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

[Hans]

The bottom line - it's STILL a scam

Fantasies that have never and are extremely like to never actually produce something tangible, causing his believers to shift the date of the appearance of his magical devices ever upwards, like the coming of Christ.

Yep that is the bottom line - despite markie's continuing desperate crusade to make Mills failed ideas 'possibilities' we still have 30 years of no products and all the signs of a scam.

 

[Darat]

Yep that is the bottom line - despite markie's continuing desperate crusade to make Mills failed ideas 'possibilities' we still have 30 years of no products and all the signs of a scam.

Typical, so Mill has been a tad optimistic with his time scale to get to market, and here you are criticising him when he is almost ready to start getting ready to start the design of a prototype of the type of container he will need, so that from there it will only be a few more decades and he'll be there. Or at least ready to start engineering out that pesky input energy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Typical, so Mill has been a tad optimistic with his time scale to get to market,

Maybe he calculated it from his grand unified classical physics model, in which case it's perfectly correct apart from a few more minor correction factors.

Dave

 

[markie]

Quoted for hilarity:



Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss has been called the prince of mathematics. I suspect that is derived from the Latin Princeps mathematicorum, meaning he was first among mathematicians. That is how Gauss's fellow mathematicians referred to him, and modern mathematicians still hold Gauss in similarly high regard some two centuries later.

I doubt whether any physicists have ever referred to Mills as "prince of classical physics". As for whether physicists two hundred years from now will share markie's high opinion of Mills, we'll just have to wait and see.

Posterity's opinion of Mills may of course depend on whether Mills can deliver his promised technology within that time frame. At this rate, he's not going to make it.

Oh he's going to make it. Just a matter of timing. Now that he has a closed reactor that can operate on the order of at least 10 minutes with sufficiently high power, calorimetry results (when validated in the near term) will be compelling even to some skeptics.

I think of Mills more as the 'saving prince' of classical physics. In the old days of QM, people like Bohr were happy to have classical devices measuring quantum phenomena. Now, QM zealots want to pixelize the entire universe and subsume General Relativity. And why? It started because physicists could not classically resolve the atom early in the twentieth century. Mills to the rescue.

 

[markie]

OH, are we back here? Sweet.
So, markie, how do Mill's theories explain the observed effect of quantum tunneling and the difference between a hydrogen and deuterium atom in enzymatic reactions?

You forget to answer that the last time I asked.

I recall a quantum tunnelling theme but not a deuterium one.

Of courses deuterium will have somewhat different chemical properties than hydrogen. The neutron contributes a magnetic factor that affects the electron. For computational details on the difference, see chapter 11 of GUTCP, pages 413 and 423.

Regarding tunnelling; since per GUTCP particles are real physical objects with spatial extent, the process of tunnelling can be explained classically. Consider: an extended particle with certain kinetic energy encounters an energy barrier that is greater than its kinetic energy. The object begins to penetrate the barrier. But as it does so it is able to acquire a potential energy difference from the barrier, and this energy is imparted to the rest of the particle which is then able to completely traverse the barrier. If you want a specific example with numbers and probability, see how Mills does this with Alpha decay in Chapter 39, page 1623.

I know you don't like it, but lets face it QM has workable predictions which are observed everywhere in nature and can (and have been) used to produce working products (some of which you use as well).

Yes it does have workable predictions, with the caveat that what is predicted does not stray too far from what has already been amassed into the semi empirical quantum cookbook recipes.

 

[markie]

Ignoring the words you are trying to stuff into my mouth, I will remind you of this:

There are several other, similarly emphatic posts by you about correctness. You have been requalifying since then, so, yeah, the goal post relocation efforts are of your own doing.

Oh my. You're removing this from what correctness meant in that previous context, namely that the equations actually do correspond to the numbers produced in the tables. As such, the results are indeed correct.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I recall a quantum tunnelling theme but not a deuterium one.

Of courses deuterium will have somewhat different chemical properties than hydrogen. The neutron contributes a magnetic factor that affects the electron. For computational details on the difference, see chapter 11 of GUTCP, pages 413 and 423.

