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

[8enotto]

Dupe post

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

Which career do you refer to? Physics or scamming?

 

[8enotto]

The physics of course. The crew here knows well the field.

I choose not to scam on principal.

But it does appear scamming can be a career, sadly.

 

[JeanTate]

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?

As of today, we have to wait a mere 21 (51) (-11) 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.

In this thread, and its predecessors going back to the one started by michaelsuede in 2017, there are a LOT of posts about Mills' Big Book of BooBoos (BBoBB), Mills-physics-based (so called) explanations of this or that, etc.

Leaving aside the "validation reports" (etc; I'll briefly discuss them at a later date), what are these posts all about, really? After all, few of them have direct relevance to The Main Topic (i.e. a commercial BLP "free energy" device).

Some posts - such as many of UncertainH's - are truly peripheral; an electron's "extended structure" (or not), for example, is only coincidentally pertinent to Mills' BBoBB; better to have these discussions in a separate thread.

Most of these posts, however, seem to be about showing that hydrinos are/could be real, with the implication (sometimes directly stated) that THEREFORE what BLP is working on will likely result in a commercial product.

Some use the same approach that Sol88 does in the interminable Electric Comet Theory threads, namely the logic of false dichotomy (has some other names too), roughly: "Mainstream Science cannot explain/is wrong about X, THEREFORE Mills' hydrinos are real!" This is, obviously, a very lazy approach: one does not need to investigate Mills' claims at all!

Others, perhaps most, however at least try to show that a) Mills' ideas are logical/internally consistent/etc, and/or b) experimental and/or observational results are consistent with Mills' ideas. Mini-threads on a) often don't last long ... the BBoBB is aptly named. Those on b) can be much longer (again, setting aside "validation reports"), though often aren't (why? good question!).

But what is their purpose?

I think several ISF members, in many posts going back a long way, have hit the nail on the head: distraction (from BLP/Mills' failures to deliver), vain hope (BLP/Mills' failures are actually incremental advances), fodder for posts in other fora (e.g. the subReddit), etc.

What do you think?

 

[Dr.Sid]

What is the purpose talking to them ? They are not listening. They are not learning.

 

[optiongeek]

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.

I wish that more on this thread would endeavor to do the same. For all the red-faced bloviating by those who angrily denigrate Mills and his theoretical skills, I've yet to see a single comment in this thread that makes me seriously question the GUTCP derivations I've reviewed. On every equation where I push deep, I invariably convince myself that the GUTCP is sound and the results are self-consistent.

Mills theory really does provide elegant solutions to all of the places where QM/Standard Model has left a "Here Be Monsters" marker, warning off further investigation. The ratio of the lepton masses is one such example. Another example is the anomalous electron magnetic moment. If ever there were a real-life example of "adding epicycles", the QFT/QM derivation for this value is it. By my reckoning, entire careers have been spent on devising absurdly complex, non-physical approaches that supposedly "prove" that QM is the most accurate theory ever. Yet, the GUTCP theory provides the same level of accuracy in three simple terms represented by the Poynting Power theorem (the stored magnetic energy, the stored electric energy, and the dissipated power). What's missing in the GUTCP approach are the thousands of ill-defined numerical integrations with arbitrary, committee-decreed convergence criteria. There's just a simple, compact, provably correct solution from first principles and the Poynting theorem. I'd love to have an honest discussion on why the QFT/QM approach is considered meaningful compared to the elegance of the GUTCP solution.

As a reminder, GUTCP produces the following equation (Eq 1.228):

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

Taking alpha^1 = 137.03604 (per CRC), then by my Excel spreadsheet, I get g/2 = 1.001 159 652 121 vs. an experimental value of 1.001 159 652 188.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'd love to have an honest discussion on why the QFT/QM approach is considered meaningful compared to the elegance of the GUTCP solution.

That's trivially easy actually.

QFT/QM is actually messy in a few places. Physicists have been trying to clean it up for years. But its biggest advantage is that messy as it is in places, it is still describing the real world. Sometimes reality can seem messy. It sucks, but it is what we observe.

GUTCP may seem more elegant to you. But its biggest disadvantage is it describes unicorn poop. Fantasies may be prettier than reality and unicorn poop may look and smell a whole lot better than bull manure, but its all just a figment of Mills imagination.

The emperor has no clothes. Hydrinos are not real. Before you can pass this line in the sand you must

Show me

a single damn hydrino instead of lies deceptions and obfuscations.

Now Mills has literally backed himself into a corner. He now claims that he HAS cryo-distilled dihydrino liquid. It is a lie. You are being scammed. And it is trivially easy to prove me wrong. Just send off a vial of the stuff to any number of independent labs all over the world capable of identifying the stuff. But you and I know that will never happen because hydrinos don't exist. Go use your elegant GUTCP in a comic book or cheap scifi novel. That's all it is good for, period. Full stop.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'd love to have an honest discussion ...

********. A year ago BLP stated the goal of convincing the world by actually showing hydrino compounds. They claimed to actually have hydrino compounds and have actually been claiming that for quite a while.


