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

[Reality Check]

The obvious fact that repeating lies does not make QM or QED "seriously flawed"

The sad fact is that most people don't know those theories are seriously flawed.

15 January 2019 markie: The obvious fact that repeating lies does not make QM or QED "seriously flawed"

QM and QED work and thus are not flawed. If a theory works by matching the real world then the theory is correct. That is how science works. QED is the most precisely matching theory that has ever existed .

The sad fact is that markie is stupidly implying any physics that he has an ignorant personal issue with is seriously flawed.

 

[Reality Check]

No "vacuum catastrophe" in Mills GUTCP insanity because Mills has insane cosmology

For instance look up "vacuum catastrophe". Let's put it this way ; Mills GUTCP doesn't suffer from catastrophes like that.

15 January 2019 markie: No "vacuum catastrophe" in Mills GUTCP insanity because Mills has insane cosmology that denies dark energy!

The cosmological constant problem (vacuum catastrophe) happens because we have 2 valid working theories that give an energy to vacuum.
We measure that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. That is easily explained in GR by a small value of the cosmological constant. This is a vacuum energy density. The corresponding vacuum energy density from QM may be up to 60 orders of magnitude higher.

Mills has insane lies about dark energy (page 1519) not being predicted. It has been part of the Lambda-CDM model since it was discovered.GR started with a cosmological constant in 1915 (generally set to 0 because there was no evidence for it).

Mills has insane lies about textbook cosmology (bottom of xxvi Preface).

Mills has the stupidity of not explaining a fundamental part of cosmology - dark energy or the observed for 20 years acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish

This is not a 'fast one'....

15 January 2019 markie: Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish.

That "The One-Electron Atom" sction in the document goes from "E=m.B (22)" to "The electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field rather than at a continuum of angles including perpendicular according to Eq. (22). No continuum of energies predicted by Eq. (22) for a pure magnetic dipole are possible." via a calculation of the energy required to change QM[ quantized/B] electron spin (not equation 22).

Equation 22 states that there is a continuum of angles and thus a continuum of energies. Mills deluded book does not have any theory for the "electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field". That is Mills stupidity of including some of QM while asserting that QM is wrong.

Thus: "Mills had to pull a fast one somewhere. He did that here"

 

[JeanTate]

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.

You are correct. I do not understand the point you're trying to make.

We well know that a magnetic dipole wants to be either parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field.

Perhaps it would help - me - if you explain what NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) is, particularly the part about precession.

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.)

Now I'm totally confused.

What does this have to do with magnetic dipoles?

 

[JeanTate]

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.

I did not ... please check your reading comprehension.

Here's what I wrote:

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".

The comparison with the HI 21 cm line is a fiction of your own creation.

And no, I'm not making up things about the far infrared either, and Mills' book has naught to do with it.

Thanks for the admission that this is something you dreamed up by yourself.

You should know, you're an astronomer. See for instance http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/~spifiweb/Motivation.html

Let's see now ...

I asked: "What are the observed wavelengths (or frequencies) of such [hydrino "21 cm line"] lines? What are the relative intensities?"

Your answer? {crickets}

I asked: "It [the 21cm line stands out like a sore thumb, for good reason] 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?"

Your answer? {crickets}

You said "It [whether "line radiation" dominates, in the sub-mm to cm part of the electromagnetic spectrum] 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."

I asked: "So, your "evidence" is your own, personal "would"s and "could"s."

And the source you cite for evidence seems to directly contradict what you wrote.

Interesting.

 

[halleyscomet]

scientists fearing losing their livelihoods when quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong

Ahh, I love that old canard. It’s breathtaking in the scope of historical ignorance needed to support it. Thank you for giving me a chuckle by tossing it out there.

“They fear for their jobs!” The nutters, quacks, and coming men cry, when the reality is that a discovery that upsets much of what was already known OPENS UP whole new areas of research. Nobody gets funding for retreading well-worn paths. They get funding for breaking new ground.

Arguing that Mills would cost existing physicists their jobs if he were right is about as absurd as claiming that the discovery of the Americas resulted in massive unemployment for Europe’s explorers and colonists. Mills being proven right would result in a massive rush of new research and an explosion of new funding from every conceivable source.

Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.

