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

[W.D.Clinger]

I can't say I've wrapped my head around it completely yet and hopefully I'm not butchering up Mills' orbitsphere theory too badly.

Not to worry. You're butchering hamburger.

Might as well explain how I know it's hamburger...

Mills response to Rathke can be found on the Millsian website here:

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathk...p012108Web.pdf

It's the lengthy version. I've read a much shorter and concise version but can't locate it.

The paragraph that follows equation (16) appears to have been written by someone who doesn't know what a vector basis is, what a Lie group is, and perhaps doesn't even know what a group is. Non-technical readers can garner some idea of how oddly that paragraph reads by Googling two of its peculiar phrases: "basis set current-vector field" (10 hits, all written by Mills) and "autocorrelation-type function" ("about 108 results", which was refined to 20 results when I looked at the second page of results). The word "group" appears only once in that 165-page paper, and even then it does not have its mathematical meaning.

I think the purpose of that paragraph was to describe the vector basis for a function space and/or to describe a particular Lie group. I'm not certain of that, because Mills appears to be more interested in salting his paper with technical-sounding words and phrases than in doing legitimate math or physics.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Another video of a glowy thing:

 

[bruto]

Hey if he does well Mills will make him a tuna fish sandwich.

But not a hot one.

 

[jsfisher]

Another video of a glowy thing:

Not just another glowy thing, but a round glowy thing instead of the more pedestrian square glowy things.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I like it how fringe science always starts focusing on minutiae of a model that has no actual predictive value and then run with that.

But maybe UncertainH or optiongeek will answer what markie never does.

1: We have literally hunderds of different types of machines that are designed to use QM effects, which according to Mills do not exist. Yet the machines all work as designed, even though Mills' theories claim that they would not. Why is that?
2: Mills' theories and his 'experiments' would predict that the extremely energetic hydrino reaction would occur in nature with massive frequency, and thus there would be immense amounts of energy (in the form of light) should come from unaccounted sources, both on earth (near volcanic vents in the ocean for instance) and in space.
We do not see this. Why?
3: QM posits all elements are the same, with all electrons having the same set of orbitals. Mills' theory claims that hydrogen has an orbital that does not exist for all other elements and thus is fundamentally different from all other elements, yet you can make the other elements from hydrogen, how do electrons know the orbital is now gone?

 

[Hans]

But not a hot one.

 

[Hans]

I like it how fringe science always starts focusing on minutiae of a model that has no actual predictive value and then run with that.

3: QM posits all elements are the same, with all electrons having the same set of orbitals. Mills' theory claims that hydrogen has an orbital that does not exist for all other elements and thus is fundamentally different from all other elements, yet you can make the other elements from hydrogen, how do electrons know the orbital is now gone?

Ah markie slips them a 3 x 5 card with a note explaining to the Mr. Electron that he must obey Mills' pontifications!

 

[markie]

Not to worry. You're butchering hamburger.

Might as well explain how I know it's hamburger...


The paragraph that follows equation (16) appears to have been written by someone who doesn't know what a vector basis is, what a Lie group is, and perhaps doesn't even know what a group is. Non-technical readers can garner some idea of how oddly that paragraph reads by Googling two of its peculiar phrases: "basis set current-vector field" (10 hits, all written by Mills) and "autocorrelation-type function" ("about 108 results", which was refined to 20 results when I looked at the second page of results). The word "group" appears only once in that 165-page paper, and even then it does not have its mathematical meaning.

I think the purpose of that paragraph was to describe the vector basis for a function space and/or to describe a particular Lie group. I'm not certain of that, because Mills appears to be more interested in salting his paper with technical-sounding words and phrases than in doing legitimate math or physics.

Mills has an idea in mind and uses the math he knows to get it across. A person experienced and skilled in math should be able to follow despite his novel terminology. So, your concerns appear ... superficial to me.

 

[markie]

I like it how fringe science always starts focusing on minutiae of a model that has no actual predictive value and then run with that.

But maybe UncertainH or optiongeek will answer what markie never does.

1: We have literally hunderds of different types of machines that are designed to use QM effects, which according to Mills do not exist. Yet the machines all work as designed, even though Mills' theories claim that they would not. Why is that?

I have answered but you just don't like the answers. First you should be aware that for any real 'quantum' effect observed, Mills offers a classical explanation, with the mathematics to quantify it. Second, like most you confuse quantum theory with technological progress. The former is stagnant and not understood, and the latter is flourishing. Unlike most, Carver Mead is someone who would know the difference. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/

2: Mills' theories and his 'experiments' would predict that the extremely energetic hydrino reaction would occur in nature with massive frequency, and thus there would be immense amounts of energy (in the form of light) should come from unaccounted sources, both on earth (near volcanic vents in the ocean for instance) and in space.
We do not see this. Why?

