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

[Reality Check]

Misleads by cherry picking from his irrelevant source and irrelevant highlighting

From https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0306009.pdf

9 January 2019 markie: Misleads by cherry picking from his irrelevant source and irrelevant highlighting.
Just below what he quotes is

Quantum mechanics gives the best representation known of the atomic and subatomic world.

The de Broglie wavelength is small! What is the de Broglie wavelength of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom? = 332.5 pm.

The paper is about ropes (bodies with length) that allow "tunneling" over a potential barrier. This does not work with Mill's spherical delusions.

Classical Tunneling is about a classical analogy to quantum tunneling.
The affiliation is "Electric Power Research Institure, Palo Alto, CA 94062". The contact is "Mario Rabinowitz Armor Research, 715 Lakemead Way, Redwood City, CA 94062". The only preprint from Cohn. Rabinowitz has 29 preprints. Mario Rabinowitz is no longer on Wikipedia but is here. The paper was published in 1990 and had 11 citations.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Winterfrost]

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.

I am confident you don’t understand what is required to achieve “everyone here’s satisfaction.”

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. I’m not sure it’s possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines one’s credibility. In this tale, that doesn’t only apply to you.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Well, hydrinos leaking from the BLP site in southern NJ have turned up in many Princeton University labs, though no scientist in any such lab has noticed yet.

Hydrinos are dark matter, and no scientist has found any here on Earth yet.

Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.

The sarcasm is strong with this one obiwan.

But didn't you know? Both Mills and Markie abandoned their claim that dihydrino gas is dark matter and the new claim is that it actually can be cryodistilled with liquid helium!

Except no one has ever seen that either.

 

[Pixel42]

I am confident you don’t understand what is required to achieve “everyone here’s satisfaction.”

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. I’m not sure it’s possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines one’s credibility. In this tale, that doesn’t only apply to you.

I think you have missed a joke. Look at the quoted date again, and remember that 2019 is not a leap year.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 23 (53) (-9) 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.

Some interesting responses to my "daily countdown" post yesterday; I'll follow up later.

Originally my plan for today was to write something about the "theory" counterpart to yesterday's "practice" one. But it didn't pan out.

For starters, there's no counterpart claim to something like "BLP will produce a dozen working prototype hydrino-based generators by next Thursday". For example while markie thinks Mills deserves at least three Nobel Prizes, he's said nothing on when he thinks even the first might be awarded (of course, Mills will win exactly the same number of Nobel Prizes as I will win, zero).

What, then, will be the legacy of Mills' ideas, hydrinos, orbitspheres, the whole nine yards? Will it be anything more than a minor footnote in some tally of crackpot physics ideas of the late 20th and early 21st centuries? If so, what? Myself, I think that's about it: his mathematics is well-known (and anyway he applies it inconsistently); his physics is classical (with no real new insights); his techniques and approaches, while perhaps somewhat unorthodox, are not in any way exceptional (other than bad); and so on.

What do you think?

 

[JeanTate]

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

Cool.

You added "hydrino" as an additional parameter; my post was about whether a BLP generator would work, in the sense of generating more energy output than energy input. And, as I said, I think if that were to happen (to be clear, my crows will die of old age; I'll never have to eat them), most likely something rather boring would be found.

Hydrino - as in "below the ground state hydrogen" - is a cute idea, but other than muonic hydrogen (which is well-known), will never be found.

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

That's what I covered in today's daily countdown post, well the "scientific" part anyway.

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?

What was called "the Millsian" I think, right?

I don't think so. As a purely empirical heuristic - sorta like the Titus-Bode Law for the orbital radii of solar system planets - it might enter some compendium of curiosa, but otherwise no.

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.

Strange.

My spell checker behaves the same way. Obviously it's a conspiracy.

 

[JeanTate]

Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.

Sorry.

My post (the one you quoted from) was meant as a joke, a sarcastic one. Yeah, no matter how many times I'm told that my jokes are poor to terrible, for some reason I can't seem to stop making them.