 

[The Man]

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

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

Hyperphysics provides a page to see both diffraction and interference on multi-slit diffraction.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

From this page on Fraunhofer Single Slit Diffraction, the very diffraction markie refers to, one can see is just a form of interference based on the Huygens–Fresnel principle, that every point on a wave front acts a new point source.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslitd.html#c1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle

ETA: A comparison

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sindoub.html#c1

 

[Red Baron Farms]

On what evidence is this allegation based?

I made it up out of thin air. Same as Mills' Grand Theory of Everything Hydrino, but absurdly ridiculously simplified so as to be an argumentum ad absurdum literary devise.

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.

Ding ding ding we have a winner! That was exactly my point in using said literary devise above! You got the exactly correct conclusion. Now apply it to Mills' scam please.

Have fun with that.

Ding ding ding we have another winner! The time for serious discussions about this ridiculous fraud have long since passed. Now it is just the sadist in me teasing the fools stupid enough to take Mills lies up their metaphorical rear end.

But I will be happy to get serious again and stop being such a bad person if only Markie would

Show me some evidence that Mills actually did cryo-distill dihydrino gas.

You and I both know Mills never did any such thing. It is nothing more than delusions. But until Marie retracts this lie, he gets nothing but ridicule from me.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

I agree that we don't want to give the impression that we are dismissing it thoughtlessly. The Mills/BLP proponents here appear to be helping with that impression at the moment by burying the thread is one liner posts. So you do have a point. But don't repeat the arguments, which runs the risk of making it look like there is a new, honest, debate to be had. Just cite them and point out they exist. Naturally it's not necessary to be 100% on this point, if you have some interest in repeating or fleshing out the arguments. I just want to avoid the risk that Mills supporters could point to this thread and say "see, we are participating in debates with scientists".

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

And that is totally meaningless to most people. I think it's better to focus on Mill's failures to deliver on things he's promised are already finished and on the shelf. Easy to understand and doesn't raise the risk that there is valid science to be discussed here.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

No not at all actually. The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop. Having never seen unicorn poop before, he had to try and decipher Mills' description of unicorn poop.

Long before you need theoretical physicists like Rathke to determine if Mills has anything, it is required to pass the judgement of experimental physicists to determine if there is some phenomenon to describe in the first place. Phelps Clementson 2012 quite soundly proved the original phenomenon Mills is attempting to describe is nothing more than quite mundane experimental error caused by splatter, oxidation, contamination, misuse of equipment and Mills poor understanding of ordinary plasma physics.

There is no phenomenon to describe that isn't already described in rather mundane and well known ways.

 

[markie]

[snip]
But I will be happy to get serious again and stop being such a bad person if only Markie would

Show me some evidence that Mills actually did cryo-distill dihydrino gas.

You and I both know Mills never did any such thing. It is nothing more than delusions. But until Marie retracts this lie, he gets nothing but ridicule from me.

Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031990700198X
H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction of plasma gas at liquid nitrogen temperature...

Helium-hydrogen microwave plasmas have substantial He and H emission and served as sources of H2(1/4) that was liquefied by a liquid helium trap that collected it over time. Pure hydrogen microwave plasmas were found to produce H2(1/4) at a slower rate...


3.4. NMR of product H (1/4) from liquid helium trapped plasma gases
The HNMR spectra relative to tetramethylsilane(TMS) of sealed samples of liquid-helium-condensable helium-hydrogen RF plasma gases, high-voltage pulsed discharge hydrogen plasmas, and rt-plasma gases, each dissolved in an NMR solvent, are shown in Figs. 18–22. In each case, the only peak in the spectrum that could not be assigned to common species was the broad singlet peak upfield of H2 at about 1.25 ppm that matched the theoretical position of H2(1/4). The solution-phase NMR of the LHe collected plasma gas provides a definitive test of the theoretically predicted chemical shift of H2(1/4).


http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/49_2_Philadelphia_10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a
higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%)
plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3.

