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

[markie]

Of course he is. For instance, he's claiming (if your representation of those claims are accurate) that classical electromagnetic interactions (exchange of photons) between the electron and the configuration of the double slit apparatus causes the interference pattern in the single-electron double slit experiment. Classical electromagnetic physics predicts no such thing (yes, there are interactions, but no, they would not produce the observed pattern), which is why that experiment is considered a significant "proof of concept" experiment for quantum mechanics.

Oh contraire, classical physics can indeed describe such patterns. Look at chapter 8, particularly Fraunhoffer diffraction. Then google it. Fraunhofer diffraction occurs when a wave goes through a single aperture. It forms discrete bands. This is from the interaction between the EM field of the wave and the aperture and is well described classically. Now when there are two or more apertures things get much more complicated, but the end result is the so called interference pattern results. It isn't really interference but is caused by the interaction with the wave with the aperture, and superposition with other waves from other apertures.

It's more important what he hasn't done: an experiment to prove that his theory is correct where its predictions differ from current prevailing theories. For instance, showing a double-slit-like interference pattern in an apparatus where the electron can only pass through a single slit, but the material surrounding the slit is arranged to mimic the electromagnetic behavior of a double slit. Perhaps use a pseudo-slit of a thin layer of a low-permittivity material. (Electrons accumulating on the nonconductive pseudo-slit surface would be a complication, but one that could be dealt with in many different ways for a single-electron system.) Or if not that, something else gleaned from the thousands of pages of theory he's written. Something that can be demonstrated in a real experiment.

The only attempt Mills has made to verify his theories in such a way, the only prediction he's actually made and attempted to verify, is the predicted production of excess energy in commercially useful quantities via the conversion of hydrogen to hydrino in a wide variety of different reaction conditions. And that verification has failed for thirty years.

It hasn't failed for thirty years. Rather, verifications have been successful for thirty years. Having verified excess energy and having excess energy that is commercially practical are two very different things.

 

[markie]

And you can quote from papers which show these lines (or a subset thereof) have been observed, in the sky?

I could quote from papers where the hyperfine lines have been observed in the lab. Not the sky. As you should know far infrared spectroscopy in cosmology is pretty new.

And this is relevant, how exactly?

Because the 21cm line stands out like a sore thumb, for good reason. You're saying that sub-millimetre should as well, but it is a different ballgame at those energies and you should know that.

My hilite.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Also, are you suggesting that "line radiation" dominates, in the sub-mm to cm part of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Hey, you're the 'astronomer', you could tell us. It would depend where one is looking. If one is looking at cold dust clouds you could detect the rotation lines and the fine structure lines of certain molecules if the spectrometer was geared for those particular frequencies as it is with the Herschel space telescope. But there is the backdrop of the CMB continuum as well and of course just the far infrared continuum from slightly heated dust clouds.

 

[markie]

And this is relevant to "Mills theory" how, exactly?

Is this, perchance, a somewhat hidden example of the logical fallacy, false dichotomy, sorta "QM/quantum theory/QED is BAD, THEREFORE Mills MUST be RIGHT!"?

If Mills theory is so good, why does it need to make any comparison with QM? Can't it stand on its own two feet (so to speak)?

More broadly, do you post this sort of thing in order to distract ISF members (and the peanut gallery) from the ~30 year, huge failure of Mills/BLP?

It goes without saying that showing QM and QED as seriously flawed does not show Mills' theory is right. The sad fact is that most people don't know those theories are seriously flawed. It is only reasonable that those flaws should be juxtaposed to the consistency and accuracy of Mills GUTCP. For instance look up "vacuum catastrophe". Let's put it this way ; Mills GUTCP doesn't suffer from catastrophes like that.

 

[markie]

14 January 2019 markie: Emphasizes Mills double slit insanity which has no photon exchange described classically with Maxwell's equations !