WHY DID THEY FAIL? Why, in fact, did they not even try? They said it was one of their most important goals for last year. If their claims of having hydrino compounds were actually true they could have done it at any time. But they didn't. WHY?

 

[JeanTate]

I wish that more on this thread would endeavor to do the same. For all the red-faced bloviating by those who angrily denigrate Mills and his theoretical skills, I've yet to see a single comment in this thread that makes me seriously question the GUTCP derivations I've reviewed. On every equation where I push deep, I invariably convince myself that the GUTCP is sound and the results are self-consistent.

Mills theory really does provide elegant solutions to all of the places where QM/Standard Model has left a "Here Be Monsters" marker, warning off further investigation. The ratio of the lepton masses is one such example. Another example is the anomalous electron magnetic moment. If ever there were a real-life example of "adding epicycles", the QFT/QM derivation for this value is it. By my reckoning, entire careers have been spent on devising absurdly complex, non-physical approaches that supposedly "prove" that QM is the most accurate theory ever. Yet, the GUTCP theory provides the same level of accuracy in three simple terms represented by the Poynting Power theorem (the stored magnetic energy, the stored electric energy, and the dissipated power). What's missing in the GUTCP approach are the thousands of ill-defined numerical integrations with arbitrary, committee-decreed convergence criteria. There's just a simple, compact, provably correct solution from first principles and the Poynting theorem. I'd love to have an honest discussion on why the QFT/QM approach is considered meaningful compared to the elegance of the GUTCP solution.

As a reminder, GUTCP produces the following equation (Eq 1.228):

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

Taking alpha^1 = 137.03604 (per CRC), then by my Excel spreadsheet, I get g/2 = 1.001 159 652 121 vs. an experimental value of 1.001 159 652 188.

We could spend days on this.

As others have already noted, if "hydrinos" are inevitable under Mills' "theory", then the lack of any BLP hydrino-powered generator - commercial product or just a working prototype to be tested by truly independent facilities - is perhaps the strongest proof one could have that it's all nonsense, irrespective of how elegant you find it.

Did you read this post by W.D. Clinger? Key take-away: the Bell inequality (or inequalities) has been tested, experimentally, six ways to Sunday, and the unequivocal verdict is that the universe is inconsistent with any classical-physics-based theory (at this level). Universe/QM/QFT 1, Mills 0.

Oh, and you left off estimates of uncertainty, for both g/2 and alpha. Nor did you give a source for your g/2 value. Why is that?

 

[optiongeek]

We could spend days on this.

Key take-away: the Bell inequality (or inequalities) has been tested, experimentally, six ways to Sunday, and the unequivocal verdict is that the universe is inconsistent with any classical-physics-based theory

With respect, this is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't, it would be a secondary effect compared to the calculation of the spin-flip energy.

Let's stick with the calculation at hand. The QFT calculation of the spin flip is an absurdity on its face, involving postulate upon postulate, concrete contributions from virtual photons, and unknowable propagation of error through intractable numerical calculations.

In contrast, the GUTP version simply asks me to believe that the power dynamics of the spin flip are governed by the change in energy stored in the magnetic and electrical fields, as well as the dissipated power. Each of these components can be exactly calculated from the Orbitsphere. This makes sense to me, while the QFT version only makes sense if I consider those involved as interested in something other than scientific truth.

Change my mind.

 

[JeanTate]

We could spend days on this.

Key take-away: the Bell inequality (or inequalities) has been tested, experimentally, six ways to Sunday, and the unequivocal verdict is that the universe is inconsistent with any classical-physics-based theory

With respect, this is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't, it would be a secondary effect compared to the calculation of the spin-flip energy.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, if you really think this, please, take a week/month/year and write it up. Submit it to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal. Wait for a call from Stockholm.

(I assume you realize the extraordinary nature of your claim)

Let's stick with the calculation at hand. The QFT calculation of the spin flip is an absurdity on its face, involving postulate upon postulate, concrete contributions from virtual photons, and unknowable propagation of error through intractable numerical calculations.

In contrast, the GUTP version simply asks me to believe that the power dynamics of the spin flip are governed by the change in energy stored in the magnetic and electrical fields, as well as the dissipated power. Each of these components can be exactly calculated from the Orbitsphere. This makes sense to me, while the QFT version only makes sense if I consider those involved as interested in something other than scientific truth.

Change my mind.

So, this is a borderline case of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy: instead of focusing on Mills' nonsense, you start by declaring that, for you, QFT is a non-starter. Then you present an option, and (by default) consider it the only option (i.e. a dichotomy).

Finally, you consider "the power dynamics of the spin flip" only. No mention of the fact that Mills/BLP has yet to ship a commercial, hydrino-based, product (or working prototype), despite saying that he/they has/have one, for almost 30 years.

Why is that?

When do you expect BLP/Mills will ship such a product?

 

[JeanTate]

With respect, this is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't, it would be a secondary effect compared to the calculation of the spin-flip energy.

