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

[RecoveringYuppy]

Have fun with that.

Huh? Why is it bad for us to ask for the evidence they actually claim to have and claim to want to show us??

 

[JeanTate]

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

No. But it's too stale now.

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.

Thanks.

I kinda thought this was the case, but as you were pretty blanket in your earlier post(s) - and did not explicitly mention any exceptions - there's no way I could have been sure.

 

[JeanTate]

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".

Thanks for the clarification.

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.

Indeed.

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.

OK ... but why would any such discussion need to take place in this thread?

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.

Well, on this we will need to agree to disagree.

As I read that optiongeek post, "Mills theory" is central to the point being made. More explicitly, optiongeek seemed quite uninterested in the formula being merely a fitting formula.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Fair enough.

Except that, IMHO, there's a step before "scientifically and demonstrating why it's wrong". One which I try to ask about before getting into these two; namely, making sure I understand the claim being made, insisting on primary sources being cited (to distinguish between an ISF member's personal views and those being - allegedly - reported), etc.

My experience with markie's and optiongeek's posts (most of them anyway), in this thread, is that insisting on these things shows there's no need for "scientifically and demonstrating why it's wrong", if only because the proponents themselves demonstrate that the claims are without merit (scientifically).

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

Really?

Myself, I think the point constantly being made in this thread - that Mills has failed to produce at least a working prototype, or any samples of hydrinos or hydrino compounds - is a far stronger argument. Despite ~30 years of promises.

 

[Darat]

To continue with my apparent scientific illiteracy. What has any of the previous “scientifically literate" posts had to do with generating excess power by an unknown process? My poor illiterate brain can't find the link.

 

[Darat]

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.

You are talking about 2 different things.

The first thing we have are the Mills claims about being able to produce affordable clean power generators that once set going will produce excess power for decades.

The second thing is his sales patter which has two distinct veins, the first is the big dollars in power generating, holding the carrot of immense wealth in front of those canny enough to see the invisible pinstripe suit he wears, the second is his flim flam about "science".

Just because one vein of his patter "sounds" scientific doesn't actually mean it is science.

Until he has results that do in fact require new science talking about his marketing “science " patter is exactly the same as science fiction fans discussing the science of Dr Who. In other words it can be quite entertaining but has no bearing on real science.

Not saying people shouldn't engage in discussing his marketing materials but let's not forget it ain't actual science.

 

[markie]

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

A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.

Priceless. So there are two lowest energy states but there's an energy difference between them? Did you misunderstand the meaning of the word "lowest"?

The actual, lie-free position as far as classical mechanics is concerned is that a magnetic dipole can align in any direction with the magnertic flux, but its energy is at a minimum in one direction and a maximum in the other, with intermediate values at any angle in between. In classical mechanics this gives a continuum of energy states, but with maximum and minimum values.

In your fantasy world, magnetic dipoles possess volition, and demand to occupy either the maximum or minimum energy states, you pretend that these are both minima, and then you claim that this results in the alignment being quantised. You're arriving at quantisation by arbitrarily dismissing all values but the maximum and minimum, and then offering a nonsensical reason for that arbitrary dismissal.

I think you need to go back to the book and re-read that chapter. And if it says what you think it does, then Mills is spouting nonsense as badly as you are.

Dave

 

[LTC8K6]

"Hey man, I have a cool new power generator to show you!"

Charlie Brown, and Lucy with the football, for the next 30 years...

 

[markie]

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?

I'm not sure you're understanding. We well know that a magnetic dipole wants to be either parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field. We also know that a photon going through a polarizer will be become - polarized - in a certain direction. Discrete values. (In classical physics the polarizer plays a physical part in altering the polarization of a photon, not so with QM ; it is merely a mathematical selector from an infinite, continuous superposition of polarization states.)

 

[markie]

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


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?


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

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.

I'm not making it up. You have strongly implied that the hyperfine lines of hydrino should be as glaringly obvious as the 21 cm line in the cosmos if hydrinos exist. And no, I'm not making up things about the far infrared either, and Mills' book has naught to do with it. You should know, you're an astronomer. See for instance http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/~spifiweb/Motivation.html

 

[markie]

To continue with my apparent scientific illiteracy. What has any of the previous “scientifically literate" posts had to do with generating excess power by an unknown process? My poor illiterate brain can't find the link.

If there is to be excess power release there must be a low energy product. Mills calls this low energy product dihydrino. Mills predicts that dihydrino has certain properties, such as specific rovibrational spectra and hyperfine spectra. He also predicts the spectral characteristics of the photon energy released to get to the lower energy state. If these agree with experiment, we can be confident we have a low energy product and can thereby anticipate excess energy to be produced.

