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

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

I am seriously floored. Without words.

The 'world' will take notice when a device is working, producing anomalous amounts of energy at power densities good enough for the marketplace.

Even your second comment shows you know Mills has indeed NOT done what you claimed anyone "with eyes to see" could!

The level of cognitive dissonance is high with this one Obi Wan.

 

[markie]

25 July 2018 markie: A "The point is" lie when my point was that Mills cannot produce results that are impossible under classical physics

Clearly he can, and has, produced those result with classical physics, as documented in his GUTCP. A big part of that success has to do with treating objects such as an electron as having extension in space.

 

[markie]

25 July 2018 markie: Parrots Aspect experiment lies from Mills book
This is quantum entanglement which cannot be predicted by classical physics. Aspect et. al did not use "a single photon".

One real world fact he misses is that the Aspect experiment is the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem that together tell us that no local hidden variable theories can duplicate the predictions of QM. If we do averages over many measurements as in the Aspect experiment then the predictions of QM and classical physics differ. The experiments thus essentially rule out classical physics as an explanation for quantum entanglement.

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).

It's Mills' particular application of 'classical physics' that makes classical physics work for the Aspect experiment.

Regarding Bell's Theorem, that pertains to certain assumptions implicit in QM, and given those, then hidden variables will not do the job. But Mills is not working within that framework of QM assumptions, and he has no hidden variables. So Bell's Theorem does not apply to what he is doing, simple as that.

 

[markie]

25 July 2018 markie: Still does not understand that Mills lies about dark matter interacting electromagnetically so that it can be his hydrino delusion.

The dark part of dark matter is the absence of evidence that dark matter has electromagnetic interactions. Mills hydrino delusion has electromagnetic interactions. Thus "Dark Matter: The Hydrino® observed in nature" is a lie. That is the problem !

It is largely an assumption that dark matter has no electromagnetic interactions, and that it is exotic. Otherwise, the reasoning goes, we would have found it by now on earth. But to find it, one must know what to look for. No one but Mills and others who have dared to be involved in his hydrino research know what to look and how to look for it.

 

[markie]

How come he can't produce replicable experimental data for his theories?

What makes you say he can't. He can and he does. After all that's why dozens of his papers are published, for wider review and possibility of replication by others. If you know a lab that is capable of this kind of work and willing to attempt replication, I'm sure Mills would be pleased to hear from them.

 

[gabeygoat]

The 'world' will take notice when a device is working

that's quite obviously never going to happen.

 

[markie]

According to markie, he's not looking for "efficient", he's looking for "elegance". Who needs to be efficient when you can be elegant?

With the anticipated large COP based on from experiments on silver pellets and other iterations, a given method of harvesting SunCell energy doesn't have to be too efficient. But with the MHD Mills will have something that is both efficient and elegant, so if he appears to be favouring MHD, that's why.

 

[markie]

You missed my point; here it is again (minor edits):

Here's a suggestion: you, markie 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, markie are really keen, you, markie could carefully note which "predictions" were truly made before any measured values were published.

IOW, I was suggesting that you, markie do an independent verification of Mills' claims. Something like what RC has done (Mills got no "Check"s); he presented a refutation of one of his "predictions" (did you not read his post?).

RC has refuted nothing of Mills' work, only his own straw men.
But I think your idea is a good one and is a project I may actually take up.

 

[markie]

(my bold)

Problems which, if I read my history right, were originally solved in the 18th century, by folks with far less technology at hand than that available today, and in the period of a few years (maybe months, my recollection of the timelines is rusty).

A stickler for details here, but there were no SunCells back in the 18th century. There was no hydrino chemistry, no intense plasmas exceeding 5000C and no need to melt silver on very short timescales.

 

[markie]

Markie,
Dark matter has *not* been 'observed.' It's only inferred, postulated, because we see nothing that can explain the gravity not accounted for by that matter we do detect.

As I have said, it has been observed, albeit indirectly. That is, its various gravitational effects have been observed.

Mills has leapt into that knowledge gap with his hydrino/dark matter crap.

Others have complained that if hydrinos are more stable than ordinary hydrogen, why isn't most of the universe in hydrino form by now? (According to Mills, it is!)

On the practical side, you admit to "pesky" details holding things up. What about the "pesky" stuff which must have been overcome many years ago and in numerous instances when he announced prototype and even commercial product on 6-month timelines?

The problems from previous attempts to develop working laboratory devices into the prototype stage had more to do with hydrino chemistry limitations than engineering issues. As I've said before, BLP has had working, validated devices. Problem is, they could not be evolved to the point where they were good enough to compete with combustion.

If we generously entertain the notion that he's continually deluded himself into believing that he's but a half year from glorious success, than he must feel as though he's in a waking nightmare, where that 6-month horizon endlessly remains 6 months distant, perpetually just beyond his grasp. A half year that's lasted decades. Could drive some men mad, that.

