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

[Reality Check]

Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies.
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.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Mills is also violating QM?

Both markie and Mills himself are very clear on this: QM is bollocks, to be replaced by a sorta classical physics theory of Mills' own creation. Needless to say Mills' ideas are riddled with internal inconsistencies and other gross failures. But if he's right, several Nobel Prizes await him.

And yes, we've been over this before ...

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

The problem is that the culture of science today is not up to the task of responding to hydrino claims in a rational way.

Au contraire, mon ami, au contraire!

The response has been very rational: show me the objective, quantitative, independently verified evidence.

Several - truly independent - teams tried to replicate Mills' reported results, and failed. And yes, they published their results, in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

And yes, we've been over this before ...

 

[PeterWol62]

Why is it not?

.
Hgus: Money! There are few scientists with private finance these days. There is not much to gain by repeating another’s work to validate it. Not easy to get a grant to do that. And, apart from some retired guys like myself, it is hard to be motivated to spend hours looking into what Wikipedia tells you is junk science.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if ( yes, I accept that word: if ) and when
( probably within a year or two now, but I have been caught out in the past) BLP do produce a really convincing demonstration. It took many years for Mawell’s equations to lead to radio transmission, and the initial spark gap transmitters were weird by modern standards.
Of course I worry about Randy Mills’ progress, but I have spent many hours studying his scientific work and I find it very plausible. The big problem today is that products need to be perfect and reliable. A hundred years ago automobiles were unreliable, and before Ford it was thought that the market would be limited by the need to employ a chauffeur cum mechanic for each. It was accepted. For some reason we accept that software is crap, although that need not be the case: bug-free software can be produced by avoidance of coding. Another story! Maybe BLP need to make physically large gadgets so as to deal with the high power. But a better problem than those of a few years ago, when promising devices refused to scale up.
By the way, when visiting BLP at Cranbury a few years ago, I saw bottles of crystals which I was assured were hydrino compounds, but of course I had no way of checking that claim. Pretty colours.
Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was. Not just seen in a crowd! So some contact with the Physics world.
Anyway, all you Skeptics - have fun while you can.
Peter W.

 

[LTC8K6]

Dr. Mills claimed the process of transforming hydrogen atoms into smaller "hydrinos" by chemical catalysis will provide "a virtually unlimited supply of energy" through distributed power turbines. The hydrinos themselves combine with other elements, he said, to make compounds that could be the basis for batteries to power cars 1,000 miles at highway speeds before recharging; a plastic that conducts electricity and shares magnetic qualities with iron; and super-strong coatings, among other things. There could be "potentially thousands, if not millions" of novel compounds, he said. He also said that compounds such as the ones BlackLight Power is creating account for the more than 90% of the mass of the universe that scientists say is so far unobservable.

BlackLight Power will present about 10 compounds to the American Chemical Society and "five papers that give explicit details and is absolutely reproducible," Dr. Mills said. "I have a unified field theory that's absolutely testable at every stage and on every item."

Where are these compounds and the papers that go with them? I think it would be good to try to reproduce these compounds.

http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm#dow

 

[JeanTate]

What is the environmental impact of hydrogen gas?

And this is relevant, how exactly?

Even less so for dihydrino.

I fully agree, because it's roughly the same as the environmental impact of unicorns.

But neither you nor the Mills crew believe in unicorns.

However, you are both utterly convinced that dihydrinos, and monohydrinos, exist.

Yet apparently no study has been done on their environmental or health impacts.

About Mills' theory ; you apparently can't even show how he correctly calculates the ionization energy for each electron for elements up to Z = 20. So much for having "looked carefully".

Wow, talk about diversion and irrelevancy!

Something that's deeply flawed - in the "internal inconsistency department" if nothing else (and there's much else) - isn't worth spending time on, re these so called predictions.

And yes, we've been over this before ...

 

[JeanTate]

Except for one thing Markie, the hydrogen atom falling to the hydrino state and the hydrino state moving to the hydrogen state would create spectral lines.

And let's not forget that Mills claimed the universe is awash with just such light!

Remember what markie posted, about how hydrinos are responsible for the diffuse background emission observed by x-ray satellites? It's nonsense, of course. But in one respect not: such light would constitute an environmental and health hazard, one that Mills (and markie) conveniently omits to mention.

