It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blacklight Power Sues Wiki Trolls

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
A jury is not going to be biased against BLP because a jury isn't going to care if the standard model is wrong. A jury is going to care about results.

When BLP brings out a parade of PhDs all asserting that they tested BLP's process and deem it to be legitimate, a jury isn't going to care that some random joe on the internet says it's impossible because the standard model says it can't be done.

BLP has a case.



Actually they don't they are attempting to sell a useable unit - do they have one? Nope, and how many years have they been saying they will have such a unit "soon"?

How many years is it AC?


They have produced usable units, they just haven't been able to get the large corporate buy-in necessary to put them in production. Major energy producers are not willing to take the risk on it.

The older CIHT Cell technology is production ready, and working units have been produced:

www.blacklightpower.com...

BLP is now developing the SunCell technology into a prototype that they will have ready within six months time. The SunCell will be cheap enough and small enough that corporate buy-in will not be necessary. These units will be sold to end consumers.

By the time this case goes to trial, BLP will probably have a prototype working. They may even have production units for sale.


edit on 8/14/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Or I could, you know, cite a primary source.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should get a court order to subpoena the institutions in order to validate your claims? Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

they claimed to have a " working " 50kw unit in 2008 - wonder what happened to it - it certainly doesn't appear in any of the " validation " claims

why ?????

there is nothing to beat a 50kw generator that "works " when you are attempting to show that your concept is valid



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

they claimed to have a " working " 50kw unit in 2008 - wonder what happened to it - it certainly doesn't appear in any of the " validation " claims

why ?????

there is nothing to beat a 50kw generator that "works " when you are attempting to show that your concept is valid



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Yep no working units after 23 years.......hummmmmmm, that is an impressive feat.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Or I could, you know, cite a primary source.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should get a court order to subpoena the institutions in order to validate your claims? Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?


"We" shouldn't subpoena anyone to support "my" claims.

These claims are being made by numerous PhDs, not me.

Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges – R. Mills, R. Booker, Y. Lu, J. Plasma Physics, Vol. 79 (2013) 489–507. DOI: 10.1017/S0022377812001109.

Substantial Doppler Broadening of Atomic-Hydrogen Lines in DC and Capacitively Coupled RF Plasmas – K. Akhtar, J.E. Scharer, R.L. Mills, 2009 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 42, Issue 13, 135207 (12pp), doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/13/135207.

Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) Electrochemical Cell – R.L. Mills, X. Yu, Y. Lu, G Chu, J. He, J. Lotoski, Int. J. Energy Res., published online December 20, 2013, 25 pages; doi: 10.1002/er.3142; Response to a comment to Catatalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) electochemical cell of D. Sundholm. – R. Mills

Design for a BlackLight Power Multi-Cell Thermally Coupled Reactor Based on Hydrogen Catalyst Systems - R. Mills, G. Zhao, W. Good, M. Nansteel, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 36 (2012) 778-788. DOI: 10.1002/er.1834.

Continuous Hydrino Thermal Power System, R. Mills, G. Zhao, W. Good, Applied Energy, Vol. 88, (2011) 789-798.

Total Bond Energies of Exact Classical Solutions of Molecules Generated by Millsian 1.0 Compared to Those Computed Using Modern 3-21G and 6-31G* Basis Sets – R. Mills, B. Holverstott, W. Good, N. Hogle, A. Makwana, Physics Essays, Vol. 23, No. 1, (2010), pp. 153-199.

Millsian 2.0: A Molecular Modeling Software for Structures, Charge Distributions and Energetics of Biomolecules, W. Xie, R.L. Mills, W. Good, A. Makwana, B. Holverstott, N. Hogle, Physics Essays, 24 (2011) pp. 200-212.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I'm not asking for a bunch of papers written by Mills, I'm asking for the independent lab validation you've been talking about for so long. Where is it?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I'm not asking for a bunch of papers written by Mills, I'm asking for the independent lab validation you've been talking about for so long. Where is it?


The three lab reports I originally linked were conducted in the university labs using university lab equipment.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

After all these years you'd hav' thunk somebody else would have taken up the idea.....



