Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike! said:
Revised future comment: "Graphite Black Body Radiator. Electrodes are streams of Vaporized silver." ;)
Click to expand...



How the vaporized silver manages to function as an electrode is left to the imagination of the mark.
 
Well, certainly using silver at very high temperatures year after year has caused a lot of silver to vaporize, hence the high costs

auditor: where are these 2000 kilograms of silver bought last year?
boss' minion: they have vaporized as part of our normal processes
boss (behind a curtain): mhmhmhwehehehehe!
 
Horatius said:
It's a common failing amongst the purveyors of Fake Science, and their various supporters, that they don't understand the interconnected nature of science, and the world science attempts to describe.

Because all those questions you raise are perfectly valid, and completely ignored.

I brought up the issue of hydrinos creating fusion myself, because that's certainly a possibility. Mills and his fanboys wave that away, but it matters. We know that muon catalyzed fusion exists.
Click to expand...
For interested readers, the WP article on this is a good place to learn more.

Fusion can occur in an ion comprising two deuterons and a muon, a D2+ (likewise DT+, T2+, HD+, and HT+, but not H2+); catalysis is possible because once the nuclei fuse the muon is released and can form a new muonic ion. Hydrinos could not act as catalysts (well, maybe they could, but not obviously so), but they certainly could induce fusion the same way muons can. In fact, in fractional quantum states which put the electron closer to the nucleus than in muonic deuterium, they should be more effective than muons.

Even if you think the quantum theory used to explain that phenomenon is wrong, the phenomenon itself still exists. Independent researchers at multiple different labs have carried out the same experiments, and found the same results. So any theory of how hydrinos work either has to explain why they don't also show this fusion behavior, or it's likely wrong.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And a lack of interest in pursuing this would be (is) ... puzzling.

And that applies to all the other aspects of nuclear physics and chemistry.

But his fanboys will never admit that, because it would suggest that, more likely than not, hydrinos are just a fantasy.

{snip}
Click to expand...
D'accord.
 
IMHO they don't care about hydrinos at all. They don't need the explanation to make sense. The need the explanation to make impression. And they are clearly good at it, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do it for 20 years.
This shouldn't be discussion about physics. It should be discussion about psychology and sociology of investments.
 
Horatius said:
The key here is, most people in our society assume that "scientists" are all smart. At least above-average smart, if not genius level smart.

And by and large, scientists don't complain about that perception, because why would they? :D

But here's the thing: Science is just like like any other job. No one disputes that there are bad plumbers, bad mechanics, bad waiters, bad bartenders, bad bureaucrats, bad accountants, bad lawyers, you name it. And just as with every other job, there are just some bad scientists out there. People clever enough to remember what they need to pass a test, clever enough to follow the instructions in their lab book to get the expected result, but not quite clever enough to quite grasp the essence of science, what it means to expand on knowledge, rather than just replicate previous work.

I'm willing to bet everyone who ever went through a college or university science degree could tell you stories of people like that. I know I can.

And yet, those people still often graduate with a degree, and they get jobs. Not the greatest job, but every lab out there needs bottle washers. There's value in being able to follow directions, and carry out an established procedure, if for no other reason than it frees up better scientists to work on better things.

And I suspect Mills looks for people like that: smart enough to follow his instructions and "get the expected results", but not smart enough to question any of the inconsistencies in his narrative. Mills gets his "confirmation", they get a better paying job, and everyone (other than his investors) goes home happy.
Click to expand...
I've started to look in some detail at the four sources ms gives in the OP ("Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work"), and I think there's another aspect. Perhaps there are "physics professors" (scare quotes because this includes some people who are not) who are both smart enough to follow his instructions, and also smart enough to question inconsistencies, but they chose not to.

In the common view of what a scientist is, perhaps they might be called "ethically compromised", or "economical with the truth".

For the investors - or at least a significant minority of them - I see something quite curious.

