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.

 

Brilliant Light Power Achieves Self-Sustaining Reaction

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Methinks you protest to much vwww.cheniere.org...




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Ahahahhaha now you're citing a blog post on the fraudster Tom Bearden's website! Priceless.

Thanks, your inept attempts at scientific discourse only serve to keep underscoring the point myself and others have been making all along.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I've got a question for you.

Have you found any of the "100 peer reviews" you said there were?

If you have, why not post them instead of blogs and people wanting to sell books?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79



You just don't like the idea that QM could be shaky, yes he has got a lot of endorsements, from what would be considered good scientists. vbrilliantlightpower.wikia.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I didn't ask for endorsements (anyone can endorse anything. It doesn't make it real, true or effective).

Let's go back over what you said, shall we?

2 days ago you said.....

The only thing Mills is getting wrong is the timing , I don't think it will be ready for about five years. Its had about a hundred peer reviews. So we will see who ultimately has egg on their face


Yet in those 2 days you haven't managed to post a single one.

What you HAVE done is post blogs, links to people who work for BLP, stories and a whole list of other nonesense that hasn't been 1 of the "100 peer reviews".

It's VERY clear that you made it up and are now stuck because you got called out to back up your (false) claims.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Did you read the bit about the patent application when it said it was independently verified.? They don't grant patents for PM .Time will resolve this argument. Since from now on the device is getting assembled with off the shelf tech. It wont be long.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
They don't grant patents for PM .


Oh, SURE they do. They don't intentionally do it, but there are a number of patents I've run into where the inventor intentionally obfuscated the claims and description to slide a perpetual motion machine past the examiners.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Yes they do. You obviously don't know much about patents and the human beings who make mistakes.

I see you still failed to post ANY of the "100 peer reviews". Guess we should lump you in with the likes of Mills and his ilk who like to make up stories.

And I love the "it won't be long" comment. I wonder where I've heard that before? Oh, that's right. Mills, every year for the past 20+ years.
edit on 2032017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


The wiki has a list of peer reviews . www.sciencedirect.com... I seriously cant be bothered anymore, other things to do.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Then you should be able to link to full peer reviewed papers.

Not abstracts or papers put on sites that anyone can submit.

The full peer reviews.

So far all you've done is show that you made up your statement of "100 peer reviews".



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

that the best you have ? - its been cited ONCE [ mills own self cite doesnt count ]



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: Bedlam

Nah, the Yakuzza threatened to kill 2 young Mitsubishi engineers who had a PMM ready for the market.

Anyway, i thought this Blacklight thread was dead already....

Let's be clear, while there are many scams,so-called 'overunity' is entirely possible, and while Bearden & Bedini have come up short in some areas, their circuits do show 'overunity' results.Bearden's math IS good, i would like to see any formulas that prove otherwise...

My own research has led me (several times) to a 'true' OU value of 4.85:1
I am still trying to find the mathematical explanation for this. Many Tesla researchers also claim a similar value, i believe it has to do with the physical boundaries of our current technology, at least it fits the pattern, according to materials analysis.


Let's be clear, if 99% of what you spout wasnt made up, you would show us all your over unity device.

Yet here we are, years later, still the same bragging in your posts with nothing to back anything up.

Cool..nice work mate.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79



You just don't like the idea that QM could be shaky, yes he has got a lot of endorsements, from what would be considered good scientists. vbrilliantlightpower.wikia.com...



Why would anyone interested or invested in physics not like the idea that QM is not true?

?????

Very odd. I would imagine most scientists would be excited about the new things they were going to uncover if that were the case.

Too bad for you QM is one of the most verified and tested theories ever.

Oh...and the transistors that make up your computer chips are purely quantum mechanical devices. Sorry to burst your little bubble mate.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's what people who don't know anything about scientists imagine how scientists think, not realising that the complete opposite is true.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join