Consider the single electron double-slit experiment thought experiment.
A electron approaches a screen with 2 slits with a detecting screen beyond. Classically, the electron either hits the slit screen and stops, goes thru 1 slit and hits the detector screen (or maybe goes through both slits for Mills electron stupidity). That slit screen will be made of unspecified atoms. There is no way to work out any interactions between that electron and these unspecified atoms. Part of the actual thought experiment is that there is no interactions. This is a rational, physical presumption since an single electron could only be deflected by interactions and that would be a bit of noise.

That is another bit of Mills double slit insanity: Interactions that cannot be calculated magically create an inference pattern.

The real world single electron double-slit experiment had no slits until 1 recent experiment !
Double-slit experiment where an electron microscope emits 1 electron at a time into an "electron biprism" which is a wire between two parallel plates. There are 2 paths that the electron can travel.

Feynman’s double-slit experiment gets a makeover (2013) is individual electrons passing through a gold-plated silicon screen with 2 slits. There is 1 electron per second passing through the apparatus. Each electron his a different spot on the detector and an interference pattern is built up over a period of 2 hours.

You keep repeating that Mills has the electron going through both slits. He doesn't. You're confusing it with the majority opinion of QM strangely enough.

 

[markie]

I appreciate optiongeek's commitment to discussing the claims and the alleged science behind them. One major difference between optiongeek and me is that he has been impressed by "the derivations that lead up to the astonishing results", whereas I have spotted errors, apparently fatal, in each of the half dozen or so of Mills's derivations I have looked at so far. In none of those cases did it take more than an hour of study before I found a serious mistake.

In looking at the derivation of equation (1.228) that optiongeek quoted above, it took less than 30 minutes to trace the derivation of that equation back to the following absurd claim on page 97 of the document cited by optiongeek:

What Mills says there is basically the exact opposite of what his equation (22) actually says.

As anyone who has taken a second-semester course in calculus (or even a semester of linear algebra) should recall:

E = m ∙ B = m B cos θ​

where m and B are the magnitudes of m and B, and θ is the angle between those vectors. The extreme values of E occur when θ is zero or pi, but all possible intermediate values are obtained by taking θ as a value between zero and pi. In short, equation (22) says a continuum of energies is possible.

I realize that quantum mechanics can exclude intermediate angles/values, but Mills is pretending to use the equations of classical physics to derive that exclusion. He says intermediate values are excluded by his equation (22). He's wrong; that's the opposite of what his equation (22) actually says.

The paragraph preceding equation (1.228) derives that equation from equation (1.168), which is related to equation (28) of Box 1.1, which is preceded by the ridiculous claim quoted above.

Classical physics can describe systems that converge so rapidly to a metastable state as to mimic a quantum effect, but intermediate states will be visible within the state transitions if you look closely enough. For example, digital logic gates can be built out of bipolar transistors, and the intermediate states that appear within transitions can be ignored so long as you don't try to run the gates at too high a clock speed.

But that's not what markie has been claiming, and that is not what Mills has been doing. To extract quantum behavior from continuous functions, Mills had to pull a fast one somewhere. He did that here.

This is not a 'fast one'. It's out in plain view. The magnetic dipole will align with the direction of the magnetic flux to obtain a lowest energy state. So theta is 0 or 180, so cos(theta) is 1 or -1. In this way there is no continuum of values. Again, as I've said before, the measurement environment (in this case the magnetic flux) alters what is measured so that it takes on discrete values, classically.

 

[markie]

Quantization of angular momentum cannot be derived from the laws of classical physics. Because Mills could not derive quantization from classical physics, he had to assume that axiom of quantum mechanics.

markie has claimed, repeatedly, that Mills can explain quantum phenomena using only classical physics. For example:

We have made progress here: optiongeek agrees that one of markie's silliest and most common claims is false.

Rather, I've said before that Mills blends classical physics with older quantum physics. The latter includes givens like quantization of angular momentum. It could be that in time Mills or someone else will explain why this is so at a more fundamental level.

 

[JeanTate]

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?

As of today, we have to wait a mere 19 (49) (-13) (x) 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. And michaelsuede, and Mills himself.

I'm not sure if others have been experiencing this, but the ISF has been down a lot in the last 24 hours or so; I've even had to start again several times yesterday. I do not know how long this will continue, but at the expense of completeness, I'll post while I can, now.

