"science can't explain X therefore my woo is true" this is out of the standard handbook, which is doesn't matter whether it is psi or homeopathy, and the same formula being used to deflect from having no proof of the woo.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator
- Thread starter michaelsuede
- Start date
- Status
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Here is your problem : you keep pretending you have a working product contrary to the past 3 decades when it was pretended a working cell was available and a product would come from it in the next 12 18 months.... But you have only the word of mills for that. So.... Nada.
Ont he other hand classical QM and QED have led to working product, working measurement of H, for decades now....
So who is mouthing off who now ?
And rightfully we have all the ground to mouth him off, because EVEN if he something he followed nearly all steps a scam is using, whereas he never followed sensible scientific step.
By the way this is the "Groundhog-decade" : I held the EXACT same conversation with another mills marketer a decade ago with the exact SAME pretension that science ignore mills or that a product will prove all wrong, when this was still named Black light power. I think it was in the steorn forum at the start of the saga.
And you know what is constant with such tiresome marketer like you ? They come and go, and never EVER after the scam run out, or years past without "product", and they never come back to admit they are wrong. EVER.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
No, he provided a physical based explanation rebuttal, and you simply hand waved. This is not "to each his own" this is flat earther dismissing semi spherical earth as an opinion because he was not convinced in his view.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
All the sciency mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant. It's like using spikes in EM readings as proof for ghosts, or interpreting sounds in the woods as obviously Bigfoot. We don't need to argue with Mills' alternative (fake) physics, that's all just a distraction.
If he really has had working prototypes for decades now, as he claims, he would have been able to produce hydrinos. Even a small quantity would be enough to definitively prove their existence.
But instead of showing us what he claims he's got, he prefers to concoct weirdly complicated schemes involving convoluted inefficient machines that are always just days away from working.
So far we have:
-An unproven hypothesis that defies the laws of physics.
-A new particle he claims to have produced, but never demonstrated.
-Cheap movie props with glowing parts that are supposed to be generators, but are actually just deficient lightbulbs.
-Claims of being only months away from production for over 25 years.
-Periodically rebooting his company with a new name, trying to erase all records of his previous claims, and starting over as if nothing ever happened.
It's a scam.
If he really has had working prototypes for decades now, as he claims, he would have been able to produce hydrinos. Even a small quantity would be enough to definitively prove their existence.
But instead of showing us what he claims he's got, he prefers to concoct weirdly complicated schemes involving convoluted inefficient machines that are always just days away from working.
So far we have:
-An unproven hypothesis that defies the laws of physics.
-A new particle he claims to have produced, but never demonstrated.
-Cheap movie props with glowing parts that are supposed to be generators, but are actually just deficient lightbulbs.
-Claims of being only months away from production for over 25 years.
-Periodically rebooting his company with a new name, trying to erase all records of his previous claims, and starting over as if nothing ever happened.
It's a scam.
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
There are three things to note here:
1) My objections to Mills's model stand. Any competent person reading the arguments will see that there is at least a charge to answer which you have just handwaved away by personalising the arguments.
2) Your handwave that Mills foundational work must be correct if it produces correct results is an utterly circular argument. We began by you touting his "correct" predictions, I pointed out internal inconsistencies and unphysical assumptions in the model that produces those predictions, and your response is simply to repeat your original proposition as a rebuttal.
3) Most importantly for the purposes of this thread, our exchange is a stark illustration of your position with regard to Mills. You will attempt to defend him at any cost, however incompetent you are to do so (as clearly demonstrated by your arguments), even if that ultimately means you must resort to handwaving. No argument, no matter how strong, could ever persuade you to reconsider - you are revealed as a True Believer, and this extends to all of your interactions whether they are about the science, the engineering, or the history of lies and failed promises. Just so lurkers understand your animus.
BTW, I didn't call Mills work on the electron absurd propositions (although as we have seen, professors of physics and Nobel Laureates in physics have been quite forthright about their views on it). What I called absurd was your fumbling attempts to answer the critique - in particular, your irrelevant and inapplicable analogy with the metal sphere in Earth's gravity and your truly absurd claim that a vector field can have multiple values at a single point as reason to argue that the theorem for combing vector fields on a sphere doesn't apply.
And I know enough to know when an argument is merely a poisoning of the well.
Last edited:
Here is something quite interesting ...
The ISF members who have been active in this thread certainly include some smart people. And no doubt they include some who have done experiments which led to papers, with their names as authors. Ditto other papers (primarily based on theory, simulations, observations, ...)
