Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos.
That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math. And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdfFIG. 2I88 is a beast - a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.... investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
Quote from: Propylox on 09/13/2017 04:10 amWe're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.Quote from: Propylox on 09/13/2017 04:10 amventure capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.... investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_captureAn electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:46 pmDoes the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Quote from: meberbs on 10/05/2017 05:57 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:46 pmDoes the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:03 pmQuote from: meberbs on 10/05/2017 05:57 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:46 pmDoes the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:21 pmI'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
Quote from: meberbs on 10/11/2017 06:50 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:21 pmI'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.The paper I want you to see is this;https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.