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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Forensick

these are new magic PV cells - magic light deserves magic PV cells


I want a solar cell for converting dark energy into light energy.




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
This is how I know you guys never bother to actually look into anything before making your prognostications of fraud.


I watched both videos. Assume the "Hydrino" is real then both speakers give you the impression they are bringing a product to market.

The problem with the "Hydrino" is it changes the standard model of physics. I'm just a little skeptical this is real. You would think something this fundamental to physics would be discovered many times over. I've been listening to Mills claims for over 10 years now. What's another year of waiting for something real?


The OP was just an update on their progress.

I'm not sure what you consider "real" though. They have a functional reactor. All they have left to do is strap a PV dome on it and wire it all up into a closed system. As I said in the OP, if all goes smoothly, they should take delivery of the PV dome in January. I'm assuming they will have a first generation prototype generator ready to demo sometime in February.

What you believe about physics seems to be irrelevant. In fact, that's the problem with theoretical physics today. It's a belief system, rather than science.


edit on 12/17/2016 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I'm assuming they will have a first generation prototype generator ready to demo sometime in February.


Haven't we heard that claim several times before....?

yes we have!



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

yes - i actually do - and you know EXACTLY what i am asking for - evasive dishonesty noted


I truly don't know what the hell you are asking for.

I literally provided lectures directly from the engineers of two separate firms that are working on BrLP's product launch. I don't know how I can get any more "primary" than that.


"Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a relic of cold fusion. Critical analysis of the claims have been published in the peer reviewed journals Physics Letters A, New Journal of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. These works note that the proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, and that the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations that have been experimentally verified many times.

In 1999, the Nobel prize winning physicist Philip Warren Anderson said he is "sure that it's a fraud",[6] and in the same year another Nobel prize winning physicist, Steven Chu, called it "extremely unlikely".[7] In 2009, IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "[m]ost experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence" and mentioned that Wolfgang Ketterle had said the claims are "nonsense".[8] BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product.[8]"

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah I get that.

All that means is QM is a failed theory given that it cannot explain the reactions Mills is achieving.

That's the way science works. Theory does not dictate experimental results. Experiment dictates theory.


edit on 12/17/2016 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
This is how I know you guys never bother to actually look into anything before making your prognostications of fraud.


I watched both videos. Assume the "Hydrino" is real then both speakers give you the impression they are bringing a product to market.

The problem with the "Hydrino" is it changes the standard model of physics. I'm just a little skeptical this is real. You would think something this fundamental to physics would be discovered many times over. I've been listening to Mills claims for over 10 years now. What's another year of waiting for something real?


The OP was just an update on their progress.

I'm not sure what you consider "real" though. They have a functional reactor. All they have left to do is strap a PV dome on it and wire it all up into a closed system. As I said in the OP, if all goes smoothly, they should take delivery of the PV dome in January. I'm assuming they will have a first generation prototype generator ready to demo sometime in February.

What you believe about physics seems to be irrelevant. In fact, that's the problem with theoretical physics today. It's a belief system, rather than science.



I'm trying to be open minded. The Hydrino implies a new lower ground state of matter. The mathematics may make it look like it is real. However, as I said, if this claim were real it would have been discovered thousands of times over. Mills is very smart but he's not the only one with brains and skills in physics. Again, I want to be open minded. But I've been watching Mills for what seems like forever. The last round of demos really turned me off. Let's hope in February he shows us his electric bill in New Jersey is paying him a dividend and not a cost.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah I get that.

All that means is QM is a failed theory given that it cannot explain the reactions Mills is achieving.

That's the way science works. Theory does not dictate experimental results. Experiment dictates theory.



You make a very good point. Again, if something real was there to be discovered it just seems to me it would have been discovered by lots of people.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
This is how I know you guys never bother to actually look into anything before making your prognostications of fraud.


I watched both videos. Assume the "Hydrino" is real then both speakers give you the impression they are bringing a product to market.

The problem with the "Hydrino" is it changes the standard model of physics. I'm just a little skeptical this is real. You would think something this fundamental to physics would be discovered many times over. I've been listening to Mills claims for over 10 years now. What's another year of waiting for something real?