 

[Myriad]

If there is to be excess power release there must be a low energy product. Mills calls this low energy product dihydrino. Mills predicts that dihydrino has certain properties, such as specific rovibrational spectra and hyperfine spectra. He also predicts the spectral characteristics of the photon energy released to get to the lower energy state. If these agree with experiment, we can be confident we have a low energy product and can thereby anticipate excess energy to be produced.

If there is a unicorn, then like all living animals it must defecate. If there are rare species of plants that require unicorn poop nutrients to thrive, those plants would be expected to produce unusual kinds of pollen.

As it turn out, I have a whole barn full of unicorns. To prove it, I'll show you some drawings of some very unusual-looking plant pollen.

It would be a lot easier and more convincing to allow people to actually look at the unicorns, but like Mills, I just don't feel like it.

 

[Hans]

Why does all this pro-hydrino/Mills talk sound like it comes from someone who is fully convinced that there is another single digit number between 5 and 6?

 

[Hellbound]

Why does all this pro-hydrino/Mills talk sound like it comes from someone who is fully convinced that there is another single digit number between 5 and 6?

No kidding!

I mean, we all know there's not, one, but both sive and fix are in there.

 

[Reality Check]

Thank you for your analysis. Yes, quantization of the allowed energy states doesn't sound "classical".....

You are beginning to grasp a fundamental part of Mills "classical physics" insanity, optiongeek. Mills lies about having a classical physics theory because he plugs in cherry picked parts of QM such as quantization of spin. This is insane because QM is a coherent whole. If quantization of spin is correct then the whole of QM is correct and denying QM is the basis of Mills insanity. For example, QM predicted the "teleportation" of quantum states and we have experiments to do that. Mills cannot produces this classically. Mills will have to include that QM result and many more without any underlying theory. That is not science.

For quantization of spin, the empirical evidence includes the Stern–Gerlach experiment. That gives a result (2 bands at the detector) that is impossible in classical physics which predicts 1 wide band due to random angular momentum. Mills delusion of electrons as atomic sized spheres has random angular momentum.

 

[Reality Check]

Mills CMBR = power from the Universe" insanity (page 1510)

Typo. CMB radiation intensity peak of around 2mm is of course from a hugely redshifted (and near perfect) blackbody curve, and z (measure of redshift) would be more on the order of something like 1000, not 0.

That is the standard, evidence based CMBR, markie, not Mills "power from the Universe" insanity (page 1510).

 

[Reality Check]

A blatant "classical physics can indeed describe such patterns" lie

Oh contraire, classical physics can indeed describe such patterns.

15 January 2019 markie: A blatant "classical physics can indeed describe such patterns" lie.

Myriad wrote about the double-slit experiment. This shows that light gives a diffraction pattern for a single slit and an interference pattern for 2 slits. When done with electrons there is a band/interference pattern, however the band can be interpreted as an extremely peaked diffraction pattern.

The point about the double-slit experiment is that objects that act like particles and classically cannot produce an interface pattern, do produce an interface pattern.

• Photons act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
• Elections act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
• C60 molecules (buckyballs) act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
• Molecules with 810 atoms act like particles and produce an interface pattern.

double-slit experiment

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. The experiment was first performed with light by Thomas Young in 1801. In 1927, Davisson and Germer demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules.[1][2]
...
If light consisted strictly of ordinary or classical particles, and these particles were fired in a straight line through a slit and allowed to strike a screen on the other side, we would expect to see a pattern corresponding to the size and shape of the slit. However, when this "single-slit experiment" is actually performed, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern in which the light is spread out. The smaller the slit, the greater the angle of spread. The top portion of the image shows the central portion of the pattern formed when a red laser illuminates a slit and, if one looks carefully, two faint side bands. More bands can be seen with a more highly refined apparatus. Diffraction explains the pattern as being the result of the interference of light waves from the slit.

If one illuminates two parallel slits, the light from the two slits again interferes. Here the interference is a more pronounced pattern with a series of alternating light and dark bands. The width of the bands is a property of the frequency of the illuminating light.[15] (See the bottom photograph to the right.) When Thomas Young (1773–1829) first demonstrated this phenomenon, it indicated that light consists of waves, as the distribution of brightness can be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of wavefronts.[5]

Young's experiment is why we abandoned light as particles held for the previous 2 centuries. But then along came the photoelectric effect that showed light was particles. Then we have light acting as both particles and waves. We now have maybe dozens of "particles" acting as both particles and waves even when going through the apparatus

 

[LTC8K6]

Why does all this pro-hydrino/Mills talk sound like it comes from someone who is fully convinced that there is another single digit number between 5 and 6?

Money...

 

[Reality Check]

You keep repeating ....

You keep emphasizing Mills insanity by lying about it.
14 January 2019 markie: Emphasizes Mills double slit insanity which has no photon exchange described classically with Maxwell's equations !