Brilliant Light Power Achieves Self-Sustaining Reaction

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79


Ok this guy checked out BLP he was paid for by a consulting firm, and gave it the thumbs up.www.bucknell.edu... He said it produced excess power......Mills might have got the theory wrong Hydrinos either exist or don't or whatever. But if the thing works it works.

So no link to anything apart from a bio?

Well done.

And he replicated it at Rowan pesn.com...

Oh look. An article that goes back to a press release from BLP. how surprising (which is a dead link btw).

So I can see a lot of people saying its a scam, when in fact it might not be. But I would think that just about every body in the energy business hopes it is a scam.

Theres no might not be about it.

25 years, over $100 MILLION and all there is to show for it is some flashy lights on a YouTube video.

a reply to: TerryDon79


The CEO from Westinghouse is now on the Black light board, you asked I gave. Then you poo pood, If you cant smell this is the real deal, then we will wait and see.

a reply to: anonentity

Actually, I asked for one of those many "100 peer reviewed papers" you said existed.

So far you've produced absolutely nothing apart from YouTube videos and bunk either directly from BLP or from someone associated with them.

So try and provide any of those peer reviewed papers. You wouldn't say there's something when there isn't (like mills and his ilk), would you?

a reply to: TerryDon79


I gave you the link with all the names of the peer reviews. www.youtube.com... anyway take it or leave it.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79


I gave you the link with all the names of the peer reviews. www.youtube.com... anyway take it or leave it.

No you didn't LOL. I know you want this to be true, but making things up doesn't do you any favours.

I won't be watching another YouTube video from someone called "blacklightpowerfan". If that's your idea of unbiased or scientific, then no wonder you buy into Mills' bs.

a reply to: TerryDon79



What the # was this then ?www.brettholverstott.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79



What the # was this then ?www.brettholverstott.com...

That is a website about 1 person who is making money from books and lectures by promoting Mills' scam. It's not "100 peer reviewed papers". It's not even a "link with all the names of the peer reviews".

So, where are these "100 peer reviewed papers"? You haven't presented 1 yet, let alone 100.

a reply to: anonentity

dear sir - i asked a simple question

you evaded answering and gave a youtube vidio that did NOT address what i asked

other ATS members pointed this out to you - and you became even more evasive

can we please have the :

most important 3 - of your alledged " 100 peer reviews "

cited ????

or admit that they are a figment of your imagination

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79



What the # was this then ?www.brettholverstott.com...

Ok, let's break it down:

1) A single study of preliminary results is not "peer-reviewed". Peer-review for publication means nothing more than dotting the i's and crossing the t's and making sure the stated results are novel and useful (it says nothing about their validity). No one in the wider academic community has managed to replicate his results and the discussion on the paper has been scathing.

2) Talking of discussion, this response was published in the same journal and trashed the paper: aip.scitation.org...

We show that Phillips et al. [J. Appl. Phys. 96, 3095 (2004)] have not made convincing calorimetric tests of the model of energy generation by Mills et al. [Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 25, 1171 (2000)]. In addition, we contend that the other experiments discussed by Phillips et al. are misinterpreted as providing support for the energy generation model.

3) That journal has an impact factor of 2. That's very low and means the journal is not prestigious (the standards for publication are far lower than typical physics journals). I wonder why?


4) That journal has an impact factor of 2 yet the paper has 44 citations. Wow! Must be popular, right? Nope. They're all self-citations (the author citing their own work) which is a massive red flag. Essentially, Mills is trying to puff out his citations in a subpar journal to make them look credible to the scientifically illiterate. The only non self-cite is another paper published in the same journal trashing the results.

Not off to a good start, are we?

a reply to: GetHyped


You are being very selective. A PHD at Rowan University, is on record as saying more power is generated than what went in. After checking it out, he has put his professional reputation on the line. Prof Mark Jansson. So you are saying he is a fraudster as well?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: GetHyped


You are being very selective. A PHD at Rowan University, is on record as saying more power is generated than what went in. After checking it out, he has put his professional reputation on the line. Prof Mark Jansson. So you are saying he is a fraudster as well?

Is there any unbiased papers to prove that or is it just someone's biased word who's trying to sell books to make money?

ETA: Still waiting on some of your "100 peer reviewed papers". You not posting a single one after multiple requests, speaks volumes.

Anyway as expected.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: GetHyped


You are being very selective.

It's the source you posted!

/facepalm

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: GetHyped


You are being very selective. A PHD at Rowan University, is on record as saying more power is generated than what went in. After checking it out, he has put his professional reputation on the line. Prof Mark Jansson. So you are saying he is a fraudster as well?

Is he also a fraudster? Who knows. Is he wrong? Yes.

So I take it to play this game I just have to find one scientist who thinks it's BS and then you'll finally see the (black) light? After all, you seem to think trotting out one lonely guy suddenly gives this scam credibility.

Here ya go:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now I'll wait as you'll find an excuse to cling to crappy studies and lonely voices instead of acknowledging the overwhelming amount of academic criticism levelled at this fraud.

a reply to: GetHyped


Look we know the media and everything else is controlled by interested parties. Energy generation being the most vested interest on the planet. We also know if this thing works, the whole ton of bricks will fall on it. The detraction is expected, its just the general way things are to support the present Paradigm. All the trendy scientists are bought and paid for by the big Corporations.
Didn't they just do a rocket engine that shouldn't work, under the present laws of Physics? but does. Doesn't that suggest that the model of what's going on down at the atomic level might need tweaking.

a reply to: anonentity

Ah yes, the "they're suppressing the truth!" gambit. You know you've got no hand left to play when that line gets trotted out.

I've seen this scenario play out countless times on here and it never fails to make me face palm:

A: "These extraordinary claims are totally true!"

B: "No they're not, anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy can see that"

A: "Yes that are! Look, here's the scientific evidence that supports the claims!"

B: "That's a badly executed plemininary study that has since been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community"

A: "That's because the scientific community are in on the conspiracy to suppress the truth!"

LOLWUT. You can't claim the science is on your side and then in the same breath denounce science as some sort of coverup when it doesn't go your way. All does is show your utter lack of intellectual honesty.

a reply to: anonentity

You know what would be really good?

You linking to any of those "100 peer reviewed papers" you said existed.

You wouldn't want people to think you just made up that there were "100 peer reviewed papers", would you?

a reply to: GetHyped

It's actually kinda funny.

First they state there's "100 peer reviewed papers", then they claim it's being covered up.

I mean, which is it? Are there "100 peer reviewed papers" (we know there isn't LOL), or is it being covered up?

Either way the member has shown their hand and been caught bluffing.

a reply to: GetHyped


What you are suggesting is that the laws of physics are absolute and can never change. Just like before Einstein in the Victorian age they thought it had all been done. They were using electric light because it worked ,but didn't have much of a clue what they were dealing with. Then suddenly along came Einstein.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79


The CEO from Westinghouse is now on the Black light board, you asked I gave. Then you poo pood, If you cant smell this is the real deal, then we will wait and see.

Being a member of a board is also a way of being a paid consultant, irregardless of the fact that a companies product may be viable.