Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

  • This sounds incorrect to me, unless I've misunderstood your meaning. My understanding is that if someone finds a way to invent around the claims of the patent, disclosing a device that operates in a similar but novel manner that is not covered by the original patent, there is nothing for the inventor to assert, and no permission is needed.


    What I meant to say is that if A holds a patent, then B is allowed to attempt to improve on that patent. Any such improvement can then be patented. However, B may not infringe on A's patent to do so. For instance, a molecule may have certain medicinal effects and has been patented. Another researcher can't start performing trials using that molecule looking for, say, a means to prolong the drug's metabolic lifespan without first licensing the molecule for use in their study. The researcher would need to find a way to conduct their research without infringing on the patent. The same will apply to Mills. Mills may not be able to patent the hydrino (I may be wrong), but he can certainly patent all the methods he's discovered to date for generating the hydrino reaction. Researchers will not be able to use any of those methods for trying to improve upon them. They'll need to either get a license from BrLP to use their IP or start from scratch and develop their own, which seems about right. The exception to this rule, I believe, is for "idle scientific curiosity". A lone tinkerer in his own garage is allowed to explore without infringing. But as soon as the first graduate student is granted onto the project, the exception no longer applies. At least that's how I understand it.

  • But as soon as the first graduate student is granted onto the project, the exception no longer applies. At least that's how I understand it.


    I have heard the Mills himself has similar views, however, as long as infringing acts are non-commerical, researchers (of any description) can do what they like without needing any form of licence...
    But if commercial products are later spun out of that research, they will likely have a hard time defending the resulting patent suit.

  • You guys ever notice that whenever one of you say something the rest go against it even if they are on that side. Why would any of the people arguing it does not work want to come to this site 50 times a day just to counter argue someone's idea of how it may work. Really stupid if you ask me and kind of getting tired of trying to find new info just to scroll and scroll through a bunch of b s . Seriously why not just let the person believe it works and go argue somewhere else. I keep returning hopeing to see something from me356 but bout to give up on that to. Go outside and build something get off the internet you are clogging it up like a toilet. Happy new year :D

  • Charlie, debunking crap is fun. More importantly, on some occasions, internet debunking can save investors money. IH would have saved a lot of trouble and investor cash had they bothered to read the extensive debunking of Andrea Rossi's claims. Dick Smith saved a million dollars by reading the truth about Defkalion and consulting with some of the authors of the posts. Just because you may not be putting your money where your mouth is doesn't mean others don't. And when they invest in bunk, they get cheated.


    Scams like Steorn, Tilley, Defkalion and Rossi simply waste resources better spent in real research. Personally, I hate that and I also hate seeing scammers profit. Whatever I can reasonably do to prevent scammers' ill gotten gains, I do. And I just generally dislike deception and nonsense.

    • Official Post

    Was channel surfing this AM and came across a CNNI (CNN International) segment on Randy Mills. Lady reporter did an interview with him, while he displayed a small model of his Suncell. Talked with an investor also. But I can not find that anywhere for copy. The site's search function is not very good, as are most news outlets. Nor is it on BLP's site yet.


    If anyone can find it...it is interesting. Nothing new for us, but a good way to start off the new year.

  • On the theoretical side, my bets are 99 percent on mainstream physicists being correct about Mills's theory being unphysical. But I also am very open to Mills having an experimental anomaly and even possibly a source of power. I look forward to replication by well-known laboratories with no remuneration from BrLP involved.

  • Quote from Charlie

    You guys ever notice that whenever one of you say something the rest go against it even if they are on that side. Why would any of the people arguing it does not work want to come to this site 50 times a day just to counter argue someone's idea of how it may work.


    Charlie,


    As somone who tends to be a debunker I can answer that. Internet sites like this tend to be fan sites, where the object is admired. In this case people here would believe or hope LENR exists and come to see what new proofs and applications have been found.


    For any normal technology the question of existence is not at issue, however how good the tech is, or whether commercially it will ever be successful.


    In the case of LENR that existence is at issue, were it 100% clear (or even 50% clear) vast scientific effort in universities and industry throughout the world would be given to it.


    LENR advocates look for a bullet-proof repeatable way to show that what they have is something real and beyond chemical effects. No-one to my knowledge has yet found this silver bullet, though many hope to do so.


    In this situation skeptical views are as valuable (in some ways more valuable, because rarer) as non-skeptics "maybe this will work" views. Whenever an apparent but false strong positive case (e.g. Rossi) is successfully debunked this allows those seeking true positives to concentrate on best evidence so far without being distracted by something that is plain wrong.


    As for interest. Some people are interested in finding things out, resolving mysteries, without having a strong ulterior motive. Of course many people on sites like this do have an ulterior motive, they would only be interested in data showing LENR real, or only interested in data showing it false. But, while it remains unclear, you will also get people (like me) whose motivation is understanding things that don't make sense. I guess that is not really open to people here without strong technical skills: but then a lot of the people here do have strong technical skills.


