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

[Red Baron Farms]

Mills has battled for two decades trying to achieve just the right conditions to obtain high power levels.

That paradox was explained to you once already. He is getting energy out of hydrogen embrittlement and burning metals. These are ordinary well known reactions, not hydrinos.

Mills struggles because to achieve his so called "hydrino reactions" he ends up burning all the metallic fuel and so it can't last long. If he slows down the reaction, it lasts longer but also burns less metal and doesn't create enough heat to do anything. So he keeps juggling between a flash bulb and a slow burn. The flash bulbs have more energy but burn their fuel up quickly. The slow burns last longer but never really release any more energy. Conservation of Energy Markie. Learn it Love it Live it.

All this is because there is no hydrino reaction, and no hydrinos.

What he seems to be doing now to get these reactions to burn hot a longer time is feed in more fuel continuously. They are not contained, nor are they creating hydrinos, they are just burning more fuel. That's why the silly "black box" vids. Trying to hide what he is doing.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

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

I’m confused, your post - the one which started this mini-thread - was about an extended electron, yet you make no reference to that here, certainly nothing about how SG experimental results relate to this idea.

Please clarify.

 

[Hans]

...............the never ending and relentless attempts by markie to try and make Mills' stuff 'possible'. One wonders how many years he will keep at this Sisyphean task?

 

[Pixel42]

...............the never ending and relentless attempts by markie to try and make Mills' stuff 'possible'. One wonders how many years he will keep at this Sisyphean task?

This thread often reminds me of homeopaths desperately trying to come up with a way in which homeopathy could work, without bothering to first establish that it does work.

 

[markie]

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?

No, the opposite. Clinger appears sufficiently skilled to get it, if only he can get over the language used.

 

[UncertainH]

Thanks.

I’m confused, your post - the one which started this mini-thread - was about an extended electron, yet you make no reference to that here, certainly nothing about how SG experimental results relate to this idea.

Please clarify.

Sorry. By extended electron I mean anything other than a point particle since a point particle by definition has no extent (cannot spin, has infinite mass, etc). If you take the simplest case of a rotating sphere it still doesn't work specifically when multiple SG experiments are done in succession. A good overview can be found here:

http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapters/Chapter6.pdf

In other words, the possibility exists of interpreting the observed results as being the consequence of interference taking place. Thus, we have Probability of atom emerging in S x = ±1/2! beam = |1/2 ± 1/2 |² = 1/4 + 1/4 ± 1/2

No simple single-vectored classical extended spin is going to be able to reproduce that probability above.

Thus, there indeed appear to be two contributions to the total probability amplitude of observing the atom to have the x component of spin equal to ±1/2!, these being associated with the probability amplitudes of the atoms passing along one or the other of the two S z beams.

That is the quantum interpretation of the experiment. A multi-vectored spin which, as previously discussed, seems physically unintuitive if not impossible, might have a chance of reproducing this probabilistic outcome.

 

[markie]

Mathematics which you clearly understand and can answer questions on?


Really?

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

I have in mind the chromosphere, particularly at times of solar flare. The chromosphere is immediately above the photosphere and experiences a huge temperature gradient from (relatively) cool (cooler than the photosphere and where CO can exist) in the lowest layer to very hot in the outer. It is there in the chromosphere where the bright spots (bright in visible to soft xRay) occur just preceding and during solar flares. While it is thought that the main energy driver is magnetic fields and associated accelerated electrons, there are lots of unanswered questions about how this can translate to the distribution of the spectra observed.

The parallels to the SunCell are apparent to me, namely high electron flux and the presence of atomic H.

From Wiki: It is not yet fully understood what phenomenon causes the temperature of the chromosphere to paradoxically increase further from the Sun's interior. However, it seems likely to be explained, partially or totally, by magnetic reconnection.

 

[markie]

That paradox was explained to you once already. He is getting energy out of hydrogen embrittlement and burning metals. These are ordinary well known reactions, not hydrinos.