The OP was just an update on their progress.

I'm not sure what you consider "real" though. They have a functional reactor. All they have left to do is strap a PV dome on it and wire it all up into a closed system. As I said in the OP, if all goes smoothly, they should take delivery of the PV dome in January. I'm assuming they will have a first generation prototype generator ready to demo sometime in February.

What you believe about physics seems to be irrelevant. In fact, that's the problem with theoretical physics today. It's a belief system, rather than science.



I'm trying to be open minded. The Hydrino implies a new lower ground state of matter. The mathematics may make it look like it is real. However, as I said, if this claim were real it would have been discovered thousands of times over. Mills is very smart but he's not the only one with brains and skills in physics. Again, I want to be open minded. But I've been watching Mills for what seems like forever. The last round of demos really turned me off. Let's hope in February he shows us his electric bill in New Jersey is paying him a dividend and not a cost.


I don't understand what makes you think this would have been discovered "a thousand times over" if every scientist on the planet is working off the wrong play book (QM).

Mills only discovered this catalytic excitation by completely abandoning QM. His discovery is the result of first coming up with his own theory about how the electron works.


edit on 12/17/2016 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Mills only discovered this catalytic excitation by completely abandoning QM.


And physics, it would seem, given that catalysis is related to chemical reaction rates, and not electron orbital state. Of course, "catalyst" sounds good and very sciency. But misusing terms and neologisms are the hallmarks of cranks.



His discovery is the result of first coming up with his own theory about how the electron works.



However, QM explains a huge body of testable, repeatable observation very well. Like the semiconductors in the computer you're using. Mills, on the other hand, hasn't yet turned over the thing for replication. So, does one jettison a huge body of work that generates predictable, falsifiable, engineering level results for some guy's speculation who sounds an awful lot like a con man?

If his theory can ALSO explain other observed quantum phenomena, then great. Otherwise, it sounds like a bunch of crap, tbh.

We'll be here next year, and it'll be the same situation, only he'll have ginned up some new investors, and it'll look dramatic in a different way, and he still will be just about ready to go to production.
edit on 18-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

as you cannot // willnot answer previous questions - lets try this :

where is the " resurch " that underpins mills " discoveries " published ?



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

if we is making predictions for next year - how long till CT and misamo disappear - never to be heard from again ?



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Bedlam

if we is making predictions for next year - how long till CT and misamo disappear - never to be heard from again ?


Both do contract design. It doesn't mean they endorse any particular design, they just take the plans, clean them up, and build you some.

At one time, we'd take bogus, obviously non-functional designs on as long as
1) they paid really well
2) we had very very picky terms in the contract about what constituted 'working' for the deliverables
3) heinous default penalties in case the customer realized midway that their design was #e
4) heinous default penalties for accepting assembled and 'tested' deliverables whether or not they did what the customer actually wanted, as long as they met the definition of 'functional' in the contract
5) there had to be very clear restrictions and penalties for changes and feature creep when the customer started flailing about, which generally happens about 2/3 of the way in and they realize it won't work
6) we had to have lots of money up front, more than normal, and the customer had to maintain the balance in an account we could monitor. So they couldn't spend up their capital with the intent of not paying us
7) the customer had to pay up front for materials and NRE at OUR sub-contractors, so if they tried to run we weren't out for parts and fixturing


Given that, we'd happily take on your bogus and obviously doomed design work. At one point, though, it got to be a burden (you wouldn't believe how often reasonably sane people want you to design things that they've seen in bad movies) and one project we finally declared a stop to it, and that was a project where an otherwise rational Air Force brass who shall remain nameless tasked us to design an ethernet appliance that had optical isolation between the two sides. Not so you could operate the two sides at different ground potentials, or so that power surges on one side couldn't cascade through into other equipment. Those are reasonable things to plan for in military networks. No, she wanted to filter out viruses in the network traffic, because, as everyone knows, viruses can't travel on beams of light.

