Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[hecd2]

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).

I agree re the maths. There's a lot of it, and setting the 1800 pages must have been a task of unenviable tedium, but none of it that I've seen actually goes much beyond the maths a physicist would learn in a good undergraduate course. Which is not a criticism, just a fact. (I also think that any physicist who engages with the theory will find fatal flaws very quickly, which would make most of the screeds of stuff moot).

So, as far as difficulty goes, the theory's pretty accessible and the experimental side is too as you point out. If it works out, it's the biggest thing to happen in physics since 1905. The barriers are low. Yet it's not picked up.

I wonder why.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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.

This is where you start verging into magic territory really. If the catalyst is unbound water then there would be even MORE reactions at the oceanic ridges. The self limiting thing is not really an issue, the currents and the fact that the hydrino's would be gaseous would remove them virtually immediately. And the fact that the reaction might be inefficient is mitigated by the massive volume and 4.5 billion years.
So according to Mill's theories as you present them Earth should not have oceans.

Have you never wondered why this reaction that according to Mills puts electrons in a lower (unknown) energy state ONLY seems to work in Mills' lab, unreproducable by anyone else AND not occurring anywhere in the observable universe, even though it should?

Or the fact that nature, which has even found ways to utilize quantum tunneling of hydrogen atoms to make enzymes more efficient has NEVER evolved something that could tap this massive energy reserve?

 

[Horatius]

From everything I've heard, Mills has a moral foundation

And where exactly has he ever shown that "moral foundation"?

Has he ever apologized for any of the several previous instances in which he predicted a commercial product within 6 to 18 months, which turned out to be completely wrong?

Has he ever apologized to any of his previous investors, who have seen zero return on their investment?

Has he ever apologized to any of the people who signed contracts that promised the delivery of a working device, who were just left hanging?

I'd be willing to bet he's never apologized for any of that.

In fact, it's been well-demonstrated that he's gone out of his way to try to eliminate any mention of any of his previous promises from any site he has control over. That's not the behavior of a man with a moral foundation, that's the behavior of someone with something to hide.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

(my bold)

markie, the following has been pointed out, in this thread in one way or another, by RC, hecd2, The Man, me, and Aepervius (likely others too, apologies for not mentioning you).

In physics (likely other branches of science too; I'm focusing here on physics), the degree to which the predictions of a theory match observational/experimental reality has value only to the extent that said theory is internally consistent. If it can be clearly shown that such an internal inconsistency exists, the most perfect predictions derived from the theory (even if there are a bazillion of them) counts for nothing.

Further, this fundamental feature of physics is something which you learn when you major in physics, to earn your BSc, MSc, or PhD (OK, I accept that you may have scraped through on your BSc which majored in physics, and not really fully absorbed this; and I'm assuming you got your degree from a real university, not a fake one).

As published, Mill's "theory" is internally inconsistent. Rathke published a paper (in 2005) showing just that. RC has pointed out several internal inconsistencies. So has hecd2 (and maybe others here too).

Of course, there are inconsistencies and there are inconsistencies ... sometimes they are minor, and don't really affect the core parts of the theory; sometimes they are easily fixable; sometimes ... However, the ones already publicly identified in Mills' (published) theory are not like these; rather, they are fatal (you can think of them as occurring very early in the theory development, a bit like discovering a serious mistake on page 1 of a 200 page mathematical proof).

True, Mills "published" a rebuttal (of at least the Rathke paper), two actually (maybe more). However, unlike the papers he published - on which Rathke based his - no rebuttal has been published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal. And as both RC and Aepervius have already noted, it's highly unlikely he could (get such a rebuttal published in such a journal). A key reason why not is that the Mills rebuttal we have access to does not address the fatal flaw Rathke identified.

(And to head off something you might write: your own posts, and your own declarations, disqualify you from being able to post a credible "fix" to the identified fatal flaws. Your only option, as I see it, is to post a link to a paper in which the identified fatal flaws are fixed, published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.)

This means, among other things, that we can ignore all the "hydrino" parts of Mills' claims. That leaves, AFAICS, "anomalous results", and promises of a Free Energy Generator ...

 

[markie]

This is where you start verging into magic territory really. If the catalyst is unbound water then there would be even MORE reactions at the oceanic ridges. The self limiting thing is not really an issue, the currents and the fact that the hydrino's would be gaseous would remove them virtually immediately. And the fact that the reaction might be inefficient is mitigated by the massive volume and 4.5 billion years.
So according to Mill's theories as you present them Earth should not have oceans.

