Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 77353 times)

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #380 on: 07/06/2017 09:22 PM »
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.

Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.

Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.

Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?

How many years has he been saying he'll have a deliverable power-producing product within a year?

It very much seems to be the case that he's a con man who is using a gish-gallop of shoddy math to hoodwink investors.

It is possible to convince me otherwise - if he opened up to in-depth investigation, allowed others to study his experimental setup, or produced papers showing his methodology and experimental setup so others can replicate what he's done, and so on. So far all that we have to see is the results of limited study, like of heat output from the setup (with separate runs producing wildly different results), that doesn't tell us a thing about what's actually going on inside it.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #381 on: 07/06/2017 10:00 PM »
Like someone already wrote many pages earlier, this discussion is not going anywhere at all. We can dig up loads of falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mills' tome, but nothing seems to have any effect on believers. Even the entertainment value in looking for silliness has worn off at least for me. I don't think this discussion is worth continuing unless there's some real new development (changing the name of the company doesn't count as real development).

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #382 on: 07/07/2017 01:00 AM »


Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.

First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:

"  Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it.  "


Now this is so wrong it hurts.

First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.

Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.

And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.

And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?

This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?

Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.

There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.

Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.

I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.

And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then  will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.

I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money.

The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.

You claim I said I don't understand Bell's theorem. Pease point me to where I said such a thing. I said I'm not an expert which is entirely a different concept.

Thanks again for your clarification.

There is no such thing as an expert on Bell's theorem. It would be like claiming to be an expert on 2+2=4. It is a very simple result that does not even directly involve quantum mechanics. It is simply a logical conundrum that places limits on any classical deterministic theory. In that sense it is aimed more at Mills' theory than quantum mechanics.

The problem is you have achieved epistemic closure. You trust Mills. You will believe him despite nearly thirty years and tens of millions of dollars of failure. You will believe what Mills tells you about Bell's inequality despite the simple and obvious fact that you don't have the tools to judge. It's like I'm trying to discuss calculus with someone who is not an expert on 2+2=4.

There are many places around the internet that will help you understand Bell's inequality. Blog posts, youtube videos, science forums, endless resources. What Mills has to say is not going to help. Break out of your epistemic closure by gaining an understanding apart from Mills.


Offline bmcgaffey20

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • PNW
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #383 on: 07/07/2017 02:37 PM »
Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device.
The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #384 on: 07/07/2017 02:55 PM »
Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device.
The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.

Did you read the description on the youtube video?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline bmcgaffey20

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • PNW
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #385 on: 07/07/2017 03:14 PM »
Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.

Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.

On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #386 on: 07/07/2017 03:31 PM »
Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.

Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.

On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.

You may have read the title of the video, I'm saying read the description on the youtube video you linked to, where it says that it is a video of a BLP demonstration, so it doesn't just "resemble" it, it is one.

This "technology" doesn't threaten Mills' life. That is absurd.

The point many here are making is that it's not a credible idea.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #387 on: 07/07/2017 05:17 PM »
Even if much of Mills math was purely descriptive, for instance describing hydrino chemistry and rates of reactions, it's still better than some theorist declaring "it simply cannot be". Physics needs both yet real data should not be thrown out because people don't understand or like the theory. They should conditionally accept the data and replicate it then try and explain it. Not just ignore it because it doesn't fit QM.

Exactly. Data leads theory, not the other way around. Good data generated by a hypothesis inspired by a flawed theory and which contravenes other flawed theories is still good data that should be understood and applied. The "more useful theory" in the context of the data is the "better theory" for the purposes of said data. Theory isn't important because it describes nature,  its important because it permits hypothesis generation respecting testability and repeatability, at least in principle, which guides experimental design so we can understand nature better than before.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #388 on: 07/08/2017 07:32 PM »
Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.

Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.

On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.

You may have read the title of the video, I'm saying read the description on the youtube video you linked to, where it says that it is a video of a BLP demonstration, so it doesn't just "resemble" it, it is one.

This "technology" doesn't threaten Mills' life. That is absurd.

The point many here are making is that it's not a credible idea.

The technology doesn't threaten Mills' life. Mills' business model is an open model so no enterprise, such as big oil or foreign interests needs to be shut out. I prefer to think it's not a credible idea because it's really such an incredible idea.  :D
« Last Edit: 07/08/2017 07:33 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #389 on: 07/08/2017 07:52 PM »
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.

Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.

Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.

Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?

How many years has he been saying he'll have a deliverable power-producing product within a year?

It very much seems to be the case that he's a con man who is using a gish-gallop of shoddy math to hoodwink investors.

It is possible to convince me otherwise - if he opened up to in-depth investigation, allowed others to study his experimental setup, or produced papers showing his methodology and experimental setup so others can replicate what he's done, and so on. So far all that we have to see is the results of limited study, like of heat output from the setup (with separate runs producing wildly different results), that doesn't tell us a thing about what's actually going on inside it.

His papers describe in exhaustive detail many experiments which a scientist skilled in the art could replicate. And some have.

Also, if he were merely a 'con man' trying to 'hoodwink' investors, why is he using that money to pay for expensive facilities, equipment and a staff of more than twenty scientists, engineers and technicians? What con man does that? It could very easily be verified if this is a fake claim or real facilities by anyone interested.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #390 on: 07/08/2017 08:56 PM »
And some have.
[citation needed]
Quote
Also, if he were merely a 'con man' trying to 'hoodwink' investors, why is he using that money to pay for expensive facilities, equipment and a staff of more than twenty scientists, engineers and technicians?
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.

Quote
What con man does that?
There are numerous examples of this in the "free energy" and "cold fusion" generas, though few as long running as BLP.


I'm agnostic as to whether Mills is a con artist or a true believer, or to what extent those around him are one or the other, but the incoherence of his theory and BLPs pattern of behavior over the last 25 years strongly suggests either is more likely than "hydrinos" being a thing.

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #391 on: 07/09/2017 06:04 AM »
If the founders of QM had had a better, Maxwell based reason for non-radiation, they would have used it and that may have led to an extended electron model something along the lines of Mills' model.

^ That is the most important sentence in this entire thread.

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #392 on: 07/09/2017 06:20 AM »
I'm agnostic as to whether Mills is a con artist or a true believer, or to what extent those around him are one or the other, but the incoherence of his theory and BLPs pattern of behavior over the last 25 years strongly suggests either is more likely than "hydrinos" being a thing.

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/search?iq=Composite(AA.AuN%3D%3D'randell%20l%20mills')&q=&filters=Composite(AA.AuId%3D2129324251)&from=0&sort=0

Introducing the list of True Believers†
Quote from: 1-8 of 153 results for (0.4 seconds)
Randell L. Mills
P. Ray
J. He
B. Dhandapani
M. Nansteel
Ying Lu
Kamran Akhtar
William R. Good
R.M. Mayo
X. Chen
Z. Chang
Andreas Voigt
G. Zhao
G. Chu
Yi Lu
Jonathan Phillips
J. Lotoski
Jinquan Dong
J.E. Scharer
Nelson Greenig

†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2017 07:35 AM by particlezoo »

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #393 on: 08/28/2017 07:24 AM »
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.pdf

FIG. 2I88 is a beast. 8)

FIGURE 2I88 is 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.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2378
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #394 on: 08/28/2017 03:21 PM »
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

It proves no such thing.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #395 on: 08/28/2017 03:38 PM »
That figure pales in comparison to this behemoth (from US Patent 4681244).




Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #396 on: 08/28/2017 03:56 PM »
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."

R.P. Feynman
“Why should we send people into space when we have kids in the U.S. that can’t read”. - Barack Obama

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #397 on: 08/28/2017 04:53 PM »
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."

R.P. Feynman

A truism.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #398 on: 08/28/2017 05:43 PM »
†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.
It's actually a terrible assumption. At best, it's an indication they probably didn't think Mills was a fraud (presuming they were not a party to it) or total crackpot at the time of publication. Co-author of papers reporting experimental results should not be assumed to buy Mills theory, and it should be remembered that some (like Jansson) were funded by BLP.

PS:
There is a very long history of hucksters and cranks using patents to give their ideas an appearance of legitimacy.

Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #399 on: 08/28/2017 06:10 PM »
†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.
It's actually a terrible assumption. At best, it's an indication they probably didn't think Mills was a fraud (presuming they were not a party to it) or total crackpot at the time of publication.

*At the very least

Co-author of papers reporting experimental results should not be assumed to buy Mills theory, and it should be remembered that some (like Jansson) were funded by BLP.

Of course.™

PS:
There is a very long history of hucksters and cranks using patents to give their ideas an appearance of legitimacy.

Another truism.

Tags: