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

[Reality Check]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.

That is not quite what markie's ignorant faith in Mills has produced. markie is as usual merely parroting Mills delusions. This is Mills taking his delusions about the electron and orbitals and apparently coming up with the Pauli exclusion principle and Hund's rule.

 

[Reality Check]

A "merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule" lie

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle ....

18 July 2018 markie: A "merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule" lie.

The Pauli exclusion principle started with Pauli considering the fact that even numbers of electrons give more chemically stable atoms and molecules. That gave the principle of 1 electron per state and the introduction of a two valued state, i.e. electron spin. That is a principle derived from empirical evidence.

Ditto for Hund's rules (The first is Hund's Rule). These are rules based on empirical evidence.

This is a good example of markie blindly parroting Mills deluded book. See the gibberish on page 5 starting "purely postulated Hund’s Rule and the Pauli Exclusion Principle ..."

 

[Mike!]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.

You’re replying to a guy who thinks it’s a good idea to invest in a company with a 30 year track record of failure and who admits the founder makes up timeframes (lies) when talking about eventual products.

Pesky things like timeline and cause / effect have little meaning in such a context.

Well, you know, when you have a means for time travel, they do become a little less significant.
Which, of course, begs the point, why hasn't he traveled to some point in the future, where he's mastered the unlimited power of the Hydreno, and then brought that secret back to the present, or better still, 30 years ago, saving himself all the trouble of figuring, and refiguring, it all out time and again, thus becoming a self fulfilling prophecy worthy of legend instead of looking like a scam artist?
I think that alone proves that he remains a failure throughout his entire life. Well, that and never doing anything really useful with that whole time travel thing ether.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie about Mills "deduction" of the Pauli exclusion principle - it is a fantasy

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.

18 July 2018 markie: A lie about Mills "deduction" of the Pauli exclusion principle - it is a fantasy, not a deduction.

18 July 2018 markie: A lie about Mills "deduction" of Hund's rule which does not exist.

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Mills writes a fairy story about two of his electron delusions giving the Pauli exclusion principle.

What configuration would a rational person think that 2 of Mills "electrons" (charged spheres) would take? They should be on top of each other. The result would be a doubly charged, doubly massive "electron". They may be inside each other. Mills takes an "Electrons pair as opposite mirror-image current" fantasy and spins a story that the fantasy makes 2 "electrons" have opposite spins.

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Insane Bose-Einstein gibberish, e.g. ignores most bosons, "electron resonator cavities" insanity.

 

[jonesdave116]

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.

Yeah, screw Pauli, eh? Let's ditch the Periodic Table. That's pretty much junk, anyway. No wonder I had so much trouble with it at Primary School! Nice one, eh, Markie?
That neutron star binary merger? You know the one? How the hell are you doing that without Pauli, dear? What about White Dwarves? I could go on, but it'd be pointless, given that we are dealing with A True Believer. Ergo, Markie, you are still talking crap. Yes? Will it ever stop? Of course it won't. You are as wedded to this garbage as Catholics are to................catholic stuff. Hmm?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

The thing to note is what Mills can predict with these assumptions. Breathtaking really. G factor? Check. Lamb shift? Check. Ionization energies of all atoms or ions with fewer than 21 electrons? Check. Excited state lifetimes? Check. Masses of fundamental particles? Check. And so on.

<snip>

RC has already addressed most of the rest of this remarkable post of yours, markie, and some of this one too.

If you go back into the history of discussion of Mills and his ToMM etc, you'll see that some people decided to check these remarkable claims. Guess what they found? No "Check"s at all.

Here's a suggestion: take Mills' so-called predictions, and search for the most recent papers which report the experimental results on the values for these. Be sure to note the confidence limits.

Put them into a table.

Mills gets a "Check" only when his prediction is within the experimental limits, no exceptions; specifically, "close" is not "Check" (RC has already posted an example).

If you're really keen, you could carefully note which "predictions" were truly made before any measured values were published. You may not believe this, but it is actually very easy to "reverse engineer" remarkably good values, and create a framework for "predicting" them, one that looks quite rational. However, it gets much harder to do this for very precisely determined values (e.g. the electron "g-2", ditto g-2 for the muon), and for values which change as better experiments get done. And there's history: check out the long and winding road of efforts to nail down alpha (the fine-structure "constant"), and the myriad of very rational predictions of its value.