It's true that many investors did not get a university degree in physics; but many surely have degrees in other branches of science. And many are surely quite smart, and bring healthy skepticism and critical thinking to key decisions. Perhaps they did question Mills et al. on some of the implications of hydrinos, similar to what's been mentioned in this thread; perhaps they did wonder why they have been pursuing this particular 'very cheap power' opportunity to the (apparent) exclusion of all others (including winning several Nobel Prizes); perhaps ... But here's the thing: there are surely more than a handful who are smart enough, motivated enough, wealthy enough, connected enough ... to pursue some of these other opportunities independent of Mills et al. And they'd not be bound by non disclosure agreements, because all the key stuff on hydrinos is available publicly, much of it for free.

Or perhaps all such smart investors have done their investigating, and are no longer backing Mills et al.? :confused:
 
JeanTate said:
What I had most in mind, when I wrote that post, was the four sources ms provides in the OP, "Rowan University's report", ... I'll go through this, and the documents, in more detail later.

At least three of the four seem quite unambiguous about the role of "hydrinos", at the very least as a central component or feature. While not all of those who (seem to) have signed are physics professors - and one does not give his affiliation as a university (he is - head of? - a consulting company) - it'd be astonishing if they all are ignorant of how revolutionary fractional quantum states would be (or could be).
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Here's the relevant part of the OP:

michaelsuede said:
{snip}
Don't be fooled by the naysayers who haven't done their homework like I have. {snip}

I’ve been following BLP closely for nearly a decade now. I’m convinced Mills is the real deal. Contrary to what Forbes claims, numerous independent labs have verified his claims. {snip} Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work:

Rowan University’s report
Rowan University’s report II
UNC Asheville’s report
University of Illinois report

{snip}
Click to expand...
I'll look in some detail at only two of these four, in this post and later, the "Rowan University's report" and the "UNC Asheville's report".

Some general observations:
  • only one of the reports - "University of Illinois report" - is text searchable
  • "Rowan University's report II" is misnamed; it's from an independent, private company (perhaps ms made a mistake?)
  • three of the four (the "University of Illinois report" is the exception) have "Redacted" in the URL
  • the "University of Illinois report" does not use the word "hydrino"; all three of the others do

The "Rowan University’s report" lists the author as "K.V. Ramanujachary, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry". From the Rowan University website:
  • "Dr. K. Ramanujachary" is "Professor, Inorganic Chemistry"
  • "My research is aimed at understanding the relationship between the crystalline structure and electronic properties of materials. Specific research areas include the study of luminescence properties of new materials and the study of the implication of magnetic ordering on the electronic properties of materials. We also examine the potential of new materials with tailored bandgap for photo-assisted catalytic processes."
  • http://www.rowan.edu/centers/materials/rama.htm

the "UNC Asheville's report" lists the author as "Randy Booker, PhD, Department of Physics". From the University of North Carolina at Asheville website:
  • "The Department of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Asheville consists of seven full-time faculty members. Areas of research include molecular, atomic, nuclear, elementary particle, environmental, educational and computational physics, along with astronomy and astrophysics."
  • "Randy Booker, PhD" (booker@unca.edu) is listed as a staff member, "Professor of Physics"
  • "Randy, former chair of our department (2000-2010), currently teaches modern physics, upper-level experimental physics, and astronomy. In the past he has taught in the UNC Asheville Masters of Liberal Arts Program. His research interests include the microwave spectra of molecules found in the Earth's atmosphere and the interstellar medium."
  • https://physics.unca.edu/faces/faculty/booker

Myself, I'd be astonished to learn that neither Prof Ramanujachary nor Prof Booker were unaware of any of the potentially revolutionary implications of hydrinos, such as we've covered in this thread so far. Maybe we could ask them, when we send them an email or two (later)?

