Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[jaydeehess]

Circus tricks and obfuscation. If Mills really had a working prototype he wouldn't need to put on a light show and rely on some ad hoc measurements by engineers who either didn't know what to look for, or knew exactly what not to look for, depending on how close they are to Mills.

He could just show the hydrinos his machine produces and definitively prove his theories right.

I have watched magicians pull objects right through a solid pane of glass. I cannot explain and , I venture, neither could a physicist.

 

[marplots]

Well when Mills demonstrated the SunCell operation to engineers in Boston some months ago, they couldn't explain the source of power densities that would lead to the destruction observed.

From reading this thread, it appears Mills can't explain it either.

 

[jaydeehess]

Science is about proposing a hypothesis, determining a test or prediction that will possibly falsify the hypothesis, and then conducting some sort of experiment to determine if the test or prediction pans out.

So:

Hypothesis: Mills and BLP are scammers, currently working the latest in a long line of scams.

Prediction 1: The current version of the scam will, as usual, not produce a working commercial product within 18 months.

Prediction 2: The current version of the scam will, as usual, never produce a working commercial product.

Prediction 3: The excuses for the failures predicted in 1 and 2 will be based on "issues concerned with controlling the reaction via hydrogen, oxide, silver, and ignition parameters. And of course there are engineering and materials issues with the high heat".

Prediction 4: Despite all of the above predictions coming true, the current supporters of Mills and BLP will find some excuse to continue supporting him.


So that's my theory, the theory that is mine.

,,,and, may I note, your theory is very small at one end, much wider in the middle and very small again at the other end. (In this case wrt word count in the numbered points)

 

[jaydeehess]

From reading this thread, it appears Mills can't explain it either.

True enough. He can produce a plethora of words, but none that string together to actually explain anything.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He could just show the hydrinos his machine produces and definitively prove his theories right.

This exactly, all the rest is window dressing. I don’t think Mills grasps how important his supposed hydrino is.

 

[hecd2]

As far as "the math works" goes, and someone may have pointed this out already, even if it does, it by no means constitutes any reality. There are for jnstance several competing theories of the origin of the universe as we now know it all of which have math to back them up. The fact that some are mutually exclusive illustrates that "the math works" may not mean it describes our reality.

True, but if you can show internal inconsistencies, as we have done, then you can be sure that it doesn't describe reality.

 

[Darat]

Well when Mills demonstrated the SunCell operation to engineers in Boston some months ago, they couldn't explain the source of power densities that would lead to the destruction observed.

Evidence?

 

[markie]

Markie, since you're back I hope you don't forget to respond to post #1507 here

That post was this:

Well isn't that lame? It's not even vaguely plausible that he could integrate on the sphere as you describe, and get the same result as a point charge orbiting the nucleus (which is what the expressions in question describe, as plain as the nose on your face).

He could only do that if the putative extended electron had some unphysical characteristics. It would have to have uniform mass and charge density (OK, that part's easy). The magnitudes of the mass velocity and current vectors would have to be everywhere the same, and everywhere have zero divergence (in order to maintain the uniform density condition). These are not criteria which can be met on a 2-sphere (see for example the hairy ball theorem - every smooth vector field on a sphere has at least one singular point - where the field goes to zero). He is quite unjustified in using these expressions for a point particle, and I'm justified in reiterating the fundamental internal inconsistency of his "theory".

I just disagree. Since the inverse square law of charge attraction is analogous to gravity, consider the following comparison. We have a ball of metal of a certain mass that is suspended above the earth at a certain distance (between the earth's centre of gravity and the ball's centre of gravity). Knowing the distance and the mass of the ball we can calculate the force of gravity acting on the metal ball. Now say that ball broken into a number of different sized pieces, and each piece is suspended above the earth at the same distance as the original ball. What is the total force of gravity acting on the pieces? It will be the same as the the force acting on the singular ball. Similarly if the metal ball was flattened into tinfoil thickness and spread across a large area. The force of gravity acting on it will be the same. So, I don't see a problem in what Mills is doing there.