Mills struggles because to achieve his so called "hydrino reactions" he ends up burning all the metallic fuel and so it can't last long. If he slows down the reaction, it lasts longer but also burns less metal and doesn't create enough heat to do anything. So he keeps juggling between a flash bulb and a slow burn. The flash bulbs have more energy but burn their fuel up quickly. The slow burns last longer but never really release any more energy. Conservation of Energy Markie. Learn it Love it Live it.

All this is because there is no hydrino reaction, and no hydrinos.

What he seems to be doing now to get these reactions to burn hot a longer time is feed in more fuel continuously. They are not contained, nor are they creating hydrinos, they are just burning more fuel. That's why the silly "black box" vids. Trying to hide what he is doing.

In these longer runs, where the metal cell is glowing red hot for many minutes, what exactly is the fuel you propose is burning? What is the exothermic chemical reaction?

 

[JeanTate]

This thread often reminds me of homeopaths desperately trying to come up with a way in which homeopathy could work, without bothering to first establish that it does work.

For me, it’s more like “god of the gaps”, you know, “science cannot explain X, therefore god hydrinos!”

Here’s something else: if markie, say, had spent his time doing research instead of posting here, maybe he’d have some meaty papers of his own that we could discuss ...

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

No, the opposite. Clinger appears sufficiently skilled to get it, if only he can get over the language used.

Curious.

You yourself cannot follow Mills’ math, much less defend or discuss it, yet you claim to know someone else’s ability well enough to serve up an ad hom.

 

[jonesdave116]

For me, it’s more like “god of the gaps”, you know, “science cannot explain X, therefore god hydrinos!”

 

[wollery]

Sorry. By extended electron I mean anything other than a point particle since a point particle by definition has no extent (cannot spin, has infinite mass, etc)

I think you mean infinite density.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Red Baron Farms]

In these longer runs, where the metal cell is glowing red hot for many minutes, what exactly is the fuel you propose is burning? What is the exothermic chemical reaction?

He hasn't said. But it is clear he has tubes feeding something in to burn.

That's why it is such a joke. He has not isolated or quantified anything at all. All we know for certain is that he is burning something and thus we must jump to the conclusion it must be a hydrino? Really?

Didn't we discuss this with you months ago? Any magician worth his salt knows how to misdirect like this. The founder of this forum back in the old days was a specialist at both doing it and also teaching others how to spot it! That's why silly tricks such as this have absolutely no chances of fooling most people here.

 

[jsfisher]

In these longer runs, where the metal cell is glowing red hot for many minutes, what exactly is the fuel you propose is burning? What is the exothermic chemical reaction?

By many minutes you meant a few seconds, right? That's all we get from YouTube. And glowing red hot, you meant appeared red, since we have no idea from the video how warm, if at all, it might be nor the nature of the glow.

As for the exothermic chemical reaction, maybe there is an exothermic reaction, but why do you assume it is chemical?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

By many minutes you meant a few seconds, right? That's all we get from YouTube. And glowing red hot, you meant appeared red, since we have no idea from the video how warm, if at all, it might be nor the nature of the glow.

As for the exothermic chemical reaction, maybe there is an exothermic reaction, but why do you assume it is chemical?

good point. Could just be a heating coil for all the vids show.

 

[Darat]

And why is the shape so important? They apparently had the reaction going in a cube, are we meant to now be in awe that they've changed to a sphere?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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/

Mathematics that are internally inconsistent, or just outright wrong in some places and which contradict each other from explanation to explanation. And ignore the bits that cannot be classically explained like quantum tunneling.
And no I am not confusing technological progress with quantum theory, I acknowledge that predictions made by quantum theory have led to observably working machines, unlike anything Mills has ever done.

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.

The energy output claimed by mills outstrips nuclear fusion by a factor of at least 100. So according to his theory we should not see minor fluctuations, the sun should produce so much more energy the earth would vaporize, jupiter should burn with the force of the sun and any underwater volcano activity should produce the force of a nuclear explosion as long as it goes on.

Not really sure what you mean here.