Finally, for this post: both Rowan University and the University of North Carolina at Asheville are public universities (per their websites). Can anyone confirm that this means "the state" (New Jersey, North Carolina; possibly the US government too) provides both financial and other support? I'm curious to learn to what extent taxpayers are funding these two guys' salaries (etc).
 
In my research into hydrinos, I've found quite a few interesting documents. I'd like to share two three.

"Hydrino Theory, Which Overturns Quantum Theory, Is In Turn Overturned By Doofusino Theory", by Scott Aaronson (link). I'm not sure when it was written, but I do like the very last sentence: "I find myself agreeing with a gushing reviewer of Mills' book on Amazon.com: "The significance of this scientific landmark cannot be understated.""

A. Rathke (2005), "A critical analysis of the hydrino model", New Journal of Physics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 127 (2005) (ADS link; arXiv version; ESA link). This is good for finding many important papers on hydrinos, including what I think are the key Mills et al. ones and some by what ms refers to as "naysayers" ("Don't be fooled by the naysayers who haven't done their homework like I have"; I doubt that ms even knew of the existence of this paper before he read my post, but I'd be delighted to hear that I'm wrong).

ETA: One more: Phelps&Clementson (2012), "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al.", The European Physical Journal D, Volume 66, Issue 5, 2012, id.120 (ADS link; you can get the full paper from here, no paywall). The abstract is quite brief, but informative:
Phelps&Clementson said:
An explanation of the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu, most recently in [Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 65 (2011)], is presented using conventional atomic, plasma, and discharge physics. It is argued that the observed EUV emissions during their pulsed discharges originate from transitions in ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes. Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particles.
Click to expand...
Perhaps even silver ions show up among the EUV emissions? :p
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
<snip>
Myself, I'd be astonished to learn that neither Prof Ramanujachary nor Prof Booker were unaware of any of the potentially revolutionary implications of hydrinos, such as we've covered in this thread so far. Maybe we could ask them, when we send them an email or two (later)?
<snip>
Click to expand...

TBH, I'm often surprised at the ignorance of a particular field of science, from some scientists in a (reasonably) closely related field. I'm not sure if it might be due to having to concentrate so much of their careers on a particular field, that they can't see the wood for the trees.

I would put Alfven, Scott, Perratt, Juergens in that list. No doubt very good in their particular well defined field (some better than others!), but starting to struggle a bit outside of it. In the case of those four, I think it may also be a case of becoming so obsessed(?), enamoured(?) with their own subject, that they try to apply it in an area where it is not warranted, and their lack of knowledge of that area doesn't sound the alarm bells that it would to others.

A similar scenario was commented on recently in the electric comet thread, regarding Dr. Franklin Anariba, and his electric comet musings. Seemingly an otherwise competent scientist, albeit in a not particularly related field.

With the chaps mentioned in your post, I'm wondering how much of what Mills is claiming to be doing that they fully understand. The other alternative is that they do understand, and it is either a) legit, or b) it isn't, but they are in it for what they can make out of it.

b) is not a particularly appetising thought.
 
jonesdave116 said:
With the chaps mentioned in your post, I'm wondering how much of what Mills is claiming to be doing that they fully understand.
Click to expand...


I suspect that answer to that is "actually very little". Mills has spent almost 30 years producing literally thousands of pages of scientific-sounding gobbledygook. Most people who have sat down and tried to parse out what he's actually saying have admitted that it make little or no sense to them. But of course, we all know at least one Cliff Claven type who insists he understands everything, no matter what.



The other alternative is that they do understand, and it is either a) legit, or b) it isn't, but they are in it for what they can make out of it.

b) is not a particularly appetising thought.
Click to expand...


And there's another part of why it's so hard to counter ******** like this. We're socialized to feel bad about calling someone out as a probable fraud, for fear that we might be wrong.
 
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.