    Regards, THH

  • On the theoretical side, my bets are 99 percent on mainstream physicists being correct about Mills's theory being unphysical. But I also am very open to Mills having an experimental anomaly and even possibly a source of power.


    @Eric Walker: Did you manage to read Mills introduction to GUT-CP where he explains what is off with QM. It's not that much text...


    We do not generally say that main stream physics is wrong. Instead we say: Main street physicians have a perception problem. They believe that QM is able to describe everything within condensed matter! This claim even might be true, but just for the for fine structure and not for the basic rules!
    QM itself is based on rules, which exclude the detection of underlying phenomenas - which truly exist based on Maxwells theory.


    Further on QM is local only and does not work very well for dynamic processes. Try once to describe the transient water memory structures with QM!
    (One reason why many QM'ers just deny them...)

  • Wyttenbach, now that you remind me about the chapter in Mills's book that sets out the problems with QM, I'll plan to take a look.


    I have set out on previous occasions several clear problems with different aspects of Mills's theory, and although these observations have not been persuasive for participants here who are invested in the theory, I think they will be more than adequate to help people with some physical intuition who are just becoming acquainted with Mills's claims better understand what they would be buying with his theory. What I've seen over time is that some people very quickly see real-world implications in Mills's theory that sink it for them, and others, a few of them intelligent, hold on to Mills's account for years. There is one fellow on Vortex, for example, who takes Mills's theory quite seriously who also happens to have a very good grasp of applied physics.


    (While we're here, would you kindly point me to an experimental writeup for Stringham that you like, so that I can better assess the science behind his sonofusion claims? You can do this in another thread if you like, so as to keep this one on topic. Summaries that generalize over different experiments and gloss over specific details will not be very helpful in assessing the science.)


    ETA: Just a reminder to people that Mills's "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" is available as a PDF here.

  • Quote from Wyttenbach

    They believe that QM is able to describe everything within condensed matter! This claim even might be true, but just for the for fine structure and not for the basic rules!QM itself is based on rules, which exclude the detection of underlying phenomenas - which truly exist based on Maxwell's theory.Further on QM is local only and does not work very well for dynamic processes. Try once to describe the transient water memory structures with QM!(One reason why many QM'ers just deny them...)


    I'd like to see evidence for even one of these assertions: which I do not recognise.


    I guess you could argue that non-relativistic QM - by definition - is local. But that does not apply to relativistic QM, Which is just fine and properly genralises Maxwell's equations in a way that explains quantum-scale phenomena. You can always argue that QM is not yet properly unified with GR, although there are various possible ways to do this.


    It is a fascinating area, see: http://nautil.us/issue/29/scal…hanics-swallow-relativity


    You do not however get very far with it is you start off by ignoring the work that has already been done, and is proven successful from experiment.


    I have not seen anything in Mills's work that helps with these very large issues, and I don't think they are what you mean.

  • hello readers,


    Happy new year to everyone ...



    As i tend to be practical in every stuff,i would like to know if anyone have an idea of how and how much are they planning to sell their suncell?


    i ve tried to get a reply from them two years ago but never got any replies from them then


    thanks


  • The predicted cost is $25K. The marketing plan involves leasing.

  • I guess you could argue that non-relativistic QM - by definition - is local. But that does not apply to relativistic QM, Which is just fine and properly genralises Maxwell's equations in a way that explains quantum-scale phenomena. You can always argue that QM is not yet properly unified with GR, although there are various possible ways to do this.


    @THH: One basic problem of QM is the metric of space and time. It's seems that beyond a certain radius, we no longer know the correct relation between these two concepts. Even worse ART also relays on time, which cannot play any role beyond the debroglie wavelenth of a proton.
    There are clear signs that the description of small elements needs at least 4 dimensions, where as none of them is timelike. To explain time like behavior you need at least 5 dimensions.


    I suggest you do the same as Eric does. First read the introduction of Mills summary on QM.

  • Mills said at least 100 KW/H up to 150 KW/H of electricity, the leftover heat is part of the pricing. The output can even be higher but the parts can only handle certain temperatures. Watch the whole video all the information is in there somewhere.


  • Mills said at least 100 KW/H up to 150 KW/H of electricity, the leftover heat is part of the pricing. The output can even be higher but the parts can only handle certain temperatures. Watch the whole video all the information is in there somewhere.


    do you have the link to that video? and from wich minute we can get this information as the last video they ve made is lasting 2 hours...

  • 25k for what exactly?how much power is it supposed to produce? what is the input we ll need?


    $25k capital cost for a 250kW unit with a projected 20 year lifespan, although at high production volume that could drop to about $8k. However BrLP and it's distributors are the only who will see the capital charge. The unit can be leased for $95/day including maintenance, which works out to $0.025/kWH at 100% utilization. The numbers are from BrLP, so I'm not sure how they are working out the loading.