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

[markie]

Repeating the same old claims. From the abstract:

You are on the cusp of realizing this same paper not too long ago was available for download from BLP's site. We discussed it on this very forum.

"...emission energy was 250 times the applied energy." -- The same can be said of an internal combustion engine.

Except in this case there is no conventionally understood source of energy that could produce it.

"...showed that plasma persisted even after the ignition power decayed to zero." -- It keeps burning even after you take away the match.

Again, there was no conventional materials that would be 'burning'.

"Continuous megawatt-level power was recorded on a hydrino reactor..." -- However Mills recently stated that the device operates "continuously" for less than a second while self destructing.

How long it runs before self destruct depends on the amount of hydrogen fed in. It can destroy a setup in 10 seconds or it can be run for hours at low fuel.

"The calorimetrically measured power...was 400,000W." -- For a very brief period, not much energy was actually produced.

Mills measures peak power, average power and energy produced. Optically, 250 times the electrical energy imparted to detonate was released in soft X-rays.

"...measured to produce a shock wave that was equivalent to about 10 times more moles of gunpowder." -- Sounds impressive but really isn't.

It is quite remarkable that hydrated silver can explode with more force than dynamite. With dynamite (or the other standard explosive used, ammonium nitrate), the oxidizer element is included in the mix and so it can burn very quickly, explosively. Who would have thought the same for hydrated silver? No one except Mills, with novel hydrino chemistry at work.

 

[markie]

It seems that even "10 times more moles of gunpowder" still isn't very much, despite sounding big and powerful. Am I wrong?

The idea that hydrated silver is comparable to gunpowder in explosive power is not something one would expect with normal chemistry.

 

[markie]

According to this website

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP_textbook_F08/PffP-01-energy-F08.htm

You are very much correct.

Coal has ten times the energy than TNT (the explosive) and gunpowder is less than TNT (by about a thousand joules I think).

Chocolate chips have eight times the energy of TNT. Gasoline is fifteen times.

I could get more energy out of a gram of butter than I could get from ten grams of gunpowder according to this chart.

If they're talking about explosive energy, then this site https://markforeman.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/1284/ might be a better fit, but I'm not a chemist.

The latter link is relevant, not the former.
TNT produces heat and gas to generate explosive power.
Hydrated silver or titanium mixed with water produces relatively little gas compared to TNT. Thus the explosive energy comes mostly from the intense heat reacting with the atmosphere.

 

[markie]

I also noted this:

Pages 1667-1717

50 pages long?!?

Anyone who regularly reads academic journals can tell you how ridiculously long that is. Once again we see BLP going out of their way to write something so long, and so poorly worded, that no one who is serious will take the time to read and parse their ********.

Most of that length is from charts, graphs, diagrams and pictures. The experiment is intended to be highly reproducible, and so there is more overhead than might be usual.

 

[markie]

You know why being "involved" isn't what we're talking about.

The point is, if Hydrinos were real anyone anywhere could be looking for them. The novelty alone, the confirmation of a new thing, would be enough for scientists to do this. But if they were as potentially useful as Mills keeps saying then there's also HUGE motivation for corporations to fund research.

It's been thirty years and nobody that's not connected to Mills has found Hydrinos.

One must be careful with the word 'novelty'. You see, if something is novel in the sense that it would make the last 80 years of quantum physics look rather silly, it will be almost entirely ignored. Scientists much prefer the type of novel that is incremental and fits in some potential niche of the existing paradigm. IOW novel yet safe.

 

[halleyscomet]

One must be careful with the word 'novelty'. You see, if something is novel in the sense that it would make the last 80 years of quantum physics look rather silly, it will be almost entirely ignored. Scientists much prefer the type of novel that is incremental and fits in some potential niche of the existing paradigm. IOW novel yet safe.

Ahh, the old, "They're scared of a new paradigm" excuse of the bleating woo-woo crew. It's a wonder science ever progresses in woo-woo crackpot land.

Face it Markie. You're making sad, threadbare, pathetic excuses for the lack of evidence for Hydrinos.

 

[jonesdave116]

Ahh, the old, "They're scared of a new paradigm" excuse of the bleating woo-woo crew. It's a wonder science ever progresses in woo-woo crackpot land.

Face it Markie. You're making sad, threadbare, pathetic excuses for the lack of evidence for Hydrinos.

Indeedy. See numbers 9 & 19, here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

And not necessarily limited to just those two numbers!

EDIT: Whoops, forgot No. 34.

 

[SOdhner]

if something is novel in the sense that it would make the last 80 years of quantum physics look rather silly, it will be almost entirely ignored.

