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

[jadebox]

It is no delusion. It is quite reasonable to think that the environment to which an electron is subject - whether it is a magnetic field in the Stern Gerlach experiment or slits in the double slit experiment - actually has a physical effect on the electron. Imagine that!

And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?

 

[JeanTate]

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?

As of today, we have to wait a mere 22 (52) (-10) 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.

I'm an astronomer; my focus is extra-galactic astronomy, i.e. I don't much "do" stars or planets, rather galaxies, quasars, clusters of galaxies, etc.

I'd like to share with you my initial reaction to reading that Mills had "explained" something in my field (I think it was a cosmic soft x-ray background, but it may have been dark matter) ... something like "you have GOT to be kidding me! How can you be SOOOO ignorant!?! "

This is different from my initial reactions to, say, learning that Mills (and his fans) think they have a good replacement for QM (never QFT): my curiosity is aroused, I think it's nonsense, but nothing like the reaction I describe above.

To be clear: in the astronomy example, I know I could rip the posted nonsense to shreds, at any level any Mills fan is willing to engage me: I know where to find the key papers; I could write coherent, succinct summaries of key aspects quite easily; etc. So I'm not writing about an emotional reaction only.

To get to be an astronomer these days you need to have learned more than Physics 101, ditto more than Mathematics 101. So at least in principle, I should be able to rip Mills' QM nonsense to shreds too ... it's just that it would likely involve several days' of digging and research. Fortunately, there are other ISF members more familiar with QM (not to mention QFT; strange, eh?) than I am, and they are usually pretty vocal.

But what's your experience? Do you sometimes have a very different reaction when you see Mills nonsense posted about something you're extremely familiar with, vs nonsense that you're not?

 

[UncertainH]

You really need to understand your sources and do basic reraserch try to find out how reliable they are UncertainH.

A "Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" paper with no mention of a extended election model.

A viable, working model of an extended electron would be a groundbreaking model published in an appropriate, well known, high impact journal. This is not the newish, obscure, low impact Frontiers of Physics.
Single author papers are dubious.
A preprint published in the condensed (solid) matter section.
Three (3) citations of the paper all including him as an author.

Thus: The paper is obviously invalid that it has been ignored for at least 8 years.

An irrelevant history/philosophy of physics "" preprint from Werner A Hofer.
An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer

I linked those papers because they can be understood by readers with a minimal math or physics background. So a paper like this:

Frontiers of Physics Volume 12, Issue 3, June 2017
Spin and the extended electron model
co-authored by Tom Pope in a newish peer reviewed journal with an impact factor of 2.579 (2016)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11467-017-0669-7

recently published - check, co-authored - check, peer reviewed - check. So you are saying that an impact factor of about 2.5 is not good enough and therefore is irrelevant. Please tell me what an acceptable impact factor is. I also see that they have another accepted for publication in April 2019.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...f-principle-for-small-atoms-and-molecules.pdf

Albeit in the same "low impact" journal

 

[JeanTate]

And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?

Ah but that depends on whether the electron can see the detector before it can see the slit(s)!

Everyone knows that slits with detectors on their backsides behave more like asses than slits with detectors on their bow ties.

 

[UncertainH]

What quantum mechanics actually states is

[*]The overwhelming evidence is that electrons have no extent so treat them as point particles unless otherwise needed.

There is growing evidence that they do have extent

[*]Point particles have intrinsic properties.

Like infinite density

[*]Point particles are radially symmetric.

Zero dimensional singularities cannot have radial symmetry because the term 'radial' implies a finite length in the radial direction. The term "point particle" is an oxy moron

[*]Point particles have no moment of inertia.

Well that's for sure, either that or an infinite moment of inertia

This is not a problem because QM works !

So did epicycles

 

[UncertainH]

11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.

Page 269 where Mills states

This result arises even though the electrons are not physically interacting with each other. Nothing is actually interfering

Somehow RC interprets this and creates a deluded lie and fantasy

It is just the utter stupidity of the electron splitting into 2 parts and diffracting with itself

Now who needs a reality check. I do not consider myself to be a Mills "believer" but it is far more productive to discuss what Mills is actually saying than what you imagine him to be saying. Putting down page numbers and writing the words "lies, delusions and fantasies" is not a debate at all but more akin to a Monty Python sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

 

[Darat]

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.

How much excess electricity does that generate?

 

[markie]

And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?

Even with a detector(s) any open slit will still diffract the electron. However a detector(s) will mess with fields around the slits, altering the photon distribution released from the slits as the electron approaches and washing out the discreteness of the momentum pattern.

 

[JeanTate]

Even with a detector(s) any open slit will still diffract the electron. However a detector(s) will mess with fields around the slits, altering the photon distribution released from the slits as the electron approaches and washing out the discreteness of the momentum pattern.

Except when the detector is on the backside. Or when the detector is turned off (i.e. when it's just a passive slit). Or when the detector is turned on after the electron has gone through. Or ... when markie's knowledge of the double slit experiment is comparable to his knowledge of the cosmic soft x-ray background.

