confirming hydrino end product, large excess heat from calorimetry tests, controlled tests showing necessity of both atomic hydrogen and predicted catalysts. All in vast range of conditions: gas, plasma, aqueous, and solid environments and with results that have been validated by others and in accord with a predictive theory.

If there is this undeniable trail of evidence, where is it? None has been posted here that's for certain. We saw improperly used welding machines melt down, we saw expensive arc light bulbs burn up and we saw a cotton candy machine make cobwebs, but never did we see any evidence of hydrinos or even any net gain in energy by any means or for any reason.

Sure I saw claims like you made being made, but that's a simple magician's trick of misdirection. James Randy taught us all how to quickly spot that sort of fraud. Maybe you forgot the original roots of this forum?



This was a takedown of psychics, however right from the beginning he talks about the art of deception. No one here is going to be fooled by the silly so called evidence Mills supposedly submitted. All we have seen is rather amateurish fumbling acts of deception that treats science as if it were magic!

 

[ferd burfle]

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018031934&redirectedID=true

If you click around there, you can download a pdf copy of the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority, which usually forms the basis for the International Preliminary Report on Patentability. The last paragraph on the last page is of particular interest, where the examiner discusses the industrial applicability of the claimed subject matter.

Let's just say that it's extremely uncommon for an examiner at the WO/IPRP stage to argue that all the claims on file lack industrial applicability.

I found the paragraph and I admire the specificity and professionalism of their opinion. They said the claims were contrary to the Standard Model of particle physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory; it seems Mills hit the pseudoscience Trifecta. Unfortunately, I expect he will just spin this to encourage his investors, who will be happy to believe his claims of persecution and suppression.

 

[markie]

I found the paragraph and I admire the specificity and professionalism of their opinion. They said the claims were contrary to the Standard Model of particle physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory; it seems Mills hit the pseudoscience Trifecta. Unfortunately, I expect he will just spin this to encourage his investors, who will be happy to believe his claims of persecution and suppression.

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we? The entire universe would collapse if they were wrong. Of a certainty, the 3 models may not seem to mesh together ; perhaps they appear to give us a disjointed view of the universe. Perhaps they cannot predict basic things like the ionization energy of Lithium's outer electron or the accelerated expansion of the universe. But the problem is our human weakness in not properly understanding what our Science has revealed to us. All hail what our Science has wrought! The glorious Trinity, full of mystery of how the 3 theories could exist in one ScienceHood! And while we're at it, Hail Mary, the Equivalence Principle! May she be forever blessed. She says that antigravitic matter cannot exist, and we bow before her pronouncement. Down with the heretics who would say otherwise!

 

[Kid Eager]

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we? The entire universe would collapse if they were wrong. Of a certainty, the 3 models may not seem to mesh together ; perhaps they appear to give us a disjointed view of the universe. Perhaps they cannot predict basic things like the ionization energy of Lithium's outer electron or the accelerated expansion of the universe. But the problem is our human weakness in not properly understanding what our Science has revealed to us. All hail what our Science has wrought! The glorious Trinity, full of mystery of how the 3 theories could exist in one ScienceHood! And while we're at it, Hail Mary, the Equivalence Principle! May she be forever blessed. She says that antigravitic matter cannot exist, and we bow before her pronouncement. Down with the heretics who would say otherwise!

Your strawman from incredulity has impressed me with its merging of two logical fallacies and I am now prepared to overlook the lack of science, evidence and work product over 30 years.

Where may I send money to help fund Mr Mills’ lifestyle?

 

[Horatius]

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we? The entire universe would collapse if they were wrong. Of a certainty, the 3 models may not seem to mesh together ; perhaps they appear to give us a disjointed view of the universe. Perhaps they cannot predict basic things like the ionization energy of Lithium's outer electron or the accelerated expansion of the universe. But the problem is our human weakness in not properly understanding what our Science has revealed to us. All hail what our Science has wrought! The glorious Trinity, full of mystery of how the 3 theories could exist in one ScienceHood! And while we're at it, Hail Mary, the Equivalence Principle! May she be forever blessed. She says that antigravitic matter cannot exist, and we bow before her pronouncement. Down with the heretics who would say otherwise!

Snark aside, essentially every argument we have ever made could be refuted by a single, unambiguously working example of literally any of the devices he's talked about for decades now.

And yet, repeated promises to the contrary, we still don't have that.

So, yeah, go ahead and snark. It's all you've got, after all.

 

[Hans]

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we? The entire universe would collapse if they were wrong. Of a certainty, the 3 models may not seem to mesh together ; perhaps they appear to give us a disjointed view of the universe. Perhaps they cannot predict basic things like the ionization energy of Lithium's outer electron or the accelerated expansion of the universe. But the problem is our human weakness in not properly understanding what our Science has revealed to us. All hail what our Science has wrought! The glorious Trinity, full of mystery of how the 3 theories could exist in one ScienceHood! And while we're at it, Hail Mary, the Equivalence Principle! May she be forever blessed. She says that antigravitic matter cannot exist, and we bow before her pronouncement. Down with the heretics who would say otherwise!

lol...yawn.....thirty years with nothing to show for it..................Mills makes a living NOT producing anything.

