Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[markie]

Part 3.

Again, thanks for this.
(my bold)

If and when you do get to know some research scientists, I think you'll find that few, if any, treat WP as reliable (mathematicians may be an exception; WP is, so I've been told, pretty good for mathematics).

Instead, they will read the journals they - or their department - subscribes to, and arXiv (though that depends on the field). An equally good source is conversations and presentations at conferences, workshops, symposia, colloquia, meetings ... I'd be quite surprised if Mills' ideas had not come up at quite a few of these, and just as surprised to learn that no one ever followed up by reading the actual papers.


(my bold)

The following may seem OT, but indulge me, please.

Halton Arp was an exceptionally good observational astronomer.

In the mid-1960s, he observed some quasars (quasi-stellar radio sources), and wrote some papers on them. When they were discovered, quasars were a real mystery, and Arp's early papers - proposing that the high redshifts observed were due, at least in large part, to "intrinsic" factors - seemed to fit the data as well as any other idea.

However, within a year or three, it became increasingly obvious that Arp's idea was not such a good fit to the data. Nevertheless, he kept observing and publishing papers on "intrinsic redshifts". And a very competent cosmologist (Narlikar) developed a physical model ("variable mass hypothesis") which could explain Arp's (and others') observations.

Time passed. The quantity of high quality data on quasars (later named QSOs, quasi-stellar objects, because most turned out to be not radio sources) grew exponentially (yes, in this case that's a true statement). Models which matched all relevant data far, far better than Arp/Narlikar's models/hypotheses were published. Arp remained unconvinced, and kept publishing papers. Many of which, IMHO, would never have been published but for the fact that they had "Arp, H." as the lead author.

Many years' later, he wrote a book, "Seeing Red" (I think that's its name). It sold quite a few copies, I think, and is widely cited by many with crackpot ideas.

Why am I mentioning this? Especially to you, markie?

Because Arp's book is, by itself, pretty persuasive! If you do not have formal training in astronomy (etc), or have not taught yourself, it would be very difficult for you to appreciate just how wrong (inconsistent with all relevant data) Arp's ideas are (as presented in that book).

Perhaps Mills' book is as persuasive, or even more so? But if you do not have formal training in the relevant fields of physics and chemistry, how can you judge the validity of the ideas presented in it?

Of course I can see your very well laid out point. Arp had a fundamental idea and went full tilt with it, even despite growing evidences against it.

Mill's theory has minimal first principles and yet it is highly predictive of phenomena such as spectra and bond energies. I hate to sound like a salesman, but you really should read the Introduction in GUTCP. Much better than me blathering on.

 

[markie]

I don't think I'll find that over there, nor through the looking glass, even with Alice's help . Is it that a standard reply you all are instructed to give when caught telling stupid things? "Yeah, you'll find the details there ... over there ... it's in the cloud".

Thank you for trying to make me lose my time. I prefer to concentrate in the tomfoolery you're spilling here many times a day.

You're losing *your* time? Well I'll see if I can find the capacitor model for you.

 

[Hans]

Of course I can see your very well laid out point. Arp had a fundamental idea and went full tilt with it, even despite growing evidences against it.

Mill's theory has minimal first principles and yet it is highly predictive of phenomena such as spectra and bond energies. I hate to sound like a salesman, but you really should read the Introduction in GUTCP. Much better than me blathering on.

er why? Why read something from which nothing has ever come out it but bad science and useless jargon.

Until your hero Mills produces something that does something - something he has failed to do - in what 25 YEARS looking at old gibberish about what he imagines he can do isn't really going to help....

 

[markie]

You really don't have the slightest idea of anything you are talking about. Is it another instruction of the set? Being assertive while telling cock and bull tales?

Are you saying that Mills went to CNN with a prop so it could give him an air of "techie guy" when the only certifiable fact is he showing himself with a prop in the news to promote bu$ine$$.

And, pal, don't insist throwing foolish conjectures. Those pipes do nothing, they're just decoration because, you know what? cooling systems take heat to bring it far away from its source. The decorative piping even includes T junctions almost stuck to the core. That was made in Hollywood or Vancouver, not in Palo Alto or Seattle.

Bring back michaelsuede. He's much more articulated than you.

Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps. I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.

 

[Hans]

Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice (written 1999) that sheds some light, pun intended.

Oh really and do we have 'Mills cell' that we can test this on?

Nope

Again after TWENTY FIVE YEARS - WHERE IS THE PRODUCT?

You see Markie that is elephant in the room. All this unscientific jibberish, lies and make believe all falls apart on one key point.

One you cannot get past or cover up.

He ain't got nothing now does he. How about you, Mill and all the fraud masters get into a room and think about it a bit.....maybe the light bulb will go on... duh...duh.... maybe we should make something to show we got somethin'....duh.

I mean this is pretty simple isn't it?

 

[markie]

Then, according to you the same oxygen atoms from the Misterious Oxyde™ are used once and again with and endless stream of hydrogen atoms soon to become hydrinos one by one. That awfully looks like a stream of investors being brought away into the dark and blown with an truncheon to get their money.