Consider this (my bold):
How many smart people who understand the revolutionary nature of hydrinos are there?
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that those who are co-authors on Mills' papers (per Brett Holverstott) understand the relevant parts of physics and chemistry (say) well enough to appreciate just how revolutionary this "hydrino technology" would be (if real). This should provide a good, high level estimate of how many people know the experimental and theoretical work well enough that they could do work independent of Mills.
My count: there are 31 such people. Of whom, eight are co-authors on ten or more Mills+ papers. One of those (Akhtar, K) is lead author on one paper; one who is co-author on six papers is lead author on two (Mayo, R.M.).
Hmm ... all these smart, capable people have been sitting on something which would (could) be as great a revolution in physics as relativity or QM. In most cases for over a decade, in some two or more. As co-authors on key initial papers, they would certainly be in line for a Nobel Prize, perhaps two (if the work they signed their names to were to be independently validated and verified).
Perhaps Mills is, as markie says, a good and great man ... just one who has no interest in being recognized as "the next Einstein". Does anyone else find it strange that up to ~30 other smart, capable people are equally uninterested?
The ISF members who have been active in this thread certainly include some smart people. And no doubt they include some who have done experiments which led to papers, with their names as authors. Ditto other papers (primarily based on theory, simulations, observations, ...)
Consider this (my bold):
How many smart people who understand the revolutionary nature of hydrinos are there?
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that those who are co-authors on Mills' papers (per Brett Holverstott) understand the relevant parts of physics and chemistry (say) well enough to appreciate just how revolutionary this "hydrino technology" would be (if real). This should provide a good, high level estimate of how many people know the experimental and theoretical work well enough that they could do work independent of Mills.
My count: there are 31 such people. Of whom, eight are co-authors on ten or more Mills+ papers. One of those (Akhtar, K) is lead author on one paper; one who is co-author on six papers is lead author on two (Mayo, R.M.).
Hmm ... all these smart, capable people have been sitting on something which would (could) be as great a revolution in physics as relativity or QM. In most cases for over a decade, in some two or more. As co-authors on key initial papers, they would certainly be in line for a Nobel Prize, perhaps two (if the work they signed their names to were to be independently validated and verified).
Perhaps Mills is, as markie says, a good and great man ... just one who has no interest in being recognized as "the next Einstein". Does anyone else find it strange that up to ~30 other smart, capable people are equally uninterested?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Not only uninterested in the recognition but uninterested in the research grants that would be pouring in to further develop the theories.
Can you imagine a single energy corporation that WOULDNT want a stranglehold on any patents related to this? This would trash coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, everything. The ONLY way ANY energy company would survive if Mills was right would be to hold as many patents as possible on Hydino based power generation to either suppress the tech and extend the life of their existing ventures, or the be one of the ones profiting from it as they cannibalize the competition.
For Mills to be right, Milti-National corporations who can convince the majority of Americans that Climate Change is fake would have to also be so inept as to completely ignore the single greatest threat to their business model.
First, a minor correction - the silver is not the catalyst, it is serving as the conductor of charge. The catalyst in this particular case is unbound water.
Hydrino reactions are self limiting; that is why Mills has had trouble achieving high power densities in the past even in very controlled environments. For instance, when the catalyst ionizes it results in charged species, and this inhibits further catalysis. Mills current SunCell method appears to overcome this hurdle by using massive current and silver, that vapour of which serves well as a charge dissipator even without applied current.
That said, yes hydrino reactions will occur on the earth in the wild, but in isolated conditions like lightening phenomena and perhaps some heating in the interior of the earth. Hydrino is difficult enough to detect in the lab, let alone in the wild. One would have to know what to look for, otherwise it is lost in the noise.
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
So here's what I am curious about. If you are not qualified to independently judge whether Mills's theory is any good (self-consistent, physical and aligned with reality), as you yourself admit, and as is obvious from your attempts to defend it, what makes you so confident that he's right?
Ok, we all take things on trust from those who are experts, since we can't assess everything for ourselves, but in this case the expert opinion is overwhelmingly against Mills. Since you are not competent to adjudicate between his claims and the critiques of experts in the field, it seems to me that the rational approach would be to provisionally accept the expert opinion as the most plausible, unless and until the evidence he presents is such as to sway the experts to his side. Or to learn enough to have a reasoned opinion of your own. But why side with him in the current circumstances. I'm puzzled about why you would do that.
