Continuation Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 4

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

On the contrary, Mills is very open about his work. This is acknowledged by all kinds of people in (say) the LENR community. ....

This is irrelevant because what Mills' "power from hydrino" delusions are chemistry not LENR or cold fusion.

Mills hydrino delusion is that electrons can fall into states below the ground state only through his fantasy of catalysts and thus release energy. This is chemical energy, not nuclear energy.

The "LENR community" is full of cranks and even some fraudsters, e.g. Andrea Ross. Being acknowledged by them is not good.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics who pays attention to Mills book can see that it is ignorant, deluded and lying.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history who pays attention to Mills, knows about Mills' failures that make his current endeavors dubious.
Thus we have a person spouting ignorance, delusions, and lies who has failed to produce anything for nearly 30 years.

A bit of "do it in a way Mills approves" stupidity when Mills is abysmally ignorant of how science works. Then we get the fantasy that rumors of "pictures of the compounds" and a "CIHT cell" are evidence that hydrino compounds exist or that any of Mills devices have worked.

So back in maybe 2000 "CIHT cells" produced more electricity than they used. Where is the evidence for this? Where are they now, 19 years later?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No links to the papers and reports written about hydrino compounds, markie?

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This is irrelevant because what Mills' "power from hydrino" delusions are chemistry not LENR or cold fusion.

Mills hydrino delusion is that electrons can fall into states below the ground state only through his fantasy of catalysts and thus release energy. This is chemical energy, not nuclear energy.

The "LENR community" is full of cranks and even some fraudsters, e.g. Andrea Ross. Being acknowledged by them is not good.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics who pays attention to Mills book can see that it is ignorant, deluded and lying.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history who pays attention to Mills, knows about Mills' failures that make his current endeavors dubious.
Thus we have a person spouting ignorance, delusions, and lies who has failed to produce anything for nearly 30 years.

A bit of "do it in a way Mills approves" stupidity when Mills is abysmally ignorant of how science works. Then we get the fantasy that rumors of "pictures of the compounds" and a "CIHT cell" are evidence that hydrino compounds exist or that any of Mills devices have worked.

So back in maybe 2000 "CIHT cells" produced more electricity than they used. Where is the evidence for this? Where are they now, 19 years later?

It wasn't that long ago. BLP probably still has the CIHT cells on premises.
See https://brilliantlightpower.com/ciht-cell/
Some validation reports for the CIHT cells:
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...landReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...haryReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...umacReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...NSERReport.pdf

[markie]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

No links to the papers and reports written about hydrino compounds, markie?

I've provided several links to them in previous posts. Alternatively they should be easy to find with Google Scholar.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by markie

It wasn't that long ago. BLP probably still has the CIHT cells on premises.
See https://brilliantlightpower.com/ciht-cell/
Some validation reports for the CIHT cells:
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...landReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...haryReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...umacReport.pdf
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...NSERReport.pdf

markie you really are stuck on stupid here. All these links are from the liars. And they are hardly convincing even if true. You've got people reporting on second hand data here and people reporting on experiments they didn't construct themselves.

markie, get this through you head: A "validation" done by Brilliant Light Power is not independent of Brilliant Light Power. Neither is one done by people paid by BLP, nor is one done by friends of BLP.

Stop burying us with crap. Find one good and actually independent verification and show it to us. If you can't find that the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no good independent verification.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by markie

I've provided several links to them in previous posts.

When I asked previously, what you did was to link to something else entirely.

Quote:

Alternatively they should be easy to find with Google Scholar.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

When I asked previously, what you did was to link to something else entirely.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

He's prancing about hoping you will give up - we've done this all before. This is markie just pretending.

You know beating that horse again and wasting people's time.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

It wasn't that long ago. BLP probably still has the CIHT cells on premises. ...

As expected, more religious faith in BLP delusions and "validation" report stupidity.

Fantasies of CIHT cells stored at BLP are not evidence of actual working CIHT cells.
Where is the evidence for your claim, markie?
Where are the CIHT cells now [as in the working, commercial models promised by Mills and being run by other companies], markie?

