Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[Darat]

Not every great idea makes it through to practical application, for one reason or another.

So like none of Mill's great ideas?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not every great idea makes it through to practical application, for one reason or another.

Could you provide a cite for the paper he said that he and Turpin were about to publish showing the results of the HIV drug they said they had already tested?

 

[markie]

Lol... one of these things is not like the other:

The measuring device specs: https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/IQLAADGABFFAHCMAPA

The table at the top of page 34: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

Notice anything?

I notice that you're not paying close enough attention.

 

[markie]

Yes.

Not that it matters much, but page 24 appears to say the numbers on page 34, Table 4, were obtained using a "Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRAM Aramis Raman spectrometer with a HeCd 325 nm laser in microscope mode with a magnification of 40X." From figures shown in the manufacturer's brochure, its spectral range is similar to that of the Thermo Scientific DXR 2 whose specs you cited.

ETA: See also Figure 60 on page 114, which lies entirely outside the usable range of the instrument.

No. See for instance

https://smif.pratt.duke.edu/sites/s...s/operating/OPT3 Operating Procedure_Rev9.pdf

Page 2.
325nm laser, 2400 grating (regarded as 'optimal' for the 325nm laser) , is good for 1 to 15100 wavelengths per cm.

Mills is using the 325 nm laser but with a 1200 grating instead, which would appropriately increase the number of wavelengths, comfortably in the range of the 8000 to 19000 wavelengths per cm that Mills is measuring.

 

[markie]

Could you provide a cite for the paper he said that he and Turpin were about to publish showing the results of the HIV drug they said they had already tested?

It wasn't an HIV drug per se, it was a carrier for the drug. I'm not inclined to look for that paper because it no doubt is at least paywalled, but I note that even four years after that Village Voice interview Mills was still working on it or something closely related, with Wu.

2004 Abstract

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jps.20026

 

[The Man]

Detailed isometrics? I guess we aren't referring to the same drawing.

Spent much time doing such drawings? Isometric drawings can vary in the amount of detail they display. How about that patent drawing, does it include a Faraday channel?

 

[Darat]

It wasn't an HIV drug per se, it was a carrier for the drug. I'm not inclined to look for that paper because it no doubt is at least paywalled, but I note that even four years after that Village Voice interview Mills was still working on it or something closely related, with Wu.

2004 Abstract

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jps.20026

It's 2018......

 

[JeanTate]

RC, how about you tell the class the answer to this question: The equation of motion of the moon, and the equation of motion of a very flattened, extended moon of the same mass and distance from the earth: Are they the same?

Of course not!

Have you heard of tides, markie?

 

[JeanTate]

The energy I suppose would be temporarily stored in the EM field, until when the orbitsphere is closed and fully formed, the energy is released as a discrete photon as per the Rydberg formula.

If you say so.

Not sure if Mills did the incredibly complicated calculations to derive the emitted (or absorbed) EMR from the accelerations due to the shape and topology changes involved, but smart as he is, I kinda doubt that he did.

Planar discs.

How does the force between an orbitsphere and a pancake electron vary with distance?

Between two free pancake electrons: Normal coulombic force
Between a free pancake electron and a free bubble electron: Normal coulombic force
Between a free pancake electron and the outer orbitsphere of, say, a neutral Helium atom: No coloumbic force I believe.
Between two orbitspheres in the the same atom: No coloumbic force, but there would be a magnetic force.

Nice, but I notice that you did not actually answer my question. Again.

Never mind, I won't bother you with any more physics questions (there's no point), even if The Man and/or RC continue to do so.

 

[The Man]

No. See for instance

https://smif.pratt.duke.edu/sites/s...s/operating/OPT3 Operating Procedure_Rev9.pdf

Page 2.
325nm laser, 2400 grating (regarded as 'optimal' for the 325nm laser) , is good for 1 to 15100 wavelengths per cm.

Mills is using the 325 nm laser but with a 1200 grating instead, which would appropriately increase the number of wavelengths, comfortably in the range of the 8000 to 19000 wavelengths per cm that Mills is measuring.

Nowhere in that citation does it say the 325 nm laser with a 1200 grating gets you that range "comfortably" or otherwise. Heck, that citation doesn't even go above 15100 in any configuration.

If just your own citation merely confirms what others have been telling you about the inaccuracy of your assertions. You either need better citations or just better assertions.

 

[markie]

Of course not!

Have you heard of tides, markie?

Yeah, well we can ignore such tiny perturbations can't we, smarty pants.

 

[JeanTate]

The oversimplification and misrepresentation is breathtaking.
How about you ask a chemist how easy it is to detect and identify H2 in the lab. Then ask an astrophysicist how easy it is to detect vast clouds of cold H2 gas in outer space. Short version: You'll get different answers.

OK ... I asked one, and the answer was (I translated, I think the original would end up as a lot of asterisks) "markie seems to know very little about astrophysics".

 

[markie]

Nowhere in that citation does it say the 325 nm laser with a 1200 grating gets you that range "comfortably" or otherwise. Heck, that citation doesn't even go above 15100 in any configuration.