Last edited:
Of course it doesn't follow that woo is true ; however it is an important lesson that skepticism should not be a one way street. The problems inherent in current physics are quite understated and largely ignored. It's like the preacher who knows enough to know there are internal problems in his scripture, but sure as heck isn't going to preach on them. "Everything is fine here, move along ... "
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Do you have any PROOF of any of those claims?
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
And yet your headline example for this is your false belief that modern physics proposes that neutrinos have mass and move at the speed of light.
I knew you wouldn't like it. Yes my gravity analogy falls far short. For instance, because of Gauss' law and Faraday, there is no electric field from the electron going inward toward the centre. It is all radially outward. And I'm not sure if you know, but Mills posits no self interaction of negative charge on the orbitsphere surface. He gives his reasons for this and the stability of the orbitsphere in detail, if I recall in Appendix 1 and 2 of his book. Worth the read. Your analogy of the wind blowing in only one magnitude and direction at a point assumes self interaction. So as you can see, it is very much about assumptions.
(my bold)
I do not know how long ago it was that you got your degree, markie, nor where from.
However, I am somewhat (!) amazed that you either did not spend a week or five on basic vector algebra, or have forgotten the basics of it (re-read hecd's excellent post upthread, then perhaps blow the dust off your old textbook).
Maybe this is just a one-off blindness, but your posts are replete with similar howlers. There's an expression you may have heard of, "when you're in a hole, stop digging".
They are?
Which ones have a direct bearing on Mills' work? Which are relevant to an inability to produce a working prototype ("working" as determined by truly independent assessment) of the Free Energy Generator?
Which is nice ... except that it's also completely irrelevant. To the topic of this thread ...
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
His book is not peer-reviewed.
His book has not been subjected to experimental verification.
His book has not been independently fact checked.
His book is not relevant.
His book is about as useful in supporting his scientific claims as a copy of "The Hobbit" is to a geography teacher.
Now, do you have any actual scientific experiments that support the orbitsphere claims or just more bad analogies and references to a physics-themed fan-fiction piece with the "Mills" byline on it?
There's a lot more we could explore, along these lines.
For example, nothing stands in the way of a wide variety of people/corporations/government entities ("actors") reading Mills' papers, and conducting their own experiments "on the quiet". The equipment and supplies would cost ~$US 1 million (swings and roundabouts), and the techniques easily mastered (or paid for); the theoretical work could be undertaken by just about anyone with a PhD in physics (the job market for such people is terrible, and has been so for at least a decade or two), or even mathematics (my estimate is that "the math" in Mills' work requires nothing more than a BSc in mathematics, perhaps (Hons), to master).
Independent validation/verification, followed by a year or so of focused experimentation, would surely lead to some crucial decisions; for example, if the actors are dark/malign, we may not know of the success of this work until some truly horrifying new weapons appear on some battlefield somewhere. Somewhat less dark actors would reveal their work in other ways, perhaps as a miracle which rescues Toshiba? And someone, somewhere would surely find the allure of a Nobel Prize great enough to overcome the most draconian of confidentiality agreements ...
Anyway, my point was to show that a good handful of people (~30) surely have the smarts and skills and experience to independently pursue "hydrino-based" research, and at least some of them could surely do enough to win a first-class return ticket to Stockholm. A state of affairs that is at least a decade old ...
Last edited:
hecd2
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,071
Why are you telling me this?
You see, there you go again. Foot in mouth. I don't care about self interaction or not - it's irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that a vector field, any vector field, whether self-interacting or not, can only have a single value (magnitude and direction) at any point in space and time. Any multiple components can always, always be resolved to a single value. This is very elementary vector algebra.
ETA: What JeanTate said.
Last edited:
A reasonable question. From everything I've heard, Mills has a moral foundation and obviously an outstanding work ethic. He is also extremely bright. He is (believe it or not) skeptical! He works as a man inspired. I don't take that lightly when there is varied evidence that his inspiration is bearing fruit.
That fruit is in the predictive power of his theory in many different types of phenomena, all from minimal foundational principles/laws and original assumptions. They are listed in summary form starting midpoint on page 40 of the 2016 edition of his book, into page 41.
There is the internal mathematical calculations, but one needs experimental evidence as a touchstone. And there is that. As one particular example, why is it that his plasmas become highly energetic only in the presence of particular catalysts that just happen to have the correct ionization energies, namely multiples of 27.2 electron volts? This should not be according to the known laws of chemistry. And so on.
Just to be clear, I reserve the right to disagree with Mills on matters I see fit, as they arise. Other people have as well, at least on relatively minor matters. I'm thinking of scientists like Jonathan Phillips, who has worked with Mills in plasma experiments. All for now.
- Status