And yes, we've been over this before ...

 

[JeanTate]

.
Hgus: Money! There are few scientists with private finance these days. There is not much to gain by repeating another’s work to validate it. Not easy to get a grant to do that. And, apart from some retired guys like myself, it is hard to be motivated to spend hours looking into what Wikipedia tells you is junk science.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if ( yes, I accept that word: if ) and when
( probably within a year or two now, but I have been caught out in the past) BLP do produce a really convincing demonstration. It took many years for Mawell’s equations to lead to radio transmission, and the initial spark gap transmitters were weird by modern standards.
Of course I worry about Randy Mills’ progress, but I have spent many hours studying his scientific work and I find it very plausible. The big problem today is that products need to be perfect and reliable. A hundred years ago automobiles were unreliable, and before Ford it was thought that the market would be limited by the need to employ a chauffeur cum mechanic for each. It was accepted. For some reason we accept that software is crap, although that need not be the case: bug-free software can be produced by avoidance of coding. Another story! Maybe BLP need to make physically large gadgets so as to deal with the high power. But a better problem than those of a few years ago, when promising devices refused to scale up.
By the way, when visiting BLP at Cranbury a few years ago, I saw bottles of crystals which I was assured were hydrino compounds, but of course I had no way of checking that claim. Pretty colours.
Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was. Not just seen in a crowd! So some contact with the Physics world.
Anyway, all you Skeptics - have fun while you can.
Peter W.

My bold.

Like many others who've posted to this thread - and its predecessors - over several years now, I'd be over the Moon if I could buy a hydrino powered engine for my Hulux ute!

Well, I would have been, when I still owned one. I guess today I'll have to settle for a Lyft ride that's powered by such an engine. Or a device I can put in my basement, to power my house (especially my computers! ), so I can go off-grid.

But, sadly, I'm getting quite old, and am more and more convinced that I'll not live to see such a thing.

May I ask, have you placed an order yet, for a Mills generator? If not, why not?

 

[Darat]

Mills and others have published dozens and dozens of papers of experimental results regarding hydrino. So why would you think their work isn't open to scrutiny. The problem is that the culture of science today is not up to the task of responding to hydrino claims in a rational way.

Dozens and dozens? Can you support that?

 

[Reality Check]

.
Hgus: Money! There are few scientists with private finance these days.

markie made the assertion of "The problem is that the culture of science today is not up to the task of responding to hydrino claims in a rational way."
hgus asked why not?
The answer is not private money, PeterWol62. The answer is that markie lied!
Science has responded to hydrino claims in a rational way.
Science rationally pointed out the flaws in Mills' theory.
Science rationally pointed out the flaws in Mills' experiments.

Thanks for the new delusion from Mills - bottles of "hydrino compounds"!

 

[JeanTate]

.
Hgus: Money! There are few scientists with private finance these days. There is not much to gain by repeating another’s work to validate it. Not easy to get a grant to do that. And, apart from some retired guys like myself, it is hard to be motivated to spend hours looking into what Wikipedia tells you is junk science.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if ( yes, I accept that word: if ) and when
( probably within a year or two now, but I have been caught out in the past) BLP do produce a really convincing demonstration. It took many years for Mawell’s equations to lead to radio transmission, and the initial spark gap transmitters were weird by modern standards.
Of course I worry about Randy Mills’ progress, but I have spent many hours studying his scientific work and I find it very plausible. The big problem today is that products need to be perfect and reliable. A hundred years ago automobiles were unreliable, and before Ford it was thought that the market would be limited by the need to employ a chauffeur cum mechanic for each. It was accepted. For some reason we accept that software is crap, although that need not be the case: bug-free software can be produced by avoidance of coding. Another story! Maybe BLP need to make physically large gadgets so as to deal with the high power. But a better problem than those of a few years ago, when promising devices refused to scale up.
By the way, when visiting BLP at Cranbury a few years ago, I saw bottles of crystals which I was assured were hydrino compounds, but of course I had no way of checking that claim. Pretty colours.
Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was. Not just seen in a crowd! So some contact with the Physics world.
Anyway, all you Skeptics - have fun while you can.
Peter W.