Also:
Where can we buy a working CIHT cell, markie?
Why have you not brought a working CIHT cell to check that Mills is not a scammer, markie?

For the information of others: Mills delusions about CIHT (Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition) cells seems to date from at least 2010 according to this blog. Total failure by Mills.

• Fails to deliver "large scale commercial power" by 2012.
• Raises $75 million dollars and fails to deliver "A 100 W unit is planned for completion by the end of 2012".
• Fails to deliver a "1.5 kiloWatt (kW) pilot unit" by 2013.

A couple of ignored papers in 2014 and 2015. Since then all I can find is propaganda on his web site.

Earlier but maybe not the CIHT scam: Raises $50 million to produce only a claim of a 50kw prototype device in 2007 or 2008. "They expect to have pilot plants built and devices ready for delivery in 12-18 months" in this May 29, 2008 blog.


No sign of markie's "electricity directly with more power out than in" fantasy.
No sign of any electricity output at all !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

markie you really are stuck on stupid here. All these links are from the liars. And they are hardly convincing even if true. You've got people reporting on second hand data here and people reporting on experiments they didn't construct themselves.

Another point that markie cannot understand is that these are not quite validation reports!

These are PDFs on the BLP company web site. Mills was free to alter them in any way that he wanted.
As far as we know, the scientists who did the reports were competent and rational. They would know that QM is one of the best tested theories in physics. They would know that QM rules out states below the ground state. They would know that over a century of spectroscopy has found no evidence of transitions to states below the ground state. They would not want association with obvious pseudoscience. It is unlikely that they would support and include hydrino non-science. This makes it quite possible that it was Mills who added the hydrino delusions to the PDFs.

On the other hands, it may be that some of the scientists fell for Mills' hydrino delusions. That is worse. That make the "validation reports " biased reports by incompetent scientists.

[LTC8K6]

The thing is, markie would never accept that type of self-validation report for just about anything else.

If I had an energy generator, markie wouldn't say it was validated if I produced those kinds of reports.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by markie

I've provided several links to them in previous posts.

No you didn't. You provided links to what Mills claims the test results are indicating.

You were asked where are the independent lab results.

We have spent years here discussing Mills claims. Where are the independent lab results? What do they claim these compounds to be?

[Dancing David]

there is this guy and they came and watched

[HappySkeptic99]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

there is this guy and they came and watched

That's what I get from the CIHT 'validation' reports as well. A guy was contracted, came for a visit, was shown some results, and did a written endorsement. There was no independent 'anything' done.

Where are these working CIHT cells? Why don't we have them? Even if they aren't as flashy as a ultra-capacitor induced pyrotechnics, they were supposed to generate real power, 7 years ago.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Where are these working CIHT cells? Why don't we have them? Even if they aren't as flashy as a ultra-capacitor induced pyrotechnics, they were supposed to generate real power, 7 years ago.

Those devices required something like 50W of electrical power in and generated about 50.01W of heat out along with corrosion of the internal components. Instead of investigating whether this oxidation was the source of the excess heat, Mills just declared success, dropped that design, and moved on to the next one.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

That's what I get from the CIHT 'validation' reports as well. A guy was contracted, came for a visit, was shown some results, and did a written endorsement. There was no independent 'anything' done.

Where are these working CIHT cells? Why don't we have them? Even if they aren't as flashy as a ultra-capacitor induced pyrotechnics, they were supposed to generate real power, 7 years ago.

Reminds me of the Rossi reports on the ECAT, "we saw some steam"

[markie]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The thing is, markie would never accept that type of self-validation report for just about anything else.

If I had an energy generator, markie wouldn't say it was validated if I produced those kinds of reports.

Those are not "self-validation reports". BLP is not doing the validation. Outside parties are doing the validations.