Yep. That's right. She thought they were biological. Grant you, she had a masters degree in some sort of accounting. So it wasn't that she was uneducated, just not very educated. And she wouldn't hear explanations that she was wrong. We pondered it - there was a tidy bit of money attached - and refused. We have subsequently declined further investigations into the occult, non-causal perception, V2K, and free air projection of holograms for the same reason - it takes time from 'real' engineering and we eventually developed a sort of bizarre morality. Not about the use of the design, but about its lack of usability and being nothing but a paperweight.

Still, for the right number of magic beans, we'd probably pull out the Grand Albert and try casting spells again.

edit on 18-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think the only dense receivers are those that buy into this.

For 100 mill i could build 1000 fusion reactors, or take a few peeps to Mars & back.


Iter? Yes out of date before they built it, theres a simpler way.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yep, had my share of unworkable projects and dense project leaders, and yes if they paid well i was happy to go along, especially if they didn't listen.
If i liked them i told them the truth though



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I would love to see Mills be hugely successful.

Here's a pretty good criticism of Mills therories:

goodmath.scientopia.org...

Mills may not be intentionally scamming. He may genuinely believe his experimental results are matching his interpretation of his mathematics. This is why you publish to peers for replication. It is human nature to be self-delusional when so much prestige is at stake. At this point, Mills entire life is at stake.

But then again, Mills may really right about his theories.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah I get that.

All that means is QM is a failed theory given that it cannot explain the reactions Mills is achieving.

That's the way science works. Theory does not dictate experimental results. Experiment dictates theory.


All Mills has to do is publish one paper showing one reaction in repetitive way that nobody has ever seen before and it will be like Einstein discovery relativity. The publishing the new reaction is probably more important to humanity that solving the energy crisis because who knows all the new science that would fall out from such a discover.

Again, people eff with nature in every way possible. I just can't imagine if Mills discovered some new way to get nature to moan then 20 other people would have created the same results as Mill has done the first time he discovered his Hydrino. It's not like his work is completely in the dark either. There is tons of information on his Hydrino theory.

Maybe what Mills is doing is not based on a new standard model. But is more in line with this way of thinking:

brillouinenergy.com...
edit on 19-12-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Very good, I notice the Op has been banned, I think that is very telling to why he was.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

hmm - we are not really supposed to talk about banned members - but given its posting history - unless some major dummy spitting incident occured [ and was deleted ] in the last 6 hours - then i agree - that the ban hammer was brouht down for identity reasons



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Peer review is mostly a good way to advance a theory, but it has to be as open as possible & it has to be replicated by a second party not having any connection to the first party.
If i can't see any mathematical continuity in the theory, or can't see the plans of the device, i can't attempt to replicate it. Some, like the E-cat don't need replicating, they never worked. Some thermal engineers debunked that pretty quickly.
Now i HATE debunking anything to do with free energy, antigrav etc, but it has to be done.

I am not going to waste my time on anything that needs unicorn dust to run, it has to be built easily in a garden shed, just like all major inventions have been for centuries.

I remember BLP in it's various forms from years ago, and despite all the millions in funds they havent released so much as a single watt of 'free' energy, something that even i managed to do back in the 90's with zero funding.

I do not beleive in slamming other members for their beliefs, but i believe that truth & respect are to be observed, i have been called unprintable names on YT and also a scam artist. Since i have NEVER asked for money or tried to sell anything, i always ask them how am i scamming peeps, who am i trying to scam?

Free energy exists, but it's not with BLP, Steorn, Rossi & the rest who are getting rich on the hopes of others.

Painful as it is, the filtering process has to be rigorous. There is far too much fairy-dust pseudo science out there already, now we even have the Flat Earthers back, YT is full of their sh**



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah I get that.

All that means is QM is a failed theory given that it cannot explain the reactions Mills is achieving.

That's the way science works. Theory does not dictate experimental results. Experiment dictates theory.



Hmm, let's see: either the theory that is directly responsible for the technology you are using to post on is wrong, or the tall claims with zero supporting evidence are wrong. I wonder which is more likely?
edit on 20-12-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join