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

[Blue Mountain]

Has anyone ever asked Mills directly, "You have a very impressive heat source in a small volume. What's stopping you from simply connecting it to a boiler, steam turbine, and generator to produce electricity?"

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Has anyone ever asked Mills directly, "You have a very impressive heat source in a small volume. What's stopping you from simply connecting it to a boiler, steam turbine, and generator to produce electricity?"

And that would be overkill. They could make a fortune and win Nobel Prizes even without doing that.

 

[Worm]

if they have, I suspect he might have got immediate RSI from all the hand waving

 

[CORed]

Has anyone ever asked Mills directly, "You have a very impressive heat source in a small volume. What's stopping you from simply connecting it to a boiler, steam turbine, and generator to produce electricity?"

I asked the same question of cold fusion advocates at least 20 years ago. I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[Horatius]

So the deadline for the bet with Michael Suede must have passed by now, mustn't it? He's not posted in this thread for a long time, and not mentioned Mills or Brilliant Light Power on his website since September of last year.

I PMed him through the forum, but haven't heard back. I keep forgetting to go find his e-mail address, and am too sick today to care about it. I'll keep you posted!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I PMed him through the forum, but haven't heard back. I keep forgetting to go find his e-mail address, and am too sick today to care about it. I'll keep you posted!

Since it's prominently displayed on his website, I don't think it's against the rules to post it here: [email protected]

 

[halleyscomet]

Since it's prominently displayed on his website, I don't think it's against the rules to post it here: [email protected]

I went to his page and thought I could just post a comment. Sadly I get this message:

We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Libertarian News. Find out more.

I guess I ticked him off at some point.

 

[The Moog]

So the deadline for the bet with Michael Suede must have passed by now, mustn't it? He's not posted in this thread for a long time, and not mentioned Mills or Brilliant Light Power on his website since September of last year.

No surprise that Mills yet again failed to produce anything but hot air.

 

[Hans]

No surprise that Mills yet again failed to produce anything but hot air.

Wait a self-lifting hot air balloon......

 

[Horatius]

Since it's prominently displayed on his website, I don't think it's against the rules to post it here: [email protected]

Okay, e-mail sent! Thanks!

 

[markie]

By repeating what we already know.
Mills has the delusion that he can just add a few parts of QM to a classical theory. Then he has delusions about predicting Lamb shift, etc. that you mindlessly parrot.

This is Lamb shift


Mills has Hydrogen Lamb Shift stupidity starting on page 152 ("calculated from the radiation reaction force and the atom recoil energy due to photon emission"). As we have pointed out many times before, basic electromagnetism means his hydrogen proton is disconnected from his sphere delusion. There is no "atom recoil".

He ends with a lie of good agreement between his predicted and the experimental value.

17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.
The force between a charge inside a uniform shall of charges and the shell is zero. Mills proton is free to move inside his electron shell.

17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift
Experimental value = 1057.845 MHz. His value = 1057.09 MHz These are different values.

Yes there is recoil. Mills is a stickler for little things like conservation of energy and conservation of linear and angular momentum.

And of course there is a force between the proton and the electron, why you think otherwise is ... odd.

Why don't you mention what Mills does in his book about the discrepancy of the experimental value and his calculated value: "The 0.07% relative difference is within the propagated error in the fundamental constants of the equations." Same goes when he calculates the Lamb shift for muonic hydrogen.

 

[markie]

And cannot because (from memory) these produce results that are impossible under classical physics.

The point is, Mills does produce the correct results with classical physics.

 

[markie]

More Mills insanity that you mindlessly parrot. The "Aspect experiment" is one of the experiments on Bells theorem testing an inequality about QM, not classical physics.

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
Lie 1: Aspect Experimental Results Are Predicted Classically.
Lie 2: Aspect Experimental Results Are Not Predicted by Quantum Mechanics.
Aspect et al. (1982) ruled out local hidden variable theories (so implying ruling out classical physics) and the results were consistent with non-local, non-hidden QM.

Bell's theorem is a way to test whether a certain class of theories can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Those 15 experiments show that

No lies. 1 is true, and 2 is true for a single photon.

 

[markie]

Ah, so they are "deduced from" the bunch of other self-contradictory crap he "merely postulated".

You misunderstand. The Pauli exclusion principle and Hund's rule were not postulated by Mills, they were postulated by Pauli and Hund. Unlike Pauli and Hund, Mills gives reasons for the particulars regarding orbital filling.

 

[abaddon]

The point is, Mills does produce the correct results with classical physics.

I cannot fathom this. It is akin to Babbage who was once asked after he invented a calculator "Mr. Babbage, if you put in the wrong numbers, will your machine still give the correct answer?"

Of course, Babbage correctly answered "WT actual F????"

 

[markie]

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.

Mills predictions are within experimental limits and the limits of the accuracy of the fundamental constants used in his equations.

You say "no checks at all". You're just making that up. Mills calculations are in his book for all to see. I have seen no refutation of any of his predictions.

How is QM doing for predicting with any accuracy the masses of the fundamental particles, or the ionization energies of atoms with Z greater that 1? Pretty bad.

 

[markie]

No surprise here. God of the gaps to the rescue. From page 41 in the Report:



Given Mills history of using past tense instead of future tense in forward-looking statemnts, this disclaimer don't inspire confidence. (i.e. We have, instead of: We will.) From page 2 of the pdf:

This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including
statements regarding the company's plans and expectations regarding
the development and commercialization of our technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. The
forward
-looking statements speak only as of the date of this
presentation. The company expressly disclaims any obligation or
undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such
statements to reflect any change in the company's expectations or any
change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such
statements are based.

Dark matter has been observed (indirectly) in nature. Past tense. No problem.

 

[markie]

This was noted before that his equipment (depending on the particular manifestation of this illusion) either burns up, melts down, or explodes in any number of ways. Like all magic tricks, this is the smoke that obscures the real way the trick works.



Just always remember this from his presentation:


So there you have it stated plainly even by Mills. He hasn't even proven his hypotheses yet. Even Mills has no evidence of hydrinos yet and only hopes to identify hydrinos and products of the hydrino reaction and build functional power systems "in the near term".

As for in the now? Nada nothing zippo. Nothing but smoke and mirrors
Exactly
I believe most of us have stated this a year ago or more?

Mills has already proven it to those with eyes to see; that is, those who take the vast collection of experimental results, validated by other parties, at face value. The 'world' will take notice when a device is working, producing anomalous amounts of energy at power densities good enough for the marketplace.

 

[Reality Check]

A "within experimental limits" lie since page 155 of Mills book has none

Mills predictions are within experimental limits and the limits of the accuracy of the fundamental constants used in his equations.

25 July 2018 markie: A "within experimental limits" lie since page 155 of Mills book has no experimental limits.
I wrote the experimental value that he gave in full: 1057.845 MHz, no experimental errors. Mills gets 1057.09 MHz.

17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift

Mills has a reference for that 1057.845 MHz value: 42. P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor, D. B. Newell, “CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2006,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 80, (2008), pp. 633-73/.
Here it is: CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physicalconstants: 2014 and

25 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that Mohr et. al. have 1057.845 MHz as the hydrogen Lamb shift.
This is at least bad scholarship. Mohr et. al. discuss Lamb shift and charitably one of their references has a value.

ETA: A bit of research and I find this course from 2008.
Lamb Shift in Atomic Hydrogen (PDF)

Recent calculations for all effects contributing to the Lamb shift result in a value
1057.833 (4) MHz [7].
The best experimental value for the 2S1/2 - 2P1/2 energy difference is
1057.845 (3) MHz [7].
That these values are so close is an outstanding triumph of both experimental and theoretical physics.

The author is being honest - the values are not in good agreement which suggests within errors but different vales, they are just close. The theoretical value is also much closer than Mills!

 

[markie]

Has anyone ever asked Mills directly, "You have a very impressive heat source in a small volume. What's stopping you from simply connecting it to a boiler, steam turbine, and generator to produce electricity?"

The heat source and power density is proven. All that remains is to fix some nagging issues on the engineering side of things. Then he can hook it up to a boiler.