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

[ferd burfle]

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?

The point is to prolong the discussion, in an attempt to give the impression there are two sides to the science.

Originally Posted by 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.

Yup, 'round and 'round the mulberry bush we go.

[Hans]

Yep good old markie following his orders to try and keep open a 'possibility'.

Makes for boring stuff

[The Man]

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.

Do/did those people sign non-disclosure agreements?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by markie

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

Did the people in those "outside labs" sign nondisclosure agreements.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

While it is true that the earlier versions of CIHT cells ...

markie emphasizes Mills stupidity of abandoning technology that Mills claims to work !
Mills delusions about CIHT (Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition) cells seems to date from at least 2010 according to this blog !

That is 9 years ago and Mills has not sold a working power plant to anyone despite promises to deliver by 2013.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

There were more, ...

markie empathizes his and Mills dependence on "validation report" idiocy.

One last time:
These are reports on the BLP web site that Mills may be edited for his own purposes.
Most of these reports were supervision of BLP personal running BLP experiments on BLP equipment at BLP giving the possibility of fraud.
Some of the reports have experiments run at outside labs.
One of the reports, markie lies about.

1. Dr. Glumac does not list any replication of results.
   Dr. Glumac does an analysis of 5 samples from unstated sources. Dr. Glumac does not list any analysis of the samples to check that they are what they say they are. Dr. Glumac reports exothermic peaks in the reactions and that the measured values were "far more exothermic than the predicted thermochemistry".
2. Dr. Crouse falls completely for Mills' obvious hydrino delusion which makes the report dubious.
   Work done while Dr. Crouse was an Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering.
   The stupidity of citing Mills crank book (a 2011 edition).
   The stupidity of citing H. A. Haus "On the radiation from point charges" when Mills' hydrino delusion has no point charges !
   Fantasies from Dr. Crouse or more probably Mills editing. Replicating the "results" in a company PDF (reference [3] )is not evidence for hydrino delusions. That would be empirical evidence that cannot be explained any other way, e.g. a unique spectrum.

[markie]

Originally Posted by The Man

Did the people in those "outside labs" sign nondisclosure agreements.

I can neither confirm or deny that.
ba dum

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

Feel free to take the hundreds of spectrographs of various types...

markie writes a delusion of "hundreds of spectrographs" when we have only seen a handful of spectrographs from outside labs.

The really ignorant delusion is that Mills spectrographs have not been already debunked as in at least 1 paper already in the thread .

The totally ignorant delusion is the burden of proof. markie is blindly parroting Mills hydrino delusions. It us up to markie to turn these delusions into reality with evidence.

.We know the obvious physical flaws with Mills delusions, e.g. his insanity of using a non-radiation condition for point particles for a fantasy of a bound election as an atomic sized sphere.

[Reality Check]

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.

markie lies about much more capable spectrometers and artifacts.

It is a fact that the results on the earlier spectrometers were artifacts because the results were outside of the manufacturers range for valid measurements. The results could not be valid measurements. That makes them artifacts by definition !
Mills getting similar results with later spectrometers is more a suggestion that Mills is lying.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

markie emphasizes Mills stupidity of abandoning technology that Mills claims to work !
Mills delusions about CIHT (Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition) cells seems to date from at least 2010 according to this blog !

That is 9 years ago and Mills has not sold a working power plant to anyone despite promises to deliver by 2013.

Work around 2008 would have been with the solid powder, Raney Nickel type of reaction, producing short bursts of thermal output. Rowan University backed this up. It was my least favourite type of reaction because I never saw any evidence that the powder could be readily and quickly reprocessed in a batch cycle such that it could keep producing heat.

Work around 2012 would have been with the CIHT cell, a very different type of process. This produced electricity directly, akin to a fuel cell but with molten salts. This was much better but required much overhead and had too low power density.

The SunCell is easily so much better that either of those approaches.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

It takes someone like a Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University, who is much more versed about hydrino ....

A delusion about Dr. Ramanujachary and hydrinos from markie.

Dr. Ramanujachary has never published anything on hydrinos other than "validation report(s)" on the BLP web site. He does not list hydrinos as a research interest.

I suspect that posters in this thread are more versed on hydrinos than Dr. Ramanujachary ! We have read the full extent of Mills hydrino insanity in his book. Just stating that there may be states below the ground state is actually superficially credible. It is Mills' additions that make this into deluded fantasies, e.g. catalysts, a bound election as an atomic sized sphere, applying nonradiation conditions for point charges, cherry picking QM effects like quantized spin, etc.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

Work around 2008...

Thanks for extending Mills delusions about CIHT further back in time but you repeat markie emphasizes Mills stupidity of abandoning technology that Mills claims to work !

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

markie writes a delusion of "hundreds of spectrographs" when we have only seen a handful of spectrographs from outside labs.

The really ignorant delusion is that Mills spectrographs have not been already debunked as in at least 1 paper already in the thread .