We do see anomalous energetic events in, say, lightening and on the sun's surface. We just don't know how to explain them (yet). In the vast majority of conditions, if hydrino reactions do occur, they certainly do not create "immense amounts" of energy. Mills has battled for two decades trying to achieve just the right conditions to obtain high power levels.

3: QM posits all elements are the same, with all electrons having the same set of orbitals. Mills' theory claims that hydrogen has an orbital that does not exist for all other elements and thus is fundamentally different from all other elements, yet you can make the other elements from hydrogen, how do electrons know the orbital is now gone?

Not really sure what you mean here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mills has an idea in mind and uses the math he knows to get it across. A person experienced and skilled in math should be able to follow despite his novel terminology.

Translation: If Mills is talking complete gibberish, that's somehow everybody else's fault.

Dave

 

[optiongeek]

I like it how fringe science always starts focusing on minutiae of a model that has no actual predictive value and then run with that.

But maybe UncertainH or optiongeek will answer what markie never does.

1: We have literally hunderds of different types of machines that are designed to use QM effects, which according to Mills do not exist. Yet the machines all work as designed, even though Mills' theories claim that they would not. Why is that?

Mills spends quite a bit of time deriving the classical underpinnings of superconductivity, the Quantum-Hall effect, and the Aharonov-Bohm effect, as well as the proper interpretation of statistical mechanics. It's too much material to cover here, but he makes the argument that once you have an extended model of the electron, all of these so-called quantum effects (Bell Inequality, Double Slit, Josephson junction, etc.) can be understood as arising from classical mechanisms. Fundamentally, the only part of QM that GUTCP rejects are the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. No one is denying that Josephson junction is a thing - it's just that you can explain them without having to use the Schrodinger equation.

2: Mills' theories and his 'experiments' would predict that the extremely energetic hydrino reaction would occur in nature with massive frequency, and thus there would be immense amounts of energy (in the form of light) should come from unaccounted sources, both on earth (near volcanic vents in the ocean for instance) and in space.
We do not see this. Why?

This one is more speculation on my side so please forgive me if I overstep. . . but there may be hydrino involvement in gunpower or even lightning - recently confirmed effects such as blue jets and red sprites could possibly be related to the formation of Mills' anti-gravity psuedoelectrons. It's hard to find something that doesn't interact with photons (i.e. dark matter), unless you know how to look for it. The primary "light" from the hydrino reaction is continuum radiation in the EUV region, which is extremely difficult to detect (i.e. it is absorbed by atmosphere within 1mm) so researchers not specifically looking for it wouldn't find it. Holverstott went looking for and found overlooked "anomalies" from past experiments that could align with hydrino formation. One promising candidate for "overlooked hydrinos" is the exploding wire phenomena. Researchers have long known that wires under high current will "explode" under certain circumstances. Mills claims that the missing piece is the presence of water vapor to provide the HOH catalyst required for the hydrino reaction. Certain experiments over the years could be interpreted to support that conclusion, but it should be fairly easy to test. Anyone want to give it a go?

3: QM posits all elements are the same, with all electrons having the same set of orbitals. Mills' theory claims that hydrogen has an orbital that does not exist for all other elements and thus is fundamentally different from all other elements, yet you can make the other elements from hydrogen, how do electrons know the orbital is now gone?

GUTCP rules for electron orbits aligns across all elements. He uses the same force balance equations and the non-radiation condition for all combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons and fills out the periodic chart quite nicely. Here is a GUTCP inspired periodic chart.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Mills has an idea in mind and uses the math he knows to get it across. A person experienced and skilled in math should be able to follow despite his novel terminology. So, your concerns appear ... superficial to me.

His "novel terminology" is mostly a matter of using standard terminology without understanding what it means. As I noted, he uses words like "basis", "vector", and "field" idiosyncratically while avoiding words like "group" that wouldn't sound very sciency to people like you.

We often see that from people who are trying to impress the gullible. We rarely see that from people who are making a serious effort to explain their ideas.

It is of course possible that Mills is one of the rare exceptions, a brilliant thinker whose scientific illiteracy prevents him from explaining his ideas clearly. That's not the way to bet, but it's your time and money.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Wherein markie and optiongeek, posting independently...

We do see anomalous energetic events in, say, lightening and on the sun's surface. We just don't know how to explain them (yet).