When we fuse hydrogen to make helium, why does the magic orbital Mills claims that exists from hydrogen suddenly dissapear?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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.

As I mentioned in my replay to markie, those mathematics are often outright wrong (Reality Check did a thorough revision of that upthread) and / or selfcontraditory, ignore quantum tunnelling and ignore the massive predictive value of Quantum theory, which Mill's fantasies do not have. In fact in Mills world hydrogen is, as mentioned, somehow fundamentally a different element than all the others.

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?

Again, as I mentioned to markie, the effects Mills claims to predict are SO much more energetic than any known chemical or nuclear effects, and are so easy to achieve that the universe should shine with an amount of energy we could not possibly explain. In fact, given Mills' water catalyist idea for liquid silver, and the fact that the mid atlantic rift effortlessly reproduces those conditions, according to Mills our oceans should not exist.
If on the other hand the hydrino reaction is lost in barely detectable energy levels as you claim here, his energy machine is doomed from the start as it will never produce measurable amounts of energy. So which is it?

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.

But that does not explain why the magical hydrino orbital is not found in any other element. So again, his theory un-explains current explanations but gives nothing better.

 

[abaddon]

When we fuse hydrogen to make helium, why does the magic orbital Mills claims that exists from hydrogen suddenly dissapear?

Conjecture here, but I suppose to a layman elements are all different. Hydrogen and Helium are gasses, lithium is a metal, and so forth.

If one is unwilling to venture beyond basic properties, I guess it makes sense to claim that Hydrogen could be different in a way. From that limited perspective.

 

[optiongeek]

ignore quantum tunnelling and ignore the massive predictive value of Quantum theory

Don't know much about quantum tunneling other than it is thought to be related to superconductivity. Mills discusses how superconductivity arises classically and produces equations for the transition thresholds for high temperature superconductors (see Eq 25-45). So I don't agree with your claim that he has ignored quantum tunneling.

With regard to predictive value of QM - can I assume you are referring to the calculation of the anomalous electron dipole moment? Yes, QM/QFT produces a very accurate figure. However, when I go through the derivation, it seems less than convincing and depending on who's calculation you choose, can involve thousands of non-physical constants. In contrast, Mills produces the following equation which arises from first principles and the Poynting Power Theorem has the same 11 figures of accuracy:

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2​

(where alpha^1 = 137.03604 from CRC)

So in terms of predictive powers, I would side with Mills in this example.

Again, as I mentioned to markie, the effects Mills claims to predict are SO much more energetic than any known chemical or nuclear effects, and are so easy to achieve that the universe should shine with an amount of energy we could not possibly explain. In fact, given Mills' water catalyist idea for liquid silver, and the fact that the mid atlantic rift effortlessly reproduces those conditions, according to Mills our oceans should not exist.
If on the other hand the hydrino reaction is lost in barely detectable energy levels as you claim here, his energy machine is doomed from the start as it will never produce measurable amounts of energy. So which is it?

This is not my understanding. The hydrino reaction (lets take the standard H -> H[1/4] one associated with HOH catalyst), produces 204 eV per hydrino, which is roughly 200 times the equivalent energy you get from burning gasoline. Nuclear reactions are in the MeV range. Hydrino reactions are intermediate between chemical and nuclear reactions, not more powerful than nuclear as you claim.

But that does not explain why the magical hydrino orbital is not found in any other element. So again, his theory un-explains current explanations but gives nothing better.

I think you may be mistaken here about hydrinos and the orbitsphere. Under GUTCP, whenever the electron is bound in a stable orbit to a nucleus, the orbit can be described as an orbitsphere. That applies to regular hydrogen, helium, and all the way up, as well as when the hydrogen is shrunk into a hydrino. The same math and force balance equations are used in both situations. Each electron in a multi-electron atom has it's own orbitsphere. If you study the periodic chart, there are some diagrams that show how the different orbital (s, p, d, f) are expressed as orbitspheres but modulated with spherical harmonics. There nothing magical about above ground and below ground states - Mills still uses the orbitsphere to describe the orbit in all of them.