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune




Nope, please go read TITLE 26 App. TITLE XIV. Rule 142 which states who has the burden of proof in a fraud case.


I don't see how that relates to allegations of fraud against Black Light.



(b) Fraud: In any case involving the issue of fraud with intent to evade tax, the burden of proof in respect of that issue is on the respondent, and that burden of proof is to be carried by clear and convincing evidence. Code sec. 7454(a).

www.law.cornell.edu...

I don't know if defamation per se would apply here, i'm not a lawyer. But to me it sounds the allegations were stated as opinions, not as a matter of fact.

www.dmlp.org...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: GetHyped

After all these years you'd hav' thunk somebody else would have taken up the idea.....


They did.

Three independent labs replicated Mills findings.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18283479]AnarchoCapitalist[/post
Aren't those all articles by mills himself? How does that substantiate his claims?



edit on 14-8-2014 by ScepticScot because: nokia hate me



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

With respect, the LHC, the largest and most expensive scientific device ever built by Humanity took 15 years to prove itself worthy of the purpose it was originally built for.

During that time, it is worth noting that MANY mainstream scientists completely rubbished Higg's theory of the so-called 'God particle' (Higgs Boson)...and after that particle was discovered, vindicating both Higgs and his perseverance to his belief in his theory and the extraordinary cost and complexity of the LHC itself, a great many of those original naysayers and would-be debunkers leaped onto the 'i knew it all along' bandwagon, and there was plenty of professional face saving and backtracking going on.

Just because something takes a long time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the science is wrong, or those working on that science are frauds, even if they are making extraordinary claims and speaking of what may initially sound like wild theory...occasionally, the wild almost unbelievable theories are actually correct, as was Higg's theory.

Time will tell, hopefully not too much more time.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

You linked to the BLP website. Why is there no mention of these so-called "independent" university labs outside of BLP's press machine?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I'm not asking for a bunch of papers written by Mills, I'm asking for the independent lab validation you've been talking about for so long. Where is it?


The three lab reports I originally linked were conducted in the university labs using university lab equipment.



LOL, you don't even understand scientific procedure do you and the importance of independent validation......



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Millers
a reply to: Hanslune




Nope, please go read TITLE 26 App. TITLE XIV. Rule 142 which states who has the burden of proof in a fraud case.


I don't see how that relates to allegations of fraud against Black Light.



(b) Fraud: In any case involving the issue of fraud with intent to evade tax, the burden of proof in respect of that issue is on the respondent, and that burden of proof is to be carried by clear and convincing evidence. Code sec. 7454(a).

www.law.cornell.edu...

I don't know if defamation per se would apply here, i'm not a lawyer. But to me it sounds the allegations were stated as opinions, not as a matter of fact.

www.dmlp.org...


If I claim a company is engaged in fraud, and I publish this claim as a statement of fact, that claim can be considered liable if it can be demonstrated that it caused the company financial harm.

Given that this is about Wiki, where many investors and customers turn to get corporate information, such a claim published on Wiki could easily be demonstrably harmful to the company in question.

At the very least, Mills will be able to get the Wiki article changed unless the people who control that Wiki article can prove their claims of fraud.

Since Mills has dozens of PhDs who have worked on or tested his process, while the people asserting fraud have no one who has tested his process and found it to be fraudulent, it's a slam dunk in favor of Mills.



edit on 8/14/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX
And of course Higgs was also trying to use his unproven claims to attract investment . Oh wait no got That wrong that would be Mills.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Agreed but why do they always say they have produced workable models- that never show up?

I would be thrilled to see such a tech but after so many years and the layers of deceit by Mills its a little hard to take him seriously.

As noted, at what point - how many years - does one wait for verification?

I suspect "they will be on the verge of completion" until Mill dies, at which the whole thing will collapse. I await to be shown wrong and be amazed by the new tech.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Not until the defense asks for independent verification that the process works....then what happens? lol

It all boils down to this, Mills needs to produce a workable unit using his theory.
edit on 14/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: [post=18283479]AnarchoCapitalist[/post
Aren't those all articles by mills himself? How does that substantiate his claims?




They were all published in peer reviewed journals.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join