• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
And no, you have not 'told him ... exactly what he needs to do', and even if you did, why would he listen.


Ignoring the fact that you're ignoring the multiple examples we've given of how Mills could convince us, the highlighted bit is telling, even though you probably don't know why.



From my perspective I think EEstor and Theranos have more in common with each other than they do with BLP. At the heart of EEStor and Theranos were greatly exaggerated claims for products that don't claim to be based on theories that violate the laws of physics as they are known today and that actually do something albeit not nearly as well as claimed.


These sorts of claims are made by three general classes of people:

1) The honestly mistaken. The guy in his garage, who notices something funny, that he thinks might be a revolutionary new source of energy, because he's lacking in the key piece of knowledge needed to explain why it won't work.

2) The honestly crazy.

3) The frauds.


Distinguishing between 1 and 2 can sometimes be difficult. Some people, once you explain the problem to them, get over it, and stop making their claims. But some just jump onto the, "Oh, but what if we...." train, trying over and over again to make it work, convinced that this time, they've got it right. This eventually looks like delusion, but when it began, they weren't actually crazy. But they get so far down the rabbit hole, they become indistinguishable from those who were clearly insane right from the outset.

You examples probably fall somewhere along that line of evolution. they're still sure that, if they just tweak it just right, it will suddenly work.

People in Group 3, however, behave in their own unique way. Groups 1 and 2 will always seek out people to assist them in proving their technology works, even when it keeps failing. Group 3 does back flips to avoid ever having anyone take a real look at their work, clouding it in secrecy, and obsessively controlling who gets to see behind the curtain.
 
If you recall, it was RC who protested Mills equation of motion for the orbitsphere, as RC said that it describes the equation of motion for an point like object obeying an inverse squared force relationship with a centre. I merely tried to show that the same formula applies not only to a point but to a spread out object.

Now you seem to be inferring that Mills' orbitsphere should be producing tidal effects. No it shouldn't, because the mass of the orbitsphere is evenly distributed as a spherical shell.



Well of course the analogy is limited in its application. It was meant to address only a simple problem RC had with the equation of motion.

Mills must take into account many factors to get (say) the ionization energies correct. You are correct that he hasn't taken into account the non spherical geometries of more complex nuclei, which would contribute a very small effect. As I recall, he plans to flesh out the nuclei structure at a later time when he has more time.
In my experience, RC is rarely wrong in the points he makes (though the way he presents them is not the way I would).

Here, I repeat what I’ve said many times before: Mills’ so called physics is nonsense (or magic, if you prefer), and his astrophysics even worse. And your attempts to make some of it make sense, while maybe admirable, only serve to further show just how bad Mills’ work is.
 
I merely tried to show that the same formula applies not only to a point but to a spread out object.
The point that emerged was that you were ignorant about Mills delusions :p!
4 July 2018 markie: An ignorant question does not excuse the ignorance that a particle is not a sphere

This is the shell theorem
Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and stated that:
1.A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
2.If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
Mills delusions are case 2.
 
Unthinking parroting of someone ignorant enough to call QT "pateches"

As someone on an old Hydrino forum used to describe the progress of quantum theory: "patch, patch, patch"
9 July 2018 markie: Unthinking parroting of someone ignorant enough to call progress in quantum theory "patches".

Anyone who learns the history of quantum mechanics reads about scientific progress. QM starts with observations (atomic spectra, black body radiation, photoelectric effect) that tell us the energy is quantized. Then there is 113 years of progress.
 
A "QT has been holding back research" lie when QT is extensively researched

QT has been holding back research....
9 July 2018 markie: A "QT has been holding back research" lie when quantum theory is extensively researched and inspired new research.

Mills does not even have a rational explanation for the double slit experiment :jaw-dropp!

We have a rational and working explanation for the double slit experiment and many other observed quantum effects, e.g. quantum entanglement.
 
Well for instance you could look at the Scientific American article LTC8K6 referenced shortly before your post:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...iments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
We know about that article and what you did not quote from it:
In 1991, BLP’s founder, Randell L. Mills, announced at a press conference in Lancaster, Pa., that he had devised a theory in which the electron in hydrogen could transition from its normal ground energy state to previously unknown lower and more stable states, liberating copious amount of energy in the process. Mills named this curious new type of shrunken hydrogen the hydrino, and he has been at work ever since to develop a commercial device to harness its power and make it available to the world.
That is 27 years or repeated failures to produce a commercial device :eye-poppi!

