Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[Dave Rogers]

Well I found the picture of the capacitor, along with other parts used in the prototype SunCell. It's a Maxwell 2.85 volt electrolytic capacitor.

Jesus Christ on a *********** bike, is he shorting a pair of 3400 farad supercapacitors through a tungsten filament? No wonder it's melting; no need for hydrinos to do something like that.

Dave

 

[Reality Check]

Can you understand that a non-hydrino paper cannot support hydrinos

Conrads was not a believer in hydrinos - he was a QM guy ...

Ignorant and irrelevant. Conrads, H is probably Hannah Conrads. The paper suggest a unknown chemical reaction forming a plasma.

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

markie: Can you understand that a paper not mentioning hydrinos is not support for hydrinos and so that Accountability citation is a lie?
Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate

The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source.

 

[The Man]

Dihydrino gas seems optimistic. I don't see why hydrinos would form molecules if they are in this sub-ground state. Where would the bonding energy come from? Your noble gases are all monatomic.

ETA: Then again, why bother even guessing when quantum mechanics has it all wrong anyhow? If Mills reports dihydrino gas, that's good enough for me. The guy is a Renaissance man, after all. Don't question genius.

That hydrinos from a diatomic molecules and other compounds means they are reactive and interactive. Bound states are a negative potential meaning they have less energy than free states.

Electronegativity is a measure for an atom's affinity for electrons. The reason oxidation is named after oxygen is because it is so electronegative (second only to fluorine) that it will often rip an electron from another molecule. Hence the loss of an electron(s) is called oxidation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/electronegativity.htm

Hydrogen winds up about 20th down from fluorine and just above phosphorus and arsenic.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_molecule

The only stable homonuclear diatomic molecules at standard temperature and pressure are the gasses (in order of electronegativity).

Fluorine (F₂)
Oxygen (O₂)
Chlorine (Cl₂)
Nitrogen (N₂)

And...

Hydrogen (H₂)


That hydrinos are said to also from a diatomic molecule at STP certainly gives no indication that they would be any less reactive and interactive as hydrogen or any of the other atoms that form such homonuclear diatomic molecules mentioned above. With Mill's evidently and obviously contradictory chemical assertion about hydrinos, he may have to give back that university chemistry prize you mentioned before.

 

[Aepervius]

I was going from the well know quote of Schrodinger:



He developed his equation rather on a lark, (if I recall the history) in part because it could be parameterized to solve the hydrogen atom. But just look what it became. The very excuse for "shut up and calculate."

As said once a few pages ago, this was about the Copenhagen interpretation of the measurement problem. Gee.... Is it so hard to google the quote, after the first time we pointed that out to you ?

 

[Aepervius]

Dihydrino gas seems optimistic. I don't see why hydrinos would form molecules if they are in this sub-ground state. Where would the bonding energy come from? Your noble gases are all monatomic.

ETA: Then again, why bother even guessing when quantum mechanics has it all wrong anyhow? If Mills reports dihydrino gas, that's good enough for me. The guy is a Renaissance man, after all. Don't question genius.

Why dihidrino. Why not quadrino. After all, the bond must not represent the "classical" QM bond.

Once you start down, why not go even deeper.

 

[Reality Check]

If you recall, the quote it was simply to establish the proper name of Dr. Conrads!

That makes the quote into close to an actual lie rather than an attempt to quote mine an article, markie !
The question was Who is this "possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world" Joseph Conrads?

You relied with a Dr. Johannes Conrads:

• "Johannes" is not "Joseph"
  The English equivalent is John.
• No evidence that Johannes Conrads is "possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world"
• No evidence that Johannes Conrads has ever published on hydrinos (an "outside primary author").
  All we have is an anecdote of ""remarkably high energy" from a Mills cell"

 

[Reality Check]

Mill's orbitsphere is not rigid.

What makes Mills orbitsphere delusional is not adding a fantasy of it not being rigid.
It is his delusion that an electron is the size of an atom when the radius of an electron is measured to be less than a proton.
It is his statement about angular momentum that you remain ignorant about.

Mills delusions include that the electron is an extended charged object the size of an atom. Later he has a fantasy of currents on that surface producing "intrinsic angular momentum". Those imaginary currents are that "spinning surface" and will have to be moving faster than the speed of light to produce the measured spin.

 

[Hans]

Did you know Mills will be bringing his product to market in the next year or two?

That's what I heard.

Gosh what is that the fourth or fifth time he's made that claim.....chuckle

 

[markie]

Nothing more soul-less than conning tens of millions $ out of other people.

Having no conscience about it makes a person more like a crocodile or giant anaconda. A reptile.

These dark triad personalities that self-select into con artistry are excellent mimics though - they know how to fake charm, use false flattery, and in general camouflage the nasty business of theft by fraud.

But we do see here that the nasty personal attacks, and projecting the con-artist's lack of a soul onto the targets - no matter how subtle you try to make it... nasty, nasty business indeed.

Project much? I'm not the one assuming the worst in people.

 

[Hans]

Given the limited tool kit for Millsfanatics I suspect another poster will be along sooner than later to go over all the same ground again.

Well dang we didn't get a new person just.............markie - again.

Mark me down as sadden by this lack of interest by Mills! He is obviously uninterested in silencing his detractors perhaps he is going to try and tire us out by boring everyone to death?

 

[markie]

The next Mills fairy story: Page 1509 on the composition of the universe has the fantasy that "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon.".
The best interpretation of that bit of gibberish in a page of nonsense is that he is trying to describe electron capture where "electron neutrino" = electron and "photon" = proton. But he repeats this assertions.

