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

[markie]

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".

The purpose of showing that paper was to show, as I said, that it should not be assumed that all interpretations of the double slit experiment are the same. Aharonov and company are making progress, but that they have to invoke non locality shows they haven't yet arrived.

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.

As I've said before, there are no hidden variables in the way Mills describes the EPR results.

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?

Not all 'proposed theories that are consistent with classical physics obey Bell's inequalities', since, after all, Mills has such a theory. I don't think you've actually looked at Mills' reasoning about why classical attempts failed (as he critiques Horne), nor how he obtains the correct expectation values.

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.")

Read the first page of chapter 8 dealing with diffraction and the double slit experiment. It starts off with Maxwells equations which leads to the Hemholtz wave equation. Also Huygen's principle and Diracs delta function are invoked. So of course it goes beyond Maxwell's equations per se, but it starts there.

 

[markie]

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.

Good post. What you said about the difficulties QM has of obtaining its results reminded my of this 100 page work from Mills at http://www.millsian.com/papers/Maxwells_Equations_and_QED.pdf
From page 16:

Throughout the history of quantum theory, wherever there was an advance to a new application, it was necessary to repeat a trial-and -error experimentation to find which method of calculation gave the right answers. Often the textbooks present only the successful procedure as if it followed from first principles and do not mention the actual method by which it was found. In electromagnetic theory based on Maxwell’s equations, one deduces the computational algorithm from the general principles. In quantum theory, the logic is just the opposite. One chooses the principle (e.g. phenomenological Hamiltonians) to fit the empirically successful algorithm. For example, we know that it required a great deal of art and tact over decades of effort to get correct predictions out of QED. The QED method of the determination of (g − 2)/ 2 from the postulated Dirac equation is based on a postulated power series of α / π where each postulated virtual particle is a source of postulated vacuum polarization that gives rise to a postulated term which is processed over decades using ad hoc rules to remove infinities from each term that arises from postulated scores of postulated Feynman diagrams. The solution so obtained using the perturbation series further requires a postulated truncation since the series diverges. Mohr and Taylor reference some of the Herculean efforts to arrive at g using QED

 

[markie]

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"?

As I've said before, the hydrino equivalent of the hydrogen line depends on how small the hydrino atom is. There is only one hyperfine line for hydrogen (at 21cm). But the largest hydrino (p=2) has two different hyperfine lines each under 1 cm, then the second largest hydrino (p=3) has three different lines, two of the three under 1 mm.

As you should know the 21 cm line stands out because it is in a relative wasteland of lines in the vicinity of that energy; it is the prominent line.
What about the mm and sub mm range of the sky? I would think it would be much 'noisier' because among other things the CMB radiation intensity peaks around 2 mm at z=0.

 

[Hans]

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

Really and you're not 'clingy' in a way distressing and unsettling to outsiders in regards to your undying love for the scammer Mills?

Clingy indeed!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is Mills unique application of classical physics and its blend with the older QM that enables him to go beyond others before him.

Beyond was an interesting choice of words to use there. Beyond belief maybe?

Maybe so far beyond belief as to be somewhere over the rainbow? Because this analogy is in fact very very apropos. In fact this is so stunningly exactly what Mills is doing, we could actually give him the title of new wizard of Oz!

Watch this clip again and see if I am exaggerating or not! It has everything from the impressive pyrotechnics to the flimflam equipment meant to obfuscate. And the constant requirement to come back tomorrow. And when tomorrow comes, yet again tomorrow. And even so silly that the ones able to see the scam easiest was the dog! And then the final realization that they all had their hopes pinned on a very bad man and his magic doesn't work.

If you were really great and powerful, you'd keep your promises

Classic!
See if you can find more parallels.

 

[Darat]

The purpose of showing that paper was to show, as I said, that it should not be assumed that all interpretations of the double slit experiment are the same. Aharonov and company are making progress, but that they have to invoke non locality shows they haven't yet arrived.







As I've said before, there are no hidden variables in the way Mills describes the EPR results.







