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

[HappySkeptic99]

No I have not used QM in real world situations. But I was definitely a believer in quantum woo at an early age.
You clearly have not been paying attention to people like Carver Meade who was in on the first floor of the solid state revolution.
Question, since you are so knowledgeable : How big is the hydrogen atom?

What does Quantum Woo have to do with actual QM? Every time I hear woo-like ideas, whether from the new-age, or in science press, the actual theory says things a lot less woo-like.

Your question is a trick one. Classical thinking in a quantum world. We look at expectation values of a measurement, not fixed sizes. The Bohr radius is useful approximation.

Carver Meade is not a theorist, and I have no problem with him looking at Electricity and Magnetism, and QM, in a slightly different way. Often, there are many mathematically-equivalent ways of looking at pieces of reality. We choose the model that is most useful. I have not read his work, but it does not sound revolutionary, or terribly deep. Also, those who try to come up with deterministic QM have all failed. That doesn't mean they shouldn't keep trying, but they need to actually answer all of reality.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well some scientists have noticed and bothered, like the validators and the coauthors of the dozens of published papers through the years. Then there is a smaller number who have opposed Mills work, like Rathke, Phelps and Sundholm. The vast majority remain unaware or are content with a wait and see attitude.

No, that's not correct.

The people working with and for Mills do not count, and they are all you have listed there. Of course the choir members and investors believe. Even I expect and accept that. But it's got nothing to do with my point.

What's next, will you start naming direct Mills employees as unbiased sources?

The critics have pointedly NOT noticed hydrinos during their work.

Hydrinos should have been stumbled over by other scientists long ago, as they interact with the real world and with real world experiments. Connections should have been made to Mills' work from out of the blue, as hydrinos affected the experimental work of others, causing odd results, unexplained events, new reactions, etc.

Scientists should have been having trouble explaining things because of the influence of hydrinos on their work. They should then have gone looking for the cause. Even if they never heard of hydrinos, they should have been looking for them.

 

[markie]

I am confident that a fully operational closed Suncell prototype exhibiting unambiguous excess energy for at least 24 hours continuously will be demonstrated to everyone here's satisfaction no later than February 29 2019.

Now there's a leap of faith.

 

[markie]

What does Quantum Woo have to do with actual QM? Every time I hear woo-like ideas, whether from the new-age, or in science press, the actual theory says things a lot less woo-like.

Your question is a trick one. Classical thinking in a quantum world. We look at expectation values of a measurement, not fixed sizes. The Bohr radius is useful approximation.

Carver Meade is not a theorist, and I have no problem with him looking at Electricity and Magnetism, and QM, in a slightly different way. Often, there are many mathematically-equivalent ways of looking at pieces of reality. We choose the model that is most useful. I have not read his work, but it does not sound revolutionary, or terribly deep. Also, those who try to come up with deterministic QM have all failed. That doesn't mean they shouldn't keep trying, but they need to actually answer all of reality.

What does quantum Woo have to do with actual QM? As an example : The quantum Woo of Multiple Universes was invented in an attempt to get out of the quantum Woo or Woe of the wave function collapse. Then there is the 'entanglement' woo where the measurement result of an attribute of one particle will have an instantaneous effect on the measurement result of another particle a light year away. And then there is the woo of a point electron having a non zero probability of being measured (say) an inch away from it's nucleus, and immediately afterwards having a non zero probability of being measured inside the nucleus, all without emitting any radiation at all. The miracle of Woo.

About the expectation value for the size of a hydrogen atom : You should know that the average expectation value is 1.5 times the Bohr radius. The Bohr radius is like flipping a coin a million times and having it land heads exactly 500000 times. Sure it is the most likely outcome, but really.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

markie I'll give you points for digging in your heels and ignoring reality and a few more for being able to selectively reject or accept theories as it suits your needs.

I sure would like to know what your relationship to Mills is.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

In short, markie demonstrates he doesn't understand QM again.

 

[halleyscomet]

markie I'll give you points for digging in your heels and ignoring reality and a few more for being able to selectively reject or accept theories as it suits your needs.



I sure would like to know what your relationship to Mills is.

Well, he can’t BE Mills. As the Mills acolytes on /r/BrilliantLightPower have pointed out he doesn’t understand Hydrino theory well enough to be defending it.

 

[Hans]

Well, he can’t BE Mills. As the Mills acolytes on /r/BrilliantLightPower have pointed out he doesn’t understand Hydrino theory well enough to be defending it.

