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

[JeanTate]

If it's buoyant then it aint dark matter. If it's dark matter, then it aint buoyant. That's because the buoyancy force is from interacting with normal matter ie the atmosphere. It it interacts enough to actually cause it to slowly float up up and away out of this gravity well, it ain't dark matter. If it really was even real it would fly through similar to a neutrino.

But I guess nevermind, since the truth is it doesn't exist at all anyway.

Well, hydrinos are quite ... extraordinary.

They are dark matter, yet emit the equivalent of 21 cm radiation.

They are buoyant, floating up not only in the Earth's atmosphere but also in rich galaxy clusters, yet remain heavily concentrated in just such clusters.

And so on.

 

[JeanTate]

Took a closer look and I see it only measures the higher frequencies in 6 bands:
100, 140, 220, 350, 550, 850 GHz. So it is clearly a different kind of measurement than what I was supposing. It would miss the 642 GHz line altogether. I can only suppose you didn't know this, or if you did, shame.

Oh markie, you really, really should stop trying to wing it.

Any sight-line out into space will encounter dark matter. Lots of it. At redshifts ranging from 0 to, well you tell us (but it's certainly >7).

So, simple question for you markie, at what redshifts would a 642 GHz line become a 550, 350, 220, ... GHz one?

Also, a closer read of what I actually wrote would lead you to look into COBE, say, or several balloon-based experiments/observations. What do you think you'd find if you actually did some work on this topic (instead of constantly simply winging it)?

C'mon, fess up: this idea of Mills is late, and if you hadn't nailed it to its perch, it'd be pushin' up daisies long before now ...

Sure, there was J. Lotoski, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, X. Hu, G. Wu, G. Chu, Y. Lu as well.

And these people, at the time, were working in labs in - let's see - Gdansk, Shanghai, Gaziantep, Kaohsiung, Singapore, Vancouver, Shenzhen, etc. Right?

All of which are the names of separate rooms in a facility in southern NJ ...

 

[JeanTate]

STOP THE PRESSES!

markie admits that Mills does not use curve fitting!!

What does he use instead, markie? His exquisite intuitive sense of how the universe works?

Yeah, sort of like that I suppose.

Ah curve fitting. What did John von Neumann say? "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

Riiight ...

Let's see now, I recall that a kind of instrument called, variously, a spectroscope or spectrograph is key to many of Mills' claims.

Now we learn that both you and Mills believe these instruments can be designed, manufactured, tested, calibrated, and used to make lab measurements without once using curve fitting.

In many a hospital there is a PET machine, a CT scanner, an MRI machine, an ultrasound device. Physicians use these to help make diagnoses for a wide variety of conditions. Should you ever be asked to undergo a test with one of these, I do hope, markie, that you don't refuse because of your irrational dislike of curve fitting. After all, as you will quickly find if you bother to do some simple research, curve fitting is integral to the design, manufacture, testing, calibration, and use of all such.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Mills obviously deserves far more than one Nobel Prize...

I would say at least three.

Exemplary Scamming, Long-standing Fraud, ... I'm having trouble coming up with the third ...

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Thank you but I know about spring constants from my high school physics.
At least here you are providing references with some meat on them.
However, none of the papers referenced within Wiki, or the other paper, consider circumstances where the ring can indeed be stable to perturbation. For instance they don't consider precession.

Here's a full paper where it is shown that a thin, solid ring under precession can be stable: ( HS99 NOTE: I can't post the URL)

An excerpt from the introduction:

This paper addresses the orbital stability of a thin, rigid, circular ring with a point mass within the perimeter of the ring. It is assumed that the central point mass is much greater than the mass of the ring, MR << MS. A combination of examination of the gravitational potential and numerical simulations is used to determine possible stable orbits of this system as a function of rigid body rotation parameters of the ring. It is shown that passively stable orbits do exist for a range of rigid body rotation parameters and that these orbits are stable in three dimensions.

Needless to say, as I said with the ring motions of the orbitsphere, they also sweep out an area; that is, they precess.

