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

[markie]

You gonna stand by that?

Ooops, no way. For some reason I had surface area in mind. Circumference is of course a linear dimension. Thanks for the correction.

 

[markie]

Here's something curious.

Figure 4 in Anomalous Head from Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate is identical to Figure 2 in Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source.

Didn't Markie tell us that those were completely different experiments and that the former was just a preliminary trial to the more comprehensive latter?

Yes they were two different experiments. The latter simply referenced some of the former, including setup diagrams. I don't see the problem.

 

[CORed]

[qimg]https://images.buyagift.co.uk/common/client/Images/Product/Extralarge/en-GB/11871609-large-4.jpg[/qimg]

Sure. works with fire: wood, coal, oil, propane, natural gas, etc. Also works with nuclear fission. It would work with hydrinos or cold fusion, if either of those actually produced heat.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes they were two different experiments. The latter simply referenced some of the former, including setup diagrams. I don't see the problem.

Oh, I do:

ESCA analyses were also done by Lehigh on samples of nickel tubing removed from coil #4. The results of these analyses show the characteristic hydrino peak at 55 eV. This peak is shown in Figure 2, confirming that excess heat can be produced by diffusion of hydrogen through nickel contacting K₂CO₂ as well as by electrolysis.

 

[markie]

Oh, I do:

It looks like Figure 2 from the long experiment is identical to the graph from the previous, shorter experiment. My take is that coil 4 was indeed examined at LeHigh university and the same 55 eV peak result was found as with the previous experiment. But for one reason or another Thermacore just reposted the old graph.

BTW Lehigh had been testing Mills' electrodes even before the first Thermacore paper and had reported the same anomalous 55 eV peak.

 

[markie]

Sure. works with fire: wood, coal, oil, propane, natural gas, etc. Also works with nuclear fission. It would work with hydrinos or cold fusion, if either of those actually produced heat.

Just imagine if the oxygen in our atmosphere was 2 percent rather than 20, or if fission didn't so often lead to a chain reaction. Perhaps then we wouldn't be taking our conventional power sources for granted.

 

[hgus]

Given you are only skeptical as opposed to biased, you are probably in the minority.

What do you think is the difference between being skeptical and being biased? I do not believe there is such a thing as a hydrino. But give me evidence and I will change my mind. The more and the better evidence presented, the more I will believe in the possibility of Hydrinos. Right now it is zero. Does that make me biased? How about you? Are you biased? You sounds like a true believer to me. Your scepticism seems to me to go out the windows when you hear Mills name.

For sure it is up to Mills to show a device that is clearly working and producing useful amounts of excess energy. But for people like me who take over over two decades of experimental evidence at face value, a device doesn't have to be close to market in order to believe in a lower energy state of hydrogen.

And all I see are claims of experimental evidence, no evidence as such.

I highly doubt that another company would have succeeded. They would have given up long ago, as did Thermacore. Mills is uniquely positioned as a driven theoretician, experimentalist and business owner.

I honestly do not understand why you venerate Mills so much. He has a lot of claims but no products and his research is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community. What concrete successes are you referring to?

I think you seriously underestimate the enormity of Mills claims. He is basically claiming to have invented free energy. If that was true it would drastically change the world. The profit would be immense. Nations would spend billions on research IF they though it a possibility. Heck, if Saudiarabia believed they might even invite Mills to their closest consulate.

 

[markie]

What do you think is the difference between being skeptical and being biased? I do not believe there is such a thing as a hydrino. But give me evidence and I will change my mind. The more and the better evidence presented, the more I will believe in the possibility of Hydrinos. Right now it is zero. Does that make me biased? How about you? Are you biased? You sounds like a true believer to me. Your scepticism seems to me to go out the windows when you hear Mills name.

You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.

And all I see are claims of experimental evidence, no evidence as such.

What do you want to do, visit the labs yourself?

I honestly do not understand why you venerate Mills so much. He has a lot of claims but no products and his research is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community. What concrete successes are you referring to?

His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.

I think you seriously underestimate the enormity of Mills claims. He is basically claiming to have invented free energy. If that was true it would drastically change the world. The profit would be immense. Nations would spend billions on research IF they though it a possibility. Heck, if Saudiarabia believed they might even invite Mills to their closest consulate.

The proposed hydrino reaction is no more "free energy" than is combustion or fission. IOW it isn't free and it is much more difficult to master than combustion or fission. So much for instant gratification.

 

[Dancing David]

Markie,
If hydrinos are real why isn't this 'below' ground state for hydrogen atoms not seen around the world, it seems to only appear for Mills.

Why isn't this observed everywhere?

 

[hgus]

You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.

My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. But again, show me the evidence, or rather show that the relevant experts accept the evidence, or even better show a working product and I would be very happy that I was wrong the whole time. I have no stake in this emotionally or economically. Can you say the same?

His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.

"Certain circles" is such a vague expression that it is practically meaningless. Could you please point to what circles you are referring to?

 

[markie]

Markie,
If hydrinos are real why isn't this 'below' ground state for hydrogen atoms not seen around the world, it seems to only appear for Mills.

Why isn't this observed everywhere?

Why? One might ask why it was that Helium was doubted to exist even ten years after it's discovery. See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...ed-helium-first-alien-element-1868-180970057/

(my bold)

Seeking proof to back up the claim that he’d helped discover a new element, Lockyer went to English chemist Edward Frankland to attempt to reproduce the wavelength pattern in the lab. Frankland theorized it might be caused by hydrogen under extreme temperature and pressure, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to recreate it.