[citation needed]

Look, "science" isn't some monolithic entity. There's nobody in charge of science. You're suggesting not that some shady organization is suppressing new knowledge for personal gain but that VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTISTS - an absolutely enormous number of people - are suppressing new knowledge IN SPITE of the huge potential of personal gain.

That's extremely silly.

You act like they're trying to save face, but that doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons - here's the big two for me: First of all, if this were real the news would be getting out at some point anyway so it's not like they wouldn't have to deal with it. Second, if you were in on the ground floor writing papers about it you wouldn't look silly at all so in fact there would be huge motivation to get your name attached to this.

 

[halleyscomet]

Indeedy. See numbers 9 & 19, here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

And not necessarily limited to just those two numbers!

Applying that scale to Mills and his body of work alone would necessitate using a bigint to keep track of the score. Adding his supporters into the mix may necessitate some exotic quantum computing technologies just to track the data!

 

[halleyscomet]

[citation needed]

Look, "science" isn't some monolithic entity. There's nobody in charge of science. You're suggesting not that some shady organization is suppressing new knowledge for personal gain but that VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTISTS - an absolutely enormous number of people - are suppressing new knowledge IN SPITE of the huge potential of personal gain.

That's extremely silly.

You act like they're trying to save face, but that doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons - here's the big two for me: First of all, if this were real the news would be getting out at some point anyway so it's not like they wouldn't have to deal with it. Second, if you were in on the ground floor writing papers about it you wouldn't look silly at all so in fact there would be huge motivation to get your name attached to this.

Just look at all the scientists who did work on cold fusion, even though that turned out to be a bust. The only people whose careers were hurt were the ones who to this day deny the evidence.

 

[abaddon]

Labs have analysed Mills' crystals. All they can do is report anomalous results, which they do. They have no frame of reference to say the results were from this or that, although some labs which are more involved like those at Rowan will say the results are consistent with Mills' theoretically predicted results of hydrino signature.

You're the one who is not paying close enough attention.

What labs? where are their findings? How have they been validated?

 

[Dancing David]

I see the same of "SQUAWK for Jesus Mills"

 

[jonesdave116]

What labs? where are their findings? How have they been validated?

Well, from memory, we have been here before with this. I can remember spending a fair bit of time digging into the affiliations, past and present, of various people who have supposedly 'independently' verified Mills' woo. Also from memory; they weren't particularly 'independent'.

 

[Hans]

One must be careful with the word 'novelty'. You see, if something is novel in the sense that it would make the last 80 years of quantum physics look rather silly, it will be almost entirely ignored.

No it wouldn't your 'idea' is summarily dismissed.

So lets say the big meanies* who 'run' science all agree that they are going to suppress anything new?

Okay when did they start doing that?

Take a look at the last 200 years - if the big meanies are doing their job nothing should have happened - yet it did massively? Yet you are claiming that for 30 years the big meanies have been doing the dirty on poor Mills' idea.....

lol

.....by the way markie how did the big meanies do in suppressing nuclear weapon technology?


*assuming for a moment they exist which they don't

 

[Hans]

Impact factor et al. for the Chinese Journal of Physics...

Journal Metrics
CiteScore: 0.78
Impact Factor: 1.051
5-Year Impact Factor: 0.821
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.449
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.216

Hey could you put that interesting data into some sort of context - like comparing it to a top of line physics journal and a moderately successful one?

Thanks in advance

 

[Hans]

You're the one who is not paying close enough attention.

To what more theater? Remember proof only of an actual product.

Everything else is completely and utterly meaningless.

30 years of nothing'

Give us the workable product not more smoke and mirrors - tell your hero his scam is to old to work anymore.

 

[wollery]

Impact factor et al. for the Chinese Journal of Physics...

Journal Metrics
CiteScore: 0.78
Impact Factor: 1.051
5-Year Impact Factor: 0.821
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.449
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.216

Hey could you put that interesting data into some sort of context - like comparing it to a top of line physics journal and a moderately successful one?

Thanks in advance

No problem.

Impact factor is the headline measure, and is fairly simple. It's the average number of citations per article from that journal over 2 years. The 5-Year impact factor is the same, but over 5 years.

A run of the mill journal would have an impact factor of anything up to 3 or 4, a top journal could easily be in double figures, say 11 or 12 and the highest can be in the 20s. The lowest are usually around 0.2.

For instance:
The Journal of High Energy Physics has an IF of 5.54 (2017) and a 5-year IF of 4.99
The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review has an IF of 8.22 (2016) and a 5-year IF of 12.83.