This one is more speculation on my side so please forgive me if I overstep. . . but there may be hydrino involvement in gunpower or even lightning - recently confirmed effects such as blue jets and red sprites could possibly be related to the formation of Mills' anti-gravity psuedoelectrons.

There are things we don't understand about lightning.

Therefore hydrinos.
​

That argument has a long and widely celebrated history.

 

[The Moog]

Just popping in to see where the free energy generator can be purchased. I'm assuming there is one since this thread is in the Science forum and not the woo section.

Still no sign sadly. Despite the assurances of the OP that it should be in mass production by now.

 

[optiongeek]

Wherein markie and optiongeek, posting independently...

There are things we don't understand about lightning.

Therefore hydrinos.
​

That argument has a long and widely celebrated history.

Yeah - I'm aware that lightning theory attracts the cranks and I apologize for putting myself in that position. I mostly just wanted an excuse to post the video from the Thor mission. Blue jets and red sprites are beautiful.

 

[JeanTate]

Mills has an idea in mind and uses the math he knows to get it across. A person experienced and skilled in math should be able to follow despite his novel terminology. So, your concerns appear ... superficial to me.

Can you clarify please?

Do you claim to be “a person experienced and skilled in math”, sufficient to follow Mills’ “novel terminology”?

Are you claiming that W.D. Clinger is insufficiently experienced and/or skilled in math?

 

[JeanTate]

I have answered but you just don't like the answers. First you should be aware that for any real 'quantum' effect observed, Mills offers a classical explanation, with the mathematics to quantify it.

Mathematics which you clearly understand and can answer questions on?

<snip>

We do see anomalous energetic events in, say, lightening and on the sun's surface. We just don't know how to explain them (yet).

<snip>

Really?

Can you please provide references, for the “anomalous energetic events ... on the sun’s surface ”?

 

[JeanTate]

Mills spends quite a bit of time deriving the classical underpinnings of superconductivity, the Quantum-Hall effect, and the Aharonov-Bohm effect, as well as the proper interpretation of statistical mechanics. It's too much material to cover here, but he makes the argument that once you have an extended model of the electron, all of these so-called quantum effects (Bell Inequality, Double Slit, Josephson junction, etc.) can be understood as arising from classical mechanisms. Fundamentally, the only part of QM that GUTCP rejects are the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. No one is denying that Josephson junction is a thing - it's just that you can explain them without having to use the Schrodinger equation.

You are not the first to make this kind of claim, here in this ISF thread (and its predecessors).

And yet, no one who has made such claims has been able to defend them, in large part because no one has yet been able to explain Mills’ so called mathematics.

Would you be willing to try?

Further, Mills has yet to publish any of this Nobel worthy, revolutionary new physics, in any relevant, peer-reviewed journal. Why do you suppose that is?

Despite some 30 years of promises, there isn’t even a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator. Or, you could say there’s no existence proof.

This one is more speculation on my side so please forgive me if I overstep. . . but there may be hydrino involvement in gunpower or even lightning - recently confirmed effects such as blue jets and red sprites could possibly be related to the formation of Mills' anti-gravity psuedoelectrons.

“anti-gravity psuedoelectrons”!

I think that’s the first time we’ve heard about them, here. Please, tell us more.

It's hard to find something that doesn't interact with photons (i.e. dark matter), unless you know how to look for it. The primary "light" from the hydrino reaction is continuum radiation in the EUV region, which is extremely difficult to detect (i.e. it is absorbed by atmosphere within 1mm) so researchers not specifically looking for it wouldn't find it.

<snip >

Except, perhaps, if you launch an appropriately equipped satellite into orbit, one exquisitely designed to detect EUV.

Strange, then, that it observed no anomalous emissions, and no hydrinos.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yeah - I'm aware that lightning theory attracts the cranks and I apologize for putting myself in that position. I mostly just wanted an excuse to post the video from the Thor mission. Blue jets and red sprites are beautiful.

I viewed the video and enjoyed it. Thank you.

 

[UncertainH]

The rest of your lengthy post seems to hinge on the validity of this assertion.

Can you please explain, in detail, how you came to this conclusion?

Thank you in advance.

The purely classical spinning ball or ring was, rightly so, abandoned long ago for many reasons (Zeeman effect, g factor etc ). The SG experiment puts yet another nail in the coffin when done in succession. IE Use one magnetic field to split the beam into the spin up and spin down components to prepare the beams then pass one of them through another field. In a spinning ball model that beam should be maintained but it is not. QM interprets this as randomness.

Any model of the electron has to describe what Pauli called "two-valuedness not describable classically"

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/pauli-lecture.pdf