Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[Mojo]

Markie, you have said that Dr. Ramanujachary's published hydrino work was ignored by his colleagues. Where did Dr. Ramanujachary publish this work?

References, please.

 

[Horatius]

As an aside, note that high temperature superconductivity was not anticipated by QM.

And yes, that's part of my point: HTC was an unexpected breakthrough not predicted (or explained afterward) by existing theories, but it was accepted almost immediately because the experiments worked. They not only worked, they actually lead to new, follow-on discoveries and improvements to the originally discovered HTCs.


Because that's how real science works.

 

[markie]

And yet the field he claims to have debunked has produced a wide variety of technologies. The very semiconductors in the computers people are using to bash quantum theory are themselves derived from quantum theory.

There's a sad humor in someone promoting a theory that has produced nothing claiming he has overthrown theories that have produced viable commercial products.

Some semiconductor properties were known before quantum theory. Quantum Theory is like the Borg, it tries to assimilate everything and names it part of the QT collective. The semi conductor industry would have evolved very well apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.

 

[Sideroxylon]

After over 20 years Mills supporters like myself are quite used to the idea of a paradigm shift. Actually it's more like a paradigm reversal. Mills theory is much more conservative that QM. And we're sober enough to know that the consequences of such a shift do not happen overnight.

Not going to happen until "validations" are written up in scrupilous detail, including noting the efforts made to elimate confounding factors, in a way that other scientists may follow and replicate the results. That is the way scientific validations are made. That is the way paradigms shift in science. And with such an exciting alleged discovery things would move very quickly. The current appeals to the authority of rubber stamping by employed consultants are ludicrous and the ways of scammers.

Where is the urgency to do these things properly?

 

[markie]

Where did he publish it?

I'll have to look for the more recent work. But in the meantime you could check out this from Rowan University in 2009:

https://www.scribd.com/document/215406742/Blp-Independent-Report

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Some semiconductor properties were known before quantum theory. Quantum Theory is like the Borg, it tries to assimilate everything and names it part of the QT collective. The semi conductor industry would have evolved very well apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.

As I've mentioned before, classical equations cannot explain quantum tunneling.
Since quantum tunneling is used in both commercial machines designed around the effect (Scanning tunneling microscopes) and in natural enzymes, Mill's theory effectively dis-explains these well known and studied phenomena.

Mills never really addresses this, and you keep hand waving it away, but his theories go not against some esoteric theory, but against observable and reproducible effects, while at the same time predicting things that would mean ALL chemistry so far is impossible.
After all IF a lower energy state would exist electrons WILL occupy it and none of the current hydrogen chemistry would exist. No matter how often you resort to magic by assuming some hydrogen would not be in that ground state, it remains magic.

 

[markie]

That post needs to be addressed by proponents, and not handwaved.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768299&postcount=58

What is there new to be addressed in that three year old post? He did the same old same old:

- Minimize the importance of a validation report by emphasizing that it wasn't 'independent'.

- Minimize the NASA findings just because the results weren't as strong as BLP's own. Yet a researcher there admitted they didn't use the same Nickel source as BLP. And of course a nationally recognized lab is going to give reasons why the excess heat could be from conventional sources and not from a novel one. In case the energy source is subsequently and definitively shown to be conventional, they have their arses covered. Meanwhile, the hold open the possibility that it is novel and deserves further exploration, just in case.

- Maximize Earthtech's negative findings. Yet Earthtech didn't have the help of BLP, and such help from an originator is often crucial for successful replication.

- No mention the dozens of other validation reports and the dozens of peer reviewed publications.

 

[Mike!]

- No mention the dozens of other validation reports and the dozens of peer reviewed publications.

Which you have yet to provide a single link or reference to.

 

[jsfisher]

What is there new to be addressed in that three year old post? He did the same old same old: ...

You missed the part about no hand-waving.

 

[markie]

Something else I stumbled across, which may or may not have been mentioned before:

From the book 'The Arts of Truth' by Rud Istvan, 2012, referring to Mills' accepted patent application (prior to the second one being initially accepted and then withdrawn):

"It contains exactly one reference to an experiment confirming hydrinos; a 1995 Mills paper published in a cold fusion journal that went defunct in 2001 after that phenomenon was debunked. Below is the issued patent's exact citation:
The article by Mills and Good <reference snipped> describes the determination of excess heat release during the electrolysis of aqueous potassium carbonate by the very accurate and reliable method of heat measurement, flow calorimetry; describes the experimental identification of hydrogen atoms in fractional quantum energy levels--hydrinos--by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS)....