Maybe that is all part of the clever deep plan - a 80 year plan to bring hydrinos to mankind by making it look like a clueless free energy scam - have someone completely inept shilling for the the Hydrino theory to make it appear he wouldn't be someone Mills would actually hire to actually do so.

Wow, wheels within wheels.

How Machiavellian!

 

[Myriad]

Well some scientists have noticed and bothered, like the validators and the coauthors of the dozens of published papers through the years. Then there is a smaller number who have opposed Mills work, like Rathke, Phelps and Sundholm. The vast majority remain unaware or are content with a wait and see attitude.

It doesn't matter who authors, co-authors, or validates the results, if those results only happen when Mills is doing the experiment himself.

If Mills had been in charge of the Manhattan Project, the military would have had to smuggle him into Hiroshima so he could show everyone spectrograph data proving that an enormous destructive nuclear explosion had occurred.

If Mills had invented the light bulb, it would only work when Mills walked into the room and turned it on, after making sure everyone put on blindfolds, and then he'd describe how bright the room looked. After everyone took off their blindfolds he'd show them the burned-out bulb by candlelight.

If Mills had invented the airplane, it would be about 1932 now, and he'd be testing Tiger Moths and Lockheed Vegas at Kitty Hawk, but instead of taking off they'd all either sit motionless and vibrate slightly, or burn up while scooting along the beach. Mills, doing all the test-flying himself of course, would then publish papers with data indicating that some of the prototypes whilst vibrating and scooting and burning showed definite signs of excess altitude.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

What does quantum Woo have to do with actual QM? As an example : The quantum Woo of Multiple Universes was invented in an attempt to get out of the quantum Woo or Woe of the wave function collapse. Then there is the 'entanglement' woo where the measurement result of an attribute of one particle will have an instantaneous effect on the measurement result of another particle a light year away.

Entanglement happens, as has been proven many times. As for wavefunction collapse, that is a real problem only for Quantum Cosmology, not for the types of experiments anyone can actually perform. In the real world, Decoherence Theory is sufficient to explain experiments to any reasonable level of depth of entanglement. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the easiest to think about, and the first one taught (sadly, it was the only one taught me in undergrad), but most physicists knows that it is the "most wrong" of all of them (though we still use it when it is sufficient).

And then there is the woo of a point electron having a non zero probability of being measured (say) an inch away from it's nucleus, and immediately afterwards having a non zero probability of being measured inside the nucleus, all without emitting any radiation at all. The miracle of Woo.

Actually, that is not what QM says. One can use the wavefunction to calculate the probabilties of an observable, over an ensemble of measurements. It does not mean that the electron is moving like The Flash. Mathematically, there is no value for the electron position until measured. Is that just our ignorance of an underlying hidden motion? Everything so far points to no.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

... (though we still use it when it is sufficient)...

Don't most applications of QM use what I'll call the Feynman interpretation: "Just calculate"? Basically the "interpretations" aren't necessary. Possibly some of them might suggest new avenues to explore for new phenomena but none of them is necessary for understanding what QM actually is right now.

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 25 (55) (-7) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie and tlp/Holvestott.

Reminder, here's markie, on 27th May 2018, 04:10 AM:

"February 26 2019 is still on my calendar as the date by which Mills will have demonstrated a closed Suncell prototype showing excess energy generation for a reasonable amount of time. Given the substantive direction changes in the design I'm not as confident as before that my timeline will be met. But in the end it will be worth it.

Mills has achieved excess energy - sometimes for months - with earlier cells over the last 20 years, but bluntly put they were not good enough for the marketplace."

I haven't yet found the first markie statement on when we will reach Nirvana (I'm still looking), but this, by markie, on 12th May 2018, 04:22 PM, is interesting:

"MS [michaelsuede] describing that apparatus as a fully working prototype is not my idea of a fully working prototype. When the system is closed and operating at reasonable high power for a reasonably long power of time, then I might call it a working prototype."

As of today, we have to wait a mere 24 (54) (-8) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie ("26 February, 2019") and tlp/Holvestott.

That said, I do not know of anyone - posters here in this ISF thread, those in the subreddit, BLP itself (per public pronouncements) - who genuinely thinks the world will have such evidence. By early March, 2019.

Suppose, pace history, a working prototype is produced and independently tested. Suppose it works, in the sense of appearing to generate more output energy than input energy; what then?

My guess: nothing but known physics/chemistry/engineering, ho hum, nothing to see here.