Although I see why you believe the change density should be uniform, you have to consider that this is charge on the move, so things are different. If I recall the product of the charge density function and the velocity function, which yields current density, has to be uniform.

If you're invoking the hairy ball theorem, I'm doubtful that it applies here, because each point has multiple velocity components, that is, current overlap in different directions.

The whole things requires some serious thought and rigour which I can't provide. If you are not satisfied by Mill's reasoning and rigour (which I assume you have seen in chapter 1), I won't be able to change your mind. But at least you tried and have come to a considered opinion.

 

[markie]

And yet, none of those issues stopped him from making exactly the same "6 to 18 months" claims we're currently seeing, or from signing contracts to deliver the claimed devices.


And oh, look, now we have a whole new batch of excuses to use when the SunCell fails to deliver as well.

Science is about proposing a hypothesis, determining a test or prediction that will possibly falsify the hypothesis, and then conducting some sort of experiment to determine if the test or prediction pans out.

So:

Hypothesis: Mills and BLP are scammers, currently working the latest in a long line of scams.

Prediction 1: The current version of the scam will, as usual, not produce a working commercial product within 18 months.

Prediction 2: The current version of the scam will, as usual, never produce a working commercial product.

Prediction 3: The excuses for the failures predicted in 1 and 2 will be based on "issues concerned with controlling the reaction via hydrogen, oxide, silver, and ignition parameters. And of course there are engineering and materials issues with the high heat".

Prediction 4: Despite all of the above predictions coming true, the current supporters of Mills and BLP will find some excuse to continue supporting him.


So that's my theory, the theory that is mine. It's a bit of a sucker bet though, as it's really noting more than "predicting the past", in that this is exactly what has happened several times before, but what are you gonna do? Scammers gotta scam.

My prediction is that when the first iteration of the Suncell is brought to market, many skeptics will still blame Mills for failing to make his work convincing in the previous decades, in order to justify their skepticism, smearing and slander.

 

[halleyscomet]

My prediction is that when the first iteration of the Suncell is brought to market, many skeptics will still blame Mills for failing to make his work convincing in the previous decades, in order to justify their skepticism, smearing and slander.

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

Well if THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

 

[Darat]

My prediction is that when the first iteration of the Suncell is brought to market, many skeptics will still blame Mills for failing to make his work convincing in the previous decades, in order to justify their skepticism, smearing and slander.

What a load of rubbish.

I bet every single "skeptic" here would love to be wrong about his generators. His generators would be as epoch creating as fire.

 

[Horatius]

My prediction is that when the first iteration of the Suncell is brought to market, many skeptics will still blame Mills for failing to make his work convincing in the previous decades, in order to justify their skepticism, smearing and slander.

And I predict you'll be wrong about that. Because yet another feature of the people who believe in this crap despite literally decades of failure is that they think other people are as biased and irrational as they are.

As I've said before many times, the people in this thread who understand science and physics in particular know exactly how revolutionary the development of a Real Free Energy Device would be. As we discussed above, a development such as the hydrino would impact our understanding of virtually every aspect of science, opening up huge opportunities for new research, with virtually unlimited new possibilities. And aside from the strictly scientific aspects, the social aspects are nearly unlimited as well. Cheap, clean safe energy would put paid to Global Climate Change, as well as other sorts of pollution. It would destroy the funding for states like Saudi Arabia and Iran that support terrorism. It would raise the standards of living for virtually every person in the world.

And we'd love to see all of that, even at the cost of admitting we were wrong.

Of course you don't believe that, because you're the sort of person who apparently can't admit they were wrong, even after you've tacitly admitted to 18 years of wrongness, in this one case alone. The above is nothing more than you projecting your own deficiencies onto us, with literally no evidence to back up your claim.

 

[halleyscomet]

What a load of rubbish.

I bet every single "skeptic" here would love to be wrong about his generators. His generators would be as epoch creating as fire.

It would be awesome if it worked and the waste product was harmless, or at least easy to deal with safely. A single box in the basement that heats your water, heats your home and generates your electricity, all without having to worry about utility bills other than the water company? And to get this wonderful advancement all I'd have to do was admit I was wrong about Mills?

If it worked, I'd gladly eat a few plates of crow to eliminate my gas and electric bills.

Of course, if the science were sound, how come nobody else is working on this groundbreaking tech?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Producing a commercial device is very different that having working prototypes. BLP has had the later, many times. But even small issues that can't be resolved in the prototype stage is death to developing and bringing that product to market.

Where when? Evidence? A picture? A film of it running? Meters comparing energy in vs energy out?

So far all we have seen is a light bulb burning out fast and a supposed light bulb burning out a bit slower. But absolutely NO working prototypes ever. In fact the ridiculous models we have from him so far don't even have a control panel to turn them on and off and back on again, as so far everything we have seen burns out and can't ever be turned back on. We haven't even seen a mock up model with the solar panels attached yet!

Nothing and I mean NOTHING so far presented here has given any indication of even a working prototype. Just hand waving and abra cadabra incantations between convoluted pseudoscience storytelling.

 

[Aepervius]

That post was this:



I just disagree. Since the inverse square law of charge attraction is analogous to gravity, consider the following comparison.

1/r^2 law is valid only for a monopole source and an approximation at large distance for electromagnetic attraction. While some of the equation are identical , that really break down very quickly with electromagnetism, so while you can definitevely do that for a clump of matter, this is wrong usage for a so called orbitsphere or flat surface.

 

[abaddon]

What a load of rubbish.

I bet every single "skeptic" here would love to be wrong about his generators. His generators would be as epoch creating as fire.

And you are right.

 

[Reality Check]

The first link includes a link to a "Good Math, Bad Math" blog post, dated 29 December, 2011 Hydrinos: Impressive Free Energy Crackpottery

That is a good link.
Hydrinos: Impressive Free Energy Crackpottery

Right from the start, if you know what you're doing, CQM goes off the rails. For example, CQM claims that you can describe the dynamics of an electron in terms of a classical wave charge-density function equation. Mills actually gives that function, and asserts that it respects Lorentz invariance. That's crucial - Lorentz invariance is critical for relativity: it's the fundamental mathematical symmetry that's the basis of relativity. But his equation doesn't actually respect Lorentz invariance. Or, rather, it does - but only if the electron is moving at the speed of light. Which it can't do.

FYI markie: relativity states that massive objects cannot move at the speed of light . Electrons have mass - something the Mills does not know or denies or just ignores!

 

[Reality Check]

markie: Do you know about the Geiger–Marsden (Rutherford) experiment and its successors?
For over 100 years we have scattering particles off atoms without these particles bouncing off or even interacting with Mills unreal "orbitspheres". This is physically impossible given the variety of experiments:

• A charged particle such as an alpha particle or electron or proton will interact with Mills charged, massive shell.
• The particles are observed to go through Mills charged, massive shell to scatter off the nucleus.

There is a luminiferous aether parallel but with actual science without ignorance and delusions.

By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets.

In Mills fantasy we have a charged, massive shell that is somehow able to support currents with velocities greater than the speed of light eek but lets particles through to scatter off the nucleus. What is worse is that the atoms used have many of these shells - gold foil was used in the 1908 experiment and gold has 79 electrons !

Of course Mills must know this undergraduate physics and must have an explanation. markie?

 

[MikeG]

Sooner or later markie you are going to have to actual ask yourself some serious questions about your approach to this subject. At the moment, to put it mildly, the science isn't helping your case.

 

[markie]

And we'd love to see all of that, even at the cost of admitting we were wrong.

Well of course you would love to see that. And of course you would admit you were wrong. With a working product, how could you not?

That is not antithetical to the essence of my prediction: that many skeptics will nonetheless still blame Mills ; for taking so long, for this, for that ; they will insist they were wrong and even slanderous against Mills for a damn good reason.