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

[markie]

Have you read this analysis of the Mills theories?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

Legend has it that Mills put a "response" on his web site but pulled it not long after. As a result, as far as I know, the criticisms offered in the paper remain unchallenged except by hyperbole and insults from Mills faithful.

As I shared previously, Mill's response remains on his Millsian website. Meaning, he stands by it. Rathke's paper was Rank with error, and then he fled.

 

[markie]

Always with the change of focus. You tell a lie about the existence of videos showing minutes of red hot chemical reactions (and that may have been as many as three lies, actually), then when called on it, you respond by shifting the subject.

So far, all I've seen are short videos of, umm, well, something with a lot of speculation about what miracle was being shown.

You've seen the "Shake down" video I presume. Granted it wasn't 'red' hot for minutes, as it took a few minutes to get there. But it would have been very hot on the way to get red hot. Try touching the door of a wood burning stove that has been burning wood for an hour and you'll see what I mean. Dare ya.

 

[jsfisher]

You've seen the "Shake down" video I presume. Granted it wasn't 'red' hot for minutes, as it took a few minutes to get there. But it would have been very hot on the way to get red hot. Try touching the door of a wood burning stove that has been burning wood for an hour and you'll see what I mean. Dare ya.

Again the dodge.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's the problem ; you think it's a trick. Randi on the other hand would know what was a trick and what wasn't. Randi and Randy would probably hit it off. Maybe you could ask Randi to check out Randy and ask him what he thinks.

Randi has written about Mills a few times. The two examples I could find with some quick googling are as follows, but there are more, some even less kind.

http://archive.randi.org/site/jr/013103.html

[...]Hydrinos Are Back[...]

Bob Park's web site, which is a MUST read for all, at http://www.aps.org/WN, reports on yet another plea for further tax dollars to be flushed down the pseudoscience drain:

HYDRINO ROCKETS: BLACKLIGHT IS STILL LOOKING FOR APPLICATIONS. Alas, NASA's troubled Breakthrough Propulsion Project never managed to break through anything. But the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts in Atlanta thinks maybe a thruster based on BlackLight Power's method of persuading hydrogen to enter a hydrino state, below the ground state, could achieve performance orders of magnitude greater than chemical rocket propulsion. So NIAC contracted with the Mechanical Engineering Department at Rowan University in Atlanta, to test the idea. Well, they just issued the final report for the 6-month Phase I study. They "successfully test fired" the thruster. "However, due to time and cost constraints successful measurements of the exhaust velocity have not been completed." Not to worry. "These concepts will be proposed for an ongoing Phase II study."

Translation: we fumbled the research, and want some more money. Sure, folks, we got lots of that! Just back your truck up to the loading dock....

http://archive.randi.org/site/jr/061303.html

This last April 1st, we missed our annual Flying Pig Awards, due to pressures of other work, and a heavy lecture schedule. As usual, there was a full field of likely awardees. For next April's event, our good friend Peter Zimmerman has assured us that he's discovered a big winner:

It is my high privilege to nominate Dr. Randell L. Mills, MD, president and CEO of BlackLight® Power, Inc. for both the Pigasus and IgNobel awards. Dr. Mills has produced the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics ("GUT-CQM," also known as "Gut-Con") which, in about 1000 pages, stands all of 20th-century physics on its head, predicting anti-gravity as a consequence of the changing shape (disks, hollow spheres) of the electron and sub-ground-states of the hydrogen atom. Mills is also able, at the drop of a quantum, to postdict almost any result that he reads about in the press including publications such as Scientific American, Science News, and — I think — the National Enquirer.

As support for the award of the Pigasus prize, I cite the fact that [five competent scientists] have now conclusively proven on its own terms that the entire theory is bogus from its very first line. In view of the fact that Mills has raised over $30 MILLION dollars and is now raising $3.5 MILLION more from investors (some investors include your tax-paying electric light and power companies skimming the money from their ratepayers), I believe that no nominee in the history of either award has ever been more worthy of receiving it. Indeed, we have here a nominee for whom the famous Randi/JREF Challenge would be small change!

I must say that this claim by Dr. Mills of a paradigm-shaking revolution in science and the nature of the universe, is of a much higher class than those that I usually receive, merely because of the academic status of the originator.