 

[Horatius]

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

I've actually seen that happen. There was a company that started out as a classic "electrolysis -> burn hydrogen = free energy" mistake, but in the process of trying to make their device work, they stumbled upon the phenomena of electrocoagulation/electrofloccuation. Now, of course, others had done that before them, but it did put them on a path to maybe find some improvements in that real technology, rather than waste their time on a fantasy.

 

[UncertainH]

The partial excuse is that QM with extended particles is a rather obscure topic.

And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3914

"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude

And here is a decent overview of some of the aspects of the theory as of 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/504/1/012014/pdf

And more recently this is an excellent non-math historical overview:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227

"Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?"

 

[TwoThumbs]

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.

This is the best comedy thread ever!

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.

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.

Touché

Take heart in the fact that at least one reader appreciated the wit in your response.

I am confident you don’t understand what is required to achieve “everyone here’s satisfaction.”

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. I’m not sure it’s possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines one’s credibility. In this tale, that doesn’t only apply to you.

I think you have missed a joke. Look at the quoted date again, and remember that 2019 is not a leap year.

Thank you Pixel42 for scraping Winterfrost down off the ceiling. I had thought that inclusion of Kid Eager's comedy reference in my original post would be sufficient to twig those who weren't sure if it was a joke. Perhaps next time I should be a little heavier handed - enclose it in [HUMOR][/HUMOR] tags and add a few smiley emoticons.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Wait, I thought this whole thread is in 'humor' section, so no tags are needed ?

 

[8enotto]

What!!!! Damn..


I just sent a huge check to invest in this and some Sears stocks. Buy low, sell high you know.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[markie]

And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3914

"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude

And here is a decent overview of some of the aspects of the theory as of 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/504/1/012014/pdf

And more recently this is an excellent non-math historical overview:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227

"Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?"

Nice finds UncertainH, good reads! (I notice that Mills references Hofer once in his book.) Among other things, I like that Hofer predicts that the pattern lines for the double slit experiment for electrons will be more distinct (less fuzzy) at ultra cold temperatures since he, like Mills, thinks that the interference-like pattern has to do with interactions with atoms at the slit.

 

[UncertainH]

Here's another by Hofer:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1029.pdf

I particularly like this quote from the paper:

The message of this analysis is clear: electrons are not point particles, or if they are, then their behavior in these experiments does not comply with the uncertainty relations.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:


"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude

I do not find the paper compelling at all. He did some handwaving about QM (not anything rigorous), and then declared that his simulation, based on the handwaving, gave more noisy results than what STM actually gives.

Rather than suggest that his own model was insufficient, he concluded that QM is wrong. Yeah, right.

The pseudoscientists scan the literature and find these fringe papers. They then claim that the existence of fringe papers prove their own pseudoscience. It doesn't work that way.

 

[UncertainH]

I do not find the paper compelling at all. He did some handwaving about QM (not anything rigorous), and then declared that his simulation, based on the handwaving, gave more noisy results than what STM actually gives.

Rather than suggest that his own model was insufficient, he concluded that QM is wrong. Yeah, right.

The pseudoscientists scan the literature and find these fringe papers. They then claim that the existence of fringe papers prove their own pseudoscience. It doesn't work that way.

lol You may actually want to look into that a little further before you start accusing Hofer as being a fringe or pseudoscientist. He literally wrote the book on Scanning Probe Microscopy:

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387400907?0.html=null

and you can find a summary of his work here:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=bmIZmYUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

 

[markie]

Here's another by Hofer:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1029.pdf

I particularly like this quote from the paper:

Very nice. In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.

This means that even though the two rotations are independent, they cannot be described by a product of two real variables. In our view, this was the key mistake of John Bell, which makes the Bell inequalities inapplicable to such a situation

Using the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities [23], and setting coincidence counts equal to the coincidence probabilities in our model:...one arrives at the standard expectation values for coincidences :

The wave properties are in this case not intrinsic to an electron or photon, they are externally imposed due to the interactions with the slit system.

However, it does not collapse into a definite state - which is usually thought to occur when spin, which is isotropic in three dimensional space, is measured - but it only reveals the direction of the spin vector with respect to the vector of motion. The crucial omission in the conventional frame- work in this case is the possibility that measurements directly affect the spin properties of a system.