Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[jaydeehess]

I think this has been mentioned before in this thread, but a quick search I did failed to find any relevant post (so if anyone can point to it/them, I'd be grateful).

Disclaimer: ..............- is nothing compared to ignoring the immense opportunities of exploiting fractional quantum states in elements other than hydrogen, and in molecules.

I opined as much in my last post. If the electron in hydrogen is forced into a lower state, is this like other valence bands that accommodate more than one electron?
Is it possible to have two electrons in the same sub-quantum level? Is it possible to have an 'extra' electron, one in quantum orbit and the other in sub-quantum? (what you described as doubly ionized?)
If this IS possible I cannot see how in the H it could be stable in as much as not forming compounds. In my, long removed from my chemistry course days, mind,,,,,,,,, such things would be much more reactive than their normally quantized cousins.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Mills has driven us into the fascinating world or Relaxed Physics...

 

[halleyscomet]

Really? That would mean one proton, and two electrons, one in each of two energy states, or both in the fractional states that Mills postulates? I cannot see how that would be stable at all.

I also don't see it as a deuterium analogue as deuterium still has the same number of electrons, and the same electrical properties as hydrogen.

The lack of stability is one reason why hydrinos would be so dangerous if they were real. I don't see any way these things would be stable.

Your point about deuterium is compelling. The extra electron would alter the electrical charge of the atom and hence impact its chemistry greatly.

If however, we're pushing an electron into a lower state but not adding an electron, then we have an outer electron shell that's been vacated. Would this make the atom more likely to bond with other atoms as a result of being able to share more electrons, or does it result in a chemically identical, but slightly smaller, atom?

 

[jaydeehess]

I recall asking my prof once about valence bands and how strict it was that electrons orbit in these shells.
He described it as an electron 'cloud' around the nucleus and that the quantum states represent only the energy level of the electrons. Although it is not forbidden that a higher energy electron orbit closer to the nucleus, it is more probable that it is, at any given time, in an orbit further from the nucleus (enter Schrodinger).

If Mills was postulating one fractional state he would not so much be eliminating quantization as saying that we are missing one quantum state. However, he is throwing out quantum physics as a whole, a science that has seen experimental confirmation for a century.

If he is correct he can practice "I would like to thank the Nobel Committee". If he is incorrect he can practice "Would you like fries with that" after he is sued to poverty by investors.

 

[jaydeehess]

The lack of stability is one reason why hydrinos would be so dangerous if they were real. I don't see any way these things would be stable.

Your point about deuterium is compelling. The extra electron would alter the electrical charge of the atom and hence impact its chemistry greatly.

If however, we're pushing an electron into a lower state but not adding an electron, then we have an outer electron shell that's been vacated. Would this make the atom more likely to bond with other atoms as a result of being able to share more electrons, or does it result in a chemically identical, but slightly smaller, atom?

Where in Mills' stuff did you see him say that a hydrino has an 'extra' electron? I thought it simply forced the existing electron into the lower state.

Gets very odd very fast, as Alec above stated "relaxed physics".

All well and good if one is writing a fictional tale, after all we aren't debating warp drive, drug based space navigation, voice modulation based mind control, sub-space communications, tractor beams, or even transporter beams. We are discussing a fiction based on what is proposed as being reality. The lines then blur. In a fiction you can invent any physics you want.

You say you want it to conform to Mills' hydrinos but in order to do that you must determine what they would be like which would require using known properties of atoms, but hydrinos do not conform to normal properties of atoms so that convention may not be useful. Thus in your fiction,,,,,,,,,,, you can do whatever the H you wanna do.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

That's obviously not a valid reason, given that since Mills has demonstrated hydrogen can indeed to go a lower ground state, ipso facto, QM is wrong.
He's already demonstrated this. The only problem is that you will not believe it until you have a generator parked in your driveway powering your home. Even then, you probably still won't believe it.

Stopped reading right there. What a bunch of baloney.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If he is incorrect he can practice "Would you like fries with that" after he is sued to poverty by investors.

I am completely sure that -like with Scientology- lawyers are a good chunk of Mills' budget (and the "accredited investor" bit is evidence of that).

Those investors should have hard evidence of fraud, which is very difficult when you are talking of "one-offs" and "cutting edge" technology. If Mills were to buy T-shirts, a price of 500$ each would be evident. But you can buy anything close to fairy dust and pay monstrous sums to providers controlled by a corporation in Nevada which is controlled by a corporations in Panama which is in turn controlled by a corporation in Seychelles without any misdeed being provable in court.