 

[Belz...]

The problem you and others have is, no 'commercial device' is just about all your vision entails.

What else but practical applications of such a development could we envision?

Thanks tlp. I love personal anecdotes like that that bring more human elements into the equation.

...oh. Feelings. I see.

 

[JeanTate]

There is growing evidence that they do have extent

Like infinite density

Zero dimensional singularities cannot have radial symmetry because the term 'radial' implies a finite length in the radial direction. The term "point particle" is an oxy moron

Well that's for sure, either that or an infinite moment of inertia


So did epicycles

Can we take discussions like this out of this thread please?

They distract from what this thread is about, namely BLP going to market with a "free energy" device (note the quotation marks). As the OP states, very clearly.

 

[markie]

What else but practical applications of such a development could we envision?
...oh. Feelings. I see.

There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit. One example is Townes and his maser. If Townes had not had tenure his research would have been stopped. Townes was driven not by a vision of practical application but by the challenge of creating coherent light of one pure frequency. Rather like science for the sake of ... truth finding, now there's a concept.

 

[markie]

Except when the detector is on the backside. Or when the detector is turned off (i.e. when it's just a passive slit). Or when the detector is turned on after the electron has gone through. Or ... when markie's knowledge of the double slit experiment is comparable to his knowledge of the cosmic soft x-ray background.

If a detector is 'on' and is emitting appreciable signal or substance to alter an extended electron's momentum, whether before the slits or after, it will wash out the momentum differentials.
Don't think that the science community is of one mind in its view of the double slit experiment. See for instance https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/6480

 

[Belz...]

There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit.

They also laughed at bozo the clown.

You're missing the point: without actual demonstration, the claim is not proven.

 

[JeanTate]

If a detector is 'on' and is emitting appreciable signal or substance to alter an extended electron's momentum, whether before the slits or after, it will wash out the momentum differentials.
Don't think that the science community is of one mind in its view of the double slit experiment. See for instance https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/6480

Well, of direct pertinence to this thread, the scientific community is of one mind wrt Mills' crackpot nonsense ideas (for avoidance of doubt, hydrinos do not exist).

And of the likelihood that there will be at least one working prototype BLP hydrino-based generator delivered to a truly independent testing facility before 2 March, 2019 (i.e. zero).

 

[Myriad]

That's like saying, since you can see two slits, does the slit pattern wave a magic wand so that you can actually see both of them? Of course not ; no magic is involved; it's the way photons are reflected from the slits that lets you see them as they are. Similarly an electron can 'see' either one slit of two slits, and that is because the approaching electron's field will stimulate photon emission from one slit only (if there is one slit open) or both slits. The emitted photon(s) will interact with the electron and alter its momentum. See https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/ and look at the two 4 second animations to see what is going on.

Ah, I see. According to the animation, as the electron approaches the two slits, the Death Star flies out of the slits and zaps the electron, altering its trajectory.

Can we get serious instead? I can't see the slits if it's dark, because my eyes do not emit visible photons nor do they cause the objects they're looking at to emit photons. Even in ambient light, I may or may not be able to see the slits depending on their contrast against the background.

Electrons have charge, so of course they can interact electromagnetically with the slit apparatus. Photons are the gauge bosons of the electromagnetic force, and as such are exchanged between objects interacting electromagnetically... according to quantum theory. (But isn't Mills's theory supposed to be classical?) Such interactions, and therefore the diffraction pattern, would depend very much on how the material of the slit responds to a moving charge; that is, on what the slit is made of, such as its permeability and permittivity.

Is that what electron double slit experiments show?

 

[JeanTate]

There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit. One example is Townes and his maser. If Townes had not had tenure his research would have been stopped. Townes was driven not by a vision of practical application but by the challenge of creating coherent light of one pure frequency. Rather like science for the sake of ... truth finding, now there's a concept.

And of direct pertinence to this thread, BLP is not conducting any scientific research, in the usual meaning of the term.

A BLP hydrino-powered generator would could be of great practical benefit. Too bad there is not even a working prototype available for truly independent testing ... after almost 30 years!

 

[Hans]

And of direct pertinence to this thread, BLP is not conducting any scientific research, in the usual meaning of the term.

A BLP hydrino-powered generator would could be of great practical benefit. Too bad there is not even a working prototype available for truly independent testing ... after almost 30 years!

Its like the search for Atlantis there is in the mind of the searcher the idea that the possibility of it existing is more important than the probablity it doesn't.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow this rabbit hole now has a whole wing of imaginary quantum mechanics

 

[UncertainH]

Can we take discussions like this out of this thread please?

They distract from what this thread is about, namely BLP going to market with a "free energy" device (note the quotation marks). As the OP states, very clearly.

Well since Mills doesn't and never has claimed that his device(s) are "free energy" devices then I would have to say that he will never bring a "free energy" device to market.