My bold.

Maybe you answer something which markie couldn't, about Mills' "scientific work", namely how does it account for L-shell capture beta decay? Also, how does an electron transform from a disk to a shell without emitting photons (or if emitting them, of only one wavelength)?

 

[Reality Check]

....
Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was.

Did you miss Mills' incompetence of not reading the manufacturers instructions for instruments and assigning noise as his "hydrino" spectra, PeterWol62?

Do you know about the paper that shows that Mills misidentified spectra mentioned several times in this thread?
Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al.

• Mills claim of identical spectra for different electrode materials is shown to be false by plotting their data in Figures 1-3.
• Mills claim that the observed emission cannot be explained as line emissions from the metal electrodes is mostly false since much of the emission can be explained this way.
• The continuum seen by Mills is probably the instruments used being unable to resolve densely packed spectral lines.

Do your qualifications allow you to recognize the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mils book, PeterWol62? For example, his delusion that dark matter is hydrinos (dark matter is dark, hydrinos emit light)?

 

[hgus]

Pucktvåa!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Don't forget the Mills claim of having lots of "Hydrino-based Crystals" on the shelf.



That claim is from 1999. Coming up on 20 years ago.

Today I would venture to guess that we still have no idea what a "Hydrino-based Crystal" is supposed to be.

Actually we do know. Just Hydrogen embrittlement.

Me and markie went round and round about it, but he showed no evidence whatsoever that would indicate in any way any thing else. And in fact I even found an old textbook that showed all Mills "anomalous" readings were exactly the same as seen due to hydrogen embrittlement. You might have to scroll back a few months, but it is there.

Until he actually provides some argument countering this, Occam's razor is clear. The simplest explanation stands. It is beyond ridiculous to invent some convoluted new laws of physics to explain a phenomenon so mundane and common as hydrogen embrittlement. It is so common we actually have many various ways developed to AVOID it because it ruins the welds' structural strength.

 

[Hellbound]

Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was. Not just seen in a crowd! So some contact with the Physics world.

This seems carefully phrased.

I have a B.Sc. and A.A.S. from accredited universities, 20 years of work for the U.S. Army in multiple capacities, where I met - personally - over 4 two-star plus generals and worked with a Special Operations Group in Iraq.

I would not suggest you call me to plan any military ops, though.

My degrees are in Information technology and Computer Systems Technology; I was enlisted in the Army; my multiple positions were combat medic, cross-trained to combat engineer, and finally computer analyst. My work with Spec Ops was because they were stationed on our base in Iraq and I did computer support (VSAT and secure Wireless) across the base, so I went over and fixed their systems a couple times. And I met generals because I worked at a Regional Headquarters.

None of which qualifies me for anything specific in the military to what the generals or Spec Ops were doing (only in those fields my degrees and training actually covered).

 

[jonesdave116]

.Am I qualified to comment? M.Sc. from a major university: 23 years at a major physics lab, where I met - personally - over 7 Nobel Prize winners, who knew who I was. Not just seen in a crowd! So some contact with the Physics world.
Anyway, all you Skeptics - have fun while you can.
Peter W.

Didn't happen to run into Nobel laureate Steven Chu, did you?.....

it's extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this

Or Nobel Prize winning physicist Philip Warren Anderson?......

If you could **** around with the hydrogen atom, you could **** around with the energy process in the sun. You could **** around with life itself. Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud

https://www.villagevoice.com/1999/12/21/quantum-leap/

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So this doesn't really support your theory that scientists ridicule Mills because they're scared of the truth.

When has that ever been my 'theory'. Take Robert Park, one of the few that have 'ridiculed' Mills and in a rather passive aggressive way I might add. Is he 'scared of the truth'? Hardly. He is just convinced he knows it, and Mills doesn't.

There's not a conspiracy against Mills then? Okay, good. Glad we've got that sorted out. It must be the quality of his work that prevents him from being published in more reputable journals, then.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's now a cube, and can run for at least 10 minutes "continuously" and "at very high power levels and power gain"

 

[Dave Rogers]

A cube, that runs for a long time?

Now what does that remind me of?

Dave

 

[LTC8K6]

It just looks like a metal cube that has been heated up until it turns red...