 

[halleyscomet]

Where in Mills' stuff did you see him say that a hydrino has an 'extra' electron? I thought it simply forced the existing electron into the lower state.

It's a (potnetially flawed) extrapolation. If you have an electron from a higher electron shell pushed into a lower fractional one, what happens to that higher electron shell? Does it capture an electron from the environment, or does it use that shell to bond to other elements?

You say you want it to conform to Mills' hydrinos but in order to do that you must determine what they would be like which would require using known properties of atoms, but hydrinos do not conform to normal properties of atoms so that convention may not be useful. Thus in your fiction,,,,,,,,,,, you can do whatever the H you wanna do.

My primary motivation in adhering as closely as possible to the Mills theory is that, if I publish this, there will be two results on Amazon.com for "hydrino." My fiction book and the book Mills wrote to explain his ideas. Given the freedom with which these guys threaten to sue, I want it to be clear that my story is not a hit piece or attempt to slander the company and its technology, but an honest effort to explore the risks their technology could pose given the completely unstudied nature of hydrino chemistry and biochemistry.

I want the story to be more "The Jungle" with necessary speculation than a PETA pamphlet. The book should be a call to action to study hydrinos.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Stopped reading right there. What a bunch of baloney.

But you should continue reading. Take into account that "QM is like Ptolomey's epicycles", to say it in the overlord's words, and he might show the right equations but, sadly, screens are only 2-D and 400-750 nm so he can't and you should take his word -besides he being saving you the blunder of not understanding it-. After all, with all the tasks a demiurge has, like creating the sky and the earth, and all the animals and whatnot, he is still posting here the seventh day, when he used to take a nap.

 

[halleyscomet]

But you should continue reading. Take into account that "QM is like Ptolomey's epicycles", to say it in the overlord's words, and he might show the right equations but, sadly, screens are only 2-D and 400-750 nm so he can't and you should take his word -besides he being saving you the blunder of not understanding it-. After all, with all the tasks a demiurge has, like creating the sky and the earth, and all the animals and whatnot, he is still posting here the seventh day, when he used to take a nap.

Surviving threads this silly really require you be the sort of person who participated in arguments like "Who would win in a space war, The Star Trek Federation or The Star Wars Empire?" (Answer, Manticore from the Honor Harrington books. Even at their relatively poorly armed status early on in the series, their interstellar warships are pretty much invulnerable to most the weapons the Federation or the Empire could bring to bear. It's also likely a Star Fleet crew trying to beam aboard a Manticore Dreadnaught would be scattered to space dust in the process if the Dreadnaught's "wedge" was engaged. The Death Star would need to not only score a precision hit, but score a precision hit at just the right angle.)

If the Federation and the Empire are brown bears, Manticore would be adding The Incredible Hulk to the battle.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Those images are a fair tribute to the epistemology in works like Mill's

 

[jaydeehess]

Those images are a fair tribute to the epistemology in works like Mill's

Yes, though I do admit I found one much more fascinating than the other. Maybe I am just prejudiced against green skinned persons.

 

[catsmate]

Or why not simply dunk the output end - where all this heat is created - into a swimming pool and measure the temperature rise.

Hey presto unlimited funding, Nobel prizes galore, freedom of the city - no freedom of the world for this Mills fella. No one will even remember Einstein.

Soon followed by massive economic upheaval, the worst recession in history, the breakdown of civil society and quite possibly World War 3.
Luckily it's the ridiculous fantasy if a fraudster.

 

[Horatius]

In short, I think - if the above is even half-way true - that Mills et al. (and ms) are dolts, bonkers, eejets, ... throwing away the chance to be Nobel Prize winners (and recognized as the greatest scientists ever) - as many have already pointed out - is nothing compared to ignoring the immense opportunities of exploiting fractional quantum states in elements other than hydrogen, and in molecules.

It's a common failing amongst the purveyors of Fake Science, and their various supporters, that they don't understand the interconnected nature of science, and the world science attempts to describe.

Because all those questions you raise are perfectly valid, and completely ignored.

I brought up the issue of hydrinos creating fusion myself, because that's certainly a possibility. Mills and his fanboys wave that away, but it matters. We know that muon catalyzed fusion exists. Even if you think the quantum theory used to explain that phenomenon is wrong, the phenomenon itself still exists. Independent researchers at multiple different labs have carried out the same experiments, and found the same results. So any theory of how hydrinos work either has to explain why they don't also show this fusion behavior, or it's likely wrong.