The (x) and above are for the number of days since michaelsuede's bet came due, and for some promise or other by Mills. I'll have to dig both up, and the latter may be a challenge (to find the first such), so I'll likely go for just one that looks good in my initial search.

Aside from the revolution in physics, chemistry, and more, if Mills is right, the global economy is in for a dramatic change, perhaps as great as that which followed the use of steam in factories, or the introduction of grid electricity. Unless, of course, Mills is quite wrong about how easy it is to produce hydrinos, and how unreactive they are. So a big caveat is what the cost of building a hydrino-powered generator would be, and what it would cost to maintain one for, say, 40 years.

How big? For starters, fossil fuel power plants would become uneconomical, in any free market. Smaller electricity generators too, though perhaps there'd still be a market for the smallest. Land and sea transportation would be revolutionized; again, all but perhaps the smallest engines currently in use would become uneconomical. Air transportation may take longer to change: it may prove difficult to use hydrinos to power jet engines, for example.

What else? Production of hydrinos produces a lot of heat, for essentially just the cost of the reaction vessel. So many industrial processes which rely directly on heat would switch to suitable hydrino-based sources.

Perhaps the most profound impact would be that the net production of the greenhouse gases CO₂ and methane could fall to close to early industrialization levels.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In the space of two consecutive posts, markie contradicts himself:

This is not a 'fast one'. It's out in plain view. The magnetic dipole will align with the direction of the magnetic flux to obtain a lowest energy state. So theta is 0 or 180, so cos(theta) is 1 or -1. In this way there is no continuum of values. Again, as I've said before, the measurement environment (in this case the magnetic flux) alters what is measured so that it takes on discrete values, classically.

Rather, I've said before that Mills blends classical physics with older quantum physics. The latter includes givens like quantization of angular momentum. It could be that in time Mills or someone else will explain why this is so at a more fundamental level.

It could be that, in time, Mills or someone else would explain the highlighted contradiction at a more honest level. That is not the way to bet.

From the introduction to Volume 1 of what has been accurately described as Mills's Big Book of Boo-boos:

Furthermore, it is shown herein that the quantization of atomic energy levels arises classically without invoking new physics.

Quantization is not classical. According to optiongeek, and confirmed by even a cursory examination of the Big Book, Mills assumes quantization without deriving it from classical physics.

The claim that Mills can explain quantum phenomena using only classical physics is false. Both Mills and markie have made that false claim on numerous occasions.

 

[JeanTate]

It goes without saying that showing QM and QED as seriously flawed does not show Mills' theory is right. The sad fact is that most people don't know those theories are seriously flawed. It is only reasonable that those flaws should be juxtaposed to the consistency and accuracy of Mills GUTCP. For instance look up "vacuum catastrophe". Let's put it this way ; Mills GUTCP doesn't suffer from catastrophes like that.

So, not science. Just plain diversion and reliance on the logical fallacy, false dichotomy.

Got it.

 

[Myriad]

Oh contraire, classical physics can indeed describe such patterns. Look at chapter 8, particularly Fraunhoffer diffraction. Then google it. Fraunhofer diffraction occurs when a wave goes through a single aperture. It forms discrete bands. This is from the interaction between the EM field of the wave and the aperture and is well described classically. Now when there are two or more apertures things get much more complicated, but the end result is the so called interference pattern results. It isn't really interference but is caused by the interaction with the wave with the aperture, and superposition with other waves from other apertures.

I didn't say "such patterns," I said the actual patterns observed in the actual experiments.

The Doctrine of Signatures doesn't apply in science. A plant producing seeds that are shaped kind of like a kidney doesn't mean it cures disorders of the kidney, and the causes of diffraction fringes that look kind of like interference patterns don't explain the interference patterns observed in actual double slit experiments.

It hasn't failed for thirty years. Rather, verifications have been successful for thirty years. Having verified excess energy and having excess energy that is commercially practical are two very different things.