Mills has his own theory, but many scientists don’t believe it and think the hydrino improbable. The research community has stopped short of the public dismissal it gave cold fusion and has tended to just ignore Mills and his work. Mills has reciprocated by trying to stay out from under the shadow of cold fusion.

Invalidity confirmed by
In 2005, Rathke analyzed Mills’s theory and published a paper in which he concluded it was flawed and incompatible with everything physicists knew (New J. Phys. 2005, DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127).

Previously debunked by NASA:
In the 1990s, a few researchers, including a team from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration’s Lewis Research Center, did report independently replicating the Mills approach and generating excess heat. The NASA team wrote in a report that the results “fall far short of being compelling” and did not mention anything about hydrinos.


You quote Peter Mark Jansson. A plasma physicist? A QM expert? An expert in calorimetry? An expert in spectroscopy?
No - an electrical engineer! He had 20 years of experience in the electrical industry before joining academia. Oddly for an associate professor his has no list of published papers.
 
Last edited:
You quote Peter Mark Jansson. A plasma physicist? A QM expert? An expert in calorimetry? An expert in spectroscopy?
No - an electrical engineer! He had 20 years of experience in the electrical industry before joining academia. Oddly for an associate professor his has no list of published papers.
Very common tactic for the continuing façade — as long as it's a "scientist" that's pontificating, Mills and his shills are good to go even if it's someone who is talking out of their area of expertise.
 
How come we have made huge technological advances by using the theories in the creation of those technologies?

“Failing QM is a disaster! Given us nothing but computers and lasers and junk like that!”
 
Verifiable advances in Quantum Theory in the last 30 years (from Timeline_of_quantum_mechanicsWP):
1980–1999[edit]
1980 to 1982 – Alain Aspect verifies experimentally the quantum entanglement hypothesis; his Bell test experiments provide strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations.[60][61]
1982 to 1997 – Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at PPPL, Princeton, USA: Operated since 1982, produces 10.7MW of controlled fusion power for only 0.21s in 1994 by using T-D nuclear fusion in a tokamak reactor with "a toroidal 6T magnetic field for plasma confinement, a 3MA plasma current and an electron density of 1.0×1020 m−3 of 13.5 keV" [62]
1983 – Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer, at the Super Proton Synchrotron, see unambiguous signals of W particles in January. The actual experiments are called UA1 (led by Rubbia) and UA2 (led by Peter Jenni), and are the collaborative effort of many people. Simon van der Meer is the driving force on the use of the accelerator. UA1 and UA2 find the Z particle a few months later, in May 1983.
1983 to 2011 – The largest and most powerful experimental nuclear fusion tokamak reactor in the world, Joint European Torus (JET) begins operation at Culham Facility in UK; operates with T-D plasma pulses and has a reported gain factor Q of 0.7 in 2009, with an input of 40MW for plasma heating, and a 2800-ton iron magnet for confinement;[63] in 1997 in a tritium-deuterium experiment JET produces 16 MW of fusion power, a total of 22 MJ of fusion, energy and a steady fusion power of 4 MW which is maintained for 4 seconds.[64]
1985 to 2010 – The JT-60 (Japan Torus) begins operation in 1985 with an experimental D-D nuclear fusion tokamak similar to the JET; in 2010 JT-60 holds the record for the highest value of the fusion triple product achieved: 1.77×1028 K·s·m−3 = 1.53×1021 keV·s·m−3.;[65] JT-60 claims it would have an equivalent energy gain factor, Q of 1.25 if it were operated with a T-D plasma instead of the D-D plasma, and on May 9, 2006 attains a fusion hold time of 28.6 s in full operation; moreover, a high-power microwave gyrotron construction is completed that is capable of 1.5MW output for 1s,[66] thus meeting the conditions for the planned ITER, large-scale nuclear fusion reactor. JT-60 is disassembled in 2010 to be upgraded to a more powerful nuclear fusion reactor—the JT-60SA—by using niobium-titanium superconducting coils for the magnet confining the ultra-hot D-D plasma.
1986 – Johannes Georg Bednorz and Karl Alexander Müller produce unambiguous experimental proof of high temperature superconductivity involving Jahn-Teller polarons in orthorhombic La2CuO4, YBCO and other perovskite-type oxides; promptly receive a Nobel prize in 1987 and deliver their Nobel lecture on December 8, 1987.[67]
1986 – Vladimir Gershonovich Drinfeld introduces the concept of quantum groups as Hopf algebras in his seminal address on quantum theory at the International Congress of Mathematicians, and also connects them to the study of the Yang–Baxter equation, which is a necessary condition for the solvability of statistical mechanics models; he also generalizes Hopf algebras to quasi-Hopf algebras, and introduces the study of Drinfeld twists, which can be used to factorize the R-matrix corresponding to the solution of the Yang–Baxter equation associated with a quasitriangular Hopf algebra.
1988 to 1998 – Mihai Gavrilă discovers in 1988 the new quantum phenomenon of atomic dichotomy in hydrogen and subsequently publishes a book on the atomic structure and decay in high-frequency fields of hydrogen atoms placed in ultra-intense laser fields.[68][69][70][71][72][73][74]
1991 – Richard R. Ernst develops two-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (2D-FT NMRS) for small molecules in solution and is awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1991 "for his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy."[75]
1977 to 1995 – The top quark is finally observed by a team at Fermilab after an 18-year search. It has a mass much greater than had been previously expected — almost as great as a gold atom.
1995 – Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle and co-workers at JILA create the first "pure" Bose–Einstein condensate. They do this by cooling a dilute vapor consisting of approximately two thousand rubidium-87 atoms to below 170 nK using a combination of laser cooling and magnetic evaporative cooling. About four months later, an independent effort led by Wolfgang Ketterle at MIT creates a condensate made of sodium-23. Ketterle's condensate has about a hundred times more atoms, allowing him to obtain several important results such as the observation of quantum mechanical interference between two different condensates.
1998 – The Super-Kamiokande (Japan) detector facility reports experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations, implying that at least one neutrino has mass.
1999 to 2013 – NSTX—The National Spherical Torus Experiment at PPPL, Princeton, USA launches a nuclear fusion project on February 12, 1999 for "an innovative magnetic fusion device that was constructed by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in collaboration with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Columbia University, and the University of Washington at Seattle"; NSTX is being used to study the physics principles of spherically shaped plasmas.[76]