But if there is something strange, then expect it to be intensively researched, by competent scientists and engineers. Who may work with inventors and entrepreneurs to make a useful generator. In the space of mere months, not decades. Expect, too, if this happens, that the underlying science is very different from what's in Mills' BBoBB.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Don't most applications of QM use what I'll call the Feynman interpretation: "Just calculate"? Basically the "interpretations" aren't necessary. Possibly some of them might suggest new avenues to explore for new phenomena but none of them is necessary for understanding what QM actually is right now.

Yes, you just calculate, but it helps to have a mental model of what is happening. Myself, I use the Copenhagen or Transactional interpretations as mental models, depending on the situation.

Usually, one assumes collapse as early as it makes sense to do so. I also like to think in terms of Decoherence Theory as opposed to immediate collapse, since that is surely more correct. It adds complexity that may not be needed to get an answer (though if one is investigating decoherence, it may be required).

The more equivalent ways to think of the problem, the more you will understand it, and the less likely to miss an important aspect of the experiment.

 

[davefoc]

...
But if there is something strange, then expect it to be intensively researched, by competent scientists and engineers. Who may work with inventors and entrepreneurs to make a useful generator. In the space of mere months, not decades. Expect, too, if this happens, that the underlying science is very different from what's in Mills' BBoBB.

The BLP possibility permutations
1. Hydrinos exist, A BLP device works
2. Hydrinos exist, No BLP device works enough for practical use
3. Hydrinos don't exist, A BLP device works but because of a non-hydrino mechanism
4. Hydrinos don't exist, No BLP devices ever work


And a bonus possibility
Item 4 is true but BLP still finds something of scientific or engineering interest.


I think I might be more pessimistic than Jean Tate about BLP's chances. (Is that possible?) I've moved from number 4 is very likely to Number 4 is almost certain. I hold out a little hope for the bonus possibility. Has BLP produced anything of scientific or practical value in its 30 years? They tout some kind of modeling software. Does it have any value in any field?


A request: Somebody posted a nice list of BLP's commercial-product-release-is-imminent claims. I can't find the post. Could somebody link to it? Thanks


As an aside my spell checker doesn't think hydrino is a real word. Maybe it's on to something.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I think I might be more pessimistic than Jean Tate about BLP's chances. (Is that possible?) I've moved from number 4 is very likely to Number 4 is almost certain. I hold out a little hope for the bonus possibility.

Don't let it infect your mind. It is very seductive. Both you and Jean need to focus on the fact that the original increase of energy seen by Mills was an experimental error caused by the rather mundane burning of metal. Metals have a surprisingly high potential energy retained in them from refinement. BLP has no chance of anything useful. None! I was infected with hope when I first saw the whole thing. No more. The deeper I dig the more I realise it is pure fraud 100%. Not 99.9%....100%

As an aside my spell checker doesn't think hydrino is a real word. Maybe it's on to something.

 

[Reality Check]

Emphasizes Mills abusing his inspiration's (Haus) work

Guess who was Mills' inspiration for a classical physics approach to quantum phenomena ? Hermann Haus, his engineering professor. ....

9 January 2019 markie: Emphasizes Mills abusing his inspiration's (Haus) work.

Nonradiation condition

The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2]

Mills abused Haus's work by applying it to his delusions about current loops in a in Mill's insanely deluded sphere that is supposed to be an atomic sized electron.

 

[Reality Check]

Stupidity of Haus as an inspiration when Haus wrote standard QM papers.

Yet look at the 'quantum' nature of Haus' research:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1712509.

9 January 2019 markie: Stupidity of Haus as an inspiration when Haus wrote standard QM papers.

 

[Reality Check]

Usual lies about Mills delusions

...All theses types of things Mills can describe classically.

9 January 2019 markie: Usual lies about Mills delusions.
The obituary for Hermann Anton Haus is basically "things" for which Mills has not made up deluded fantasies yet.

• quantum noise in a laser oscillator
  No "noise" in his deluded PDF.
• quantum fluctuations of solitons
  No "soliton" in his deluded PDF except for 2 references.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Reality Check]

Usual ignorance about science partially excusable in this case

The problem is that people assume, as with QM, that the tunnelling object is a point. ....

9 January 2019 markie: Usual ignorance about science partially excusable in this case.
There is no problem with assuming that particles are points when they have measured extents have tiny upper limits, when extended, they are physically impossible and QM works enormously well with point particles (QED is the most precisely tested theory in physics) !

The partial excuse is that QM with extended particles is a rather obscure topic. I have only seen it is a test for electrons being extended particles by making them bigger and bigger until the predictions and measurements no longer match.