Regarding tunnelling; since per GUTCP particles are real physical objects with spatial extent, the process of tunnelling can be explained classically. Consider: an extended particle with certain kinetic energy encounters an energy barrier that is greater than its kinetic energy. The object begins to penetrate the barrier. But as it does so it is able to acquire a potential energy difference from the barrier, and this energy is imparted to the rest of the particle which is then able to completely traverse the barrier. If you want a specific example with numbers and probability, see how Mills does this with Alpha decay in Chapter 39, page 1623.



Yes it does have workable predictions, with the caveat that what is predicted does not stray too far from what has already been amassed into the semi empirical quantum cookbook recipes.

A fascinating.
So, the observable fact that deuterium chemically behaves like hydrogen, just acts differently in quantum events is wrong.
And in the 'method' you claim the barrier is clearly interacted with. It either needs to move out of the way or it's destroyed. That has never been observed either. In fact in Mill's model a deuterium atom should be BETTER at tunneling as it can confer more kinetic energy as it is heavier.
Again, that is not observed.

Damn pesky nature again not confirming to Mill's predictions, in the same way that all hydrino reactions that according to his calculation SHOULD occur in nature never do.

Odd that. It's almost as if his theories break down the moment they get applied to the real world. But sure, he will produce something real soon. And the second coming will happen on the same day.

 

[Dancing David]

Define “classically good.”

Within a fudge factor set in ancient Greece and Rome

 

[Reality Check]

Writes that Mills has the delusion that electron shielding is "100 percent shielding"

Let me help you out......

Making Mills delusions even worse does not help anyone, markie.
30 November 2018 markie: Writes that Mills has the delusion that electron shielding is "100 percent shielding".
One of the ways that electron shielding used to provide an effective nuclear charge by using Slater's rules

The rules were devised semi-empirically by John C. Slater and published in 1930.[1]

29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!

29 November 2018 markie: Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again.

We've been down this road before

30 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes his abysmal ignorance of classical physics yet again with a "electric and magnetic forces" fantasy.
The electrostatic force between a uniformly charged shell and a charge inside it being zero is textbook physics. Maybe not taught in high school science so maybe he does not know it from there. But there are plenty of sources for the derivation.

Bump the moon and what happens?

A dumb question, markie, because the Moon is an not a shell of matter around the Earth .

29 November 2018 markie: 2 "Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this." lies.

30 November 2018 markie: Fantasy that QM stopped ~90 years ago and a lie about a source.
QM has advanced in the last ~90 years!
Quantum mechanics/Many electron systems does not mention the Schrodinger equation.

From memory, the Schrodinger equation has an exact solution only for hydrogen. There are methods to get solutions for other elements as a quick search shows.
Solving the Schrodinger equation for helium atom and its isoelectronic ions with the free iterative complement interaction (ICI) method.

29 November 2018 markie: More Mills delusions does not make the numbers in his book magically match experimental values.
is turned into:
30 November 2018 markie: Has a "closer and closer approximations" delusion about calculations Mills has not done.
As I pointed out, adding more effects is just as likely to produce worse results. The fact that Mills has not published the addition of those effects is an indication that he has done the calculations, seen the worse results and thus not shown them to anyone! That would fit his track record. Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies

 

[Reality Check]

An "Epicycles" and "physical nonsense" delusion about QM

Epicycles were coherent in their way and quite accurate. But the premise they were build on was physical nonsense. Similarly for QM.

30 November 2018 markie: An "Epicycles" and "physical nonsense" delusion about QM.

The premise that QM is built is that empirical evidence needs a scientific theory to explain them. That empirical evidence was observations that classical physics could not explain. History of quantum mechanics