21st century[edit]
2000 – scientists at European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) publish experimental results in which they claim to have observed indirect evidence of the existence of a quark–gluon plasma, which they call a "new state of matter."
2001 – the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (Canada) confirm the existence of neutrino oscillations. Lene Hau stops a beam of light completely in a Bose–Einstein condensate.[77]
2002 – Leonid Vainerman organizes a meeting at Strasbourg of theoretical physicists and mathematicians focused on quantum group and quantum groupoid applications in quantum theories; the proceedings of the meeting are published in 2003 in a book edited by the meeting organizer.[78]
2003 – Sir Anthony James Leggett receives the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physics for pioneering contributions to the quantum theory of superconductors, and superfluids such as Helium-3, shared with V. L. Ginzburg and A. A. Abrikosov.
2005 – the RHIC accelerator of Brookhaven National Laboratory generates a quark-gluon fluid, perhaps the quark–gluon plasma
2007 to 2010 – Charles Pence Slichter is awarded the National Medal of Science in 2007 for his studies of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Solids, and especially his NMR Studies of High-Temperature Superconductors.
2007 to 2010 – Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger and John Clauser present progress with the resolution of the non-locality aspect of quantum theory and in 2010 are awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics, together with Anton Zeilinger and John Clauser.[79]
2009 - Aaron D. O'Connell invents the first quantum machine, applying quantum mechanics to a macroscopic object just large enough to be seen by the naked eye, which is able to vibrate a small amount and large amount simultaneously.
2011 - Zachary Dutton demonstrates how photons can co-exist in superconductors. "Direct Observation of Coherent Population Trapping in a Superconducting Artificial Atom",[80]
2014 – Scientists transfer data by quantum teleportation over a distance of 10 feet with zero percent error rate, a vital step towards a quantum internet.[81][82]

Verifiable advances by Mills in the last 30 years:
????
 
How come we have made huge technological advances by using the theories in the creation of those technologies?


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favour with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions.


From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 9:

Three Atomic Theories
It is possible to arrive at the Rydberg formula using the wrong physics. The statement "the results justify the means" is a fundamental argument for the validity of quantum mechanics no matter how strained the explanations or the consequences. Consider that in fact, the mathematics of the three theories of Bohr, Schrodinger, and presently CP [Classical Physics] converge to Eq (I.1) as the principal energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

E(n) = - e^2/(n^2*8*Pi*epsilon0*alphaH) = -13.598eV/n^2 , n = 1,2,3,...

where alphaH is the Bohr radius for the hydrogen atom (52.947pm), e is the magnitude of the charge of the electron, and epsilon0 is the vacuum permittivity. The theories of Bohr and Schrodinger depend on specific postulates to yield equation (I.1). ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom