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

[JeanTate]

If you like magic, the virtual particles (including negative energy and momentum) of QED and the inflation theory of cosmology (etc) should keep you entertained and perhaps entrained.

Nah, I like this version of Mills' magic better: "We will have a working prototype by {sometime in 2001}, and a commercial product by {pick a date, any date!}".

It's amazingly versatile, just rinse and repeat, every six months or so ...

 

[JeanTate]

On the contrary Mills has published much about the particulars of hydrino hydride compounds.

Including what their spectra look like ...

Oh, wait! If hydrinos are dark matter, they cannot form compounds, and if they did, they'd be detectable via their emission and absorption spectra ...

... unless, of course, they're just as mythical as the commercial products Mills promised, what, 20+ years' ago?

 

[JeanTate]

Same reason we can't detect hydrogen gas in the atmosphere; it is very buoyant and rises in the atmosphere, I think to the point of reaching escape velocity.

Wait, what?!?

Another amazing discovery by Mills/markie! Stop the presses!!

Remember that Mills has not only found the identity of dark matter, he has found the source of so-called dark energy which is causing the acceleration of universe expansion. Two huge problems for modern physics.

Yeah, and developed a commercial product, a portable power generator, that runs on magic, something that's been available for purchase for ~20 years!

Why haven't those idiots in Stockholm given him at least one Nobel Prize yet?

 

[Aber]

Number 4 is a huge leap. I could speculate more reasonably that Dr. Mills operates a real estate investment opportunity for his employees, since most of them can't invest in BLP because they are not accredited investors.

He can create ground-breaking physics theory, but can't manage a shadow share option scheme.

 

[JeanTate]

This is an example of needing to know what you are looking for in order to find it. Cosmologists simple do not know what to look for regarding WIMPs, except to rule out certain things like neutrinos.

The XENOT1T experiment is incapable of detecting molecular dihydrino, just as it is incapable of detecting atmospheric nitrogen gas.

Oh, I see ... because XENOT1T does not exist, just like hydrinos, it cannot detect atmospheric N₂; got it.

Now the real experiment - XENON1T - cannot detect atmospheric N₂, O₂, CO₂, H₂, Ar, ... or even Xe; what a stupid experiment!

 

[markie]

Ah, so the experiments confirm the validity of using "quantum statistics", yet Mill does not use them. What statistics does Mills use?

I suggest you read pages 1640 to 1648 or so of Mills' GUTCP. Mills uses the results of Horn and Kong and (of course) Jackson and perhaps others.
It comes down to normalized projection of momentum from a spherical front as it interacts with slits. Mills conserves momentum in the Z direction for each pair of photons. His statistics pertain to each photon pair, whereas for QM momentum in the Z direction is only conserved over a large sampling of photons.

 

[JeanTate]

Again, Mills value of the Lamb shift is dependent on the precision of values of fundamental constants. The formulae are complex enough that I couldn't property quantify the propagate error, but I take Mills' word for it. Mills doesn't have the luxury of calling upon virtual photons and vacuum polarizations and a correlation factor to achieve a more accurate value.

(my bold)

Did you "take Mills' word for it", some 20+ years' ago, when he said he'd have a commercial product, a portable energy generator powered by hydrinos, on the market within six months?

If you did, how's that generator you bought from him then working, today?

 

[JeanTate]

I suggest you read pages 1640 to 1648 or so of Mills' GUTCP. Mills uses the results of Horn and Kong and (of course) Jackson and perhaps others.
It comes down to normalized projection of momentum from a spherical front as it interacts with slits. Mills conserves momentum in the Z direction for each pair of photons. His statistics pertain to each photon pair, whereas for QM momentum in the Z direction is only conserved over a large sampling of photons.

So, apart from the nonsense, he uses classical physics.

Which Bell+Aspect (and subsequently many others) prove cannot describe the real world.

Got it! Mills uses magic, similar magic to what powers those commercial products - portable energy generators, powered by hydrinos - which have been sold in the millions and have been operating for ~20 years now ...

 

[JeanTate]

Colliding galaxies pass through each other with minimal interaction apart from gravity. Also dark matter findings vary one from another. I doubt there is anywhere near conclusive evidence that dark matter passed unimpeded through normal matter in a manner like (say) neutrinos pass through normal matter.

