Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[JeanTate]

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.

Cite?

No, not his book, a paper. And please quote from it.

 

[JeanTate]

If markie has indeed left us, and ms continues to be shy, it's likely I too will soon stop posting in this thread.

One final (?) thought though, not a particularly original or new one, but worth repeating I think.

Mills et al. use Mills' CQM to account for the existence of hydrinos, and for hydrinos to account for some (most? all??) of the experimental results they report.

CQM is fatally flawed (see Rathke 2005), and Mills has apparently made no attempt to fix it, or produce a replacement. Nor has anyone else (including markie and ms).

Without this theoretical underpinning, what can account for (how to explain) the experimental results Mills et al. have published?

One - very likely - possibility is "nothing special"; it's just ordinary atoms and ions interacting with electric fields and photons in conditions that haven't been particularly well-studied before (or not). This would nicely explain the (quite a few) papers which report failures to independently replicate/reproduce Mills' results (markie commented on only one of these, and seems/seemed unaware of just how many there are).

There is, however, a disturbing alternative possibility, albeit an unlikely one.

What if some strange, new form of hydrogen (or silver, or ...) was, in fact, produced in the many Mills et al. experiments? From what is published (and what markie has posted here), it's pretty clear that Mills et al. didn't take particularly stringent precautions to collect/prevent from escaping/destroy any such compounds/allotropes/whatever. So it is highly likely that the BLP site (sites?) has been contaminated with such exotic materials, including any forms which they morph into, as they interact with atmospheric oxygen, salt, soil bacteria, ...

You see where I'm going, right? There are many examples from history of careless (even careful) experimenters and entrepreneurs wrecking havoc with their new discovery, due - as we know in hindsight - to ignorance. Who's to say 493 Old Trenton Rd, East Windsor, NJ won't one (soon even) become as infamous as the asbestos mines of yore?

Perhaps we have a civic duty to make the relevant local authorities fully aware of what's going on at BLP? What do you think?

 

[LTC8K6]

What?
You wrap the heat source in pipes, and through those pipes you pump water. That super-heated water squirts out of the end at high pressure and spins a turbine. The turbine is attached to a generator. Could anything be simpler?

They had that idea ready in 2008...

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/blacklight-power-follow-up-and-other.html

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/controversial-blacklight-power-signs.html

 

[LTC8K6]

And just as a reminder, everything is now set to blow up the markets in 2017:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/readers-can-submit-questions-for.html

 

[jrhowell]

For reference, the Village Voice article referenced above: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/quantum-leap-6420156

One type of hydrino combined with an acid would produce incredibly powerful explosives or rocket propellants.

Hydrino and metal compounds make for super-strong coatings, some of which could make ships rustproof, dramatically reducing crew complements.

Wow! It seems that Hydrino 1.0 combines with all sorts of other chemicals.

Good thing they came up with Hydrino 2.0 which is so unreactive that it is a potential form of dark matter.


(I am also struck by the claims in the 1999 article of the science all being worked out and commercialization to be well under way within the year. Where have I heard that before?)

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps we have a civic duty to make the relevant local authorities fully aware of what's going on at BLP? What do you think?

You will go nowhere. Or better said I would be surprised you go anywhere near getting the police or any other institution interested. The only one which *may* have a standing would be the investors. And even then, I am pretty sure you can wrap any of that in such a legalese "maybe", "no proof it works" and so forth that the burden of proof would probably be difficult to meet.

It is very rare something like that stopped. The only example I can think of are when people make claims on health or security, and people complain. e.g. the bomb detector 451 was stopped, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Aepervius]

Heck look at steorn : after a few scratching the surface it became very clear that the company had nothing , and yet they went through the usual "iterations" process : pretend they have a better gizmo, will only take a few more month to make better, then drop the previous "working" gizmo (sounds familiar with BLP, ain't it ?).

They went like that fully mechanical stuff => half mechanical electrical => fully solid state. It was so laughable, and yet it went on for 10 years until the company was liquidated and they burned through 23 million of investor money, pretended up to the end to have something, even the red monkey/skull head they pretended to have , none were to my knowledge sold.

Heck even Sean Mccarthy at many point left hint that this was a big hunk of baloney, like giving a price for his stuff the same number as the nigeria scam number, and the "dunking donkey".

You cannot be more obvious and they still got money, and so far no complaint.

So what do you think will happens with mills ? My bet is that when he dies of natural death , it all drops into utter obscurity.

 

[marplots]

So what do you think will happens with mills ? My bet is that when he dies of natural death , it all drops into utter obscurity.

Or he'll spawn a cult, a la Tesla.

 

[jaydeehess]

Or he'll spawn a cult, a la Tesla.

Tesla actually invented new tech though. iirc the A/C motor for eg.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Or he'll spawn a cult, a la Tesla.

Or Velikovsky?

 

[Reality Check]

Yes you are right, the answer is found in Mill's alternative theory.

What makes Mills fantasy of hydrinos into a delusion is the simple observation that excited states of atom spontaneously decay. This is spontaneous emission which cannot be explained by classical physics. For example Transitions in Hydrogen: 2p -> 1s emits 10.2 eV photons at a rate of 6.27 * 10⁸ per second.

What Mills really does is turn the ground state of hydrogen into one of an infinite number of excited states ! He has an incoherent fantasy (see page 32) that that the ground and lower states are stable.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If markie has indeed left us, and ms continues to be shy, it's likely I too will soon stop posting in this thread.