That's the power of Mysterious Oxide™: to be both a catalyst and the only possible source for "quality" oxygen. That's why it has to be carried on a stream of silver: nothing less noble would be suitable. Can you link to any theorization on this wonderful neo-physics? ... yeah, I know, surely it's over there within BLP website, end of corridor, on the right .

A local quack gets lots of money from his dying victims by giving them pills coated in gold leaf. The silver stream transporting the Mysterious Oxide™ here is exactly the same. Especially because the same oxygen atoms in the Mysterious Oxide™ are used once and again for an endless production of hydrinos, so the oxide should be brought in just once, on a silver cushion, and with a fanfare.

Well I admit you have a good sense of humour.

 

[Hans]

Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps.


[/quoteI presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.

....that uses domestic house copper piping that would melt from the heat your talking about, THAT 'engineering company'?

 

[markie]

Have you read and understood the GUTCP book, markie?
For anyone who has learned even just the history of science the book is non-science. The reason that classical physics was abandoned as a description of atoms was that classical physics could not describe what we have discovered about atoms in over 2 centuries from 1802.

Spectroscopy started in the 17th century and in 1802, spectral lines in the solar spectrum were discovered. The Rydberg formula was presented on 5 November 1888 - an empirical rule for the spacing of spectral lines. Rutherford's researchers Geiger and Marsden discovered that atoms were electrons around a nucleus in 1908. This raised the problem that electrons in classical orbits lose energy giving atoms lifetimes of picoseconds ! The fix for this started with the Bohr model of 1913 which introduced discrete energy levels.

The idea that electrons could be extended spinning objects was evaluated and abandoned in early 1925 - Spin (History). The idea of an electron with a "fourth degree of freedom" - an intrinsic property of spin - was published by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit: The discovery of the electron spin by S.A. Goudsmit. The experimental confirmation that spin is an intrinsic property of particles was already published in the 1922 Stern–Gerlach experiment. The evidence for the upper limit of the radius of electrons ranges from the classical radius of 10^-15 to a Pennng trap suggestion of 10^-22 metres. These are smaller than a proton and enormously smaller than an atom.

Sure, a *rigidly* spinning object was ruled out. But Mills doesn't propose such an object, just so you know.

 

[Hans]

Well I admit you have a good sense of humour.

Again avoiding what he was saying. You are supporting a fraud markie - try to understand your position in relationship to everyone else in the thread.

All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalallala

It's still a fraud.

 

[markie]

Also looking at its orbisphere is funny, and the comparison against the bohr model, one which we know fail at many point and is not used. In fact many of the agreement of the bohr model with QM is considered accidental. As for the photon infinitely trapped in an orbitsphere, apparently mills does not handle well tunneling. Maybe we should make meet Pr Nimtz .

FYI, Mills does handle tunnelling. In a word, it is accomplished because the electron has spatial extent. It is not some point particle one one side of a barrier that magically appears on the other side.

 

[MikeG]

Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe.......

With a superfluous "e". Mills would take that "e", coat it in silver, pass the mains current through it, and extract 25 years of "investment". People like you would come along and tell us that domestic plumbing copper pipes are high engineering, and that this will all turn to a huge pot of gold in just a few months. Bingo! Everybody wins. So here, have a few more......


eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEeeeeeeeeee

That should keep you and him going for the next few years.

 

[markie]

Well the weekend is over, and I've spend way too much time on this computer, with so many other things to do. Time to cut back. I won't be posting so much anymore, so please don't expect much from me.

Hans would like to think I am paid(!) for my blather. Of course not. I have no affiliation with Mills or BLP, except that I am on a public online discussion group where Dr. Mills sometimes contributes. I only know of this site because someone - Peter W - very briefly mentioned he had posted here. I was curious, and curiosity almost killed this cat. I'm half alive, or simply just sleep deprived. Thanks Mr. Schrodinger, I think.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[MikeG]

Well the weekend is over, and I've spend way too much time on this computer, with so many other things to do. Time to cut back. I won't be posting so much anymore, so please don't expect much from me........

Don't forget to send michaelsuede back here, then.

 

[Aepervius]

For sure, and I am acutely aware of this aspect. But those in academia are people and not immune to herd dynamics. If a couple of prominent scientists endorsed Mill's work, the floodgates would open I think. (One can dream.) Mills already has a number of smart people at universities who are willing to endorse at least certain aspects of his work. But as it is now, it looks like it will take something like a functioning SunCell to turn the tide.

Sigh. Again , some of academia are not immune but as a whole the youngest scientist are utterly immune, in the hope to stumble onto "something" anything leading to a nobel price.

AGAIN, that is why so many of us snuffed around steorn and lenr and rossi.

The fact that there is so many scientist haunting in those forums before they were deleted, is quite a sign of interest.

But you know what ? All those scheme seems to be immune against the most important factor in science : openness of the result to enable replication. Scam don't like communicating easy to check results : that show the emperor has no cloth waaaay too quick. They always use excuse like patent and protecting ip and stuff, while at the same time asking for investments.