The source normalised impact (SNIP) is weighted by the total number of citations in the field, so that helps you to compare to other journals in the same field of research more directly, while the SJR is similar, but also takes into account the IF of the journal the citing paper is in. (SNIP isn't always available for all journals)

The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review has a SNIP of 2.86 and SJR of 3.63.
The Journal of High Energy Physics has a SJR of 1.227 (couldn't find its SNIP)
The highest SJR is 61.786 for "CA a Cancer Journal for Clinicians", while Nature Materials gets 18.263, and Nature Physics 9.791 (IF 22.727).

Simply put, the lower the numbers are the less read the journal is, and the fewer the citations any article in it is likely to get. If you have something important and it will pass muster scientifically you submit it to a high impact journal so that it will be more likely to get seen and paid attention to. High impact journals are also generally far stricter about quality of peer review.

These aren't hard and fast rules, but they are indicators.

So why do low IF journals even exist? Well, some are used for very niche disciplines. How many people do you think will be interested in "Mathematical Fluid Mechanics" or "Thermophysics and Aeromechanics"? these journals are used for interesting results and science in subjects that won't get much attention outside the specialism. Nothing ground-breaking, but could be very good science and important to the narrow

Others are published by particular institutes, countries or national societies. These are usually where people publish stuff that wouldn't get into the higher impact journals because it simply isn't important enough, isn't really relevant or simply isn't good science. It's also where you'd bury something if you wanted to be able to say that you published, but didn't want actual scientists tearing it to shreds!


Bottom line, if Mills actually had something he could back up with hard numbers that mean something he'd publish it in Nature Physics, and they'd practically bite his arm off to publish it. The number of citations that that paper alone would produce would kick their IF way up the charts (and they're pretty high up there already).

But instead he publishes in a low IF journal, published by the National Physical Society of Taiwan, where hardly anyone will ever read it, and nobody (except possibly Mills himself) will ever cite it.

Ultimately the measure of how good any individual paper is, is in the number of citations from people who aren't directly associated with the authors. For Mills papers, that number is extremely low - other than Rathke (who wrote a scathing review) I don't know of anyone else, who isn't in Mills circle, citing his papers.

 

[markie]

[citation needed]

Look, "science" isn't some monolithic entity. There's nobody in charge of science. You're suggesting not that some shady organization is suppressing new knowledge for personal gain but that VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTISTS - an absolutely enormous number of people - are suppressing new knowledge IN SPITE of the huge potential of personal gain.

That's extremely silly.

You act like they're trying to save face, but that doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons - here's the big two for me: First of all, if this were real the news would be getting out at some point anyway so it's not like they wouldn't have to deal with it. Second, if you were in on the ground floor writing papers about it you wouldn't look silly at all so in fact there would be huge motivation to get your name attached to this.

Huh? Who is saying an 'absolutely enormous number of people" are "suppressing" anything?

"VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTISTS" know nothing of Mills and his work, largely because their work has little or no intersection with what Mills is doing. Of the small number who do, the vast majority will simply assume Mills must be wrong. (After all Wiki says so.) A minority are keeping watch for developments, and a much smaller minority are involved either positively or negatively. An example of the latter is Robert Park who couldn't bear that Mills was getting patents granted and tried to put a stop to it, using his position as a spokesman of the APS to interfere in the business of the USPO.

The tiny minority of scientists who are positively involved in what Mills is doing are not in it for the glory. No. They are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, and I imagine they pay a price.

 

[Kid Eager]

Huh? Who is saying an 'absolutely enormous number of people" are "suppressing" anything?

"VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTISTS" know nothing of Mills and his work, largely because their work has little or no intersection with what Mills is doing. Of the small number who do, the vast majority will simply assume Mills must be wrong. (After all Wiki says so.) A minority are keeping watch for developments, and a much smaller minority are involved either positively or negatively. An example of the latter is Robert Park who couldn't bear that Mills was getting patents granted and tried to put a stop to it, using his position as a spokesman of the APS to interfere in the business of the USPO.

The tiny minority of scientists who are positively involved in what Mills is doing are not in it for the glory. No. They are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, and I imagine they pay a price.

Cool speculation, bro! I guess if you speculate about hydrinos for 30 years, why not speculate all the rest as well? After all, the Big Lie is nothing new, eh?

How's your pecuniary interest going?

 

[Hans]

The tiny minority of scientists who are positively involved in what Mills is doing are not in it for the glory. No. They are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, and I imagine they pay a price.

Yes being shills for fraud will damage your reputation. Most people know that. Which is why Mills is ignored.