 

[sts60]

markie, I will happily acknowledge Mills’ genius if he produces useful amounts of power in units that can be evaluated and reproducibly operated by completely independent teams. Like, say, fission energy was reproduced around the world. Or if he can describe how to make hydrinos so that independent labs can produce and study them. You know, like high-temperature superconductivity.

When will you acknowledge that Mills is full of it? How many years or decades of still not producing commercial power units- of excuses - will it take? Will you still be saying the same things five, ten, fifteen years from now?

 

[ferd burfle]

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we? The entire universe would collapse if they were wrong. Of a certainty, the 3 models may not seem to mesh together ; perhaps they appear to give us a disjointed view of the universe. Perhaps they cannot predict basic things like the ionization energy of Lithium's outer electron or the accelerated expansion of the universe. But the problem is our human weakness in not properly understanding what our Science has revealed to us. All hail what our Science has wrought! The glorious Trinity, full of mystery of how the 3 theories could exist in one ScienceHood! And while we're at it, Hail Mary, the Equivalence Principle! May she be forever blessed. She says that antigravitic matter cannot exist, and we bow before her pronouncement. Down with the heretics who would say otherwise!

Whoa there, pardner! Save some of that straw for the farmers and ranchers!

Ironically, your post, with less sarcasm and more whining, is exactly how Mills will explain his latest failure to the faithful. Who, eager to have their conspiracy theories reinforced, will lap it up.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Heavens no, we wouldn't want to violate the Standard Model or General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory would we?

Actually, it'd be awesome if someone did that. But they'd need to produce falsifiable, independently-replicable evidence, which is where Mills falls down.

 

[abaddon]

MS describing that apparatus as a fully working prototype is not my idea of a fully working prototype.

Oh, super. Now you think science is a matter of personal opinion.

When the system is closed and operating at reasonable high power for a reasonably long power of time, then I might call it a working prototype.

Mills has claimed that several times over the past 30 years. Are you calling Mills a liar?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Let's just say that it's extremely uncommon for an examiner at the WO/IPRP stage to argue that all the claims on file lack industrial applicability.

Well, I'm not a patent professional like you are, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the examiner states, "lacks industrial applicability because the pseudoelectron violates the Standard Model of Particle Physics ... the antigravity described for the pseudoelectron further violates General Relativity ... further, the proposed mechanism, or property, of antigravity described for the pseudoelectron, violates Quantum Field Theory..." (italics mine).

In other words, not many patent applications blandly assert the existence of hitherto-unknown physical laws (which just happen to directly contradict known laws) to explain the operation of the proposed device or process.

And if the process under consideration does not, or cannot, work, its applicability would seem to be pretty limited.

Or is this more common than I had been led to believe?

 

[abaddon]

Well, I'm not a patent professional like you are, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the examiner states, "lacks industrial applicability because the pseudoelectron violates the Standard Model of Particle Physics ... the antigravity described for the pseudoelectron further violates General Relativity ... further, the proposed mechanism, or property, of antigravity described for the pseudoelectron, violates Quantum Field Theory..." (italics mine).

In other words, not many patent applications blandly assert the existence of hitherto-unknown physical laws (which just happen to directly contradict known laws) to explain the operation of the proposed device or process.

And if the process under consideration does not, or cannot, work, its applicability would seem to be pretty limited.

Or is this more common than I had been led to believe?

Having been through the US patent process, it isn't that difficult if you have something real to patent. IF one is attempting to patent a fantasy, however, that becomes an iterative process. Apply for patent, take reasons for rejection and use them to change your application. Repeat until there are no objections left. Get patent on an idea that by now bears no relation to the original idea.

How much of that happens? I don't know. There is certainly enough that USPO felt the need to bolster and revamp it's rules a while back. That said, I have not had any rejection ever from USPO, I was dealing in the real world.

 

[fuelair]

The why is it white?

It is very light dark matter.

 

[Horatius]

In other words, not many patent applications blandly assert the existence of hitherto-unknown physical laws (which just happen to directly contradict known laws) to explain the operation of the proposed device or process.

And if the process under consideration does not, or cannot, work, its applicability would seem to be pretty limited.

Or is this more common than I had been led to believe?

Such blatant expressions of violations of known physical laws are rare. Most people who are trying to sneak a free energy/cold fusion/perpetual motion machine through the patent process try to obscure their intent with vague wording. Even in cases where the examiner at the International stage thinks they might be trying to pull a fast one, they usually just leave it up to the later National level examiners to get into that argument, because there just isn't enough time at during the International phase for a lot of such back-and-forth.

So the fact that in this case, the examiner decided to make a point of raising this objection tells you how obviously BS his claims are.