The invention of XPS won a Nobel Prize in 1981. XPS cannot detect hydrogen or helium; it only works for lithium and heavier elements. Mills' paper cannot have measured what it claims using XPS. The bamboozled patent examiner overlooked this rather important detail."



https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...&q=dr. peter jansson rowan university&f=false
(scroll up a bit)

Seems rather similar to something I've heard before. Oh yes, that would be Kunze (2008) having to point out that the spectrometer used in other papers that Mills published simply wasn't capable of making measurements at the wavelengths he was claiming to detect. That is, those produced by his fictional hydrinos.
In short, when you pick away at claims of detections, it seems they simply don't exist. Indeed, can't even be detected by Mills apparatus. And when you pick further away at "independent" verifications, they turn out to be not so independent. Indeed, not even verifications.
Fair play to Mills, though, he's conned a lot of investors, and no doubt done quite well for himself out of this long running scam.

Rud Istvan is mistaken. The reason Hydrogen and Helium cannot be detected in a solid by XPS is because their electrons do not have the high binding energy. Heavier elements have interior electrons with higher binding energies that can be a match for the incident x-rays. Hydrino has high electron binding energy and can be a match for incident x-rays.

 

[jonesdave116]

Hydrino has high electron binding energy and can be a match for incident x-rays.

Given that it doesn't exist, and has never been shown to exist, that is just pure pie in the sky. Unobtainium has similar energies (I say so), so why can't it be that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Universities don't want their reputation soiled.

And yet...

I'll have to look for the more recent work. But in the meantime you could check out this from Rowan University in 2009:

https://www.scribd.com/document/215406742/Blp-Independent-Report

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And of course a nationally recognized lab is going to give reasons why the excess heat could be from conventional sources and not from a novel one.

Well, indeed. That's called "good science".

- Maximize Earthtech's negative findings. Yet Earthtech didn't have the help of BLP, and such help from an originator is often crucial for successful replication.

So the only time independent validation is possible is if it's not independent?

 

[Mojo]

- No mention the dozens of other validation reports and the dozens of peer reviewed publications.

Citations please.

 

[Aepervius]

And of course a nationally recognized lab is going to give reasons why the excess heat could be from conventional sources and not from a novel one. In case the energy source is subsequently and definitively shown to be conventional, they have their arses covered. Meanwhile, the hold open the possibility that it is novel and deserves further exploration, just in case.

You know nothing of science, right ? You *always* look at the conventional explanation first, if only to eliminate the null hypothesis which is "there is nothing special going on here" (more or less : classical physic at play).

That means searching for all types of error , type 1, type 2 with a misidentified effect, etc...

This is not covering their arse, this is how you proceed. Once you identified and eliminated all those error types, then you can say "there is something strange here". And then the study can starts.

What that sentence you see as covering arse means, is that the study could not be done in such way as to eliminate type 1 error : the energy is of conventional means. And that put a HUGE crimp in your pretension you have reproduction.

 

[jonesdave116]

Citations please.

Oh, to be honest, there are loads! Practically all of them have Mills as lead or co-author! All of them are nonsense. His ability to make stuff up is only exceeded by his amazingly prolific publication of the aforementioned nonsense!
Just type 'hydrino' into Google scholar. Look at the citations for each paper. Practically all of them are from Mills, as well! He is performing a gish-gallop within the scientific literature. There is no way that serious scientists can take the time to debunk every single piece of nonsense he comes out with. However, a number have, and shown his nonsense up for being, well.......nonsense. More of which anon.

 

[jonesdave116]

However, a number have, and shown his nonsense up for being, well.......nonsense. More of which anon.

As promised, here is Phelps take on a Mills paper claiming hydrino detection:

Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al.
Phelps, A. V. & Clementson, J. (2012)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2012-30114-5?LI=true (Paywalled)

The paper it criticises is:

Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm
Mills, R. L. & Lu, Y.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.7690&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The observed spectra could not be explained by Mills et al. using conventional physics, which allowed them to interpret the data as evidence for their hydrino model. In the present paper, it is argued that the observed spectra are, in fact, emissions from low charge-state ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes plus some impurity ion emission. The continuum appearance is explained as being made up of densely spaced lines that are not fully resolved. Specific points are:
Mills et al. claim [1–4] there are no differences in the observed discharge spectra when different electrode materials are used. In Figures 1 through 3 spectra have been digitized1 from plots of Mills et al. [1–4] for emission observed with cathodes made of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), and tantalum (Ta). These traces show instead that the spectra differ considerably with electrode material. The dependence on material is especially clear in Figures 1a and 1b, where discharges with W and Mo cathodes using a hydrogen (H2) fill gas are compared. Mills et al. [1–4] further state that the observed emission cannot be explained as line emission by atoms or ions from the metal electrodes. Here it is shown that much of the emission can indeed be explained as line radiation from low charge states of sputtered or evaporated high-Z metal ions. In Figure 1a the spectrum of Mills et al. is plotted together with W spectra observed by Clementson et al. [5]2 from an electron beam ion trap (EBIT). The data were acquired using a grazing-incidence instrument with a resolution of 0.04 nm full width half maximum (FWHM) at an EBIT electron-beam energy of 150 ± 10 eV. This energy is high enough to create W ions with charge states up to 8+ [6]. Very similar spectra at lower resolution (not shown) have been obtained by evaporating tungsten into a tokamak device [7]3 and selecting an early stage of plasma development. Other observations [8–10] of W ion spectra in this wavelength region were obtained under less well defined conditions or later stages of plasma development. As expected, no hydrogen emission is observed in the spectral region of these experiments.

There is plenty more, and they conclude with:

In summary, the EUV data presented in references [1–4] can be explained in terms of conventional collision, radiation, and gas discharge processes and do not support the hydrino hypothesis [1]. A Comment on the more general aspects of the hydrino theory has recently been published by Lawler and Goebel [20].

So, yet again, we are essentially seeing that Mills and co-workers are misinterpreting/ overinterpreting data, simply to fit in with their predetermined outcomes. In reality, as also pointed out by Kunze in 2008, they are interpreting data that shows nothing that cannot easily be explained by conventional means, and/ or simply doesn't exist, and is merely artefacts. And that's it. The 'evidence' for hydrinos. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. That would be why he has been prattling on about this nonsense for decades, always being on the verge of having a commercial model, and yet producing diddly.

 

[Horatius]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768299&postcount=58

What is there new to be addressed in that three year old post? He did the same old same old:

- Minimize the importance of a validation report by emphasizing that it wasn't 'independent'.

- Minimize the NASA findings just because the results weren't as strong as BLP's own. Yet a researcher there admitted they didn't use the same Nickel source as BLP. And of course a nationally recognized lab is going to give reasons why the excess heat could be from conventional sources and not from a novel one. In case the energy source is subsequently and definitively shown to be conventional, they have their arses covered. Meanwhile, the hold open the possibility that it is novel and deserves further exploration, just in case.

- Maximize Earthtech's negative findings. Yet Earthtech didn't have the help of BLP, and such help from an originator is often crucial for successful replication.

- No mention the dozens of other validation reports and the dozens of peer reviewed publications.

And with this post, I basically give up. You've managed to completely invert the relative importance of these various attempts to replicate Mills' work, which means that you fundamentally (willingly or otherwise) do not understand how science actually works.

This is not unlike how you've managed to recast Mills' 30 years of obvious failure into "30 years of refining his technology". It's clear that your will to believe exceeds any possible argument against belief.

Indeed, the one line "Yet Earthtech didn't have the help of BLP, and such help from an originator is often crucial for successful replication" pretty much gives you cover for any truly independent attempts at replication that fail to reproduce the results. With that as one of your fundamental postulates, no failure will ever convince you.

 

[Reality Check]

Mills theory is much more conservative that QM.

The idiocy of being "conservative" (as if the universe will obey Mills imagination!) does not hide that Mills is using ignorance, delusions and lies to justify his almost 30 years of hydrino delusions.
What the universe tells rational people is that it acts strangely, weirdly, is definitely not "conservative" and cannot be explained using classical physics.

What reading Mills book tells rational and knowledgeable people is:
Part I: 37 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part II: 24 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part III: 18 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book

What your inability to understand basic physics (e.g. what the Schrödinger equation is) tells us that you have fallen for the hydrino delusion hook, line and sinker.
12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
12 April 2017 markie: A 2012 paper showing a Mills lie about spectra and conventional explanations for them (no hydrinos need apply!)

 

[jrhowell]

Where did he publish it?

I'll have to look for the more recent work. But in the meantime you could check out this from Rowan University in 2009:

https://www.scribd.com/document/215406742/Blp-Independent-Report

So are you saying it was published on Scribd?

That document contains several reports. In the first Rowan University faculty and students report some anomalous spectral results from carrying out an an experiment. It is mentioned several times that the materials used were supplied by BLP and I saw no mention that the purity of those materials was ever verified. So, not independent and not interesting.

The last report describes calibration of a calorimeter. I didn't read enough to understand the full context of that, but it makes me wonder whether some "unusual" form of calorimetry is involved in other experiments that show anomalous heat.