Let's stick with the calculation at hand. The QFT calculation of the spin flip is an absurdity on its face, involving postulate upon postulate, concrete contributions from virtual photons, and unknowable propagation of error through intractable numerical calculations.

In contrast, the GUTP version simply asks me to believe that the power dynamics of the spin flip are governed by the change in energy stored in the magnetic and electrical fields, as well as the dissipated power. Each of these components can be exactly calculated from the Orbitsphere. This makes sense to me, while the QFT version only makes sense if I consider those involved as interested in something other than scientific truth.

Change my mind.

Now for something I'm very familiar with: the HI 21 cm line.

Per markie - I think he was quoting from the BBoBB - there is an equivalent for hydrinos, somewhere in the mm part of the electromagnetic spectrum (can you confirm this?).

Per Mills/markie/you/tlp/Holverstatt/et al., hyrdinos, in some form or other, are the CDM (Cold Dark Matter) astronomers have been studying for many decades (the first paper, by Zwicky, was published in the 1930s, from memory). It thus comprises most of the baryonic mass of the observable universe. Can you confirm this?

This hydrino "21 cm line" should thus be screamingly obvious. In all directions. Yet no astronomer has ever seen it, despite there being a great many independent observations of the "mm sky".

Can you explain this rather extreme failure of Mills' "theory"?

 

[MEequalsIxR]

optiongeek you seem too smart to be taken in by this I am surprised.

The reality is if hydrinos were real a few grams would end the entire debate and Mills would be on the fast track to a Nobel.

And all it would take is is a minute amount of the copious quantities he has produced sent to independent labs. Magically investors with check in hand would be lined up to the horizon working prototypes or no.

 

[Darat]

I wish that more on this thread would endeavor to do the same. For all the red-faced bloviating by those who angrily denigrate Mills and his theoretical skills, I've yet to see a single comment in this thread that makes me seriously question the GUTCP derivations I've reviewed. On every equation where I push deep, I invariably convince myself that the GUTCP is sound and the results are self-consistent.

Mills theory really does provide elegant solutions to all of the places where QM/Standard Model has left a "Here Be Monsters" marker, warning off further investigation. The ratio of the lepton masses is one such example. Another example is the anomalous electron magnetic moment. If ever there were a real-life example of "adding epicycles", the QFT/QM derivation for this value is it. By my reckoning, entire careers have been spent on devising absurdly complex, non-physical approaches that supposedly "prove" that QM is the most accurate theory ever. Yet, the GUTCP theory provides the same level of accuracy in three simple terms represented by the Poynting Power theorem (the stored magnetic energy, the stored electric energy, and the dissipated power). What's missing in the GUTCP approach are the thousands of ill-defined numerical integrations with arbitrary, committee-decreed convergence criteria. There's just a simple, compact, provably correct solution from first principles and the Poynting theorem. I'd love to have an honest discussion on why the QFT/QM approach is considered meaningful compared to the elegance of the GUTCP solution.

As a reminder, GUTCP produces the following equation (Eq 1.228):

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

Taking alpha^1 = 137.03604 (per CRC), then by my Excel spreadsheet, I get g/2 = 1.001 159 652 121 vs. an experimental value of 1.001 159 652 188.

How much extra energy does that produce?

 

[Darat]

With respect, this is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't, it would be a secondary effect compared to the calculation of the spin-flip energy.

Let's stick with the calculation at hand. The QFT calculation of the spin flip is an absurdity on its face, involving postulate upon postulate, concrete contributions from virtual photons, and unknowable propagation of error through intractable numerical calculations.

In contrast, the GUTP version simply asks me to believe that the power dynamics of the spin flip are governed by the change in energy stored in the magnetic and electrical fields, as well as the dissipated power. Each of these components can be exactly calculated from the Orbitsphere. This makes sense to me, while the QFT version only makes sense if I consider those involved as interested in something other than scientific truth.

Change my mind.

How much extra energy does that produce?

 

[Darat]

optiongeek you seem too smart to be taken in by this I am surprised.



The reality is if hydrinos were real a few grams would end the entire debate and Mills would be on the fast track to a Nobel.



And all it would take is is a minute amount of the copious quantities he has produced sent to independent labs. Magically investors with check in hand would be lined up to the horizon working prototypes or no.

I think he keeps mixing up the anti-gravity compounds and the dark matter ones in the same bottle and whoops when FedEx turns up to collect the parcel it's floated away!

 

[markie]

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

What a strange thing to say. First, Mills does publish in the scientific literature. Secondly, can you give evidence that all 'pure research' is published? No you can't.

 

[markie]

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

More like a 1750 page book.

 

[markie]

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.

Huh? Mills isn't claiming that the understanding of classical EM physics was wrong. For instance he makes all kinds of references to Purcell and Jackson. Now in rare cases (iirc) he does take some issue with the textbooks, but it is more a quibble. It is Mills unique application of classical physics and its blend with the older QM that enables him to go beyond others before him.

 

[markie]

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.

Then W.D proceeds to give 13 quotes from me over the last week. A little clingy if you ask me.