Randi has very little time for people he thinks are scam-artists, and tends towards the abrasive. Mills seems fairly sensitive to criticism. I don't imagine the two would get on at all well.

 

[halleyscomet]

As I shared previously, Mill's response remains on his Millsian website. Meaning, he stands by it. Rathke's paper was Rank with error, and then he fled.

Got a link to the Mills response? Last I heard he’d pulled it.

 

[optiongeek]

Got a link to the Mills response? Last I heard he’d pulled it.

Here's the long form response. There was a two-page summary at one point that no one can seem to find anymore.

Rathke added the following correction to his paper after Mills correctly showed that he had flipped the sign of the second term in the wave equation in Eq. 9:

The sign error leads to a change by a factor of i in the condition for the eigenvalue of the time part of the equation of motion, a =√l(l +1 ). Also with the corrected condition for the eigenvalue, the time part and the angular part of Mills’ alleged solution to the equation of motion remain incompatible. Hence the sign error does not change any of the conclusions of the paper.

However, I think Rathke is playing down the significance of the factor of i in the eigenvalue. The term within the radical goes from negative to positive due to this change. Rathke doesn't explain why the solution is incompatible, in the original paper with a negative value, or in the correction, with a positive value.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

Ah, interesting. So, how does that work for enzymes where a proton moves trough an obstacle (another amino acid) that is non-conductive, and how does that explain that replacing the proton with a deuterium atom renders the enzyme inactive?
Clasically the amino acid is non-conductive AND the hydrogen and deuterium atom behave chemically identical.

 

[The Man]

Don't really understand your point, sorry.

Again the point is that centrifugal force is a fictitious or inertial force. There is no actual force on the ball bearings directed radially outwards. If cut loose from the string the ball bearings just continue straight tangent to the rotation. It is actually the rotation of the disc that then moves certain points on the surface of the disc away from the ball bearings. In some frames of reference (such as co-rotating with the disc) a fictitious force is used to account for that motion, the centrifugal force.

The only force acting on the ball bearings in your initial set up is directed radially inward, a centripetal force, and applied by the sting pulling on the ball bearings continually shifting the tangential trajectory of the ball bearings inward towards the center of rotation.

The impact of the volleyball moving radially inwards simply increases that inward force and shifts some of the ball bearings to trajectories even more directly toward the center and the disc. While the centripetal force never shifts the trajectory of the ball bearings enough so that they move closer to the disc (the velocity remains tangential). The additional force from the volleyball does and the velocity of those impacted ball bearings is no longer tangential but directed inward radially.

I think you're agreeing with me but I'm not sure.

That would depend on what exactly it is that you think you are claiming. If it is merely that you don't understand and aren't sure, that seems obvious. However, since it was you who evidently disagreed with the analisis I gave before, unless you are now claiming to agree with that, then it is simply and still just you that disagrees.

I would call what the strings have as 'tension' not 'rigidity' but hey.

The ability to withstand being under tension by not pulling apart or significantly elongating is rigidity under tension. Again that is how your disc transfers the centripetal force to the ball bearings. Similarly, if we were to pull on a ball bearings, tension of the string would transfer that force to your disc.

The radial inward moving volleyball, however, pushes on some of the ball bearings and with no (or little) rigidity under compression there is nothing to resist the volleyball pushing those ball bearings into trajectories that move them closer to the disc.

 

[UncertainH]

I think you mean infinite density.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Interesting, I'm trying to imagine a point particle with infinite density yet finite mass. Those singularities really are special.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Surely it's obvious that the forces on the ball bearings would be inwards, rather than outwards, since it's gravity we're modelling. When something is in orbit there are two forces acting on it - inwards from the gravitational pull of the object it's orbiting, and a sideways motion. It's essentially "falling" towards the central object, but moving fast enough sideways that it's continually "missing" the ground, in the same way that a car driving off a vertical cliff at 100 MPH will hit the ground at the bottom some distance from the base of the cliff. That's what a satellite is doing, only fast enough and far away enough that where the ground it's falling towards is is constantly shifting.

There are no outwards forces on a satellite at all.

The question, markie, is that if you really believe that there's a centrifugal force acting on the ball bearings can you describe the origin of that force? What is generating it? How?