If just your own citation merely confirms what others have been telling you about the inaccuracy of your assertions. You either need better citations or just better assertions.

Let me help. Looking at the table it is easy to see that in every case that the grating setting is decreased by 600, the maximum wave number goes up by 3,900.

For 325 nm laser the table shows a maximum wave number at 15100 for the 2400 grating. A 1800 grating would put the maximum wave number to 19000. So Mills went one more, to the 1200 grating which would put the maximum wave number to 22900, comfortably covering the 8000 to 19000 wave number range.

Albeit, this is not the optimal grating as some resolution would be lost. But it is good enough to get the job done.

 

[markie]

OK ... I asked one, and the answer was (I translated, I think the original would end up as a lot of asterisks) "markie seems to know very little about astrophysics".

Tell your friend to watch his tongue. And no, he won't be able to give a method to directly detect cold H2 gas in outer space. Looking for 'tracers' like CO that could be correlated to such clouds doesn't count.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No. See for instance

https://smif.pratt.duke.edu/sites/s...s/operating/OPT3 Operating Procedure_Rev9.pdf

Page 2.
325nm laser, 2400 grating (regarded as 'optimal' for the 325nm laser) , is good for 1 to 15100 wavelengths per cm.

Mills is using the 325 nm laser but with a 1200 grating instead, which would appropriately increase the number of wavelengths, comfortably in the range of the 8000 to 19000 wavelengths per cm that Mills is measuring.

No. According to the operating instructions you cited, the only grating recommended for use with the 325 nm laser is the 2400. Using the 1200 grating with that laser is incompatible with those instructions.

As The Man pointed out, your citation does not describe any configurations whatsoever that would make that instrument usable beyond 15000cm^-1. Your citation does not describe any usable range whatsoever for the configuration you believe Mills actually employed.

Albeit, this is not the optimal grating as some resolution would be lost. But it is good enough to get the job done.

So says markie.

The problem with trying to use this instrument outside its usable range is not diminished resolution, but aliasing and other artifacts. The grating's purpose is to act as a low-pass filter to keep the frequency response below the Nyquist frequency. If you try to jack up the frequency response by using an inappropriate grating, you end up seeing aliasing artifacts, not genuine signals.

 

[LTC8K6]

Albeit, this is not the optimal grating as some resolution would be lost. But it is good enough to get the job done.

And apparently "good enough" is good enough to claim world shaking discoveries and inventions.

 

[Horatius]

I just wanted to remind everyone that the deadline for my bet with michaelsuede is less than a week away.

So, markie, any comments on how every prediction that Mills and his supporters were making at that time have failed to come true, while my single prediction has been (almost now!) proven true?

 

[The Man]

Let me help. Looking at the table it is easy to see that in every case that the grating setting is decreased by 600, the maximum wave number goes up by 3,900.

For 325 nm laser the table shows a maximum wave number at 15100 for the 2400 grating. A 1800 grating would put the maximum wave number to 19000. So Mills went one more, to the 1200 grating which would put the maximum wave number to 22900, comfortably covering the 8000 to 19000 wave number range.

Albeit, this is not the optimal grating as some resolution would be lost. But it is good enough to get the job done.

Let me help you "Looking at the table it is easy to see that" the 325 nm laser has no other recommended gratings . Beyond what W.D.Clinger notes above just the Charge Coupled Device itself can be the limiting factor. You can't just pull configurations and ranges out of you arse. Well, you can, as you did, but it just makes the readings reported validly unreliable.

 

[Horatius]

Let me help. Looking at the table it is easy to see that in every case that the grating setting is decreased by 600, the maximum wave number goes up by 3,900.

For 325 nm laser the table shows a maximum wave number at 15100 for the 2400 grating. A 1800 grating would put the maximum wave number to 19000. So Mills went one more, to the 1200 grating which would put the maximum wave number to 22900, comfortably covering the 8000 to 19000 wave number range.

Albeit, this is not the optimal grating as some resolution would be lost. But it is good enough to get the job done.

This reminds me of a quote from Richard Feynman:

You see, it depended on one or two points at the very edge of the range of the data, and there's a principle that a point on the edge of the range of the data -- the last point -- isn't very good, because if it was, they'd have another point further along. And I had realized that the whole idea that neutron-proton coupling is T was based on the last point, which wasn't very good, and therefore it's not proved. I remember noticing that!

If the instrument you're discussing could be used at the range you quote, then why wouldn't they publish that? Why wouldn't anyone else use it that way?

It's because they understand what Feynman was talking about here: at the edges, the capabilities break down. If they didn't break down, they'd have moved the edges further out.

It's like saying that, because my truck has a speedometer that goes to 160km/h, that it must be able to go 180 km/h, because it's not that much faster. Except that last 20 km/h really are pushing it.

 

[The Man]

Heck, Horatius, just on that hairy edge would be one thing but this malarkey is another 25% (of the full recommended range) past even just that edge. That's just taking a running jump off the edge and being smashed to bits below.

This crap has to be a joke or it is just way too sad.