During this Dec 16th 2016 lecture in the UK, Mills discusses the process of invention that lead up to the creation of the SunCell.

https://youtu.be/CtA4FdRrCkY?t=2745

This was a long iterative process that slowly evolved over several decades as experiment and theory allowed for steady progress to be made. Most of the long delay came down to achieving an adequate power density that would make power generation economically feasible.
 
A lot more has been asked and ignored.

When a lay person like myself needs to judge between parties disputing a field outside of my erudition, I am well guided by the way they respond to critiques.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino
Click to expand...



Actually, none of us have asked "why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino".


What we've actually asked, and only gotten BS answers for, is why none of his earlier devices, which (he has claimed) ALL produced an over-unity output of energy, and were within "a year to 18 months" of commercial deployment, have never actually been sold, leased, licensed, copied, reproduced or out right stolen.

But you go ahead and keep waving those hands. I'm (sadly) completely sure that there are still people out there with money to waste who will believe your ********.
 
"Yeah, this is great and all, 852 feet, but until we can fly a few hundred people at once, non-stop, between the US and Europe, we might as well not even try to sell even one airplane." - The Wright Brothers, Never.
 
Aepervius said:
As far as I remember , vaporized metal can still be conductive in certain edge cases - for example if they are in plasma form. Heck, even non metal can be, gas at low pressure , in neon lamp.
Click to expand...



The conductivity isn't what I'm concerned about. My concern is the fact that a cloud of conductive plasma and multiple discrete electrodes are, from an electrical engineering predictive, very different things.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.
Click to expand...


Thats not what I asked.

I asked what you thought of the safety and health issues raised in this thread about hudrinos.

I asked why the massive heat generation capability of this alleged generator wasn't being commercialized, given the ease with which it would be exploitable if the science and technology were real.

I even asked you some of these questions in a PM.

You chose to ignore those questions and others like them. What you gave us was what appears to be a canned response unrelated to the actual questions being asked if you.

You've revealed more about your relationship with Mills and his "theories" than I think you intended.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.

During this Dec 16th 2016 lecture in the UK, Mills discusses the process of invention that lead up to the creation of the SunCell.

https://youtu.be/CtA4FdRrCkY?t=2745

This was a long iterative process that slowly evolved over several decades as experiment and theory allowed for steady progress to be made. Most of the long delay came down to achieving an adequate power density that would make power generation economically feasible.
Click to expand...

More assertion via YouTube? That's where all the serious investors go for their info .......

I asked what I consider to be a very simple question about the aapparent cooling system. What does it do?
 
One of the other things that somehow has not occurred is the exploitation of hydrinos by anyone else. Even if we can somehow presume that Mills et al have managed to husband a great secret for all these years, their basic idea that such a thing is possible is public enough. It would seem so huge and so lucrative that scores of scientists, inventors, consortia and syndicates would be toiling away at the task of figuring it out. An idea that turns conventional physics on its head, guarantees fame and fortune and changes the world. And yet, no hydrinos. How odd.
 
michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.

During this Dec 16th 2016 lecture in the UK, Mills discusses the process of invention that lead up to the creation of the SunCell.

https://youtu.be/CtA4FdRrCkY?t=2745

This was a long iterative process that slowly evolved over several decades as experiment and theory allowed for steady progress to be made. Most of the long delay came down to achieving an adequate power density that would make power generation economically feasible.
Click to expand...

There is a trait among politicians that has them rephrase questions put to tgem.The question asked in this thread has been, as explained by several posters, why is it that over deacdes now there has almost continuously been a ready to go production device that actually never materializes?

Another trait of politicians is taking questions and then responding without actually adderssing the question.

These traits are shared by another type of person, the fraudster.
 
aleCcowaN said:
To complete the picture, be sure to take a look at this video

Click to expand...



Mills here sounds to me like he's laying down a fog of pure double-talk (to use a polite term); if I was a potential investor doing due diligence I'd be clutching my wallet tight with both hands. But my technical grasp is weak: what do the physicists and engineers here make of this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Horatius said:
"Yeah, this is great and all, 852 feet, but until we can fly a few hundred people at once, non-stop, between the US and Europe, we might as well not even try to sell even one airplane." - The Wright Brothers, Never.
Click to expand...

