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

[RecoveringYuppy]

Amusingly, neither is Randell Mills, for reasons that are a mystery to none of us.

I'm afraid I'm in the dark. What is his reason?

 

[JeanTate]

I'm afraid I'm in the dark. What is his reason?

Because, pace markie et al., hydrinos don’t exist?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Because, pace markie et al., hydrinos don’t exist?

Yes, of course, but he said Mills had reasons. What would Mills reasons be?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, of course, but he said Mills had reasons. What would Mills reasons be?

That hydrinos don't exist, and that therefore there is nothing that he can make a prototype of. That's the reason he isn't in a position to promise one.

OK, let's just say he isn't in a position to promise one honestly.

Dave

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That hydrinos don't exist, and that therefore there is nothing that he can make a prototype of. That's the reason he isn't in a position to promise one.

OK, let's just say he isn't in a position to promise one honestly.

Dave

Oh, well, obviously he's not honest and has promised prototypes before. The OP of the original thread that started this long chain of threads includes a claim to have a fully engineered prototype. I was hoping your statement meant something had changed, like a new level of scrutiny, that was preventing him from lying now.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Randi said what he did back then, without the benefit of seeing what we see now on Youtube, nor did he have the scientific experience to evaluate Mills' publications himself. So he relied on certain others to inform him (a mistake in this case) when normally he would do the investigations himself.

That didn't answer my question. And if you think 20-second YouTube videos of things glowing would have convinced Randi then you have a much lower opinion of him than I do.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

(Once upon a time, however, my summer job at a local university paid me to write programs for an HP 2116a with vector graphics display that allowed students taking a course in quantum mechanics to see the wave function and probability distributions for various solutions of the Schrödinger equation corresponding to parameters selected by the student. The solutions I programmed included two that involved quantum tunneling through a barrier.)

Don't know much about quantum tunneling other than it is thought to be related to superconductivity.

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity.

It would be more accurate to say superconductivity is thought to be related to quantum tunneling, as quantum tunneling is the more general phenomenon and is found in many situations that do not involve superconductivity.

Quantum tunneling is a straightforward consequence of the Schrödinger equation and the nondeterministic interpretation of wave functions using the Born rule.

According to optiongeek, Mills rejects the Schrödinger equation. According to markie, Mills rejects nondeterministic interpretations of wave functions. If optiongeek and markie have been telling us the truth about that, it follows that Mills rejects the standard explanation of quantum tunneling. From that it follows that Mills must come up with his own explanation of quantum tunneling if he wants anyone to take his "CQM" seriously.

So far as I know, Mills has not explained quantum tunneling. It seems to me that optiongeek and markie should explain to us how Mills explains quantum tunneling.

 

[hgus]

Guess who was Mills' inspiration for a classical physics approach to quantum phenomena ? Hermann Haus, his engineering professor. Yet look at the 'quantum' nature of Haus' research:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1712509
All theses types of things Mills can describe classically.

Since no one accepts Mills explanations (outside his inner circle) I think we can safely conclude that he is wrong.

 

[optiongeek]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

So far as I know, Mills has not explained quantum tunneling. It seems to me that optiongeek and markie should explain to us how Mills explains quantum tunneling.

Outside of pointing to Mills' chapter on Superconductivity, I'm afraid the best I can do is to paraphrase a description I once saw offered by Mills:

A competitive high-jumper's center of gravity generally does not clear the bar on a championship leap. Instead, each part of the jumper's body clears the bar by coiling over it at distinct times. Likewise, when you model the electron as an extended ensemble of current density, then it may be possible for each part of an electron to clear an energy barrier in succession when it would appear insurmountable to the ensemble's center of mass.

Is this proof of how the tunneling phenomena works? Absolutely not. But neither can it be summarily rejected without consideration (at least by my reckoning). This is the general pattern of analysis I find with GUTCP. Treating the electron as an extended distribution rather than a point charge admits novel solutions that simply haven't been fully considered - especially when coupled with the non-radiation condition. And the non-radiation condition does not get nearly enough consideration in this thread. It was developed independently from Mills over a long history. All Mills has really done is imagine what happens when you take it to a logical extension.

 

[markie]

Outside of pointing to Mills' chapter on Superconductivity, I'm afraid the best I can do is to paraphrase a description I once saw offered by Mills:

A competitive high-jumper's center of gravity generally does not clear the bar on a championship leap. Instead, each part of the jumper's body clears the bar by coiling over it at distinct times. Likewise, when you model the electron as an extended ensemble of current density, then it may be possible for each part of an electron to clear an energy barrier in succession when it would appear insurmountable to the ensemble's center of mass.

Is this proof of how the tunneling phenomena works? Absolutely not. But neither can it be summarily rejected without consideration (at least by my reckoning). This is the general pattern of analysis I find with GUTCP. Treating the electron as an extended distribution rather than a point charge admits novel solutions that simply haven't been fully considered - especially when coupled with the non-radiation condition. And the non-radiation condition does not get nearly enough consideration in this thread. It was developed independently from Mills over a long history. All Mills has really done is imagine what happens when you take it to a logical extension.

