If markie was telling the truth thought I'd capture Brilliantlight home page before that gets deleted or retrofitted.
The text is:
ELECTRICAL POWER FROM HYDROGEN TO DARK MATTER
Brilliant Light Power has developed a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter, the previously unidentified matter that makes up most of the mass of the universe. The SunCell® that was invented to harness the new power source catalytically converts hydrogen directly into dark matter form called Hydrino® releasing brilliant high-energy light which is down-converted in energy to facilitate the production of electricity using commercially-available concentrator photovoltaic cells.
Validation: 071116 Press Release Advisory Board: 121316 Press Release
Attached a screengrab as well.
This gives me a nice segue to something I've been meaning to post for some time (not that it's particularly original; in various forms, it's been said dozens of times by others in this thread alone).
I am, personally, very interested in astronomy and astrophysics, and the topic of dark matter in particular. I like to think that I keep up pretty well with what's happening on this topic, by reading the relevant papers (well, arXiv preprints anyway); I pay little attention to popsci pieces, PRs, etc.
As a result, when I read something like what Darat quoted - and what markie has posted on this topic in this thread (etc) - it takes me very little time to realize just how much alike, um, nonsense this is; certainly it has merely coincidental relevance to the ongoing study of dark matter, by astronomers and astrophysicists. Further, I think I could do a pretty job of explaining to the markies of the world why Mills' claims are so, um, ridiculous ... assuming they had the patience and interest to listen.
When it comes to claims in fields I am less familiar with, chemistry, say, or engineering, I can sometimes spot logical flaws, and even bits which seem, well, very shady, but I am not able to show just how woefully awful the claims are (as science) as I can re dark matter.
So a HUGE thank you to Aepervius for this
That nobody of sane mind uses. And if it was predicting MO very well, it would not be able to predict anything for Hydrino combining molecules. Soooooo. Yeah.
ETA: and this thread is funny :
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/details-of-millsian-program.303955/
I like the "bold face lie"
Reading that PhysicsForums thread was pure delight! Made more so by the participation of Brett Holverstott (BH is his ISF handle), one of Mills' biggest boosters. There are so many gems; I'll just take a couple. Starting with this (it's post #10):
Millsian has proposed a fundamental shift in the way atoms and molecules are solved, and has rigorously tested its theoretical predictions of bond energies, distances, angles, and (recently) dipoles against 800 molecules for which experimental data is available. Thousands of predicted values match experiment to a degree of accuracy, and with a simplicity of calculation, unmatched by other methods. We will continue to push forward our technology and its applications for a variety of industries.
Millsian is dedicated to honesty and transparency in reporting. We have an extensive collection of online documents detailing our theoretical calculations in both written and spreadsheet form, see my previous post. I will also see to it that the spreadsheet used in our recent paper appears on the spreadsheets page shortly. I encourage you to investigate this material if you have further questions.
best,
Brett Holverstott Millsian, Inc.
Reference
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/details-of-millsian-program.303955/
That was in 2009; funny how inorganic chemistry (at least) has yet to be revolutionized by "Millsian", eh?
One more, post #15, by ScienceAdvisor alxm:
And that's not what I asked for. I've already explained that Mills' book is incoherent, as far as I can tell, incorrect on many simple matters of fact, mathematically wrong and logically inconsistent. And even looking at you reference I see numbers without proper explanations for how they were derived.
What I asked was for
you to provide this simple example right
here and now. You're the one who purports to understand this insanity. Although I can't say I see much evidence of that - given that the few 'answers' you do give amount to 'see the book'.
The fact that you've chosen to silently ignore most criticisms speaks volumes though.
Reference
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/details-of-millsian-program.303955/
Here we are, in 2017 ...