Chapeau!

Stronger with the addition of "... but we'll make a video explaining our reasons and showing working prototypes and a piece of our new tail wing"



Wilbur - Orville! Come'ere! I need you!
Orville - Wait! I'm still writing my acceptance speech for that new prize ... that Swedish dynamite guy's.
 
I'm amazed at the amount of magic involved in the system.

Silver electrodes... yeah, because electrons care what conducts them.
Putting in energy to move an electron to a LOWER orbital, even though in all other cases in nature that shifts an electron to a higher orbital.
A lower orbital that is unobserved in nature and apparently specific to hydrogen without any explanation why other elements lack this lower orbital.
A way to gain net usable energy without fusion/fission


What always saddens me is that the money being used to buy the inventor new houses/cars/boats while achieving nothing could have been used to fund actual research into alternative energy sources.
 
bruto said:
One of the other things that somehow has not occurred is the exploitation of hydrinos by anyone else. Even if we can somehow presume that Mills et al have managed to husband a great secret for all these years, their basic idea that such a thing is possible is public enough. It would seem so huge and so lucrative that scores of scientists, inventors, consortia and syndicates would be toiling away at the task of figuring it out. An idea that turns conventional physics on its head, guarantees fame and fortune and changes the world. And yet, no hydrinos. How odd.
Click to expand...


That is an excellent point, he tells us various uni verified the result, have article, and NONE of the involveöd scientist go for nobel price for a new stare of matter. Nearly no article publidhed dince 2005 ?

If this was real ALL involved would publish a lot of study, environment impact, cross section in various situation, long term effeöcT and i pass many others. But NOTHING happened. Not even von mills team, and a nobel price would be the greatest advertising.

The most logical conclusion, as with other ooints of this story, is that it is a scam, they have nothing.
 
At this point, the only question I have is what will BLP be renamed to after the dormancy period ?
 
michaelsuede knows his Dale Carnegie BS very well...

michaelsuede said:
I know many of you have asked why BrLP didn't come out with a SunCell decades ago when they first announced the discovery of the hydrino.

...
Click to expand...

Did anyone here ask that? Please, identify yourself or quote the post where a different user asked something related to that.

Thank you in advance for your contribution to sanitize this thread.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
michaelsuede knows his Dale Carnegie BS very well...



Do anyone here asked that? Please, identify yourself or quote the post where a different user asked something related to that.

Thank you in advance for your contribution to sanitize this thread.
Click to expand...



It's clearly inspired by the questions about why they didn't monetize the heat generation capabilities of the alleged generator decades ago, but the question he answered is not one I recall anyone asking.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Entire national economies based on the sale of oil and gas will collapse?
Click to expand...

Exactly, la sinarquía internacional* won't allow it to succeed, that's why an army of hackers -the same ones that enabled Trump's win- continue to replace meaningful youtube videos with shiny pebbles and personal excuses, like the ones above, and meaningful papers explaining and backing both physics and technology with the kind of blabber michaelsuede provides in spades.:rolleyes:

* "the international synarchy™" is supposed to control and manipulate international politics so Latin America, Africa and Southern Asia can be stripped of their future of grandness they would enjoy had they left alone. Nobody says who they are, but I have a friend who has a very good source and they are the Queen of England, Donald Trump, Montgomery Burns and a bunch of mostly Jewish Bankers led by the Baron of Rothschild and Roque Feller.;):D
 
jonesdave116 said:
TBH, I'm often surprised at the ignorance of a particular field of science, from some scientists in a (reasonably) closely related field. I'm not sure if it might be due to having to concentrate so much of their careers on a particular field, that they can't see the wood for the trees.