And that applies to all the other aspects of nuclear physics and chemistry.

But his fanboys will never admit that, because it would suggest that, more likely than not, hydrinos are just a fantasy.

If he is correct he can practice "I would like to thank the Nobel Committee". If he is incorrect he can practice "Would you like fries with that" after he is sued to poverty by investors.

You'd think that, but he's going on 30 years, and $60,000,000 dollars, with no such lawsuits. Even if he gets nailed now, that's some good innings.

 

[JeanTate]

Here in the ISF, we are just a few people, with some common interests and, no doubt, varied backgrounds, experiences, skills, university degrees, and so on. Especially those who have posted in this thread.

Yet if we accept what's in some of the sources ms has provided, at least some academic staff in at least one university physics (?) department provided some sort of endorsement or support for at least some aspect of the core idea (fractional quantum states, say). Though I should add that I didn't thoroughly check this, so I'd appreciate being told where I'm wrong.

Assume that these professional physicists had at least as much input we have had, in this thread; assume they are competent physicists. Surely they would have come to conclusions at least somewhat similar to what we've come to ... why haven't they worked on the core idea independently? I mean, even if Mills et al. do not grasp the possible consequences, in terms of the revolution in physics they surely portend they surely do, don't they? And surely the possibility of a Nobel would overcome any non disclosure qualms, wouldn't it?

Do you think it would be worthwhile finding who they are, and sending them an email with some questions?

Then there's ms himself: from his own posts here, and from other material by him on the web (per links he himself provided, and links therein), I get the impression that he considers himself quite capable to read and understand papers in at least some branches of physics, and he's on record as saying science rules (that's a paraphrase; I'll dig up his actual words later). So I think it's not a stretch to consider ms more than capable of at least understanding the revolutionary possibilities. And given his lead time, I wonder why he himself hasn't developed the ideas further, perhaps with some help from his fellow Electric Universe fans (there are huge numbers of them). Or perhaps he has, and his Nobel is just a year or two away.

There is a quite different possibility, which has been discussed here, namely that this is a scam. If so, then a very different email should be sent to those physics professors, don't you think? And some of the questions asked of ms seem very pertinent.

Finally the editors and readers of that (those?) professional journals which published the "supporting" papers: have they understood the implications? What have they done? AFAICS, nothing. Why? I mean, they are surely at least as competent physicists as those physics professors, and ms, aren't they?

What does their (apparent) inaction suggest? That they think the Mills et al. results and ideas are, um, worthless?

 

[michaelsuede]

BrLP just released a new video today of the SunCell operating above 3000° C in a commercial design. The camera attenuation was up to a factor of 10,560 times to avoid saturation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGgHD8e9sM

Even small increments above 3000° C drastically increase the final power output of the generator because the spectrum shifts more to the right, allowing the TPV cells to harness more of the energy.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yet if we accept what's in some of the sources ms has provided, at least some academic staff in at least one university physics (?) department provided some sort of endorsement or support for at least some aspect of the core idea (fractional quantum states, say).

Could you be more specific about where is that support supposed to be?

Of four "endorsements" provided in the OP I take the time to skim through one of them looking for elements to further analyse and I found what I've already commented:

• published in Mills' website
• weirdly laid out -seems it was edited in haste-
• author's field of expertise not related with the core of Mills' work
• noticeable omissions, like who provided the samples and details about their preparation
• size of samples so small that the effect that was supposedly measured was in the same order of the instrumental error margin for the whole time frame of the experiment
• that instrumental error margin is not shown nor discussed
• lack of any declaration of interest or lack thereof (so it was just BrLP works and nothing else)
• a mute author (the author, like other authors in that list and other lists, only speaks on the subject in that paper and nowhere else, so they seem to be legally gagged to keep their mouth shut)
• in the only place the author speaks -the "paper"- he says "I saw something".

 

[Mike!]

Wow, a video that could be a minute and a half of virtually anything bright, noisy and out of focus.
Where do I sign up?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Wow, a video that could be a minute and a half of virtually anything bright, noisy and out of focus.
Where do I sign up?

You see? Never a link to a video and the text "it's self-explanatory".

Always the text that incepts the notion one should see.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Also ... the shiny light (that is, the burning bush) ... never an image of an instrument measuring an output.