Hi all. I'm a Ph.D. physicist, though no longer in the field. I notice no-one bit your reference, Markie.

First, some people made incorrect statements about the instability of a ring. A simple rotating ring is completely unstable. The net force from a charge (or mass) inside is not zero, but gets larger the more offset the nucleus (or star) is from the center. The central attracting body more strongly attracts the side that is closer to it.

Because of this attractive force, the paper you reference has indeed found a way to make the ring "orbit" by inclining the spin, and having it precess. Only a very narrow set of constraints will result in a stable orbit.

As for shells -- as everyone has been trying to tell you, the net force on the shell from an attractive body inside is exactly zero. This is true of gravitational attraction, and electrical attraction. It is a result of the inverse square law, and the geometry. It is first-year university calculus, and almost every physicist has done this calculation.

That means that Mills orbitspheres, despite being constructed like a long wrapped-up line, must have no electrical force keeping the nucleus in the center of the orbitsphere. It will move freely until it hits the electron sphere. There is no way this thing could be stable.

Now, what if the charge density in the orbitsphere is not uniform when the nucleus gets out of the center? Could this cause a restoring force? No, it would be opposite. An increased charge near the nucleus would cause an attractive force that would pull even harder.

The problem is the hard spherical shape. Orbits don't work in a spherical shape. Maintaining the shape prevents any type of stability. Nothing about Mills' construction makes sense. He simply overlays the results of Quantum Mechanics on the sphere itself, and calls his work done. It makes no sense, and fails to make any accurate predictions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And this revolution in cosmology has been published in which relevant, peer-reviewed journal, may I ask?

By now, I imagine it would have attracted hundreds, if not thousands, of citations ...

Journals are afraid to publish Mills, according to Mills:

GUTCP came so close to taking its rightful place over quantum mechanics. After I solved all two-electron atoms in closed-form, I submitted a theoretical paper to Physical Review. The Editor was at that time was a European who communicated that this could be the most incredible theoretical discovery of our times. It actually represents the proverbial missing link between quantum mechanics and classical physics. It was such a big deal, that the Editor said that he had to be absolutely sure since it would disrupt the quantum theoretical community. So, he instructed me to solve all three-electron atoms classically, and if successful he would publish the paper. I had a day job working on power, but I was successful and resubmitted the paper now regarding exact classical solutions of all one, two, and three-electron atoms. In the intervening time, the Editor changed over to a US Professor who upon receiving it vowed that the breakthrough would never see the light of day, not on his watch. I kept working on the power and when I was confident of the results, I published and announced the results. In contrast to my anticipated reaction of excitement, the announcement provoked quantum activists the likes of Robert Park, Peter Zimmerman, Connett, Barth, and others to destroy hydrino and the underlying classical theory. QM must be defended! Too bad, even major physicists at Harvard and MIT communicated that they thought that I was on to something big. Hard to believe, but now it seems that the opposition is holding a grenade in their hands with a pulled pin. They won’t be able to let go until there is a commercial product, then boom, the end of quantum mechanics.

 

[Reality Check]

Journals are afraid to publish Mills, according to Mills:

A good illustration of how stupid Mills can be. He writes a list of actual scientists that say his ideas are wrong. He adds paranoia, rumors of support and some idiocy that science waits on commercial applications. In the real world, if he had credible evidence that hydrinos existed then it would be published in a good journal, be replicated and be accepted.

His list is "Robert Park, Peter Zimmerman, Connett, Barth, and others" where others include a Nobel Laureate .

NASA Takes a Flyer on Hydrinos

Nobel Laureate physicist Douglas Osheroff of Stanford University has called the hydrino a "crackpot idea," while American Physical Society spokesman Robert Park includes Mills' work in the category of "voodoo science." Park compares attempting to go below the ground state to trying to travel "south of the South Pole."

Against hydrinos John E Connett and Peter D Zimmerman

A scientific examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory by Aaron J. Barth (Skeptic Magazine).