The skepticism over the possibility of an element existing in space but not on Earth is perhaps no surprise, given that it was the first of its kind. Science historians James L. Marshall and Virginia R. Marshall write, “Frankland, perhaps cautious because of the many erroneous ‘newly discovered elements’ arising from the high resolution spectra now available, maintained that he did not want to have his name associated with this imaginary element,” even after Lockyer went public, dubbing it “Helium,” after the Greek name for the sun.


Now, imagine if helium did not have discrete spectral lines at all. How long would it have taken to discover it? Then it would have akin to hydrino: very small, inert, not detectable by spectral lines, and escaping rapidly to space. But there would have been a glaring vacancy in the periodic table for Z = 2 and an active search would have been on. No so with the hydrino. No one would be looking for it. It would take someone like Mills. When one considers the methods Mills uses to both produce and detect hydrino, no one is going to find it unless he is actively looking for it.

 

[markie]

My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. But again, show me the evidence, or rather show that the relevant experts accept the evidence, or even better show a working product and I would be very happy that I was wrong the whole time. I have no stake in this emotionally or economically. Can you say the same? "Certain circles" is such a vague expression that it is practically meaningless. Could you please point to what circles you are referring to?

Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.

You appear to be content looking at Wikipedia and Main Street Science for your information. You will have to dig deeper and discover for yourself the relatively few scientists who have worked with Mills and backed him in his discoveries over the years.

Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? Why not? The huge festering problem preceding it was, incredibly, not in the purview of the mainstream, nor even considered by the vast majority of 'experts' in finance.

Lesson learned? Count me skeptical.

 

[halleyscomet]

You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.


What do you want to do, visit the labs yourself?



His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.



The proposed hydrino reaction is no more "free energy" than is combustion or fission. IOW it isn't free and it is much more difficult to master than combustion or fission. So much for instant gratification.

Dude. The “evidence” is garbage. You’re the one who is biased. You’re defending a paper with a missing page that reused a graph from something else for crying out loud!

 

[jsfisher]

Dude. The “evidence” is garbage. You’re the one who is biased. You’re defending a paper with a missing page that reused a graph from something else for crying out loud!

There is more than one missing page. Page 30 is not there, either.

 

[hgus]

Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.

Fair enough.

You appear to be content looking at Wikipedia and Main Street Science for your information. You will have to dig deeper and discover for yourself the relatively few scientists who have worked with Mills and backed him in his discoveries over the years.

How I make my research is a complete unknown to you.

I am not surprised that you will not name the supporters he got. Your answer implies that his only support is from his inner circle. That is as meaningful as having your mother as a character witness. Since I do not trust Mills I obviously do not consider his partners reliable. I would like to remind you that Mills have lied on more than one occasion. (You call it optimism or 'forward thinking statements' if I recall.)

Have Mills been able to convince anyone with relevant competence, except his inner circle, since the 90´s? If not, that IS a rather strong reason to suspect that there is nothing there.

Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? Why not? The huge festering problem preceding it was, incredibly, not in the purview of the mainstream, nor even considered by the vast majority of 'experts' in finance.

Lesson learned? Count me skeptical.

A wonderful example of why you should never write in affection. One believes one to be clever and instead it just becomes a turd.

1. It is completely ot. 2. It has nothing to do with me or my post. 3. It equates predicting financial crashes with suspecting scams. 4. You could not avoid being condescending or maybe you really think avoiding scams is a kind of magic?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.

Fairness?
Is it fair to acquire millions of dollars to research a dead end? Money that actually could help change the world? Really?

To be fair Mills needs put in prison. That's fair.

Be sure if I stole 1/100th the money Mills has stolen through deception, I would be sitting in jail typing this.

But Mills gets a free pass to try and steal even more? This is fair? really?

You can also be sure I actually do have a way to change the world with an investment of 1/100th what Mills scammed for. I bet there are at least 100 others sitting in the same position as me. It is absolutely infuriating.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh yes, everybody here would just love for Mills' claims to be true. That is why, despite no one offering a plausible scientific explanation for the excess heat in this one simple, early experiment from 1994, the only response from pseudoskeptics is to assume that the excess heat observed is somehow a mistake or a result of fraud.

Yes, that's how real science works. Remember when the scientists at CERN got results that appeared to indicate a particle moving faster than lightspeed? They checked, and they double-checked, then they released all of their data for people to check for themselves, and asked people at other particle accelerators to see if they could replicate the results independently, because their first assumption, and the one they considered most likely was that they had made a mistake.

Or, just last month, another groups of researchers found indications that there may be a new particle. But they say that it's probably statistical noise and are not only working to do more analysis themselves to try to rule it out, and have got independent researchers to analyse their own data to see if they have comparable results.

This is the bottom line in science - if you think you've broken the laws of physics, then you probably haven't. Error and statistical anomalies are far more likely as explanations. You then make all the data publicly available for everybody to go over (rather than a half-arsed paper where your readers have to assume almost everything about the experiment) and get truly independent replication.

Replication and falsifiability. The absolute foundations of real science. And all good scientists will always assume error or statistical noise first and foremost, and then devise further experiments/carry out further analysis in order to rule those things out. This doesn't mean that they don't want the results to be true. It just means that what they're doing is actual science.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now, imagine if helium did not have discrete spectral lines at all. How long would it have taken to discover it? Then it would have akin to hydrino: very small, inert, not detectable by spectral lines, and escaping rapidly to space.

I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?

 

[Darat]

I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?

You have to keep things in order, I think spectral analysis is used in the second quarter of the new cycle he starts every 2 years. I think that means we aren't due to hear about the important spectral analysis "evidence" again until in the new year.