(my bold)

Did you check with Mills? Isn't he on record as saying that hydrinos - which he believes are dark matter - pass through the (very solid!) walls of his welding machine hydrino generator?

 

[The Man]

It's quite amazing really how very different math approaches can be used to derive the same results. A perhaps famous example would be Feynman's operators vs Schwinger and his Greens function approach. It took Freeman Dyson to finally show they were the same as I recall.

Nope not amazing at all, at least not to anyone familiar with mathematics. However, your assertion of what Mills claimed wasn't about mathematical approaches just being different but about physics being wrong. Again simply meaning that even if Mills gets the right result, just by his own assertions, his physics could be just plain wrong.


Oh but wait look here...

Again, Mills value of the Lamb shift is dependent on the precision of values of fundamental constants. The formulae are complex enough that I couldn't property quantify the propagate error, but I take Mills' word for it. Mills doesn't have the luxury of calling upon virtual photons and vacuum polarizations and a correlation factor to achieve a more accurate value.

so Mills doesn't even get the correct result specifically because he apparently deliberately "doesn't have the luxury of calling upon" accurate physics.

 

[The Man]

They will sum, but they won't sum to zero. There is not a perfect symmetry of loops going through a given point.

Excellent, that means the charge distribution is not in "perfect symmetry" either and resulting just static attraction on the proton at the center is not zero. Would you like to try again?

And lets not confuse the mathematics with the physical reality.

Then I suggest you stop doing that as you did in the last of your posts that I just quoted before.

We can talk about say, magnetic field lines, but they are just a 1D construct. The reality is a 3D field. Going further if we have multiple magnetic sources each has a field around it independent of the others, as if the others didn't exist. At any one point in space one can sum these different fields and get a certain value. But that does not mean the the physical reality is that certain value! The physical reality is a so called superposition of different fields intersecting at that point resulting in a certain value.

Which is still zero with equal and opposing values at that point.

Now imagine not static 1D magnetic field lines in 3D but moving 1D current loops that carry mass and charge on a 2D surface. Like different magnetic fields they can superimpose. But the reality is a moving 2D surface, not the 1D lines, nor the 0D point of intersection, both of which are only used for mathematical and visualization purposes.

Again carry "mass and charge" to where and from where "on a 2D surface"? If the mass and charge distribution never change over time then the moving "mass and charge on a 2D surface" is indistinguishable from such "mass and charge" not moving "on a 2D surface . Now above you assert "There is not a perfect symmetry of loops going through a given point". So the mass and charge distribution is not in "perfect symmetry" either and the critical part is how that "mass and charge distribution" changes over time. Try imagining just not being self-contradictory.

ETA:

For those that haven't caught on yet the closer you get to localized peak of mass and charge distribution being found somewhere on that "surface" at some time the closer you get to just the plain old quantum electron orbital probability distribution.

 

[Horatius]

It's the various processes to create them, not hydrinos themselves, which are patented. Not to be confused with the trademarked name Hydrino.

And once again, we must remind you that he does not, in fact, have patents on the basic means or producing hydrinos. And what few patents he does have on other hydrino-related topics only apply in those particular countries.

So researchers almost everywhere in the world are free to experiment on hydrino production, and characterization of hydrinos, free from any such patent problems.

And, I'll point out that, even if he did have patents such as you erroneously suggest he has, that would not be a bar to experimental use in most of the world. From the article you posted:

Anyone who uses a patented invention without authorization is liable for patent infringement under patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). There is a longstanding common-law exception to this provision. The experimental use exception allows for de minimis use of a patented invention when the purpose is experimental. However, within the last twenty years, the Federal Circuit has addressed numerous experimental use issues and its decisions have made the common-law experimental use exception inoperable in most practical situations.

This addresses only the use of patents in the US. The US rules as discussed above have no effect anywhere else in the world. So, move to Canada and experiment to your hearts content, alleged scientists who desperately want to research hydrinos, but who are stymied by US patent jurisprudence*.






*and the irrational intransigence of an "inventor" who claims to have been trying to get scientists to accept his work for 30 years, but then threatens to sue anyone who tries to replicate it independently.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Well I take it as a given that experiments violate Bell's inequalities.

Yes, experiments show that Bell's inequalities do not hold.

The point is that those inequalities assume certain things like quantum statistics, which Mills does not use.

Totally false.