 

[Spektator]

A good illustration of how stupid Mills can be. He writes a list of actual scientists that say his ideas are wrong. He adds paranoia, rumors of support and some idiocy that science waits on commercial applications. In the real world, if he had credible evidence that hydrinos existed then it would be published in a good journal, be replicated and be accepted.(snip).

That's Fake Physics from so-called "scientists" who run down Mills because they are Jealous. Sad! They are too blinded by the real world to see the Truth of what Mills has discovered. He has plenty of hydrinos. Plenty! He keeps some in his pockets to munch on! Here is the smocking gun: in the Macy's Parade, Mills drove the Hydrino Float himself, and it is powered by Hydrino Power! And he sat on top and through Hydrinos to the children! It was on TV! And more people witlessed it than are alive on Earth today! Don't believe Fake Reality!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The line from the true believers is that not only are the actions of scientists who have criticised Mills down to a conspiracy against him in order to uphold the current paradigm, but that the critiques of his work are full of errors and can be ignored.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

The line from the true believers is that not only are the actions of scientists who have criticised Mills down to a conspiracy against him in order to uphold the current paradigm, but that the critiques of his work are full of errors and can be ignored.

Real scientists malign or ignore (mostly the latter) Mills because his "theories" don't pass a simple smell test.

Scientists know how science is done. Reality reveals itself elegantly, while bad science is steeped in contradictions and little evidence.

The name "pathological science" was given to things like cold-fusion, and other fantasy science. It has the outward form of science, but never actually discovers anything. Instead of doing experiments to falsify theories, experiments are done to create an endless stream of useless results, that fail to disprove any region of parameter space.

I went through Mills' theories far enough to know that it made no sense, and the the math didn't follow from his own first principles.

As for the experimental work that Mills has done, I can't imagine worse science. A real scientist would've determined the minimum set of conditions for a positive result, found it, and then published those steps clearly for the world to replicate. That was never done. In fact, the experimental work seems designed to deliberately obscure what was really going on.

And as for the reactor designs -- they seem to be always held up by the inability to figure out how to turn heat into usable energy, as if a simple copper pipe with water flowing through it couldn't do the trick.

I'm just sitting back with popcorn and watching the show. I imagine the investors are pretty pissed right now.

 

[hgus]

And this revolution in cosmology has been published in which relevant, peer-reviewed journal, may I ask?

By now, I imagine it would have attracted hundreds, if not thousands, of citations ...

But Markie already told us that the scientific world can't handle Mills works! He never told us why that is. My guess is that Markie can't handle his own assertions.

 

[markie]

Hi all. I'm a Ph.D. physicist, though no longer in the field. I notice no-one bit your reference, Markie.

First, some people made incorrect statements about the instability of a ring. A simple rotating ring is completely unstable. The net force from a charge (or mass) inside is not zero, but gets larger the more offset the nucleus (or star) is from the center. The central attracting body more strongly attracts the side that is closer to it.

Because of this attractive force, the paper you reference has indeed found a way to make the ring "orbit" by inclining the spin, and having it precess. Only a very narrow set of constraints will result in a stable orbit.

As for shells -- as everyone has been trying to tell you, the net force on the shell from an attractive body inside is exactly zero. This is true of gravitational attraction, and electrical attraction. It is a result of the inverse square law, and the geometry. It is first-year university calculus, and almost every physicist has done this calculation.

That means that Mills orbitspheres, despite being constructed like a long wrapped-up line, must have no electrical force keeping the nucleus in the center of the orbitsphere. It will move freely until it hits the electron sphere. There is no way this thing could be stable.

Now, what if the charge density in the orbitsphere is not uniform when the nucleus gets out of the center? Could this cause a restoring force? No, it would be opposite. An increased charge near the nucleus would cause an attractive force that would pull even harder.

The problem is the hard spherical shape. Orbits don't work in a spherical shape. Maintaining the shape prevents any type of stability. Nothing about Mills' construction makes sense. He simply overlays the results of Quantum Mechanics on the sphere itself, and calls his work done. It makes no sense, and fails to make any accurate predictions.