Not all 'proposed theories that are consistent with classical physics obey Bell's inequalities', since, after all, Mills has such a theory. I don't think you've actually looked at Mills' reasoning about why classical attempts failed (as he critiques Horne), nor how he obtains the correct expectation values.







Read the first page of chapter 8 dealing with diffraction and the double slit experiment. It starts off with Maxwells equations which leads to the Hemholtz wave equation. Also Huygen's principle and Diracs delta function are invoked. So of course it goes beyond Maxwell's equations per se, but it starts there.

Where is the double slit in the generators? How does it add to the excess energy production?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not really sure how much of a good tactic it is to have one person engage Mills supporters on certain specifics of Mills' claims (or science which is reportedly relevant to Mills' claims) only to have several people attack those supporters for talking about things which are deemed to be irrelevant. Not only does that stifle all discussion*, but it gives fuel to the claims that there are no serious challenges to Mills' theory. The last thing that should happen in a conversation between a claimant and a sceptic is that the claimant can go away having confirmed to their satisfaction their perception that sceptics are blinkered/dishonest and just hand-wave away evidence without even looking at it. Yet that's more or less all I'm seeing of late.

I think it's better to engage honestly, or not at all. I don't think berating or belittling people just for trying to discuss the topic of the thread is going to do anything positive or constructive. Isn't picking apart claims like these exactly what this forum is for?

*And, really, if you don't want to discuss what's being discussed in this thread, I'd suggest simply not opening it any more, rather than trying to end the thread entirely.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

On that note, I don't have the knowledge in maths or scientific knowledge to comment intelligently on optiongeek's claim re Mills' classical description of the electron magnetic moment, but I do know that it's the best argument I've seen made in this thread in a while. I've often heard it said on this board that it's worth engaging with outlandish theories for the peanut gallery - so that people who aren't posting but instead only observing will be given access to accurate information and reasoned arguments. I know that if I was a member of this peanut gallery that I'd be finding optiongeek a lot more convincing than almost anybody else, and I'd be more inclined to take Mills seriously than not. I don't think it'd strike me that optiongeek was the one trying to distract away from questions he couldn't answer.

 

[JeanTate]

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?

As of today, we have to wait a mere 20 (50) (-12) 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.

As all regular readers of this thread know, Mills' claims to have produced hydrinos date back at least to the 1990s. Many, but not all, such claims are based on interpretation of spectra; some claims are based on observations that energy produced by various devices is greater than expected.

And some claims are about having produced hydrino compounds, including di-hydrino gas and liquid, in measurable quantities.

The methods by which Mills claims to have produced hydrinos are detailed in several documents by Mills (and BLP, and the "validation reports"), documents which are fairly easily obtained, legally.

Mills has quite a few ardent fans, all of whom seem to accept that hydrinos are real, and that Mills has produced significant quantities of them. Several such fans seem to feel they understand the production methods well enough to vigorously defend them.

Caveat: I am not a chemist, nor one who is very familiar with the tools and techniques used by those who study atomic physics. That said, my impression is that it should be quite simple and straight-forward to replicate a "Mills method" and produce hydrinos (or compounds) in significant quantities. And then to collect/trap them, as a way to start to understand their physical and chemical properties. And I think this should be possible for a modest cost (say, ~$US100k). All well within reach of the resources of many, if not all, the Mills fans who've posted here.

Given that a report detailing even a few of these physical and chemical properties would almost certainly lead to a Nobel Prize (and substantial fortune), I find it very odd that no Mills fan has considered doing something like this on their own; no GoFundMe pages, and not even any discussion of how to go about doing this. It's almost as if, in terms of actions, they don't think hydrinos exist.

What do you think?

 

[JeanTate]

I'm not really sure how much of a good tactic it is to have one person engage Mills supporters on certain specifics of Mills' claims (or science which is reportedly relevant to Mills' claims) only to have several people attack those supporters for talking about things which are deemed to be irrelevant. Not only does that stifle all discussion*, but it gives fuel to the claims that there are no serious challenges to Mills' theory. The last thing that should happen in a conversation between a claimant and a sceptic is that the claimant can go away having confirmed to their satisfaction their perception that sceptics are blinkered/dishonest and just hand-wave away evidence without even looking at it. Yet that's more or less all I'm seeing of late.