You have it so wrong it's not even funny. Just saying.

 

[Reality Check]

No need to restrict "a distribution of accelerated charges" to be a distribution of point electrons.

No need to write ignorance about science, markie !

The Haus condition is derived from considering a collection of accelerated charged point particles. It is invalid to assume that it applies to anything else.
The Haus condition does not apply to a collection of protons (they are not point particles).
The Haus condition does not apply to a collection of electrons in constant motion (they are not being accelerated).
The Haus condition does not apply to a collection of neutrons (they are not charged and are not point particles).
And very obvious to anyone who can count to more than 1 - the Haus condition does not apply to a single particle even if not a point particle !

Mills deludingly applied the Haus condition to

1. A single "electron".
2. A "electron" that is not a point particle.

To remove that delusion, Mills has to derive the Haus condition for a collection of N extended charges and then show that it is still valid when N = 1.

 

[Hans]

Project much? I'm not the one assuming the worst in people.

You are the one trying to defend a serial fraudster by using comic book science....all you really need to do is convince us that what he has been doing since 1991 makes sense.....can you do that?

 

[Hans]

You have it so wrong it's not even funny. Just saying.

Why just say its wrong when you can prove its wrong? Care too?

 

[Reality Check]

Is this a Mills quote: The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon

You have it so wrong it's not even funny. Just saying.

You are displaying deep ignorance about Mills book. Just pointing out the obvious.

markie: Is this a Mills quote from Page 1509 : "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon"
Is it repeated at the bottom of page 1509?

I will ask the same question for the other Mills quotes if you dispute that that are what Mills actually writes in his book.

 

[Reality Check]

Mills basically lies on at Page 1510 with "predicts an electron neutrino background which could account for atmospheric neutrino anomaly [48]" and [48] CERN Courier June (1996), p 1.
Cracking the neutrino enigma (PDF)
That is an observation from 20 years ago and well before his book.
In 1996, a "naïve" prediction of the neutrinos from cosmic rays gave a ratio of muon to electron neutrinos of two to 1. The measured value is 0.6.
In 1998, the first experimental evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations was announced. This resolved the atmospheric neutrino anomaly.

The book is a September, 2016 edition - Mills is at least ignorant about a discovery 18 years ago ! Not doing basic research makes this close to a lie.

Neutrino oscillation

 

[hecd2]

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?

I don't know how you are getting that information, but the electrons of an atom are always treated as spherical surfaces.

I can see that bound electrons are treated as spherical surfaces (with non-uniform charge and mass density, characterised by spherical multipoles defined on the associated Legendre polynomials) in the Introduction (I.63 to I.65). (By the way, these expressions are the ones that Rathke shows are not solutions to the wave equation - don't forget to give us a link or reference to Mills's rebuttal).

However in Chapter 10, the chapter where Mills ostensibly works out the orbital radius and ionisation potential of atoms with electrons numbering from three to 20, he treats the electron as a point particle:

• Take for example 10.12, his expression for the radius of the outer electron of the lithium atom, in which he sets the central centrifugal force on the electron equal to the electrical and magnetic forces on it - mv^2/r is the centrifugal force on a point rotating with velocity v at radius r.
• He repeats the use of expressions which relate to points throughout this long, tedious and numerological chapter, in many cases explicitly stating that the forces are central forces, which are not consistent with an extended spherical body centred on the nucleus. For a very small sample see 10.2, 10.29, 10.36, 10.56, 10.98 etc etc ad nauseam. And in fact the assumption of the electron as a point charge and mass is implicit in almost every expression in Chapter 10.

Given that one foundation of his hypothesis is that the electron exists as an infinite series of multipoles on a sphere, and that in this chapter, in which he performs the trumpeted task of predicting the ionisation potentials of a vast number of multi-electron atoms up to 20 electrons, he treats the electron as a point mass and charge (in other words, as a point particle), then there seems to be a rather disturbing inconsistency in his hypothesis. Since his predictions are plainly based on conditions which are grossly inconsistent with his foundational idea, then aren't we justified in raising our eyebrows?

 

[hecd2]

If the foundation is so rotten, one wonders how he correctly predicts so many things like ionization energies.

Numerology? You start with the measured values in each case and create an apparently plausible rationale to arrive at an expression that gives something like the empirical values. Who is going to check the derivation of every prediction from three to 20 electrons, each for multiple elements with Z>n, when the foundational science has been shown to be fatally flawed?

 

[markie]

Because Mills lies about using only classical physics by hardwiring quantum physics, e.g. the allowed energy levels from the Bohr model that produce ionization energies !
In case you are ignorant about this read Rathke (2005):

But Mills did not get the correct ionization energies. Real hydrogen atoms have a more complex spectrum than what Mills thinks. There is fine structure which was the first experimental evidence for electron spin. See Hydrogen Fine Structure. There is the Lamb shift.

What looks like a lie about a rebuttal to Rathke's paper - cite the journal where it was published, markie.
My guess - a web page floating around the Internet that no scientist, especially Rathke, knows about.

As one who is reading (and wildly misrepresenting btw) Mills GUTCP, you'll eventually come across Mill's fine work on the Fine Structure and the Lamb Shift.

 

[hecd2]

If you think Phelps&Clementson and Rathke's responses show 'conclusively' that CQM has 'no legs', I can conclude your skepticism is rather selective.

If Mills's expressions are not solutions to the wave equation, then his theory is mathematically inconsistent and unphysical, and despite the rest of the "tome", it has no legs. There's nothing selective about that.