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero, and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons, and the earth could go anywhere between them. This is not correct.
Instead, each moon feels the gravitational force of the earth and orbits at the appropriate distance for its speed. This precisely means that the earth keeps in the centre between the moons. Similarly the proton keeps at the centre of the orbitsphere.

He simply overlays the results of Quantum Mechanics on the sphere itself, and calls his work done. It makes no sense, and fails to make any accurate predictions.

I hope others see the inherent contradictory nature of the above two sentences. The first sentence says that Mills overlays QM on the sphere (whatever that is supposed to mean), and by implication obtains the results of QM. Yet the second sentence has Mills failing to make any accurate predictions, and so by implication does not obtain the results of QM. Hello?

If anyone wants to see a real PhD's review of the first 12 chapters of Dr. Mills' GUTCP, by someone who has actually done the work and gone through all the calculations and assessed them, you can download the pdf files here:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/Theory-Reviews-Folder-120818.zip

 

[jsfisher]

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

Keep it classy.

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero

What would be the net force on the Earth, then?

...and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons

The moons, not being coupled, would each experience a non-zero force of attraction to the Earth (and the other moon).

...and the earth could go anywhere between them. This is not correct.

You'd have to do that math thing to show whether it be correct or not. Can you do that math thing?

...
Similarly the proton keeps at the centre of the orbitsphere.

Only one electron for hydrogen; you have yet another analogy fail.


No matter, though. We humbly await you doing that math thing.

 

[jadebox]

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero, and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons, and the earth could go anywhere between them.

How many things can you get wrong in one sentence?

1) Two separate moons in orbit is not at all equivalent to a sphere around the earth.
2) There would, of course, still be attraction between the moons and the earth.
3) You are still getting the meaning of "net" wrong.
4) The earth could not be "anywhere" between the moons.

Edit: To be fair, #2 and #4 are just consequences of #3. So, maybe there are only two middle-school physics mistakes in Markie's statement.

 

[markie]

How many things can you get wrong in one sentence?

1) Two separate moons in orbit is not at all equivalent to a sphere around the earth.

Of course it is not 'equivalent'. I'm talking about the more general idea of symmetry.

2) There would, of course, still be attraction between the moons and the earth.

Finally someone with some physical intuition!

3) You are still getting the meaning of "net" wrong.

The 'net' meaning here is the idea of adding force vectors. It would indeed add to zero. Yet, there is still a gravitational force of the earth on each of the moons.

4) The earth could not be "anywhere" between the moons.

Exactly. Now extrapolate. What if there were another two moons on opposite sides of the earth? Then another two? Then another two? Ect. The earth will still exert a gravitational force on each of those moons. They will all be kept in orbit at a certain distance according to orbital mechanics, which means the earth will be at the centre. Extrapolate even more to obtain a continuous shell of mass ; the earth will still exert a force on any patch of that shell and will be kept in the centre. Similarly for the positive proton at the centre of a negative shell.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I like that the claims have morphed from Mills just replacing quantum mechanics to Mills replacing both quantum mechanics and classical physics. Not only are quantum mechanics and relativity wrong, but Newton is, too.

 

[wollery]

The 'net' meaning here is the idea of adding force vectors. It would indeed add to zero. Yet, there is still a gravitational force of the earth on each of the moons.

And if the moons are all physically connected, the forces on each individual moon would be transmitted to all the other moons.

And since, as you admit above, the net force is zero...

Simple question - How do levers work?

By using your analogy and reasoning a lever shouldn't work at all, because the force on one end of a lever doesn't affect the other end. That's essentially what you are saying.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

New video:



As convincing as the others.

 

[The Moog]

New video:



As convincing as the others.

Wow, a glowey. And for a whole second or two. This is sciency.

 

[Worm]

To be fair, it was a sort of purple glow, which is super-sciency. Also a slightly disquieting emission of smoke. Swings and roundabouts....