 

[UncertainH]

More Mills insanity if you are right. Mass is not electromagnetic in origin. For example neutral neutrinos have mass. The existence of the Higgs boson means that mass for gauge bosons is from the Higgs mechanism.

Point of clarification: being neutral does not mean something is not electromagnetic. Photons are quite definitely neutral and massless but are electromagnetic. The various theories that have been put forth over the years of course are far more complicated than simply saying that if something is electromagnetic then it must have mass.

The electromagnetic origin of mass is an old topic probably started by J.J. Thompson in 1881. Inquiries and theoretical studies on this topic continue to this day by reputable physicists who don't buy into the Higgs mechanism or who are at least willing to question the status quo.

There are still problems with the standard model and just about every other theory used to describe the physical world. It would be arrogant to presume that we have all the answers or to declare that 'mass comes from Higgs period'

I would be very willing to participate in another thread on this topic (separate from Mills and gutcp) if anyone is interested.

 

[Reality Check]

Point of clarification: being neutral does not mean something is not electromagnetic. Photons are quite definitely neutral and massless but are electromagnetic. ....

Which sort of emphasizes the insanity you ascribe to Mills! The photon is electromagnetic, "mass is electromagnetic in origin" so where is the mass of a photon?

You are thinking about the outdated concept of electromagnetic mass. J. J. Thomson in 1881 saw that a charged sphere in an aether would act as if it had mass. By 1887, an aether had been ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment. Special relativity shows that the mass equivalence of a body is related to its total energy. An electromagnetic origin of mass was then abandoned with some later work on the theory itself.

 

[UncertainH]

Which sort of emphasizes the insanity you ascribe to Mills! The photon is electromagnetic, "mass is electromagnetic in origin" so where is the mass of a photon?

You are thinking about the outdated concept of electromagnetic mass. J. J. Thomson in 1881 saw that a charged sphere in an aether would act as if it had mass. By 1887, an aether had been ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment. Special relativity shows that the mass equivalence of a body is related to its total energy. An electromagnetic origin of mass was then abandoned with some later work on the theory itself.

Actually, that is not what I was thinking at all. Do a search on the electromagnetic origin of mass and limit your results to things published in the last 10 or 20 years. Here's a few:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0010/0010050.pdf

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_staif98.pdf

They are all a little different and have nothing to do with Mills so I guess its a little off topic.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually, that is not what I was thinking at all. ....

Your list starts with a Feynman lecture from 1964 on the electromagnetic mass as in the Wikipedia article I cited. He derives the 3/4 problem (EM gives E = 3/4 mc^2) and goes onto proposed theoretical solutions from Dirac and others.
His points:

We only wish to emphasize here the following points: (1) the electromagnetic theory predicts the existence of an electromagnetic mass, but it also falls on its face in doing so, because it does not produce a consistent theory—and the same is true with the quantum modifications; (2) there is experimental evidence for the existence of electromagnetic mass; and (3) all these masses are roughly the same as the mass of an electron. So we come back again to the original idea of Lorentz—maybe all the mass of an electron is purely electromagnetic, maybe the whole 0.511 MeV is due to electrodynamics. Is it or isn’t it? We haven’t got a theory, so we cannot say.

A paper on how a spherical charge distribution solves the "4/3 mass paradox". But electrons are massive and not spheres!

An unpublished since 2000, possibly crank, pre-print ("A Physical Origin for Mass and Charge").

An irrelevant "An electromagnetic basis for inertia and gravitation: What are the implications for 21st century physics and technology?" conference proceeding.

 

[UncertainH]

Your list starts with a Feynman lecture from 1964 on the electromagnetic mass as in the Wikipedia article I cited. He derives the 3/4 problem (EM gives E = 3/4 mc^2) and goes onto proposed theoretical solutions from Dirac and others.
His points:



A paper on how a spherical charge distribution solves the "4/3 mass paradox". But electrons are massive and not spheres!

An unpublished since 2000, possibly crank, pre-print ("A Physical Origin for Mass and Charge").

