Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[Darat]

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.

Again what a load of nonsense - perhaps you should follow the evidence more rather speculation?

 

[Darat]

One thing I've found fascinating is how you could replace Mills with a Browne or a Geller and yet the arguments given by their believers and supporters would remain exactly the same, right the way down to the fact that we are nasty negative "skeptics".

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Markie can't come up with answers to questions, so he's trying to get everyone to defend themselves against childish accusations in the hope we'll forget he doesn't have any arguments, or at least distract us for a while so he can backpedal and start over.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

Fantasisng about vindication that wont happen. The claims are ********. They would be one of our greatest discoveries if true yet governments, millitaries, corporations and scientists are not taking them seriously becuase there is not a sniff of truth.

 

[Darat]

Markie can't come up with answers to questions, so he's trying to get everyone to defend themselves against childish accusations in the hope we'll forget he doesn't have any arguments, or at least distract us for a while so he can backpedal and start over.

Yep - same tactics as any woo believer.

 

[Reality Check]

markie: Mills first announced his hydrino state hypothesis on April 25, 1991. Mills several failures from 1991 are based on hydrinos. In 26 years Mills has not even managed to give credible evidence that hydrinos exist. Mills supposedly has a theory that gives quantitative prediction for the hydrino spectrum. He knows how to force hydrinos to produce that spectrum. But no spectrum has been published !

The history is that Mills consistently fails to do even basic science. The chances of him producing an actual power source by chance are tiny. If he does so then it will probably be by accident, not by design.

 

[markie]

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

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!

Of course Mills believes electrons have mass. Regarding the speed of light, the currents of the electron surface are calculated to surpass light speed beyond the 137th hydrino state. So the hydrino has only 137 states; it can get to one 137th the size of a hydrogen atom. Or maybe it's 136th.

And speaking of mass, QM says that neutrinos have mass because they are thought to oscillate and change. Yet they also travel at light speed. Riddle me that.

 

[Reality Check]

I do recall some pictures posted here a while back, but they looked rather difficult to interpret.

Why not watch the video, markie, and recognize that the images are stills from that video !
Why not watch the video, markie, and see two electrodes being fused into one mass with the two bumps of the original electrodes clearly visible from 00:45 onward?

Thus Myriad's post:
Did you or anyone notice that in the second image, the "vaporized" electrodes, while not in as good condition or as well-lit as "before," are very much still there?

 

[The Man]

That post was this:



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.

First off the ratio of electron charge to proton charge is not the same as the earth and some metal ball. The ball would have to be the mass of the earth. Second, the gravitational force at the center of a hollow sphere is 0 as forces from opposing directions cancel. Third, gravity is attractive while charges both attract and repel. As such a given area of such distributed charge would feel a greater repulsive force from a similar nearby area of charge than an attractive force from the center simply because that nearby area of like charge is significantly closer. It’s just a load of crap.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course Mills believes electrons have mass.

The question is then whether you know that electrons have mass and so Mills is deluded when he has an equation that is Lorentz invariant only when electron moves at the speed of light, markie?

Blindly believing more Mills delusions, markie, is not good. In the real world, Mills is documented as ignorant, deluded and often lying (see my previous posts).
We measure the magnetic moment of an electron. Classically the magnetic moment is created by a spinning charge. We calculate how fast the charge has to be moving using for example the classical radius of an electron. That charge and any surface it is attached to is moving many times the speed of light. It is impossible for an extended charged spinning object to produce the experimentally measured magnetic moment of an electron.
We measure the radius of an electron Bond and free) and see that is does not match Mills delusions of bound electrons the size of an atom or a plane wave free electrons.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1509 - Mills delusion that electron neutrinos are a type of photon and massless

And speaking of mass, QM says that neutrinos have mass because they are thought to oscillate and change. Yet they also travel at light speed. Riddle me that.

Easy: Neutrinos have mass and thus do not move at the speed of light - that needs a Duh !

• QM says that if neutrinos have mass then we have neutrino oscillation.
• Neutrino oscillation has been measured since 2001. Thus they have mass. For 16 years no one has thought that neutrinos move at the speed of light.

This exposes the Mills fantasy that electron neutrinos "are a type of photon" as a ignorant delusion.

ETA:
24 February 2017: Page 1509 - Mills delusion that "The electron neutrino is a special type of photon as given in the Neutrino section. It travels with the speed of light for all observers and is not a particle with non-zero mass".

 

[SezMe]

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

Well, to be fair, Prediction 2 cannot be falsified. That said, I agree with your predictions. Can I get a copy of your newsletter?

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1610 - Mills delusion that a spin 1 photon can be a spin 1/2 electron neutrino

24 February 2017: Page 1509 - Mills delusion that "The electron neutrino is a special type of photon as given in the Neutrino section. It travels with the speed of light for all observers and is not a particle with non-zero mass".

That "Neutrino section" looks like Neutrinos on page 1610 and we find:
24 February 2017: Page 1610 - Mills delusion that a spin 1 photon can be a spin 1/2 electron neutrino.
Spin is an intrinsic property of particles. A particle with a different spin is a different particle or a combination of particles.

Followed by 6 pages of mathematical gibberish based on that delusion.

 

[abaddon]

Easy: Neutrinos have mass and thus do not move at the speed of light - that needs a Duh !

Wait, he claims neutrinos have no mass? They have been measured long ago for petes sake.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1617 - Mills writes ignorant gibberish about atomic nuclei

Page 1617 - The Strong Nuclear Force is more ignorant gibberish and waste of space based on that ignorance and gibberish .
"...the nuclear version of atomic orbitals where the gluons provide the central forces and the quarks [gibberish snipped]".

Individual gluons and quarks are inside nucleons not between them. Inside nucleons, quarks whizz around continuously exchanging gluons.
Gluons mediate between quarks, not nucleons. Mesons mediate between nucleons. These are composed of one quark and one antiquark.

24 February 2017: Page 1617 - Mills writes ignorant gibberish about atomic nuclei.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1617 - Mills fantasy of "spherical shells" and gibberish on atomic nuclei

24 February 2017: Page 1617 - Mills fantasy of "spherical shells" and more gibberish about atomic nuclei
For example: "the deuterium nucleus is a minimum energy supposition of a neutron and a proton".

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1617 - Mills delusion of "the quark/gluon proper velocity is c

24 February 2017: Page 1617 - Mills delusion of "the quark/gluon proper velocity is c"
Quarks and gluons have mass. They cannot have a velocity of c.

 

[Reality Check]

We also have just from me:
25 January 2017: Mills idiocy of trying to throw away quantum mechanics for purely classical physics.
25 January 2017: A long list of abysmally ignorant criticism of the Schrödinger equation on page 15
20 February 2017: Page 1638 A lie of "Quantum mechanics failed to predict the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment" when the experiment was before the new QM (old QM did not include spin)!
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.
21 February 2017: Page 1509 on the composition of the universe has the ignorant gibberish of "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon.".
21 February 2017: Ignorantly using the Haus condition for a collection of point particles on a single particle he imagines to have extent.
23 February 2017: Pages 1638-1639 "Inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics" onward has more ignorance, lies and gibberish.

 

[markie]

markie: Mills first announced his hydrino state hypothesis on April 25, 1991. Mills several failures from 1991 are based on hydrinos. In 26 years Mills has not even managed to give credible evidence that hydrinos exist. Mills supposedly has a theory that gives quantitative prediction for the hydrino spectrum. He knows how to force hydrinos to produce that spectrum. But no spectrum has been published !

The history is that Mills consistently fails to do even basic science. The chances of him producing an actual power source by chance are tiny. If he does so then it will probably be by accident, not by design.

Why do you say no such spectrum has been published? Did you not look at the published experiment names and the links to abstracts from Brett's Holverstott's blog? Several experiments show lines for hydrino formation.
Here's one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319900001221

Now pick that jaw up from the floor.

 

[Blue Mountain]

One thing this thread has taught me is I don't know nearly as much about subatomic physics as I thought I did. I don't even know enough to be a decent quack!