If you had an energy generator and you were visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they made reports validating the results, yes, I would say your energy generator was validated. Meaning, I would have relatively strong confidence that the results reported accurately reflect the experiments conducted.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

there is this guy and they came and watched

There were more, by the way. For instance Dr Weinberg's report is here:
https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...bergReport.pdf

It should be understood that where a relatively complicated apparatus is involved it only makes sense that validators should visit the premises. But when the setup is more generic and can be accomplished at a good lab, it makes sense that outside people can do the experiments themselves in their own, outside labs.

So for instance researchers at Rowan University did their own work at Rowan University as previously noted.
Dr. Glumac replicated at Urbana University: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...aphics2014.pdf
Dr. Crouse replicated at Auburn University: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...eplication.pdf

[markie]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

Those devices required something like 50W of electrical power in and generated about 50.01W of heat out along with corrosion of the internal components. Instead of investigating whether this oxidation was the source of the excess heat, Mills just declared success, dropped that design, and moved on to the next one.

While it is true that the earlier versions of CIHT cells had heat loss from the molten salt electrolyte as exceeding the power generated from the CIHT reaction, later cells improved greatly so that there was net power generated, much greater than what you are indicating. Still, ultimately it was not good enough to develop to market, especially when Dr. Mills discovered something much much better. That is, the CIHT SF, later named the SunCell.

[Hans]

markie I believe we've gone over all this before? What is the point of going over the same failed claims again and again?

BOTTOM LINE: NO DEVICE, NO EVIDENCE FOR HYDRINOS

You keep beating the horse and its still putrid and it ain't getting up any time soon to run.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by markie

Those are not "self-validation reports". BLP is not doing the validation. Outside parties are doing the validations.

If you had an energy generator and you were visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they made reports validating the results, yes, I would say your energy generator was validated. Meaning, I would have relatively strong confidence that the results reported accurately reflect the experiments conducted.

If I had an energy generator and I was visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they were making reports, I would expect the reports to quantify the results, preferably based on their measurements of the relevant values (in particular, in this case, energies). If they weren't doing that, I would wonder why they were wasting their time at my site. If I wasn't permitting them to do that or not allowing them the means to do that, they would wonder why they were wasting their time at my site.

"Validate" is a business concept. You validate a bank check or a purchase order number or the signature on a collectible baseball bat. You don't validate anything in science without measuring. Which of these "validators" that you refer to actually reported measured quantities? And what were those quantities?

[MEequalsIxR]

Originally Posted by markie

Those are not "self-validation reports". BLP is not doing the validation. Outside parties are doing the validations.

If you had an energy generator and you were visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they made reports validating the results, yes, I would say your energy generator was validated. Meaning, I would have relatively strong confidence that the results reported accurately reflect the experiments conducted.

Lets be realistic. If some outside parties really validated the work in the true sense of the word as it is used in real science they would have notified the Nobel Committee, they would have been tripping over themselves to publish papers for real journals, they would be jumping at the chance to work on the project, they would not walk quietly away and go on as normal.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Myriad

If I had an energy generator and I was visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they were making reports, I would expect the reports to quantify the results, preferably based on their measurements of the relevant values (in particular, in this case, energies). If they weren't doing that, I would wonder why they were wasting their time at my site. If I wasn't permitting them to do that or not allowing them the means to do that, they would wonder why they were wasting their time at my site.

"Validate" is a business concept. You validate a bank check or a purchase order number or the signature on a collectible baseball bat. You don't validate anything in science without measuring. Which of these "validators" that you refer to actually reported measured quantities? And what were those quantities?

There is more to validation than passive observation. Validators can be actively involved in the data acquisition process, and they can be involved in the experimental setup as well. For instance as Dr Weinberg relates:

To summarize, when first hearing of the claims of BLP, it would be irrational not to be very skeptical, and prior to meeting Randy Mills I was extremely skeptical. However, after having visited BLP, having participated in experimental design and execution, and having reviewed vast amounts of other data they have produced, I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by markie

There is more to validation than passive observation. Validators can be actively involved in the data acquisition process, and they can be involved in the experimental setup as well. For instance as Dr Weinberg relates:

To summarize, when first hearing of the claims of BLP, it would be irrational not to be very skeptical, and prior to meeting Randy Mills I was extremely skeptical. However, after having visited BLP, having participated in experimental design and execution, and having reviewed vast amounts of other data they have produced, I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims.