Mills is not an exception, he acts the same as the pack of vermin sucking money out of gullible. And he has been for the last 25 years.

If hydrino was such a thing, he would have had a proper article, experimentally sound and independentely replicable way to produce them.

Guess what ? Good luck to point a proper article which a person of knowledge (physic, chemistry) could use to replicate any of his experiment.

For example, he once cited that his work had been verified by a researcher at Harvard. In fact, he'd had one of his associates rent a piece of equipment at Harvard, and use it for a test. So yes, it was tested by a researcher - if you count his associate as a legitimate researcher. And it was tested at Harvard. But the claim that it was tested by a researcher at Harvard is clearly meant to imply that it was tested by a Harvard professor, when it wasn't.

For something around 20 years, he's been making promises, giving very tightly controlled demos, refusing to give any real details, refusing to actually explain how to reproduce his "results", and promising that it's just one year away from being commercialized!

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/

www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

No matter what randals rants about the article being wrong, AGAIN, there is no proper experimental data allowing replication. And as such all we are left is our current physic which tells Mills is a crackpot. The shoe fits perfectly, and i would add it has EVERY aspect I would expect of a scam.

 

[hecd2]

It's interesting that skeptics swoon over Rathke's critique. I remember reading it some years ago and was not impressed. As I recall he tried to describe the hydrino in terms of the Schrodinger equation, and it didn't support the existence of hydrinos. Well of course it didn't! A major point in GUTCP is that Schrodinger's equation is not the way to do it, and reasonable grounds imo for this are given in GUTCP.
Furthermore, how many people realize that Schrodinger himself regretted what his equation became used for? Pardon the bad grammar.

Rathke only turns to standard QM in section 3 of his paper to see if it supports the existence of states below the accepted ground state (it doesn't) after having demolished the foundation of Mills's theory in Section 2 of his paper. In section 2, he demonstrates that Mills solution to the classical wave equation is mathematically inconsistent and unphysical. Since the foundation of Mills theory is irredeemably rotten, then all the screeds of stuff that Mills builds on it is worthless. That's why it's ignored by everyone in the physics community.

 

[hecd2]

Sure, a *rigidly* spinning object was ruled out. But Mills doesn't propose such an object, just so you know.

So why, in Chapter 10 of his book, where he is trying to calculate the orbital radii and ionisation potential of 3 to 20 electron atoms, does he treat the electron as a point particle?

 

[aleCcowaN]

You're losing *your* time? Well I'll see if I can find the capacitor model for you.

NO, YOU WON'T AND YOU KNOW IT!

You, like Mills, are in the business of promising what's not there.

You don't realize how much it shows your complete lack of skills and education in the matters you're trying to explain. You talk of unicorns as if you were talking of dogs. That is your capacitor. A unicorn.

I don't know what kind of justification is in your mind. I guess it's something like "I'm not learned in this but I know I'm right so I'm allowed some white lies to compensate for all of this mistreat I get for defending the future".

 

[LTC8K6]

They're so embarrassed by this that you never see it stated clearly: they're going to run solar panels off light bulbs. In order to run light bulbs.

Which immediately points out you need electricity to run the light bulb, there is no power production as he's admitted.

They can blow filaments in light bulbs. An incredible feat.

Yes, it is amazing how childishly stupid it is when stated directly. It isn't just the heat that is "waste" in bizzaro-world here. The light too is "waste". You cannot use the light directly. To light up a room or a building. We need to send it off into orbit with mirrors to set the moon on fire so it warms the earth.

Fun stuff.

I'm going to put solar panels in front of the headlights on my Jeep...

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps. I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.

Let's analyse the three parts of your post:

«Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery.»

What you believe here to be irony by self-deprecation is, in fact, strictly true. You're Mills' cannon fodder.

«Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps.»

No. That is their scripted function. They have no technical function and that's evident. You don't only are not knowledgeable but you refuse to reason: heat dissipation is performed by dissipators, not by 'hood hardware store copper plumbing in an, admittedly, low quality prop to be paraded in news channels. Besides, the piping comes out of the base and returns to it, so heat could only be dissipated in the visible part, which makes no sense. If heat dissipation is necessary, the heat would be forced out with air. If heat is necessary for operation, like the wrapping "design" suggests, then insulation is needed. The more you think of it technically (and not only to make excuses like you do) the more ridiculous it looks.

«I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.»

You tried to pull up an induced inference, the kind michealsuede masters, but you got a non-sequitur, so you're also doing wrong in the deception department . Contractors are known to do what they are paid to do*. They're not auditors. Besides, let me know the names of all the engineering companies retained and I'll run an inquiry about who claims authorship for any design in the prop shown in CNN. Let's see if they want their names linked to Mills'.

What? It's listed in the wonderful BLP website? Left of the capacitor specification and right of the unicorn pen?

*I can't find in youtube the segment from Funny People (1976) where two workers are hired to wrap four filled balloon sets in kraft paper.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well I admit you have a good sense of humour.

What a charming way of being elusive you have .