One final (?) thought though, not a particularly original or new one, but worth repeating I think.

Mills et al. use Mills' CQM to account for the existence of hydrinos, and for hydrinos to account for some (most? all??) of the experimental results they report.

CQM is fatally flawed (see Rathke 2005), and Mills has apparently made no attempt to fix it, or produce a replacement. Nor has anyone else (including markie and ms).

...

I've been thinking in starting a "Hydrino hoax thread" to replace this one. Because the subject it's worth our attention. And because of the michaelsuede's of the world, who start threads with "jolly good news" (re-read the OP) just to keep control of the ground, like an angelologist who's still using this forum as a proof he's right. That must end.

 

[Reality Check]

Blindly accepting the existence of hydrino? "No evidence"? Ha!

More blind faith in the hydrino delusion is not you showing that you know why the idea is delusional, markie.

No researcher not even Mills has published the measurement of the spectrum that Mills predicts for his hydrinos, [B thus there is no evidence that hydrinos exist - Duh![/B]

 

[Reality Check]

From what you said in your post 754 (which I just read) it looks like you read the Introduction to Mill's GUTCP.

I have read more than the introduction. Anyone who can read English and has a physics degree - and in some cases high school science - can read just how ignorance and deluded Mills is.

20 February 2017: Mills delusion that what QM explains can be explained by classical physics.
20 February 2017: Mills delusion that an electron with a measured radius of less than a proton is as big as an atom.
20 February 2017: Why Mills papers suggest an ignored crank idea.
25 January 2017: Mills idiocy of trying to throw away quantum mechanics for purely classical physics.

Page 17 (ONE-ELECTRON ATOMS: NONRADIATION SONDITION) does in fact begin with a classic bound electron because that is explicitly stated in the lie about the Haus condition: "The condition for nonradiation for a moving point charge...". The condition is for an ensemble of moving charges as Mills even states in the next sentence !

 

[Reality Check]

A paper not mentioning hydrinos is not supporting the existence of hydrinos

You are mischaracterizing the results of that experiment by Mills and Conrads.

I am stating what they stated in the abstract, markie - not one mention of hydrinos !

It is a lie that this paper has evidence for "fractional energy levels of hydrogen" when all it reports are the known spectrums of hydrogen. There is an irrelevant puzzle of why one plasma formed while another did not but the authors suggest a valid answer - chemical reactions.

Thus Accountability lies when it cites Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) as evidence for hydrinos.

That is probably one lie of several in that section - the next 5 papers have no mention of hydrinos on their titles.

 

[Hans]

(I am also struck by the claims in the 1999 article of the science all being worked out and commercialization to be well under way within the year. Where have I heard that before?)

Wait a few years and Mill and minions will have a new version out that works as well as the present one and all the ones before....lol

 

[Hans]

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

A retreat is a wise things since you've been shredded here as would anyone who thinks Mills is legit. It is in the past actions of his various company's that the powerful stench of fraud is found. You aren't being paid? You need a better way to spend your time then.

I suggest you re-think your acceptance of Mills deception and not spend your time trying to defend the un-defendable.

If you are being paid - you defrauded Mills into thinking you could cover up his gross errors. Either way, failure.

Bye

 

[Reality Check]

It's interesting that skeptics swoon over Rathke's critique. ...

It is even more interesting that you go on about Mills publishing some papers but dismiss a published paper from what looks like a stance of ignorance of science, markie.
The Schrodinger equation works. Mills ignorance and delusions about the Schrodinger equation do not make it not work or "inappropriate".

Schrodinger did not "regret what his equation became used for". He regarded it as a appropriate non-relativistic equation, useful for many cases. He did want the wavefunction to be more physical, e.g. a charge identity, and disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation.

This is A. Rathke (2005), "A critical analysis of the hydrino model", New Journal of Physics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 127 (2005)

Recently, spectroscopic and calorimetric observations of hydrogen plasmas and chemical reactions with them have been interpreted as evidence for the existence of electronic states of the hydrogen atom with a binding energy of more than 13.6 eV. The theoretical basis for such states, that have been dubbed hydrinos, is investigated. We discuss both, the novel deterministic model of the hydrogen atom, in which the existence of hydrinos was predicted, and standard quantum mechanics. Severe inconsistencies in the deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino states with quantum mechanics is reviewed.

So of course the Schrodinger equation ("quantum mechanics "!) should be mentioned in the paper.

 

[abaddon]

Thanks.

So now we have Joseph Conrads (per your source), Hannah Conrads (lead author of the paper your source cited), and Dr. Johannes Conrads.

Why am I hearing duelling banjos?

 

[Reality Check]

Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice ....

This is a lie by quote mining an uncited news story, markie, since the actual story back in 1999 includes

"It's the American story," says Dr. Robert Park of the American Physical Society. "But he's still wrong."

Park has concluded that the hydrino theory is wrong in his upcoming book, Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. Park is not alone is being rankled by hydrinos. The hydrogen atom is the simplest, most common, and most tested element. It's nearly universally agreed that a free-floating hydrogen atom is in what's called "the ground state"—you can't bring its electron closer into its nucleus. Telling physicists that they've got that wrong is like telling mothers across America that they've misunderstood apple pie. It's that fundamental.

"If you could **** around with the hydrogen atom, you could **** around with the energy process in the sun. You could **** around with life itself," claims Dr. Phillip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics at Princeton University. "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."

Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist based at City University of New York, adds that "the only law that this business with Mills is proving is that a fool and his money are easily parted."