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

[WhatRoughBeast]

Cold fusion people still don't really know the physics behind what appears to be happening. Because of this they are still producing only weakly positive COP results.

That is one interpretation. Another, equally supported by the evidence, is that the "weakly positive COP results" are only positive due to experimental uncertainties. As a result, there is no physics to understand. Given that nobody seems to be able to generate consistent results (after 30 years of trying) points strongly towards this conclusion.

And there's another, even more entertaining interpretation. That is that LENR processes really are "LE". That is, intermittent, "weakly positive" results are the best that anybody is ever going to get, since the intrinsic reactions being detected are so weak (Low Energy, right?) that they will never be capable of useful application.

 

[Darat]

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.

Why would such a lab need to contact Mills?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

That's impossible, as explained below.

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.

That's silly.

Bell's theorem is essentially a theorem about probability, and has been generalized to remove specific assumptions about hidden variables. Starting from three basic general assumptions made by classical physics, including counterfactual definiteness (which is the generalization from hidden variables that makes the theorem apply to any explanation based on classical physics), Bell's theorem says a certain inequality must hold.

That means the inequality must hold for any explanation based on classical physics, because classical physics assumes all three of the assumptions made by the theorem.

Yet the inequality does not hold experimentally. That means any explanation based entirely on classical physics must be wrong.

 

[Worm]

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.

It did indeed. But over those decades, there were any number of public demonstrations, co-operations, exchanges of processes and open discussions. Whereas Mills works away in a closed environment and only releases word-salad reports and YouTube videos of unknown provenance or utility.

 

[Mike!]

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

The 18th century isn't far enough back in time. I'm guessing the ancient secret of Hydrino Chemistry was lost around the same time the alchemists quest for Lead into Gold formula was lost to history.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

markie, I think you realize that the more you try to define the magic in ToMM as physics, the more you show just little it resembles science.

For the record, your, um, confusion over Aspect/Bell is merely the latest example.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

Another investment round coming up?

 

[markie]

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.

It is still very good agreement (I think to about 10 significant digits) and with none of the overhead of QM like summoning virtual photons, vacuum polarizations and choosing so called acceptable methods of removing infinities (renormalization).

About being outside the experimental value and its error limits: It depends on the experiment doesn't it, as you yourself mentioned recently with the problem of the proton radius. Also, take a look at the fine structure constant. From Wiki,

1/α = 137.035999139(31)
is the CODATA 2014 recommended value.

But the QED theoretically calculated value is
1/α = 137.035999173(35)
based on thousands of 10th order Feynman diagrams.

That's a disagreement, but you don't seem concerned about that.

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.

You should know that it is still an open question about how much dark matter may interact, besides gravitationally. See for instance
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180405223407.htm
"Dark Matter may not be interactive after all"

Now you may protest that it isn't referring to electromagnetic interaction. But there are certain assumptions we have about electromagnetic interaction that do not apply to dihydrinos molecules.

 

[markie]

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.

He could have, but he is being succinct. Perhaps you could calculate the propagated error from the values of the fundamental constants used.

 

[halleyscomet]

He could have, but he is being succinct. Perhaps you could calculate the propagated error from the values of the fundamental constants used.

That is not a virtue in a "scientist" when it results in them leaving out critical data needed for replication.

It is, however, an ideal trait in a con man trying to frustrate efforts to prove him a fraud.

 

[markie]

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.

We've been through this before. A electron spherical shell of negative charge will have no field inside it. However if a proton is placed inside there will be radial field coming out from the proton and ending at the shell. So the shell will experience an attractive force from the proton.

Now, you are correct that with static charges the proton won't have a preferred location inside the sphere. But these are not static charges. They are moving, resulting in magnetic forces from both the electron and the internally moving central proton. There could be for instance magnetic flux 'lines' holding the proton in the centre.

 

[markie]

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?

Many, I suppose most, of his papers are in peer reviewed journals. Peer review quality will vary however from journal to journal.

Mills is very open with his information. And, patents do not hide information.

If you want to replicate you have to obtain permission from BLP as I understand it. Some labs in the Netherlands did so and did not hold back on reporting some contrary results.

 

[markie]

That's impossible, as explained below.


That's silly.

Bell's theorem is essentially a theorem about probability, and has been generalized to remove specific assumptions about hidden variables. Starting from three basic general assumptions made by classical physics, including counterfactual definiteness (which is the generalization from hidden variables that makes the theorem apply to any explanation based on classical physics), Bell's theorem says a certain inequality must hold.

That means the inequality must hold for any explanation based on classical physics, because classical physics assumes all three of the assumptions made by the theorem.

Yet the inequality does not hold experimentally. That means any explanation based entirely on classical physics must be wrong.

No, you're exaggerating. From a Wiki definition of Bell's Theorem, my bold:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Again, Mills is not working from the premises of quantum mechanics.

 

[markie]

Why would such a lab need to contact Mills?

By law, Mills can require labs to ask permission. Not sure of the scope of international applicability to this.

 

[markie]

It did indeed. But over those decades, there were any number of public demonstrations, co-operations, exchanges of processes and open discussions. Whereas Mills works away in a closed environment and only releases word-salad reports and YouTube videos of unknown provenance or utility.

Don't forget his dozens of published papers relating to very specific details regarding the nature of the primary energy source.

 

[jrhowell]

You should know that it is still an open question about how much dark matter may interact, besides gravitationally.

The smoke that Mills was touting as containing dark matter hydrinos in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xueLsn-XFCc) seemed pretty interactive to me. After all it was visible and floated in air currents.

By the way, shouldn't the independent labs to which it was sent for analysis have reported back by now? What were their findings?

 

[markie]

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

markie, I think you realize that the more you try to define the magic in ToMM as physics, the more you show just little it resembles science.

For the record, your, um, confusion over Aspect/Bell is merely the latest example.

You seem very fond of your hole and digging scenario. Perhaps subconsciously you want a dog.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By law, Mills can require labs to ask permission.

To do what, precisely? Physical law cannot be patented, so labs do not have to ask anyone's permission to investigate them.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

You seem very fond of your hole and digging scenario. Perhaps subconsciously you want a dog.

Well, it IS a useful metaphor for what you're doing here, especially given the fact that Mills will never manufacture a Hydrino based generator or heater.

Wait, are you offering to engage in "Puppy Play" with JeanTate?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, you're exaggerating. From a Wiki definition of Bell's Theorem, my bold:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

You've cleverly left out the fact, also stated in that article, that experiments have universally and overwhelmingly violated Bell's inequalities. The predictions of quantum mechanics are found to be correct, and this together with Bell's Theorem therefore demonstrates that no physical theory of locally hidden variables can predict the overwhelming weight of data that shows that Bell's inequalities are universally violated. There was, in fact, no exaggeration.

Dave