 

[The Man]

I invite you to point to a mathematical inconsistency in Mills' book.
Mills does not ignore quantum tunnelling, rather he describes and quantifies it classically.

Rather "he describes and quantifies" some form of 'superconductivity' of his own regard.

Breakthroughs in technology we made despite quantum theory, not because of it. The semi conductor / transistor and lasers were not invented because of quantum theory.

They are however currently mass produced specifically "because of quantum theory". I'm currently in such a production facility surrounded by banks of scanning tunneling electron microscopes and atomic force analyzers used in such production.

 

[jadebox]

Which theory better describes reality?

Quantum Theory explains how transistors work and why we see shimmers of color when looking at oil floating on top of a puddle. Quantum Theory has given us lasers and MRI scanners.

Mills' theory produces Hydrinos which don't exist.

 

[markie]

Randi has written about Mills a few times. The two examples I could find with some quick googling are as follows, but there are more, some even less kind.

http://archive.randi.org/site/jr/013103.html


http://archive.randi.org/site/jr/061303.html


Randi has very little time for people he thinks are scam-artists, and tends towards the abrasive. Mills seems fairly sensitive to criticism. I don't imagine the two would get on at all well.

Thanks. I see that Randi deferred to Zimmerman and Park and thus came under their spell. No one's perfect. And yeah Randi is abrasive.

 

[JeanTate]

As far as I recall from reading Optiongeek's posts, I have concurred with everything he has said.

Cool!

That will include the nonsense about superconductivity and tunneling, right?

As well as the anti-gravity psuedoelectrons.

And ...

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

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



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



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.

Seems there’s a bit of work to do to turn the might into something a bit meatier, wouldn’t you agree?

A research project which you might take on?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thanks. I see that Randi deferred to Zimmerman and Park and thus came under their spell. No one's perfect. And yeah Randi is abrasive.

The fact that the first article is entitled "Hydrinos Are Back" should tell you that it's not the first time Randi had heard of them. As I said, there are other articles written by Randi on the subject. I'm sure you can find them, if you're really interested.

It is interesting to note, however, how quickly your opinion of Randi has changed from him being someone who "would know what was a trick and what wasn't" to someone who is prone to coming "under [people's] spell". The only thing that's changed to cause this complete and total 180 from unimpeachable authority to total dupe is that you've gone from imagining that he would agree with you to knowing that he doesn't.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

No one's perfect.

<snip>

OMG!!

Not even (say his name with reverence) Mills?!? Your God who should have been awarded at least three Nobel Prizes, decades ago?

 

[JeanTate]

Which theory better describes reality?

Quantum Theory explains how transistors work and why we see shimmers of color when looking at oil floating on top of a puddle. Quantum Theory has given us lasers and MRI scanners.

Mills' theory produces Hydrinos which don't exist.

Along with super-duper rocket fuel, compounds which will cure cancer, anti-gravity psuedoelectrons, (not sure about drain cleaner though) ...

 

[Hans]

Along with super-duper rocket fuel, compounds which will cure cancer, anti-gravity psuedoelectrons, (not sure about drain cleaner though) ...

It does produce one thing that IS handy-dandy. A fine sounding word and concept to suck in money to enrich Mills............therefore success!!!!

 

[markie]

Surely it's obvious that the forces on the ball bearings would be inwards, rather than outwards, since it's gravity we're modelling. When something is in orbit there are two forces acting on it - inwards from the gravitational pull of the object it's orbiting, and a sideways motion. It's essentially "falling" towards the central object, but moving fast enough sideways that it's continually "missing" the ground, in the same way that a car driving off a vertical cliff at 100 MPH will hit the ground at the bottom some distance from the base of the cliff. That's what a satellite is doing, only fast enough and far away enough that where the ground it's falling towards is is constantly shifting.

There are no outwards forces on a satellite at all.

The question, markie, is that if you really believe that there's a centrifugal force acting on the ball bearings can you describe the origin of that force? What is generating it? How?

I think the Man has described the origin of the centrifugal 'force' pretty well. It's due ultimately to the inertia of mass in a tangential direction. But it is directed radially outward as an equal and opposite reaction to the radial inward centripetal force of the thread attached to the ballbearings.
I think your description of the satellite falling is good.