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

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Some people in the thread, especially the person who started the thread, have referred to it as "essentially free".

 

[markie]

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?)

The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.

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?

For the electron double slit experiment the material around the slits would have to be conductive or else static charge would build up around the slits and and swamp the effect. Given a conductive material, yes I do tend to think the condition of that material may well effect at least the sharpness of the pattern. For example I tend to agree with Hofer that an ultra cold slit material could produce a somewhat sharper contrast pattern. Don't know if such an experiment has been carried out yet.

 

[markie]

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

If by "the usual meaning of the term" ... you mean university research, then no, apart from certain universities performing adjunct investigations. And that is part of the problem ; people expect BLP to behave like a university lab doing research. It isn't that. BLP is a private company engaged in both pure and applied research, and like other smallish research companies (say in nanotechnology) has its own particular motivations to publish in the scientific literature when and what it will.

 

[JeanTate]

If by "the usual meaning of the term" ... you mean university research,

Actually, I mean something like "follows the scientific method, publishes results in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and welcomes requests for samples".

BLP fails, by these criteria.

then no, apart from certain universities performing adjunct investigations. And that is part of the problem ; people expect BLP to behave like a university lab doing research. It isn't that. BLP is a private company engaged in both pure and applied research, and like other smallish research companies (say in nanotechnology) has its own particular motivations to publish in the scientific literature when and what it will.

(my hilite)

Poppycock and balderdash. If you're doing pure research, you "publish in the scientific literature". Period.

 

[JeanTate]

Well since Mills doesn't and never has claimed that his device(s) are "free energy" devices

As has already been pointed out, the OP certainly did make such a claim. And he claimed to have a deep understanding of BLP and Mills' work.

then I would have to say that he will never bring a "free energy" device to market.

Indeed.

So what has BLP (and Mills?) actually claimed?

To have produced (not "will produce", the claims are very concrete in this regard) devices which generate more output energy in the form of heat, light (more?), than is input (in those forms, plus electrical energy). Call this "free energy" (note the quotes; this is a definition).

From where does this "free energy" come, according to BLP/Mills?

From the conversion of hydrogen atoms to "hydrinos", using things like silver, gallium, "nascent water", etc as "catalysts". As "hydrinos" do not exist, this is the equivalent/a form of magic.

Or, if you prefer, the production of "free energy" by magic.

Of course, I could be totally wrong!

When, UncertainH, do you expect BLP will make available for truly independent testing, a working prototype of a hydrino-based "free energy" (per my definition) generator?

 

[UncertainH]

When, UncertainH, do you expect BLP will make available for truly independent testing, a working prototype of a hydrino-based "free energy" (per my definition) generator?

I don't know and don't really care to speculate. Probably not this year.... again

 

[LTC8K6]

There is absolutely no doubt and no ambiguity here, imo.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have made devices that produce more power than they consume. Often on an incredible scale.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have had these devices running for extended periods of time.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have large amounts of data on these devices and these runs.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have working free energy devices that simply were not commercially ready. That is, they worked just fine, he just could not put them on the market.

EDIT: IMO, all of those repeated claims were false and would still be false if made today.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And there is his 1,000 page book and public patents which have lead to no breakthroughs or licensing deals.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't know and don't really care to speculate. Probably not this year.... again

Did BLP achieve their first goal for 2018: "One goal is to prove our power source to the world in the near term through power measurements, identification of the hydrino products of the reaction, and engineered power systems." How about that middle goal of hydrino products? They claim to have already had them at the time they stated that goal. The same report even has pictures of them. What's their excuse for not releasing those to world to achieve their stated goal?

 

[jsfisher]

And there is his 1,000 page book and public patents which have lead to no breakthroughs or licensing deals.

Mills has no patents that even mention hydrinos. His 1,000 page BBoB is riddled with convenient assumptions that result in predicting what is already known.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Mills has no patents that even mention hydrinos.

I get the impression you misunderstood my post. I didn't say his patents mentioned hydrinos. However, some of his patents do mention hydrinos. And it doesn't really matter whether they mention hydrinos.

His 1,000 page BBoB is riddled with convenient assumptions that result in predicting what is already known.

I hope you don't think I don't know this or disagree with it.

 

[Myriad]

The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.

The physicists who carry out double slit experiments and who interpret their results have been aware of Maxwell's equations since the late 19th century. Yet they unanimously agree that the results of double slit experiments with one at a time particle flows are absolutely unexplainable with classical physics.