Unless that just-on-the-cusp-of-success is a desired feature, and not a pernicious detraction.

On the contrary, I think Dr. Mills is thrilled these days that his 25 years of hard work in the field is about to reap a very large harvest.

 

[markie]

The "nagging issues on the engineering side" stem from the fact that Mills's reactors are analogous to wood-burning stoves made of wood. As soon as you fix the "component longevity" problem, the "anomalous energy" benefit disappears, and vice versa.

When the hydrogen fuel is constrained in order to reduce the energy output from the SunCell, it can operate continuously for hours. And even at that reduced energy it is much hotter than a wood stove.

 

[markie]

I am seriously floored. Without words.Even your second comment shows you know Mills has indeed NOT done what you claimed anyone "with eyes to see" could!

The level of cognitive dissonance is high with this one Obi Wan.

It is one thing to develop a light bulb that works briefly. It is entirely another to develop a light bulb that can last a significant amount of time and that people would buy. Historically, it took decades.

The hydrino reaction is real. The experimental light bulb has been lit. What remains now is to make it good enough to be marketable.

 

[Reality Check]

A blatant "his own straw men" lie when it is textbook physics and literature

RC has refuted nothing of Mills' work, only his own straw men.

26 July 2018 markie: A blatant "his own straw men" lie when it is textbook physics and scientific literature that refutes Mills work (his book)

Read 25 July 2018 markie: A "within experimental limits" lie since page 155 of Mills book has no experimental limits.
Mills claim of having "good agreement between the theoretical and experimental value" of the hydrogen Lamb shift is refuted by the his value being well outside of the experimental value and its error limits.

Read 25 July 2018 markie: Still does not understand that Mills lies about dark matter interacting electromagnetically so that it can be his hydrino delusion.
The claim that electromagnetically interacting hydrinos is refuted by the evidence that dark matter does not interact electromagnetically.

etc. etc.

 

[Reality Check]

"1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship

Mills keeps on giving!
26 July 2018: Page 155: "1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship.

Mills has "1057.09 MHz" as his prediction for the hydrogen Lamb shift. He claims that the difference between this and the measured value is "within the propagated errors in the fundamental constants of the equations". This is ignorant about the scholarship of backing up claims. If he had propagated the errors than he would not have written "1057.09 MHz" or stated what those errors were.

 

[Reality Check]

Parrots Mills' delusion that his delusions makes classical physics work...

It's Mills' particular application of 'classical physics' that makes classical physics work for the Aspect experiment.

26 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills' delusion that his delusions makes classical physics work for the Aspect experiment

 

[Reality Check]

Usual unthinking spamming of Mills ignorant, deluded and lying book

Clearly he can, and has, produced those result with classical physics, as documented in his GUTCP.....

26 July 2018 markie: Usual unthinking spamming of Mills ignorant, deluded and lying book

Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper
Part VII (June 2018): Mills' delusions of a "fifth force", "trapped photons", proton radius lie, etc.
28 June 2018: Page 57: Footnote 1 explicitly states "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but...", i.e. a spherical mass and change singularity.
28 June 2018: Page 57: The "but..." in footnote 1 is the inane application of the Schwarzschild radius equation for the gravitational field outside of a massive body.
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
2 July 2018: Page 1557: Mills blatant insanity of pseudoelectrons
3 July 2018: Page 393 onward: Equation 11.5 and 11.6 are the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in the case of a central field when he has spheres around 2 nuclei.

17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.

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

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).

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

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

25 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that Mohr et. al. have 1057.845 MHz as the hydrogen Lamb shift.

26 July 2018: Page 155: "1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Missed this repeated deep ignorance.
Of course there is a force between charged protons and electron particles!
It is the force on a charged particle inside a charged shell that is zero as high school science students know.

Thus: 17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.

Mills electron delusion emits a photon. The recoil can only act on his shell because the proton inside the shell is free to move. His calculation using he mass of a hydrogen atom is thus debunked.

 

[The Norseman]

What makes you say he can't. He can and he does. After all that's why dozens of his papers are published, for wider review and possibility of replication by others.

Never in peer-reviewed publications though. Seems strange if he's so confident of his scientific conclusions.

And why do you claim that Mills wants the "possibility of replication by others" when he attempts to hide everything with patents and threatens to sue anyone who comes close?

 

[Hans]

The hydrino reaction is real.

LOL

Yeah, someone has been saying that for thirty years - nothing but solid proof -an actual product will switch your claim from it present 'complete BS' to reality.

So stop talking and produce the proof

Proof

Proof markie

Proof

Not claims - but old Mills doesn't have that - now does he?

 

[Hans]

There was no hydrino chemistry,

That's something the 18th and 21st century have in common.....lol