{snip}

With the chaps mentioned in your post, I'm wondering how much of what Mills is claiming to be doing that they fully understand. The other alternative is that they do understand, and it is either a) legit, or b) it isn't, but they are in it for what they can make out of it.

b) is not a particularly appetising thought.
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
I suspect that answer to that is "actually very little". Mills has spent almost 30 years producing literally thousands of pages of scientific-sounding gobbledygook. Most people who have sat down and tried to parse out what he's actually saying have admitted that it make little or no sense to them. But of course, we all know at least one Cliff Claven type who insists he understands everything, no matter what.

{snip}
Click to expand...
From my reading so far, the key Mills et al. claims are 1) the existence of "hydrinos", hydrogen atoms in fractional quantum states; and 2) the creation of hydrinos in a very particular kind of physical regime (I don't understand this much, but I think it involves some combination of electric fields, temperature, pressure, and the presence of one or more catalysts)*.

Per Mills+, 1) requires at least an extensive modification to textbook QM. From what I've read so far, essentially no one has published a paper supporting this. And I suspect that the tens of thousands of people who understand the relevant parts of QM well enough and who might read the relevant Mills+ papers (would) fairly quickly conclude(d) that it's yet one more piece of crackpot nonsense. I'd be very surprised if Prof Booker (UNC Asheville) reached a very different conclusion (Prof Ramanujachary? I don't know).

Re 2): I think the part of physics which, today, involves experiments in similar regimes is small and obscure; the number of people who have relevant experience is small. Not that it's particularly difficult understand, nor that the experiments themselves are particularly challenging or expensive, but there is certainly a significant learning curve. I suspect that most scientists in this small community would have been aware of Mills+ papers (or at least some of them); some did write papers about this topic, but apparently no one was able to reproduce Mills+ results, or they disagreed with his conclusions (I'll post links to some of these papers later). I doubt that either Prof Booker or Prof Ramanujachary has relevant experimental experience (but I'll be checking their published papers, just to be sure).

It might be interesting to look at some instances of "revolutionary" discoveries in the last hundred years or so, in physics and closely related fields; how was the reaction of the immediate (small) community of physicists different from that to Mills+, how was it similar? While no substitute for one's own due diligence (or "done their homework like I have", as ms says in the OP), I think looking carefully at the responses of scientists who are familiar with the topic and who would have an enormous amount to gain if Mills+ claims panned out should be very instructive.

* "reacting a very tiny amount of hydrogen with a silver catalyst and then exposing that reaction to an electrical discharge. When the hydrogen, silver and electrical discharge combine, the hydrogen atoms shrink, releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process", as ms puts it in the OP
 
Does somebody know about a single person that has patented one or many law of Physics? This discussion occurs just on technical grounds and there's no hydrino-making process that provides them for further investigation. Has Mills offered a "sample of hydrinos" to anybody or, better put, a viable system to generate them?
 
aleCcowaN said:
Does somebody know about a single person that has patented one or many law of Physics? This discussion occurs just on technical grounds and there's no hydrino-making process that provides them for further investigation. Has Mills offered a "sample of hydrinos" to anybody or, better put, a viable system to generate them?
Click to expand...



You generally can't patent a "law of physics". Patentable subject matter is defined in the US as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof", with most jurisdictions having similar rules. A natural law like F=ma doesn't generally fall into any of those categories.

The "composition of matter" part suggests that the hydrinos themselves are potentially patentable, but there's a caveat: "A more common example of an application that is rejected because the invention lacks utility is an application for a composition of matter with no known use other than the investigation of the properties of the composition. The same reason was used recently in rejecting an application filed by the National Institutes of Health for a collection of DNA sequences that had been isolated and identified by its investigators."

Mills hasn't shown any particular utility for the hydrinos in and of themselves, and as such would likely be barred from patenting them directly.

As far as I know, he also hasn't made samples of hydrinos generally available for research, or any other purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom