Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

reply to post by 8311-XHT


Mills is certainly the real deal, but I don't think he's personally been hindered. His science is sound and he has investors lined up that are ready to stake their cash on Mills' theory.

A distinction must be drawn between Mills and society at large. The entire world has suffered as a result of statist liars ignoring the research done by Mills. Mills himself has done quite well and will continue to do well regardless of what roadblocks the statist thieves put in his way.

Society at large however has been incalculably damaged by the statist lying horde of charlatans claiming to be scientists. Untold numbers of people have needlessly died from lack of energy. Untold numbers of business ideas have gone unfulfilled due to energy costs. Society has been impoverished more by statist liars than any socialist dictator has ever done. Those projects which were never created due to energy costs can all be laid at the feet of the thieves society calls government funded scientists.

I believe it has been around 11 years since Mills opened his research facility. As you state, this is not a very long time when we are talking about taking a newly discovered phenomena of nature and turning it into a productive good that can be sold on the market.

reply to post by mnemeth1


"Mills is certainly the real deal, but I don't think he's personally been hindered. His science is sound and he has investors lined up that are ready to stake their cash on Mills' theory"

I just think that when you consider the value of the claim and the results Mills has shown I don't feel the amount of money directed towards him has been near enough.

Also feel Mills has had his patents messed with and an IPO prevented. These things would have sped up the process dramatically. But he has definitely done well considering he hasn't had the omptimal support IMO.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You know, It doesn't matter if Einstien was right or wrong. He was a brilliant man.

How about showing him a little bit of respect?

He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century.

He's the worst human being to ever walk the face of the earth.

Call him a retard yet you do nothing but regurgitate other peoples theories? Which usually turn out to be wrong?

reply to post by Solasis


Not only do I understand solar winds and their effects, I also understand science still suffers from blind perceptive geocentric thinking, and its maddening. I'm not going to spend this post arguing over accepted theoretical concepts, simply because you and just about everyone else on this planet is still trying to answer questions by looking up, instead of trying to look in. What does that mean, it simply means... until we stop believing our planet, and the views from it, contains the only truth about our reality... mankind will remain trapped in a prism/prison of our own design.

The only thing I would ask all who have an open mind... Grab an empty box... its dimensions matters not. Sit down and look into that empty box. Now allow your mind to accept the concept you're a god looking at the universe, and the entire universe is inside your box. Then allow your mind to accept the concept you are looking down at the universe while understanding you exist inside that universe looking inside a box. Now, with only that box as your guide and nothing else... how would you [BEGIN] to find yourself?
Second... Knowing that the Sun is traversing the galaxy, and using your box only... how much universe is passing through your box every Earth second?
Next, place a dot (A) inside the box on one side, and then directly opposite the first dot place a second (B). Now from one dot to the other place a string with a piece of tape in the middle of that string (C). All three (A, B, and C) have a clock set to absolute zero starting point. While C represents a person traveling from A to B at light speed. Which if any of the clocks change? Some of you think you already know the answer... What if A and B changed to separate solar systems on opposite sides of our Galaxy and C equals the light traveling from and to both... Do you believe the answer must change? Well... when you open your eyes the truth is far more awesome... And that simple empty box proves it... How? Because that box gives the answer to every question we need to begin to start rethinking the truth about our true reality.

I absolutely know the majority of you wont even look. and I didn't write this for you. I wrote this for that one person who actually wants to know...


--Charles Marcello

reply to post by littlebunny




Heck this sounds gobbledygooky similar to the theories of that idiot nasim vermin or something.
What exactly are you on about.

I don't think that the wars between scientists or the theory itself are very important things. What is important is the practical applications. BLP was founded in 1991, and we still haven't got our blacklight power sources. This tells me that the BL theory does not really work.

I'd also like to point out that disrespecting Einstein and calling him an idiot accomplishes nothing. It's unscientific to call someone an idiot, even if he is wrong, because all people are wrong at one point in their lives...no one is infallible. Calling Einstein an idiot shows extreme arrogance, which does not help the cause of advancing science.

Originally posted by masterp
BLP was founded in 1991, and we still haven't got our blacklight power sources. This tells me that the BL theory does not really work.

Thank God for people like you here on ATS, who actually have a fruitfully working brain.

I'd also like to point out that disrespecting Einstein and calling him an idiot accomplishes nothing.

Ditto.

Newton's theories were eventually proven incorrect, and another way to formulate this that the domain of their applicability was somewhat limited -- after all, Newton's mechanics was and continues to be the cornerstone of today's industry that makes stuff that really works. Without Einstein's theories, and application of relevant math, things like GPS would be simply unusable, and so would be much of spaceflight and all sort of navigation, and don't get me started on accelerator experiments.

Was Newton a moron? Was Einstein a moron? No Sir, they weren't, but the obsessive-compulsive types who start 10,000 threads on ATS claiming that, -- just might be.

PS. Newton's books on the subject of math and calculus still read pretty fresh. The guy was a goddamn genius.

I know this is an old thread, but after being in another "Free Energy" thread I ended up in this one and the level of absurdity is about the same.

Rowan ran triple tests which were further confirmed by the CfA/Gen3 team.

Rowan University does not even specialize in physics. Their most notable alumni include Miss America's and someone from the Howard Stern Show. LMFAO. The claims here are one of the funniest things I have ever read.