Great! Having participated in experimental design and execution, Dr. Weinberg should be able to give us a quantitative assessment of the measured results of the experiment. That would constitute confirmation of Mills's claimed results. (Again, not "validation" because we're not talking about a parking stub here.) Where is that data?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by markie

Those are not "self-validation reports". BLP is not doing the validation. Outside parties are doing the validations.

To me it seems more like BLP invited people to a dog and pony show, and the validation report is simply "We saw a dog and a pony."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

To me it seems more like BLP invited people to a dog and pony show, and the validation report is simply "We saw a dog and a pony."

Or rather, we were taken into a a darkened arena and heard what might have been hooves and claws clattering on a hard surface. The lights were then switched on and we were told that we heard a dog and a pony.

Or did we hear a unicorn and a dragon?

Who knows?

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by markie

So for instance researchers at Rowan University did their own work at Rowan University as previously noted.
Dr. Glumac replicated at Urbana University: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...aphics2014.pdf
Dr. Crouse replicated at Auburn University: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-c...eplication.pdf

Those tests found anomalous heat, not hydrinos.

Just because not every chemical reaction under every condition in the universe is known, it doesn't automatically mean anomalous=hydrino. In fact very little was done to try and rule out any number of possibilities.

Again though, you were asked what the independent labs claimed the samples contained, not anomalous heat.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Those tests found anomalous heat, not hydrinos.

This is part of the smoke and mirrors around BLP "validation" reports. The ones that claim to confirm something really important aren't at all independent and turn out be done by BLP themselves. The ones that are somewhat independent aren't validations of anything interesting. But BLP supporters don't make those distinctions clear.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Those tests found anomalous heat, not hydrinos.

Just because not every chemical reaction under every condition in the universe is known, it doesn't automatically mean anomalous=hydrino. In fact very little was done to try and rule out any number of possibilities.

Again though, you were asked what the independent labs claimed the samples contained, not anomalous heat.

Feel free to take the hundreds of spectrographs of various types taken by a dozen different labs to characterize BLP's anomalous substances, show them to an appropriate materials science expert of your choice, and see what he or she says. (You apparently don't believe the experts who have commented on these things already.)

[Hans]

Originally Posted by markie

Feel free to take the hundreds of spectrographs of various types taken by a dozen different labs to characterize BLP's anomalous substances, show them to an appropriate materials science expert of your choice, and see what he or she says. (You apparently don't believe the experts who have commented on these things already.)

Why don't you do it? Shouldn't you? Why would you not?

Just wasting more time with your blind belief.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by markie

Feel free to take the hundreds of spectrographs of various types taken by a dozen different labs to characterize BLP's anomalous substances, show them to an appropriate materials science expert of your choice, and see what he or she says. (You apparently don't believe the experts who have commented on these things already.)

Kunze did that already. Artefacts. The claimed detections could not even have been made on the equipment Mills used. If that is not a demonstration of his incompetence, then I don't know what is.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by markie

Feel free to take the hundreds of spectrographs of various types taken by a dozen different labs to characterize BLP's anomalous substances, show them to an appropriate materials science expert of your choice, and see what he or she says. (You apparently don't believe the experts who have commented on these things already.)

Very few experts have commented on them and I don't know of any outside of BLP that positively state it must be hydrinos.

Mills and his supporters are constantly claiming lots of independently verified spectrographs when the reality is that lots of labs have taken spectrographs for BLP but it's then BLP or some dubious friend of Mills that declared the spectrographs are hydrinos.

[markie]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Kunze did that already. Artefacts. The claimed detections could not even have been made on the equipment Mills used. If that is not a demonstration of his incompetence, then I don't know what is.

i've already told you that subsequent experiments on much more capable spectrometers demonstrated that the results on the earlier spectrometers were not artifacts. Fact is, Mills has gone out of his way and gone to the spectrometer manufacturer itself to ensure it is done right.

[markie]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Very few experts have commented on them and I don't know of any outside of BLP that positively state it must be hydrinos.