Exactly. The problem is that people assume, as with QM, that the tunnelling object is a point. Here's a paper that gives a description of classical tunnelling, enabled because the tunnelling object is not a point but rather an extended object. From https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0306009.pdf , my bold:

It is even classically possible to penetrate any finite barrier with a body of arbitrarily low energy if the body is sufficiently long. A distribution of body lengths around the de Broglie wavelength leads to reasonable agreement with the quantum transmission coefficient.

 

[optiongeek]

A distribution of body lengths around the de Broglie wavelength leads to reasonable agreement with the quantum transmission coefficient.[/I]

Nice spot, Markie.

Now, where, oh where will we ever find a complete description of the electron which incorporates a physical dimension corresponding to the de Broglie wavelength?

 

[JeanTate]

Well, unlike some who have posted here in support of Mills' nonsense, at least you're honest about the limits of your knowledge.

Outside of pointing to Mills' chapter on Superconductivity, I'm afraid the best I can do is to paraphrase a description I once saw offered by Mills:

A competitive high-jumper's center of gravity generally does not clear the bar on a championship leap. Instead, each part of the jumper's body clears the bar by coiling over it at distinct times. Likewise, when you model the electron as an extended ensemble of current density, then it may be possible for each part of an electron to clear an energy barrier in succession when it would appear insurmountable to the ensemble's center of mass.

Is this proof of how the tunneling phenomena works? Absolutely not.

So far, so good.

But neither can it be summarily rejected without consideration (at least by my reckoning).

OK ... so when may we expect to see a paper, by you, expanding on this "consideration"?

One that is more mathematically rigorous than what one typically finds in Mills' writing. One that shows quantitative consistency with experimental results.

Etc.

Otherwise, why is this any better than the "six impossible things before breakfast" C. Dodgson wrote about?

This is the general pattern of analysis I find with GUTCP. Treating the electron as an extended distribution rather than a point charge admits novel solutions that simply haven't been fully considered - especially when coupled with the non-radiation condition. And the non-radiation condition does not get nearly enough consideration in this thread.

<snip>

My hilite.

In an earlier post of mine, I suggested that you spend some time reviewing this thread and its predecessors. May I ask if you did so?

One reason why I ask is that my memory - which I freely admit can be faulty - is that it has been given quite a lot of consideration.

 

[optiongeek]

Well, unlike some who have posted here in support of Mills' nonsense, at least you're honest about the limits of your knowledge.


So far, so good.


OK ... so when may we expect to see a paper, by you, expanding on this "consideration"?

One that is more mathematically rigorous than what one typically finds in Mills' writing. One that shows quantitative consistency with experimental results.

looks like Markie has already done that.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

looks like Markie has already done that.

Or not ... his post has nothing on "the non-radiation condition", which is what I asked about (per the hilite).

But, to repeat myself, all these discussions will become moot (or nearly so) some time in February, 2019, when Mills sends five working prototype hydrino-based generators to independent labs for testing. Some of the best minds in physics will quickly write dozens of papers on rigorously founding the new physics, extending it, and proposing several hundred new tests of it.

Shall we revisit your ideas then?

 

[jsfisher]

From Brett Holverstott's book, page 20:
"In 1982, Mills started at Harvard Medical School. He moved rapidly through the required coursework, taking six or seven classes per term... By the fall of 1985, after only three years, Mills had completed all the required coursework at Harvard Medical School. This was unheard of, and Harvard asked Mills complete a final year, so Mills spent it at the Graduate School of Engineering at MIT. "

Now you have something concrete to check out. Year and everything.

No good. Brett Holverstott is no more credible than you are. Got anything real? MIT doesn't seem to admit to Mills being a student.

 

[jsfisher]

As Mills explains in a footnote at the bottom of page 59 (2018 edition), the mass of the orbitsphere displaces spacetime so that the orbitsphere, although having zero thickness, has a non zero gravitational thickness. Schwartzchild metric and all that.

Yeah, Mills makes up all sorts of imaginary things when convenient, but (1) you didn't answer the question, and (2) it wasn't for you anyway.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yes, of course, but he said Mills had reasons. What would Mills reasons be?

Because Hydrinos don't exist

 

[Mike!]

Because Hydrinos don't exist

WHAT?!? You mean to say I'm NOT going to find a BLP "Hydrino" powered energy reactor under my tree again this year?

 

[JeanTate]

40 to 70 days to go!

I think a daily countdown is warranted. So I'm starting one.

Some time ago markie promised committed hinted that February, 2019 would see BLP ship five or more working prototype hydrino-based generators to independent labs for testing (OK, markie was a tad less specific than this, which seems out of character given how assured he has come across on things like hydrinos being dark matter).

With some leeway, precision-wise, that means we have to wait just 40 to 70 days. Which I'll write as 40 (70).

 

[8enotto]

You push him like that and " hinted " will turn to " may have heard about " pretty quick.