I think it's better to engage honestly, or not at all. I don't think berating or belittling people just for trying to discuss the topic of the thread is going to do anything positive or constructive. Isn't picking apart claims like these exactly what this forum is for?

*And, really, if you don't want to discuss what's being discussed in this thread, I'd suggest simply not opening it any more, rather than trying to end the thread entirely.

I think you left out one crucial aspect ... this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF.

So I think it's accepted by all who post here that discussions should, at least in principle, be tied to the scientific method (and of course it's quite OK to discuss what that method is).

Yes, perhaps we should try harder to make the iron-clad chains of logic, between "Mills theory" and his "free energy device" scam clearer.

Perhaps we should question those who approvingly post aspects of "Mills theory" more closely on the extent to which they accept it as a whole (that's certainly what Mills intends). On this: many of UncertainH's posts express an interest in certain, um, alternative views (e.g. extended electron structure), but she has also made it clear that she does not accept "Mills theory" in its entirety; I have suggested that these topics be discussed in a separate thread.

And perhaps we should state, every time, that if it's "Mills theory" we're discussing, then it's totally DOA ... because "hydrinos" (a, perhaps the, central prediction of "Mills theory") do not exist.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

On that note, I don't have the knowledge in maths or scientific knowledge to comment intelligently on optiongeek's claim re Mills' classical description of the electron magnetic moment, but I do know that it's the best argument I've seen made in this thread in a while. I've often heard it said on this board that it's worth engaging with outlandish theories for the peanut gallery - so that people who aren't posting but instead only observing will be given access to accurate information and reasoned arguments. I know that if I was a member of this peanut gallery that I'd be finding optiongeek a lot more convincing than almost anybody else, and I'd be more inclined to take Mills seriously than not. I don't think it'd strike me that optiongeek was the one trying to distract away from questions he couldn't answer.

Oh but that's the whole point isn't it? Everyone has their own silos. Everyone sits in the peanut gallery when something outside their silo comes up.

But we have so far in this thread covered every possible silo from nearly every angle imaginable, from business to engineering to chemistry to physics, even some regulatory knowledge was presented here.

1. Still haven't seen a single hydrino.
2. Still haven't seen a working prototype produce power.
3. Still haven't seen a published rebuttal on Phelps Clementson 2012
4. Still haven't seen any hydrino crystals
5. Still haven't seen any dihydrino liquid

What this all means is that even if certain maths are elegant, they are completely wasted due to being forced to describe imaginary unicorn poop.

So from the beginning, the radiation Mills calls hydrinos is just plasma physics he didn't understand combined with splatter surrounding the electrodes he uses. Hydrino crystals are just hydrogen embrittlement. His so called working prototypes never actually ran at a net increase in power over the combined energies of electrical input and release of chemical and potential energy of refinement. And cryo-distilled dihydrino liquid is an out and out 100% fraudulent fabrication.

Thus there really is no reason to come up with magical elegant theoretical physics to describe new unknown phenomenon. There is no new phenomenon to describe.

And just so we are clear 100%

If you think there is some new unknown phenomenon to describe, then

Show me

Or else go back to your peanut gallery and leave the critical thinking to the adults in the room.

 

[JeanTate]

On that note, I don't have the knowledge in maths or scientific knowledge to comment intelligently on optiongeek's claim re Mills' classical description of the electron magnetic moment, but I do know that it's the best argument I've seen made in this thread in a while.

May I ask, why do you think that?

I've often heard it said on this board that it's worth engaging with outlandish theories for the peanut gallery - so that people who aren't posting but instead only observing will be given access to accurate information and reasoned arguments. I know that if I was a member of this peanut gallery that I'd be finding optiongeek a lot more convincing than almost anybody else, and I'd be more inclined to take Mills seriously than not. I don't think it'd strike me that optiongeek was the one trying to distract away from questions he couldn't answer.

Let me try this then: do you regard physics (in particular) as attempting to discover patterns in what we can see (in the broadest sense) that have universal explanatory power (in the sense of everywhere and everywhen, and everything we can observe)?