The one prediction Mills has made from his physics theories that can be objectively tested is his prediction of commercially practical excess energy production. That prediction has failed for thirty years. No commercially practical excess energy has appeared.

Predictions of ones own future behavior and predictions of unverifiable claims are not useful in assessing scientific theories. Mills has indeed predicted he will make unverifiable inadequately documented claims of having excess energy, and he sure enough has made unverifiable inadequately documented claims of having excess energy, consistently for thirty years, but so what?

"If my physics theories are correct I'll eat a hot dog tomorrow" is not a prediction that has diagnostic value, whether or not I claim, sometime tomorrow, that when no one was looking I ate a hot dog.

 

[JeanTate]

Afaik a couple of independently minded Mills' fans from years ago have gone out on their own, with their own modified theories, trying to get, perhaps, better results.

Good anticipation. This was to be (and still is) the subject of a later "daily countdown" commentary. Helpful input, thanks.

Others like myself think Mills and his collaborators have done a supreme job over the years of producing experiments that document hydrino formation environments and product.

Nice to know. However, it doesn't explain why you, and other Mills fans, have not even attempted to replicate and extend Mills' work, on producing a hydrino-based generator. After all, as hundreds of posts in this thread have pointed out, Mills seems to be extremely incompetent when it comes to converting heat to electricity.

 

[Darat]

That's true and when you sit on the dead horse and it obviously doesn't move markie will tell you its actually IS moving..

Rather for Mills he will place the dead horse in the back of a lorry and then claim the lorry is moving faster than predicted by QM so the horse is actually moving the lorry !

 

[JeanTate]

I see that optiongeek is still actively posting.

So, bump:

How could you be certain that ISF members like Squeegee Beckenheim would know what you were talking about?

ISF members who are interested in the material but unsure what I am describing can do the same thing I did when I first encountered GUTCP - readstudy the derivations that lead up to the astonishing results. When unfamiliar terms are encountered, follow the references, even if that mean buying textbooks and learning the underlying material. I began as skeptic, certain Mills was trolling for cash just like nearly everyone else on this thread. The difference is that refused to let anyone else do my thinking for me. Fifteen years later, I've learned quite a bit, but nothing that makes me think Mills is a troll.

Thanks.

May I ask, why do you think this is an answer to my question?

And why did you not answer my questions?

I'm quite sensitive about any of my contributions generating more heat than light. I consciously limit my posting to only those where I feel certain the ratio will be unambiguously < 1. I apologize if that creates hard feelings, they are not intended.

Well, one reason for the "generating more heat than light" may be because you don't seem very keen to answer questions about the material that you post.

Or, bluntly, you are a "hit and run" poster.

Back to your post about g/2: why did you not quote the uncertainties for g/2 and alpha? Why did you not cite the source you used for the value of g/2?

More generally, in physics (and science in general), what is your approach to/thinking about uncertainties?

To repeat:

Why did you not quote the uncertainties for g/2 and alpha?

Why did you not cite the source you used for the value of g/2?

More generally, in physics (and science in general), what is your approach to/thinking about uncertainties?

 

[JeanTate]

And you can quote from papers which show these lines (or a subset thereof) have been observed, in the sky?

I could quote from papers where the hyperfine lines have been observed in the lab. Not the sky. <irrelevancy snipped>

What are the observed wavelengths (or frequencies) of such lines? What are the relative intensities?

And this is relevant, how exactly?

Because the 21cm line stands out like a sore thumb, for good reason.

It does?

When was 21 cm line radiation first observed, by radio astronomers? How long after the first extragalactic radio source was reported were extragalactic 21 cm HI lines observed?

You're saying that sub-millimetre should as well, but it is a different ballgame at those energies and you should know that.

Actually, I said nothing of the sort. Please stop making things up.

My hilite.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Also, are you suggesting that "line radiation" dominates, in the sub-mm to cm part of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Hey, you're the 'astronomer', you could tell us. It would depend where one is looking. If one is looking at cold dust clouds you could detect the rotation lines and the fine structure lines of certain molecules if the spectrometer was geared for those particular frequencies as it is with the Herschel space telescope. But there is the backdrop of the CMB continuum as well and of course just the far infrared continuum from slightly heated dust clouds.