Notable alumni

Jessica Boyington, Miss New Jersey USA 2006
Deirdre Breakenridge, author
Kyle Cassidy, photojournalist
Betty Castor, Florida politician and former president of the University of South Florida
Joseph Checkler, journalist for Dow Jones and publisher of the popular baseball blog Liners, Sliders and Scoops
Jack Collins, college basketball coach and Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly
Julie Ann Dawson, horror fiction writer and small press publisher
Scott DePace (B.A., Communications, 1991) TV Director, The Howard Stern Show [42]
Steve Dildarian, creator of HBO animated series The Life & Times of Tim
Steve Dobel (B.A., 1977) President of MCI Worldcom from 1992–2000
Ric Edelman (1980), Nationally known financial planner and radio host[43]
Stink Fisher, football player and actor in movies such as Invincible and The Longest Yard
Jamie Ginn, Miss Delaware 2006
Continued

Ok, so they found a lower energy state than they thought possible before. How exactly does this make the energy produced free? Can they produce energy from atoms that are truly at their lowest energy state?

According to quantum physics, vacuum can produce energy when it decays to a lower state. That still doesn't make that energy free.

Second law of thermodynamics, by the way. Nothing to do with Einstein.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way

The Milky Way galactic centre is hidden for us from the view. The light you see coming from that direction comes from stars infront of the black hole. Gravitational lensing occurs for the light sources behind the black hole.

reply to post by wildespace


Too many people are trying to argue this bunk idea. They don't even realise that the theory they are basing their claims on doesn't even allow for harvesting of energy they claim is there.

Meaning, if there was free energy it would be an entirely new theory, which no one has provided.

[The Milky Way galactic centre is hidden for us from the view. The light you see coming from that direction comes from stars infront of the black hole. Gravitational lensing occurs for the light sources behind the black hole.

Sorry, but you just don't seem lucid enough in that post. You sound way confused.

Thank you for this, will add this link to my thread in my signature. The main point is to take it down to the common garage workshop level, not rely on one mysterious group to do it. When the grid goes down, no one is going to here of them.

It brakes no rule of science.
it is like using a heater to heat up coal.
when the coal burns it is hotter than the heat you put in.
no big deal?
they just dont know how it works yet.
this is like a cave man rubbing two sticks together.
and they catch fire.
Magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No! Just Science.
science we dont understand yet..
so you run around saying ,
“it can not be done, Impossible!”
sighs...

Discovering free energy doesn't disprove Einstein.

Look, E=mc2, do you see a $dollar$ sign in it? No.

Energy has always been free, you just need to find a source that won't charge you for kWh usage

I'm not being clever, I'm actually serious. Have always been looking for fully sustainable free energy that would work even in the depths of space since I was 12. To date, haven't found anything yet.

Originally posted by buddha
It brakes no rule of science.
it is like using a heater to heat up coal.
when the coal burns it is hotter than the heat you put in.
no big deal?
they just dont know how it works yet.
this is like a cave man rubbing two sticks together.
and they catch fire.
Magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No! Just Science.
science we dont understand yet..
so you run around saying ,
“it can not be done, Impossible!”
sighs...

How does the coal provide heat? It provides it through the energy stored inside the coal. Meaning once the coal is burned energy is released, transformed and collected and the rest is gone off into the universe not to be recaptured by us.

The point is that there is an energy value stored inside the coal. And when that coal is gone there is no more energy left, meaning you have to go and get new coal.

So the idea that you can have free energy, or unlimited energy, is trumped by the conservation laws. There is exotic forms of energy in the universe and it is one day possible for us to create something that will be far more efficient than what we use today, revolutionary even.

But if you are to claim that we can take energy from a magic place and there is no science backing up these claims than you are a crackpot. Simple as that.

reply to post by boncho


As for the OP. This company is a fraud. They are connected to a University that has a roster of Disc Jockeys and Beauty Queens listed as their top alumni. Not exactly known for physics, that university is the only one that claims to replicate their work and BLP pays them for it. They are connected to many other companies that offer no results while making claims of free energy for over a decade.

They are mentioned in a book entitled: VooDoo Science

OH, BY THE WAY, THEY ARE PLAGERISTS

Fortunately, Aaron Barth (not to be confused with Erik Baard, the Randy Mills' apologist), has taken upon himself to look through it, checking for accuracy. Barth is a post doctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, and holds a PhD in Astronomy, 1998, from UC, Berkeley. What he found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts.


By the way, these guys have raked in 60million in the past 20 years and produced no results, that is pretty strange for knowing a way to produce a priceless product.

The only thing this company has provided is news releases to string along investors. They tried to launch an IPO and failed. That was awhile ago. Read here.

Another media release but no product 2010

The best part is these guys can actually build a plant and run hydrogen electrolysis for a year or two before anyone even audits the books to realize its a fraud....

By the way, Mills, the 'renowned' scientist at BLP also claimed to cure cancer before inventing free energy... You know, since he went to school originally to be a doctor, not a physicist. He took physics courses....

A Novel Cancer Therapy Using a Mossbauer-Isotope Compound, Randell L. Mills, Carl W. Walter, Lata Venkataraman, Kevin Pang, John Farrell, Nature, 336,787, (1988). A 1995 review of Mills cancer paper at Harvard found Mills hadn't done the necessary control experiments, and there was no effect.

After curing cancer he set up HydroCatalysis Power Corp in the early 90's which later turned into Black Light Power.

The most visible critic of Mills' theories has been Robert L. Park, the spokesman for the American Physical Society, who said of Mills, "He's wrong in so many ways, it's beyond counting."

Yet another press release

reply to post by boncho


And for the finale, a real scientist completely tears apart Mills's theories in an actual science paper.

You can download it here

It's from the Institute of Physics.


In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.

And in conclusion....


Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al, it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.

In other words, no one legitimate can reproduce their work. As in its bunk.

This thread could actually make it off to the Hoax forum now.

reply to post by boncho


That paper was published in 2005.

Mills has issued a rebuttal to their nonsense.

www.blacklightpower.com...

There were 9 mistakes in that paper you linked.

This doesn't mean that Einstein was wrong. It could be that a hydrogen atom has much more potential energy than what we previously thought.