If the mere presence of an additional open slit (but only coupled with the absence of a detector) altered the trajectories of electrons via classical electromagnetic forces to the extent of creating or extinguishing an interference pattern, and physicists didn't know about such effects, then there seems little hope of their being able to get such devices as vacuum tubes, cathode ray tubes, and electron microscopes to function correctly. Yet, they did, decades ago.

Mills's argument not only claims quantum mechanics is wrong, it claims everyone's understanding of the simplest systems in classical physics, such as the trajectory of a charged particle in the presence of induced charges, over the last century and a half, is wrong too. Yet, electron microscopes work.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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?

Yes.

When completely or even moderately unfamiliar with the subject, I wonder whether it would be worth my time to learn enough about it so I could distinguish sense from nonsense. (I usually decide it isn't worth my time, but there have been exceptions, some of which can be inferred by examining my posts within this thread.)

When extremely or even moderately familiar, I just laugh at the nonsense. The howlers quoted below all come from the past week.

The web like hydrino hydride compounds have been characterized. New sections have been added to the 2018 edition of the book to describe such.

What, do you want a posted picture of a vial of liquid dihydrino? Or it mailed to you? No can do. But in lieu of your disappointment you could read up on the methods used for detecting hydrino, even ask a materials scientist at a university what he thinks of Mills papers characterizing dihydrino and hydrino hydride compounds.

Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results.

There has been nearly 30 years of hydrino evidence, you have just chosen not to carefully examine it or believe it.

Dihydrino will be safe and inert. Hydrino hydride compounds will be more stable than the normal hydrogen counterpart.

No I have not used QM in real world situations. But I was definitely a believer in quantum woo at an early age.

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.

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.

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

The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.

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.

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.

The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.

 

[Darat]

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 course Mills is an example of the total opposite, not interested in the science beyond it making him money.

 

[Darat]

They also laughed at bozo the clown.



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

The response to any of these diversionary posts by the likes of Markie is "how much excess energy does it produce?“. We have to keep in mind Mills is not selling his science, he is selling his power generators.

And has failed at that goal for about 30 years.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

That's an interesting paper. It does not, however, support markie's belief that Mills has come up with a classical reformulation of quantum mechanics. Aharonov et al. explicitly state that their deterministic account is based upon "nonlocal interactions"/"dynamical nonlocality"/"nonlocal equations of motion", which is an even stronger violation of classical physics than the "the more familiar kinematical nonlocality [implicit in entangled states...]" markie rejects as "woo".

It should also be noted that Bell's inequalities, whose relevance markie rejects because Mills can't explain why they are violated in all of the many experimental tests conducted so far, are a purely mathematical fact about probabilities, easily understood and proved without any mention of quantum mechanics or (markie's favorite) hidden variables.

The purely mathematical nature of Bell's inequalities is obscured by expositions based on the history of quantum mechanics and the famous Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen (EPR) paper suggesting that a deterministic account of the strikingly non-classical phenomena predicted (and observed!) by quantum mechanics might be obtained by supposing quantum mechanics is somehow "incomplete"; in particular, EPR suggested a deterministic version of quantum mechanics might become possible if there were "hidden variables". The EPR paper certainly inspired Bell to prove his theorem, and Bell's own exposition referred to the EPR paper and to hidden variables, but the theorem and its proof is just a calculation involving probabilities.

All proposed theories that are consistent with classical physics obey Bell's inequalities. Experiments do not obey Bell's inequalities, so all theories based on classical physics are inconsistent with experiment. New theories continue to be proposed, but the interesting question nowadays is not whether those new theories are based on classical physics, but which principles of classical physics do they abandon?

In particular, markie's oft-repeated claim that Randell Mills has given a purely classical explanation for quantum phenomena is hogwash, and markie's attempts to support that claim are slapstick comedy. ("The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.")

 

[Dr.Sid]

I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.

That's how every discussion goes when it's about something that people want to believe, that doesn't actually exist...

This is nothing compared to bigfoot.

 

[BillC]

I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.

This.

This is nothing compared to bigfoot.

Also this.

 

[8enotto]

This thread has inspired me to try to learn algebra/calculus a bit so I can begin to see why mills shills find hope in it.

Logic says it just cannot be made to work. Now to understand why better.

But on no way can I hope to debate with those who do this as a career, never.