Have you never wondered why this reaction that according to Mills puts electrons in a lower (unknown) energy state ONLY seems to work in Mills' lab, unreproducable by anyone else AND not occurring anywhere in the observable universe, even though it should?

Or the fact that nature, which has even found ways to utilize quantum tunneling of hydrogen atoms to make enzymes more efficient has NEVER evolved something that could tap this massive energy reserve?

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history. It could also explain the seeming relatively sudden occurrence of free oxygen in earth's early atmosphere. And who knows, maybe some organisms are utilizing hydrino formation as a source of energy. We don't know enough to look, let alone how to look. Of course I'm just wildly speculating, but it's a reminder that we inevitably try to explain the universe in terms of what we know (or think we know), not what we don't.

In case you missed previous posts, Mills does indeed believe that hydrino reactions are occurring throughout the universe, and in the sun. So for instance he believes hydrinos are in part responsible for the coronal heating problem and in part for the uv and far uv background cosmic radiation. For fun, here's a portion of the abstract from
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

The diffuse cosmic background radiation in the GALEX far ultraviolet (FUV, 1300 \AA\ - 1700 \AA) is deduced to originate only partially in the dust-scattered radiation of FUV-emitting stars: the source of a substantial fraction of the FUV background radiation remains a mystery. The radiation is remarkably uniform at both far northern and far southern Galactic latitudes, and it increases toward lower Galactic latitudes at all Galactic longitudes. We examine speculation that it might be due to interaction of the dark matter with the nuclei of the interstellar medium but we are unable to point to a plausible mechanism for an effective interaction. (snip)

 

[JeanTate]

From everything I've heard, Mills has a moral foundation

And where exactly has he ever shown that "moral foundation"?

Has he ever apologized for any of the several previous instances in which he predicted a commercial product within 6 to 18 months, which turned out to be completely wrong?

Has he ever apologized to any of his previous investors, who have seen zero return on their investment?

Has he ever apologized to any of the people who signed contracts that promised the delivery of a working device, who were just left hanging?

I'd be willing to bet he's never apologized for any of that.

In fact, it's been well-demonstrated that he's gone out of his way to try to eliminate any mention of any of his previous promises from any site he has control over. That's not the behavior of a man with a moral foundation, that's the behavior of someone with something to hide.

There's more ...

While there may be exceptions, the lead author of a published paper can put the whole paper on her website, thus making it easy for anyone to read it, and avoid paywalls.

AFAIK, Mills has not done this.

Mills is also free to make available the raw and processed data he uses in any of his papers, and while it would be a courtesy to ask co-authors, he doesn't actually need their permission to do this (note that there are very few important "hydrino" papers which have a lead author other than Mills).

At one time - apparently - Mills offered to make samples of hydrinos (and/or hydrino compounds?) available to independent researchers, but no longer does so.

And so on ...

 

[JeanTate]

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history. It could also explain the seeming relatively sudden occurrence of free oxygen in earth's early atmosphere. And who knows, maybe some organisms are utilizing hydrino formation as a source of energy. We don't know enough to look, let alone how to look. Of course I'm just wildly speculating, but it's a reminder that we inevitably try to explain the universe in terms of what we know (or think we know), not what we don't.

In case you missed previous posts, Mills does indeed believe that hydrino reactions are occurring throughout the universe, and in the sun. So for instance he believes hydrinos are in part responsible for the coronal heating problem and in part for the uv and far uv background cosmic radiation. For fun, here's a portion of the abstract from
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

But since hydrinos do not exist - at least of the kind predicted by Mills' "theory" - this sort of wild speculation is kinda pointless, isn't it?

 

[markie]

(my bold)

markie, the following has been pointed out, in this thread in one way or another, by RC, hecd2, The Man, me, and Aepervius (likely others too, apologies for not mentioning you).

In physics (likely other branches of science too; I'm focusing here on physics), the degree to which the predictions of a theory match observational/experimental reality has value only to the extent that said theory is internally consistent. If it can be clearly shown that such an internal inconsistency exists, the most perfect predictions derived from the theory (even if there are a bazillion of them) counts for nothing.

Further, this fundamental feature of physics is something which you learn when you major in physics, to earn your BSc, MSc, or PhD (OK, I accept that you may have scraped through on your BSc which majored in physics, and not really fully absorbed this; and I'm assuming you got your degree from a real university, not a fake one).