An irrelevant "An electromagnetic basis for inertia and gravitation: What are the implications for 21st century physics and technology?" conference proceeding.

Well done RC

 

[UncertainH]

But electrons are massive and not spheres!

I'm not even sure what you mean by this sentence, but you say it with such confidence.

Here's something that seems to indicate that they are perfect spheres

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-spherical-electric-dipole-moment/

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not even sure what you mean by this sentence. ...

I meant "But electrons are massive and not spheres". They act as point particles.
Not Mills' delusions.
Not "spherical" implying sphere in a science article title. The actual result was that the electron is symmetrical which suggests a point particle or a sphere. This is however an interesting derail into actual science.
Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron
Supersymmetry theories predict a none-zero electric dipole moment. The measurement excludes theories that do not predict smaller dipole moments.

 

[UncertainH]

I meant "But electrons are massive and not spheres". They act as point particles.
Not Mills' delusions.
Not "spherical" implying sphere in a science article title. The actual result was that the electron is symmetrical which suggests a point particle or a sphere. This is however an interesting derail into actual science.
Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron
Supersymmetry theories predict a none-zero electric dipole moment. The measurement excludes theories that do not predict smaller dipole moments.

Indeed. Now if supersymmetry is dead (which may or may not be the case) this would cause trouble with the Higgs hierarchy problem which require yet more "fine tuning" of the standard model or new physics to explain. This is off topic for this thread but simply illustrates to me that we should not consider our current theories so correct that we do not investigate and consider alternatives. Even going back to first principles and starting over. Some theories that have obvious problems can sometimes have some seeds of ideas that might be useful for future work.

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”

― Isaac Asimov

 

[Reality Check]

Indeed. Now if supersymmetry is dead (which may or may not be the case) this would cause trouble with the Higgs hierarchy problem which require yet more "fine tuning" of the standard model or new physics to explain. This is off topic for this thread but simply illustrates to me that we should not consider our current theories so correct that we do not investigate and consider alternatives. Even going back to first principles and starting over. Some theories that have obvious problems can sometimes have some seeds of ideas that might be useful for future work.

The hierarchy problem (not just for the Higgs boson) is not strictly a problem for the Standard Model where the Higgs boson mass is a parameter, not a calculated value. We expect the Higgs boson mass to be much larger than it is measured from considerations of quantum contributions.

We do investigate and consider alternatives. These alternatives have to include at least 1 Higgs boson because we have discovered it. Thus AFAIK they include the Higgs mechanism as an origin for mass (however maybe there is some way of getting rid of it and keeping the boson).

 

[Darat]

All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?

 

[jonesdave116]

All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?

It'll be in your Argos catalogue shortly! Trust us on this; £200 gets you advanced access to this incredible............ woo! Nobody can explain how it works, but it does! Happy days, eh?
On the other hand, you could invest the £200 in the company, and stand to make a good return on your money, if this (scientifically impossible) idea ever comes to pass.
Did you get by in high school science? Are you not scientifically illiterate? Good. In which case, keep your money in your trousers. Don't be fooled by con artists like Mills, or Markie, or Michael Suede.
In short, it is garbage. Nobody with any sort of scientific understanding of the relevant science believes otherwise. Only fan boys of the con-artist-in-chief, Mills, are plugging this woo.
Eh, Markie?

 

[LTC8K6]

All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?

First, get yourself a spot welder...

 

[jrhowell]

More from Mills on July 20:

Slide 13, and now that we have a design that can run, we have continued problems with melting components in about 1 second. But, inevitably that issue is being solved.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/second-quarter-2018-update/

A whole second before self destruction!

I'm not sure if that should be considered a success or a failure in a device designed to burn it self out in as flashy a manner as possible.

 

[jonesdave116]

More from Mills on July 20:



A whole second before self destruction!

I'm not sure if that should be considered a success or a failure in a device designed to burn it self out in as flashy a manner as possible.

Crikey! He really is a bit of a fruitloop, eh? It is amazing how many marks (pun intended) have been fooled by this shyster, eh? I'm guessing that some companies don't employ people with degrees in relevant subjects, yes?
However, fair play to the con artist! I wish him well. Anybody dumb enough to believe crap like he is turning out deserves to be fleeced. Nyet?