The Bell inequalities do not assume quantum physics. The three physical assumptions from which those inequalities are derived are assumptions made by classical physics.

The fact that those inequalities do not hold therefore implies both of these things:

• Classical physics cannot explain the experimental results (because classical physics assumes all three assumptions from which the inequalities are derived).
• Any correct explanation of the experimental results must abandon at least one of the three assumptions (which is why no correct explanation can be classical).

The reason quantum physics is able to explain the experimental results is that quantum mechanics does not make all of the three classical assumptions that are used to derive the Bell inequalities.

 

[Reality Check]

Irrelevant idiocy that actual physics (virtual particles, inflation theory) is magic

If you like magic, the virtual particles (including negative energy and momentum) of QED and the inflation theory of cosmology (etc) should keep you entertained and perhaps entrained.

30 July 2018 markie, Irrelevant idiocy that actual physics (virtual particles, inflation theory) is magic

Calling the theory in Mills ignorance, deluded and lying book, magic is being charitable.

 

[Reality Check]

Again mindless parroting of Mills stupidity (not giving his calculated errors)

Again, Mills value of the Lamb shift is dependent on the precision of values of fundamental constants.....

30 July 2018 markie: Again mindless parroting of Mills stupidity (not giving his calculated errors or working).

30 July 2018 markie: Another display of ignorance about science - Mills value is not changed by any propagated errors.
This is close to another lie about page 155 where Mills is clear that his imagined "propagated errors" will include the difference between his deluded value and the real value.

25 July 2018 markie: A "within experimental limits" lie since page 155 of Mills book has no experimental limits.

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

 

[Reality Check]

Colliding galaxies pass through each other with minimal interaction apart from gravity. Also dark matter findings vary one from another. I doubt there is anywhere near conclusive evidence that dark matter passed unimpeded through normal matter in a manner like (say) neutrinos pass through normal matter.

30 July 2018 markie: More dark matter ignorance and inability to read.
My post was on the (not emphasized) stupidity of citing an observation of a galaxy that shows that it has dark matter as expected with only gravity interactions.

Colliding galaxies do pass through each other and the interactions are electromagnetic and gravitational. Stars interact through gravity because they rarely collide. Gas collides and interacts through electromagnetism. The shock waves from the colliding gas is a reason why star formation can be triggered.
What happens when galaxies collide? (Beginner)/URL]

A major discovery about dark matter that was a big nail in the coffin of modified gravity was the observation of the separation of dark and normal matter in the gas of 2 colliding galaxy clusters (the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster"]Bullet Cluster). That is one of the lines of evidence that dark matter is particles that do not interact through electromagnetism.

The well known observations of several colliding galaxy clusters with that separation is the "conclusive evidence that dark matter passed unimpeded through normal matter in a manner like (say) neutrinos pass through normal matter" :

 

[Reality Check]

More unthinking support of the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book

I haven't heard Mills address the issue. But for an example of how magnetic flux can lock a superconducting object (with defects) into place at a distance and yet enable it to move see
https://youtu.be/Vxror-fnOL4?t=1m23s

30 July 2018 markie: More unthinking support of the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book with an irrelevant video.

Nice 'Superconducting Quantum Levitation on a 3π Möbius Strip ' video of the irrelevant fact that magnetic fields can levitate superconducting objects.

Mills stupidity is that he has a proton in a charged sphere, the proton will be have no forces keeping it inside the sphere (for a uniform distribution of charges) and Mills does not address this high school science level flaw!

 

[Darat]

As mentioned some time ago, this article gives a good description of the very limited scope labs have to use a process patented by another party.



http://nysstlc.syr.edu/experimental-use-exception-to-patent-infringement/

Nothing there stopping anyone for researching hydrinos. So once again which laws?

 

[Darat]

Congrats. You'll be sitting pretty when the grid goes down.

Don't expect a SunCell available for domestic use within the next eight years. Years of regulatory processes to go through. It will be used in industry first.

It’s now eight years away?

 

[Spektator]

I'm reminded of an ancient skit I saw once years ago. Jimmy Durante and another comedian are shipwrecked sailors in a rowboat. Durate scans the sea and says, "Dere's land! Row for it!"

The other guy says, "Where?"

"Dat flat line straight ahead!"

"Jimmy, that ain't land, that's the horizon!"

"Den row for it! It's better than nothing!"

Hydrinos dead ahead?