Why is this important? Because any such "descriptions of patterns" (a.k.a. scientific theory), within its stated scope of applicability, is open to being shown to be inconsistent with reality at any point of contact with reality (a.k.a. what's predicted doesn't match what's observed).

Bringing this back to Mills: he claims, as do most if not all his fans here, that his theory is universal in its scope of applicability. One inevitable corollary: if any sufficiently well established set of observations can be shown to be inconsistent with this theory, then we are free to consider it a failed theory. And say so. Loudly and clearly. And it matters not one jot that some parts of the theory seem elegant.

Perhaps the peanut gallery doesn't understand, or accept this; what to do then?

If it's the former, then yes, those of us who post in rebuttal of what Mills' fans post re his theory should spend more effort in making this inevitable corollary clear (and also, perhaps, why it is inevitable).

If it's the latter, then let's have a full-throated discussion and defense of science and the scientific method.

What do you think?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you left out one crucial aspect ... this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF.

So I think it's accepted by all who post here that discussions should, at least in principle, be tied to the scientific method (and of course it's quite OK to discuss what that method is).

Well, I don't think that posting a countdown to a particular date while claiming it's the date on which markie is saying that there will be concrete, independent evidence of a hydrino generator - despite the fact that markie has long since walked that back and definitively said that he does not expect that to happen by that date - has much to do with the scientific method. Examining whether a particular aspect of Mills' theory is mathematically more rigorous, more parsimonious, and better fits the available data than the accepted quantum mechanical formulae would be a closer fit, to my mind.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What this all means is that even if certain maths are elegant, they are completely wasted due to being forced to describe imaginary unicorn poop.

It would seem to me that this is not an argument against the mathematics, but on the conclusions drawn from that mathematics.

If you think there is some new unknown phenomenon to describe, then

Show me

Or else go back to your peanut gallery and leave the critical thinking to the adults in the room.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of combative posting that I think is counter-productive.

Seriously, when was it that the kooks started posting mathematical formulae, inviting discussion of them, and the sceptics started posting repetitive rants characterised by different font sizes and colours?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It would seem to me that this is not an argument against the mathematics, but on the conclusions drawn from that mathematics.

2+2=4
2=4-2
0=4-2-2
0=0
I dare you to find any errors in my elegant math.
Thus hydrinos do exist.
So sayeth we all.

Get it yet? Math to have any meaning needs to describe something real. There absolutely is no need to invent new math equations to describe hydrinos if it can be shown that hydrinos don't exist to begin with and the readings Mills thought were significant are nothing more than experimental error.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of combative posting that I think is counter-productive.

Seriously, when was it that the kooks started posting mathematical formulae, inviting discussion of them, and the sceptics started posting repetitive rants characterised by different font sizes and colours?

You don't see any reason to be combative with people committing 100's of millions of dollars in fraud? Oh and by the way, I started using that repetitive font when Markie kept dodging the question. He knows that it is a lie but can't bring himself to admit it. Probably not even brave enough to ask to see a vial himself. Because deep down he knows its a lie. There is no cryo-distilled dihydrino liquid. Pure donkey doo doo.

Mills got lazy. He got away with those fake hydrino crystals so easily, he thought he could pretend cryo-distilled dihydrino gas could be done without even needing to make up a pretend vial of it. It's just ridiculous.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

May I ask, why do you think that?

When kooks post threads here claiming to have overturned Einstein, or whatever, one common thread is that they post in terms of thought experiments and refuse to do the maths associated with real physics. Here what I'm seeing is optiongeek posting the maths and everybody else responding with dismissive verbosity.

If the maths is wrong, I'd like to see how it's wrong - whether that be by being based on faulty premises and assumptions, whether it's performing mathematical equivocation and combining things that cannot be combined, whether it's applicable only if applied in a very specific way to a very specific set of circumstances*, or whatever else. If it's right but the underlying theory in wrong, I'd like to understand why it is that the maths is right, and why it is that this maths isn't used out in the real world.