Mills and his supporters are constantly claiming lots of independently verified spectrographs when the reality is that lots of labs have taken spectrographs for BLP but it's then BLP or some dubious friend of Mills that declared the spectrographs are hydrinos.

No expert who is unfamiliar with hydrinos (99.9 percent of them) can declare the anomalies are due to hydrinos. All he or she can do is say the substances are anomalous in particular ways. Or, if they know a little about Mills' theory they may go a step further and say the result is consistent with Mills' theory. It takes someone like a Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University, who is much more versed about hydrino and knows what to expect from hydrino compounds, who can say that there appears no other explanation than hydrino for particular results.

[Hans]

Ramanujachary - you've mentioned him over two dozen times. The same claim over and over and over and over again.

WHAT'S THE POINT MARKIE?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by markie

i've already told you that subsequent experiments on much more capable spectrometers demonstrated that the results on the earlier spectrometers were not artifacts. Fact is, Mills has gone out of his way and gone to the spectrometer manufacturer itself to ensure it is done right.

Given his demonstrated incompetence, lack of qualifications, and promises of delivery within months for decades ("Soon, just a little more funding, and we'll be there!"), then I very much doubt he has anything other than BS to sell. Deliver working product, get Nobel Prize. Never going to happen. He is either totally incompetent, or a con artist. Possibly both. It is nonsense. H has had ~ 14 billion years to find its ground state. If this idiot was right, we should see the evidence for the sub-ground state transitions in all-sky maps. We don't. He is talking out of his rectum.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Hans

Ramanujachary - you've mentioned him over two dozen times. The same claim over and over and over and over again.

WHAT'S THE POINT MARKIE?

Medical doctor, with no physics quals: "Hydrinos!"

Nobel laureate: ""If you could **** around with the hydrogen atom, you could **** around with the energy process in the sun. You could **** around with life itself." "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."

I know who I trust on this.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by markie

No expert who is unfamiliar with hydrinos (99.9 percent of them) can declare the anomalies are due to hydrinos.

The highlighted is an understatement. You should have said 100 percent.

Originally Posted by markie

It takes someone like a Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University, who is much more versed about hydrino and knows what to expect from hydrino compounds, who can say that there appears no other explanation than hydrino for particular results.

Ramanujachary describes himself as a chemist and member of the "Research Faculty" of Rowan's College of Science and Mathematics (CSM), apparently associated in some way with the "School of Health Professions". He also lists "Full and Part-Time Faculty, CSM", which may mean he teaches on occasional course. His list of "Research Expertise" doesn't mention hydrinos or anything that could be interpreted as fundamental physics.

A Google Scholar search of his papers does not turn up anything that could be even remotely related to hydrinos. If he is convinced that hydrinos are real, and possesses scientific evidence for that conclusion, why hasn't he published a paper about it?

[Hans]

Its just a never ending series fringe resets. We should just number the claims:

markies fringe reset schedule:

Redo claim 16 tomorrow and on Monday we'll hint at 17 and then jump right back into 31 for the fourteen time.

Repeat for the next 32 years.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by markie

i've already told you that subsequent experiments on much more capable spectrometers demonstrated that the results on the earlier spectrometers were not artifacts.

Sure, you made that claim. So what? It's a claim. Shall we believe every claim? Or should we seek evidence for whatever claim? You tell me.

Originally Posted by markie

Fact is, Mills has gone out of his way and gone to the spectrometer manufacturer itself to ensure it is done right.

And follow up with a lie. Rightio.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by markie

No expert who is unfamiliar with hydrinos (99.9 percent of them) can declare the anomalies are due to hydrinos. All he or she can do is say the substances are anomalous in particular ways. Or, if they know a little about Mills' theory they may go a step further and say the result is consistent with Mills' theory. It takes someone like a Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University, who is much more versed about hydrino and knows what to expect from hydrino compounds, who can say that there appears no other explanation than hydrino for particular results.

So basically everyone then. Nobody has seen any "hydrinos", nobody is "versed" in such imaginary things.