If you've only seen a handful you have not been looking hard enough. Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers.
The 2018 4th quarter technical report list the types of spectroscopies to identify hydrino product, which have been used for years:

• H2 (1/4) ro-vib spectrum in crystals by e-beam excitation emission spectroscopy
• H2 (1/4) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) binding energy
• H2 (1/4) Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
• H2 (1/4) Inverse Raman effect (IRE)
• H2 (1/4) Photoluminescence spectroscopy
• Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (EPR)
• Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (ToF- SIMs) and Electrospray Ionization Time of Flight (ESI- ToF) identification of hydrino compounds
• MAS H NMR
• Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)
• Cryogenic gas chromatography

Quote:

We know the obvious physical flaws with Mills delusions, e.g. his insanity of using a non-radiation condition for point particles for a fantasy of a bound election as an atomic sized sphere.

No, the non-radiation condition, starting with Koedecke in 1964 and formalized by Haus in the 1980s, is about extended charge and current distributions.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by markie

I can neither confirm or deny that.
ba dum

Then you simply can't "confirm" that they were independent nor "deny" that their disclosures were perhaps dependent on some agreement.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by The Man

Then you simply can't "confirm" that they were independent nor "deny" that their disclosures were perhaps dependent on some agreement.

LOL

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers..

That remains a delusion, markie. There are "literally hundreds" of spectra published in papers for Mills hydrino delusions in papers by Mills, not from "a dozen different labs". That includes his decades? of stupidity of abusing spectrometers.

A citation of a BLP "technical report" from the documented liar Mills and no spectra from any of that "dozen different labs" .

[Hans]

Ah for a change of pace markie has now taken to beating unicorns

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

No, the non-radiation condition, starting with Koedecke in 1964 and formalized by Haus in the 1980s, is about extended charge and current distributions.

markie lies about the non-radiation condition which has no extended charges or current distributions as in Mills hydrino delusions (a sphere with currents flowing on it).

This is the nonradiation condition

Quote:

Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2]

My emphasis added.

Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory by G. H. Goedecke (1964). This has an "extended charge-current distribution" from maybe point charges (not explicitly n the abstract).

On the other hand, When can a classical electron accelerate without radiating? by Philip Pearle (1978) has that Goedecke discussed "rigid, nonradiating charge distributions" in the context of oscillating uniformly charged shells.

It does not take much reading comprehension to understand that a paper called On the radiation from point charges by H. A. Haus (1986) is about point charges !

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

markie lies about the non-radiation condition which has no extended charges or current distributions as in Mills hydrino delusions (a sphere with currents flowing on it).

This is the nonradiation condition

My emphasis added.

Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory by G. H. Goedecke (1964). This has an "extended charge-current distribution" from presumably point charges (not explicitly n the abstract).

It does not take much reading comprehension to understand that a paper called On the radiation from point charges by H. A. Haus (1986) is about point charges !

No, it is about a distribution of moving point charges!

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That remains a delusion, markie. There are "literally hundreds" of spectra published in papers for Mills hydrino delusions in papers by Mills, not from "a dozen different labs". That includes his decades? of stupidity of abusing spectrometers.

A citation of a BLP "technical report" from the documented liar Mills and no spectra from any of that "dozen different labs" .

If you had read even some of those papers you would know that often work was sent off to external labs to do the testing because BLP only had so much equipment, especially in the early days.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by markie

No, it is about a distribution of moving point charges!

Fail. Insufficient caps and exclamation marks!!!!!!!!

ETA: Obligatory !!!ELEVENTY" !!!!!!!!?!!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

No, it is about a distribution of moving point charges!

Thank you for confirming my point on Mills stupidity, markie.

That stupidity is part of why Mills' theory is invalid as I have written many times before. Mills does not have a distribution of moving point charges! Mills explicitly applies the Haus result for a distribution of moving point charges to his hydrino delusion with a continuous charge distribution!

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by markie

If you had read even some of those papers you would know that often work was sent off to external labs to do the testing because BLP only had so much equipment, especially in the early days.

What is your point here? No one is claiming it's a problem that he contracted work out. The problem is that people like you try to imply those labs validated the results. They didn't. They just ran the equipment.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

If you had read even some of those papers....

If you had read some of those papers, you would list a dozen different labs rather than seeming to make up unsupported fantasies. So far you are still repeating: A delusion of "hundreds of spectrographs of various types taken by a dozen different labs"

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by markie

Work around 2008 would have been with the solid powder, Raney Nickel type of reaction, producing short bursts of thermal output. Rowan University backed this up. It was my least favourite type of reaction because I never saw any evidence that the powder could be readily and quickly reprocessed in a batch cycle such that it could keep producing heat.

Work around 2012 would have been with the CIHT cell, a very different type of process. This produced electricity directly, akin to a fuel cell but with molten salts. This was much better but required much overhead and had too low power density.

The SunCell is easily so much better that either of those approaches.

But come, say, 2023, when Mills has reset to another wholly new 'approach', you'll be replacing that last one-sentence paragraph with, "Work around 2018 would have been using the Suncell, which just didn't meet efficiency requirements. This Gargleblaster 3000 is so much better than any of those earlier approaches."

Ond on and on, round the mulberry bush we go.