• Thomas Young's double-slit experiment demonstrating the wave nature of light. (c. 1801)
• Henri Becquerel discovers radioactivity. (1896)
• J. J. Thomson's cathode ray tube experiments (discovers the electron and its negative charge). (1897)
• The study of black-body radiation between 1850 and 1900, which could not be explained without quantum concepts.
• The photoelectric effect: Einstein explained this in 1905 (and later received a Nobel prize for it) using the concept of photons, particles of light with quantized energy.
• Robert Millikan's oil-drop experiment, which showed that electric charge occurs as quanta (whole units). (1909)
• Ernest Rutherford's gold foil experiment disproved the plum pudding model of the atom which suggested that the mass and positive charge of the atom are almost uniformly distributed. This led to the planetary model of the atom (1911).
• James Franck and Gustav Hertz's electron collision experiment shows that energy absorption by mercury atoms is quantized. (1914)
• Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach conduct the Stern–Gerlach experiment, which demonstrates the quantized nature of particle spin. (1920)
• Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer demonstrate the wave nature of the electron[12] in the Electron diffraction experiment. (1927)
• Clyde L. Cowan and Frederick Reines confirm the existence of the neutrino in the neutrino experiment. (1955)
• Clauss Jönsson's double-slit experiment with electrons. (1961)
• The Quantum Hall effect, discovered in 1980 by Klaus von Klitzing. The quantized version of the Hall effect has allowed for the definition of a new practical standard for electrical resistance and for an extremely precise independent determination of the fine structure constant.
• The experimental verification of quantum entanglement by Alain Aspect. (1982)
• The Mach-Zehnder Interferometer experiment conducted by Paul Kwiat, Harold Wienfurter, Thomas Herzog, Anton Zeilinger, and Mark Kasevich, providing experimental verification of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester, proving interaction-free measurement is possible. (1994)

29 November 2018 markie: A delusion that "semi-empirical" electron shielding makes QM ionization energies calculations invalid.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1623 : Alpha decay lies and delusions

If you want a specific example with numbers and probability, see how Mills does this with Alpha decay in Chapter 39, page 1623.

Yet more Mills insanity blindly believed by markie.

30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions
A Mills delusion is that a free electron is "a two-dimensional plane". Another is that these magically become spheres when bound in an atom. He lies that protons and neutrons are "also two-dimensional in nature" because his delusions make bound particles into spheres.

Mills has a delusion that a classical object (his electron) hitting a barrier is somehow pulled through it. Classically, "two-dimensional plane" hitting a higher rectangular potential barrier never goes through. It bounces back.

Mills basically lies with his "transmission probability" which looks selected to match the undergraduate QM particle in a rectangular potential example.

Mills lies by using an "electrical potential energy". This is a lie about basic electromagnetism - like charges repel ! A nucleus that only has electromagnetic forces explodes because the protons repel each other. That requires the strong nuclear interaction which Mills knows and is very deluded about..

FYI: Mills thinks the strong nuclear interaction is electromagnetic in origin based on insane quark/gluon fantasies staring on page 1617.

 

[Lurch]

My informed opinion, based on the relative harmlessness of hydrogen gas. Also, Dr. Mills seems to be in very good health. Regarding hydrino hydride compounds, they would need greater scrutiny, although they should be less reactive than normal corresponding hydride compounds.

This is like saying that because Mills has not been gored by a unicorn means he must be competent in unicorn husbandry.

 

[Reality Check]

The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics

 

[Reality Check]

Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic

Yet more Mills insanity blindly believed by markie.FYI: Mills thinks the strong nuclear interaction is electromagnetic in origin based on insane quark/gluon fantasies staring on page 1617.

This needs emphasizing.
3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin.

It is literally insane to think that protons and neutrons are kept in nuclei by electromagnetic forces. Protons have the same charge and repel each other electromagnetically. Neutrons are neutral and do not interact electromagnetically with protons or each other. The strong nuclear interaction is 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force at a range of 1 femtometer. The strong nuclear interaction is mediated by pions, not photons.

 

[halleyscomet]

This is like saying that because Mills has not been gored by a unicorn means he must be competent in unicorn husbandry.

Even if we assume Hydrinos are real, by his own admission Mills is only producing them in short bursts. There are many things that are perfectly safe in short small bursts that are deadly during prolonged industrial exposure.

 

[markie]

Making Mills delusions even worse does not help anyone, markie.
30 November 2018 markie: Writes that Mills has the delusion that electron shielding is "100 percent shielding".
One of the ways that electron shielding used to provide an effective nuclear charge by using Slater's rules

29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!