As published, Mill's "theory" is internally inconsistent. Rathke published a paper (in 2005) showing just that. RC has pointed out several internal inconsistencies. So has hecd2 (and maybe others here too).

Of course, there are inconsistencies and there are inconsistencies ... sometimes they are minor, and don't really affect the core parts of the theory; sometimes they are easily fixable; sometimes ... However, the ones already publicly identified in Mills' (published) theory are not like these; rather, they are fatal (you can think of them as occurring very early in the theory development, a bit like discovering a serious mistake on page 1 of a 200 page mathematical proof).

True, Mills "published" a rebuttal (of at least the Rathke paper), two actually (maybe more). However, unlike the papers he published - on which Rathke based his - no rebuttal has been published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal. And as both RC and Aepervius have already noted, it's highly unlikely he could (get such a rebuttal published in such a journal). A key reason why not is that the Mills rebuttal we have access to does not address the fatal flaw Rathke identified.

(And to head off something you might write: your own posts, and your own declarations, disqualify you from being able to post a credible "fix" to the identified fatal flaws. Your only option, as I see it, is to post a link to a paper in which the identified fatal flaws are fixed, published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.)

This means, among other things, that we can ignore all the "hydrino" parts of Mills' claims. That leaves, AFAICS, "anomalous results", and promises of a Free Energy Generator ...

If the SunCell becomes a proven technology, I am just about assured that you will no longer be ignoring the "hydrino" aspects of Mill's claims. And that is because you value the law of conservation of energy.

PS My BSc was from a real university, in microbiology.

 

[Horatius]

And who knows, maybe some organisms are utilizing hydrino formation as a source of energy.

If the SunCell becomes a proven technology, I am just about assured that you will no longer be ignoring the "hydrino" aspects of Mill's claims. And that is because you value the law of conservation of energy.

PS My BSc was from a real university, in microbiology.

So, you have a degree in microbiology, but you apparently haven't noticed the hypothesized use of hydrinos by some organisms?

Don't you think that if some organisms were operating using a huge, unknown source of energy, that someone, somewhere, would have noted such? Studying how organisms use energy is pretty fundamental, so much so that we even covered it in high school biology. And yet, no one has ever remarked on some mysterious source of excess energy....

 

[halleyscomet]

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history.

Ohhh. You've given me an idea. There are some Creationists I need to talk to.

 

[JeanTate]

If the SunCell becomes a proven technology, I am just about assured that you will no longer be ignoring the "hydrino" aspects of Mill's claims.

Let's wait until that happens, shall we?

I imagine that should SunCell be independently shown to produce more energy than it consumes, there will be a flurry of papers published in peer-reviewed journals with much wider acceptance in the relevant physics communities than Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; no doubt some will be published in Nature and/or Science. Should that happen, I will almost certainly not ignore the physics those papers present, as explanations for the SunCell results. In particular, I would likely be very interested to see just how different the physics in those papers would be, from the (fatally flawed) Mills "theory".

How long do you think I will need to wait? I'm no spring chicken, and likely have only a decade or so left ...

And that is because you value the law of conservation of energy.

Sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

PS My BSc was from a real university, in microbiology.

So you said, in an earlier post. And I thanked you for posting that info.

 

[halleyscomet]

How long do you think I will need to wait? I'm no spring chicken, and likely have only a decade or so left ...

Mills has been sporadically 4 to 18 months from a production unit for close to 30 years. I'd say a production unit can be expected shortly after Jesus returns.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history. It could also explain the seeming relatively sudden occurrence of free oxygen in earth's early atmosphere. And who knows, maybe some organisms are utilizing hydrino formation as a source of energy. We don't know enough to look, let alone how to look. Of course I'm just wildly speculating, but it's a reminder that we inevitably try to explain the universe in terms of what we know (or think we know), not what we don't.

In case you missed previous posts, Mills does indeed believe that hydrino reactions are occurring throughout the universe, and in the sun. So for instance he believes hydrinos are in part responsible for the coronal heating problem and in part for the uv and far uv background cosmic radiation. For fun, here's a portion of the abstract from
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

I do begin to see why many others also doubt your ability to actually comment on scientific matters.
If the reactions would occur we'd not be talking undetectable amounts like millions of tons, we'd be talking nearly all of the water on earth. 4.5 billion years is a LONG time.
The oxygen thing I hope you are not serious about. We know when/how oxygen appeared. If it were Mill's fantasy there would be a constant and clear increase, not the fluctuations seen due to photosynthesis.
As for life utilizing it, if that were the case it would have out-competed photosyntesizers and we'd know pretty well where to look, as it would be the basis of all food chains.