Back then, with those other 'approaches', the world was told we'd have commercial generators "any day now." But not so then, not so today, and not so tomorrow.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by markie

If you've only seen a handful you have not been looking hard enough. Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers.

The 2018 4th quarter technical report list the types of spectroscopies to identify hydrino product, which have been used for years:



• H2 (1/4) ro-vib spectrum in crystals by e-beam excitation emission spectroscopy

• H2 (1/4) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) binding energy

• H2 (1/4) Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)

• H2 (1/4) Inverse Raman effect (IRE)

• H2 (1/4) Photoluminescence spectroscopy

• Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (EPR)

• Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (ToF- SIMs) and Electrospray Ionization Time of Flight (ESI- ToF) identification of hydrino compounds

• MAS H NMR

• Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)

• Cryogenic gas chromatography





No, the non-radiation condition, starting with Koedecke in 1964 and formalized by Haus in the 1980s, is about extended charge and current distributions.

How many generators have you had delivered?

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by markie

If you've only seen a handful you have not been looking hard enough. Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers.
The 2018 4th quarter technical report list the types of spectroscopies to identify hydrino product, which have been used for years:

The fact that the new data matches the data generated by devices incapable of recording said data is a major red flag that the data is being cooked.

The fact that the new data is consistent with the old data is evidence of fraud, not evidence that any of it is accurate.

[Darat]

Anyone had a generator delivered yet?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Darat

Anyone had a generator delivered yet?

I'm thinking of getting an MVHR system in my next house, but I'll need a source of hot air. Mills may be able to help with that.

Meanwhile, markie is still expecting a marketable product, just not this year. Or, indeed, any year that starts with a number.

Dave

[Myriad]

Isn't it time for a new video where something buzzes, something gets hot, and no measurements are taken?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

The fact that the new data matches the data generated by devices incapable of recording said data is a major red flag that the data is being cooked.

The fact that the new data is consistent with the old data is evidence of fraud, not evidence that any of it is accurate.

This is a fact that needs to be highlighted, again and again until he gets it.

It's akin to the "Architects&Engineer's for 9/11 Truth" shtick, in which these "professionals" produced "evidence" that showed that essentially every "theory" originally posited by the non-professionals just turned out to be completely right! Wow, what were the odds?

When real scientists doing real science find out that their equipment wasn't working the way they thought it was, they tend to end up with different results after they fix the problem.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Darat

Anyone had a generator delivered yet?

I did, but it was a quantum generator.

I seem to have misplaced it somewhere, but I can tell you precisely how fast it's moving.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Darat

Anyone had a generator delivered yet?

I did have a package delivered yesterday and I hoped it might be a real Hydrino generator but no it was just just a box of Allsorts - A British candy made out of road tar.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I'm thinking of getting an MVHR system in my next house, but I'll need a source of hot air. Mills may be able to help with that.

Meanwhile, markie is still expecting a marketable product, just not this year. Or, indeed, any year that starts with a number.

Dave

Perhaps markie and Mills should think about asking the Elder Cthulhu Gods for help I'm sure they were into Hydrinos at least for dessert.

[PeterWol62]

The comments about invalid spectral analyser results might or might not be valid. If the manufacturer has published data showing that the device has zero sensitivity in a particular range, that is one thing. But if the manufacturer merely states that he has only calibrated or validated the device for a specific range, then that statement would not mean the same.
Unfortunately, I can not easily find out, and can not spare the time for a search. Does anyone know the maker and model of the instrument in question?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by PeterWol62

The comments about invalid spectral analyser results might or might not be valid. If the manufacturer has published data showing that the device has zero sensitivity in a particular range, that is one thing. But if the manufacturer merely states that he has only calibrated or validated the device for a specific range, then that statement would not mean the same.
Unfortunately, I can not easily find out, and can not spare the time for a search. Does anyone know the maker and model of the instrument in question?

Using an instrument outside of it's calibrated range would yield invalid results.

You could not use those results for anything above backyard discussions over a beer.

Any scientist would know that, and not bother wasting time and money doing such tests.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Using an instrument outside of it's calibrated range would yield invalid results.

You could not use those results for anything above backyard discussions over a beer.

Any scientist would know that, and not bother wasting time and money doing such tests.

In layman's terms...

If my rifle scope is sighted in at 100 yards, then missing a target at 300 yards when the cross-hairs were dead on does NOT indicate the target is immune to bullets.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

In layman's terms...

If my rifle scope is sighted in at 100 yards, then missing a target at 300 yards when the cross-hairs were dead on does NOT indicate the target is immune to bullets.

Right. In layman's terms. Not in scientific terms. In science the results Mills got where completely meaningless. You should now see why scientists scoff at Mill's. That and of course the fact that Hydrinos don't exist.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Right. In layman's terms. Not in scientific terms. In science the results Mills got where completely meaningless. You should now see why scientists scoff at Mill's. That and of course the fact that Hydrinos don't exist.

Now, now you don't know they don't exist.... it's just that we know Mills hasn't any!

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Darat

Now, now you don't know they don't exist.... it's just that we know Mills hasn't any!

I know. Prove me wrong. If you can't, then I was correct all along.