My hilite.

So, your "evidence" is your own, personal "would"s and "could"s. Kinda like, "trust me, I've read Mills' BBoBB, and so I know what I'm talking about".

Got it.

 

[JeanTate]

This is not a 'fast one'. It's out in plain view. The magnetic dipole will align with the direction of the magnetic flux to obtain a lowest energy state. So theta is 0 or 180, so cos(theta) is 1 or -1. In this way there is no continuum of values. Again, as I've said before, the measurement environment (in this case the magnetic flux) alters what is measured so that it takes on discrete values, classically.

Wait. Let me see if I understand this claim correctly.

You are claiming that the physicists who have done thousands of experiments relevant to your claim had such a radically poor understanding of what they were doing that they didn't realize that their experiments could measure "discrete values" only, no matter how carefully they set up their experiments to avoid this? Have I got it right?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I hereby allege it.

On what evidence is this allegation based?

Prove me wrong.

The best I can do is to direct you to the original post and to point out that what you're asking isn't how the burden of proof works.

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.

Have fun with that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is not a 'fast one'. It's out in plain view. The magnetic dipole will align with the direction of the magnetic flux to obtain a lowest energy state. So theta is 0 or 180, so cos(theta) is 1 or -1.

One of which is, in fact, the highest energy state, unless in the wonderful world of Mills you can't tell the north from the south pole. Has Mills managed to repeal basic navigation as well as QM?

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Other than the fact that, in the relevant post here, it was not explicitly alleged, how can you be sure of this?

Are you seriously asking me how I know optiongeek didn't allege it, other than by the fact that optiongeek didn't allege it?

Do you know what "g/2" is? What "alpha" is? Do you know how Mills relates this to hydrinos? Did optiongeek make clear what this is? Do you know how the values of each (g/2 and alpha) are determined, experimentally? Do you know how such experimental determinations would be, um, compromised if one were to use "Mills theory" rather than QM? And so on.

These are indeed the kinds of questions that it's worth asking. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm calling for. Much better than dismissive hand-waving - and the dismissal certainly shouldn't be happening by people who don't know the answers to those questions. To honestly dismiss something, I think you need to first understand it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

However, I don't think any of such posts is just that.

I didn't criticise the totality of your posts, just your countdown which is literally marking the time until markie will be forced to walk back from something he walked back from months ago. I honestly don't know what you think will be proven when that date is reached and you pull out your "gotcha" of there being no working model available and markie can say "yeah, I know. I said months ago that there wouldn't be".

But you're right, I should also add michaelsuede's prediction, and consider adding Mills' many too.

The deadline for michaelsuede's has long passed (which is why he lost the bet he welched on), and he hasn't visited this board in over a year. I think all the deadlines Mills has given have passed, too.

However, if all that's being claimed is a "fitting formula" - which is what you may be hinting at - by all means, yes, let's discuss it. In any such discussion, I contend, introduction of "the accepted quantum mechanical formulae" is irrelevant; the only which should concern us is how well this fitting formula works, and what it's wider applicability may be.

That'd be great.

And, to be clear, aside from some of UncertainH's posts, IIRC all posts of the kind you are referring to very much concern the validity and applicability of "Mills theory". As a whole.

Not the post of optiongeek's I was specifically referencing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Need to very careful with that. These guys are probably here hoping that someone will go on for a page or two with stuff that makes it looks like they are being taken seriously in science circles. Nobody should go for too long without pointing out that this stuff has already been refuted and that this is a scam and not science. Don't make it look like science.

The line is that people thoughtlessly dismiss the fact that it's science due to stick-in-the-mud-ness, scientists fearing losing their livelihoods when quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong, and a conspiracy to harm Mills. Thoughtlessly dismissing something presented here plays in to that completely. Actually looking at it scientifically and demonstrating why it's wrong, however, achieves the opposite.

There's a reason why Rathke is still cited as the best argument against Mills, years after his paper was published.