Mills conveniently only talks about things in a galaxy far far away, a long time ago, which nobody can see. Except him. And even he is incapable of showing it to anybody else.

But please, do send him money. By the way, you ARE financially backing him right? I'm sure he'd ethically deal with your lives savings.

 

[halleyscomet]

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history.

Ohhh. You've given me an idea. There are some Creationists I need to talk to.

DAMN that was a quick response. I've got some interest. We're going to talk about it more this weekend after he does his own research into Hydrinos. Probably Sunday afternoon, as Sunday morning is kinda busy for a Reverend and Saturday Night involves prep time for Sunday morning. The last time we collaborated it resulted in Nephi's Broken Bow. Oddly, that book was also the result of discussions I was having with a couple religious nutters on this forum. Weird.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who knows, maybe the oceans have lost millions of tonnes of water through hydrino formation in their billions of years history. It could also explain the seeming relatively sudden occurrence of free oxygen in earth's early atmosphere.

Um, no,,,, how could it explain a "sudden occurance"? Did hydrino formation suddenly start occurring, for some reason, at the same time? Did it slow down again soon afterwards? If it did not slow down then we should up to our eyeballs in oxygen, bereft of hydrogen, and drier than a popcorn fart by now.

 

[Aepervius]

Let us look at the details. 4.5 billion years is about 1.5* 10¹⁷ seconds.
If you are speaking of losing millions of tons of water, this is at most on the order of magnitude of 1 billion tons, and I am being generous with you here. 1 billions tons of water is 1.15*10¹⁰ grams of water or at 18 g.mol^-1 that is about 5*10 ¹³ moles, or about 1*10¹⁴ moles of H (ignore the O). So this means you are pretending the upper bound of hydrino reaction of.... 7.4*10^-4 moles per second or about 4*10²⁰ atoms of H per seconds.

For the thousands of kilometer of ridge...

If you prefer that in weights, that is of a few dozen milligrams of water per second.

That's nothing, and yet the reaction description it should happens a lot more.

Methinks you are quite not understanding the problem markie.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Markie, I've got an idea (and a bit of a one-sided wager). You can present it to Mill's as you own, I have no need for credit, and it will give him an instant Noble prize and all the money he could want.

1: Collect some hydrino gas. Should be easy for him, he produces it constantly right? And even if it diffused twice as fast as helium, you can keep helium in a glass bubble for decades, so containers are not an issue.
2: Send samples to laboratories that have access to an NMR device. Now, NMR can determine that the gas contains hydrogen atoms as NMR detects the proton of the nucleus and not the electrons. It should either find atomic hydrogen (if hydrinos are as unreactive as helium) or H₂ gas (if hydrinos only react with each other) with a shorter bond length than possible
3: Mix the gas with oxygen and try to ignite. By your theories this should do nothing since hydrinos do not react.

That will give clear, reproducible, measurable evidence that Mills has a gas containing hydrogen atoms that do not react in a way known to current science. Just send it to 10 labs or so which will maybe cost $10000? and he's in the money for ever.
No more need for small companies. No more need for unclear youtubes and fringe meetings. It might even open up TWO nobel prizes. For chemistry and physics as he'd revolutionize two fields.
I am a bit surpised he's never thought of this simple experiment himself, but here you go.

Now, once this is done and the results published (which would be Science and / or Nature headline material immediately) I will personally fly to whatever country you live in, buy you a meal and publicly admit I was wrong about Mills.
No need to wait on a working prototype either, this could be done in less than 2 weeks or so.

 

[Aepervius]

They would probably tell you that the hydrino gas is going right through matter like a phantom, or some **** like that, so it can't be contained.

Anyway if I read Markie correctly, he/she is already convinced so much that he does not see the need for independent reproducible test. So he/she won't ask mills anything.

 

[halleyscomet]

They would probably tell you that the hydrino gas is going right through matter like a phantom, or some **** like that, so it can't be contained.



Anyway if I read Markie correctly, he/she is already convinced so much that he does not see the need for independent reproducible test. So he/she won't ask mills anything.

Markie's belief appears to be religious in nature, not scientific.

 

[Aepervius]

Markie's belief appears to be religious in nature, not scientific.

It appears so to me too. That's pretty much why I am winding down on this thread.

At least until the next new marketer of free energy came to us