Bringing this back to Mills: he claims, as do most if not all his fans here, that his theory is universal in its scope of applicability. One inevitable corollary: if any sufficiently well established set of observations can be shown to be inconsistent with this theory, then we are free to consider it a failed theory. And say so. Loudly and clearly. And it matters not one jot that some parts of the theory seem elegant.

I don't think that's true. Mercury's orbit is well established and can be shown to be inconsistent with Newton's theory of gravitation and laws of motion, yet we don't consider those "failed". If you want to describe the motion of snooker balls, you turn to Newton. If NASA wants to put someone on the moon, they turn to Newton.

Newton's theory wasn't "a failed theory", it is just applicable in more limited circumstances than was originally thought. It had a narrower scope than had been previously thought.

Similarly, whether or not Mills is right about hydrinos (and I think there's plenty of evidence that he is wrong), has no bearing on whether or not he's right about any particular equation. And if an equation he has derived himself is both accurate and more parsimonious and elegant than the equations already in use, then why shouldn't people use it? And, if it is those things then, regardless of the source, isn't that kind of cool?

Personally, I suspect that it's wrong in some way that I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand, and I base that conclusion on the other things surrounding it - not least the way Mills has behaved suspiciously in the past, like changing the company name and attempting to erase from existence previous claims. But I'm not going to pretend that that is, in and of itself, a rebuttal to optiongeek's post. It's not. And treating it like it is is, if anything, just giving ammunition to the cries of "Mills' theories don't get any traction because there's a conspiracy interested in maintaining the status quo which has tarnished his reputation so people are afraid to engage with his ideas for fear of being thought foolish, and because people have a vested interest in the status quo and are therefore afraid that he might be right".

It's wholly counter-productive.

*Like, to give a spurious analogical example, if I were to give a formula for accurately predicting a die roll as being 6x , where x is the number of cars I can see parked outside my window, and the formula only works if x is 1 and the die rolled a 6.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Math to have any meaning needs to describe something real. There absolutely is no need to invent new math equations to describe hydrinos if it can be shown that hydrinos don't exist to begin with and the readings Mills thought were significant are nothing more than experimental error.

The equation in question isn't alleged to describe hydrinos.

You don't see any reason to be combative with people committing 100's of millions of dollars in fraud?

I can understand the impulse, but I think it's counter-productive. It depends on whether your goal is to help prevent more fraud being committed, or to make yourself feel better by working up some righteous anger or by looking down on people by mocking them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You don't see any reason to be combative with people committing 100's of millions of dollars in fraud?

Nitpick: It's not hundreds of millions, at least not yet. It's tens of millions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nitpick: It's not hundreds of millions, at least not yet. It's tens of millions.

are you sure?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The equation in question isn't alleged to describe hydrinos.

I hereby allege it. Prove me wrong.

I can understand the impulse, but I think it's counter-productive. It depends on whether your goal is to help prevent more fraud being committed, or to make yourself feel better by working up some righteous anger or by looking down on people by mocking them.

Not going for either. I am simply attempting to get Markie to

Show me

You know sometimes when a person says show me he could potentially be mocking them. But in this case I actually want Markie to show me. Seriously. Show me. It's not hard to understand. Just two words. Show me.

The claim was made that hydrino crystals existed, and at least Mills brought out some welding slag and some readings he didn't understand to at least pretend he has something. He was wrong but at least he tried.

But this last one is entirely different. The claim was made that Mills succeeded in cryodistilling dihydrino in liquid helium. That's a very specific claim. He even patented the process. (might be patent pending, not sure)

This is a complete 100% lie. Total BS. Fraud pure and simple. Mills hasn't even attempted to show pretend dihydrino liquid because it doesn't exist. Even pretend dihydrino liquid doesn't even pretend exist. Markie knows this too by now. Because by now Markie has attempted to find some evidence, a picture, even a poor quality youtube vid, even a picture of glass of water labeled Dihydrino by Mills...anything..and yet he has nada zip zero. He damn sure hasn't got any verified by an independent lab. That's beyond certain.

And I am not going to let it rest either. This one he cant dodge. He is repeating lies or making up lies himself, either way it is still lies.