Mills introduces a resonant photon essentially stuck to the inner side of the electron orbitsphere, which influences "effective nuclear charge". So it is not as simple as you are thinking.

29 November 2018 markie: Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again.


30 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes his abysmal ignorance of classical physics yet again with a "electric and magnetic forces" fantasy.
The electrostatic force between a uniformly charged shell and a charge inside it being zero is textbook physics. Maybe not taught in high school science so maybe he does not know it from there. But there are plenty of sources for the derivation.

A dumb question, markie, because the Moon is an not a shell of matter around the Earth .

I'm amazed you keep bringing this up. Yes a shell of negative charge by itself will produce no EM inside it. But (need I repeat this?) there is a positive proton in the centre which does certainly exert an attractive force on the electron. By your thinking, if our moon was pulverized to become a thin layer of dust spherically encompassing the earth, the earth would then exert no gravitational force on that shell. Ridiculous.

29 November 2018 markie: 2 "Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this." lies.

30 November 2018 markie: Fantasy that QM stopped ~90 years ago and a lie about a source.
QM has advanced in the last ~90 years!
Quantum mechanics/Many electron systems does not mention the Schrodinger equation.

From memory, the Schrodinger equation has an exact solution only for hydrogen. There are methods to get solutions for other elements as a quick search shows.
Solving the Schrodinger equation for helium atom and its isoelectronic ions with the free iterative complement interaction (ICI) method.

Oh sure there are methods. The question is, how many free parameter fudge factors are introduced to do this? As a hint: "We examined several types of scaling function g" from the abstract should tell you something.

 

[markie]

30 November 2018 markie: An "Epicycles" and "physical nonsense" delusion about QM.

The premise that QM is built is that empirical evidence needs a scientific theory to explain them. That empirical evidence was observations that classical physics could not explain. History of quantum mechanics

Mills has little argument with earlier quantum physics. For other observations like the Quantum Hall Effect, etc he has very good classical explanations and computations, thank you.

 

[markie]

Yet more Mills insanity blindly believed by markie.

30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions
A Mills delusion is that a free electron is "a two-dimensional plane". Another is that these magically become spheres when bound in an atom. He lies that protons and neutrons are "also two-dimensional in nature" because his delusions make bound particles into spheres.

Mills has a delusion that a classical object (his electron) hitting a barrier is somehow pulled through it. Classically, "two-dimensional plane" hitting a higher rectangular potential barrier never goes through. It bounces back.

Mills basically lies with his "transmission probability" which looks selected to match the undergraduate QM particle in a rectangular potential example.

Mills lies by using an "electrical potential energy". This is a lie about basic electromagnetism - like charges repel ! A nucleus that only has electromagnetic forces explodes because the protons repel each other. That requires the strong nuclear interaction which Mills knows and is very deluded about..

FYI: Mills thinks the strong nuclear interaction is electromagnetic in origin based on insane quark/gluon fantasies staring on page 1617.

Get past the wall of EM repulsive force and one gets into the attractive strong nuclear force, which Mills says is electromagnetic in nature. Nested EM phenomena. The gluon is a trapped photon inside a quark orbitsphere. Notice the similarity in theme to the electron orbitsphere? Wonderfully unified in concept.

 

[markie]

The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics

Ethan is a great communicator and I like his style and his moustache, but he is just repeating what he has been taught, to wit, the sun shines because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. No thank you. Nature has a way to get past the coulomb barrier and HUP isn't it.

 

[markie]

This needs emphasizing.
3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin.

It is literally insane to think that protons and neutrons are kept in nuclei by electromagnetic forces. Protons have the same charge and repel each other electromagnetically. Neutrons are neutral and do not interact electromagnetically with protons or each other. The strong nuclear interaction is 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force at a range of 1 femtometer. The strong nuclear interaction is mediated by pions, not photons.

Lots of new concepts were deemed 'insane' when first introduced, only to be accepted later on.
As you may know, Mills prefers to see his bosons as massless, like the photon and the gluon. When bosons like the W and Z and the Higgs come out as heavier than the iron atom and last for only a near infinitesimal amount of time, Mills rightfully says no.