Figure 6 (a)-(g). 1H NMR spectra on sealed samples of liquid- nitrogen-condensable helium-hydrogen plasma gases dissolved in CDCl3 relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS). The solvent peak was
observed at 7.26 ppm, the H 2 peak was observed at 4.63 ppm, and a singlet at 3.22 ppm matched silane. Singlet peaks upfield of H2 were observed at 3.47, 3.02, 2.18, 1.25, 0.85, 0.21, and -1.8 ppm relative to TMS corresponding to solvent-corrected absolute resonance shifts of -29.16, -29.61, -30.45, -31.38, -31.78, -32.42, and -34.43 ppm, respectively. Using Eq. (12), the data indicates that p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10, respectively. The data matched the series H2(1/2), H2(1/3), H2(1/4), H2(1/5), H2(1/6),H2(1/7),and H2(1/10).


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.3438&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Two H(1/p) may react to form H2(1/p) that has vibrational and rotational energies that are p^2 times those of H2 comprising uncatalysed atomic hydrogen (Mills, 2004, 2006). Rotational lines were observed in the 145–300 nm region from atmospheric pressure electron-beam excited argon-hydrogen plasmas. The unprecedented energy spacing of 4^2 times that of hydrogen established the internuclear distance as 1/4 that of H2 and identified H2(1/4). H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction using an high-vacuum (10–6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen cryotrap and was characterised by Mass Spectroscopy (MS). The condensable gas had a higher ionisation energy than H2 by MS (Mills et al., 2005a).

 

[markie]

No not at all actually. The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop. Having never seen unicorn poop before, he had to try and decipher Mills' description of unicorn poop.

Long before you need theoretical physicists like Rathke to determine if Mills has anything, it is required to pass the judgement of experimental physicists to determine if there is some phenomenon to describe in the first place. Phelps Clementson 2012 quite soundly proved the original phenomenon Mills is attempting to describe is nothing more than quite mundane experimental error caused by splatter, oxidation, contamination, misuse of equipment and Mills poor understanding of ordinary plasma physics.

There is no phenomenon to describe that isn't already described in rather mundane and well known ways.

It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true. He has proved nothing, only given an opinion. He did not conduct experiments did he. And his conjectures were unsubstantiated. Did he, for instance, provide an explanation as to why his hypothesis of electrode 'sputtering' - in an attempt to explain the eUV as coming from deep electron ionization in metals - only occurred when hydrogen was present and not in the controls? No. It's amazing what 'skeptics' will believe so readily when it suits them.

 

[markie]

Ahh, I love that old canard. It’s breathtaking in the scope of historical ignorance needed to support it. Thank you for giving me a chuckle by tossing it out there.

“They fear for their jobs!” The nutters, quacks, and coming men cry, when the reality is that a discovery that upsets much of what was already known OPENS UP whole new areas of research. Nobody gets funding for retreading well-worn paths. They get funding for breaking new ground.

Arguing that Mills would cost existing physicists their jobs if he were right is about as absurd as claiming that the discovery of the Americas resulted in massive unemployment for Europe’s explorers and colonists. Mills being proven right would result in a massive rush of new research and an explosion of new funding from every conceivable source.

Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.

Speaking of Europe ; Rathke was paid by an agency - perhaps the ESA - to investigate Mills' claims. They were interested and wanted Rathke's assessment. Rathke later admitted on a Yahoo group that he did not want the European Space Agency to fund further investigations into Mills's findings (because that would lessen everyone else's piece of the pie). So he did his hit piece, refused to respond to Mills's rebuttal and ran. My biased view.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031990700198X
H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction of plasma gas at liquid nitrogen temperature...

Helium-hydrogen microwave plasmas have substantial He and H emission and served as sources of H2(1/4) that was liquefied by a liquid helium trap that collected it over time. Pure hydrogen microwave plasmas were found to produce H2(1/4) at a slower rate...


3.4. NMR of product H (1/4) from liquid helium trapped plasma gases
The HNMR spectra relative to tetramethylsilane(TMS) of sealed samples of liquid-helium-condensable helium-hydrogen RF plasma gases, high-voltage pulsed discharge hydrogen plasmas, and rt-plasma gases, each dissolved in an NMR solvent, are shown in Figs. 18–22. In each case, the only peak in the spectrum that could not be assigned to common species was the broad singlet peak upfield of H2 at about 1.25 ppm that matched the theoretical position of H2(1/4). The solution-phase NMR of the LHe collected plasma gas provides a definitive test of the theoretically predicted chemical shift of H2(1/4).


http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/49_2_Philadelphia_10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a
higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%)
plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3.

Figure 6 (a)-(g). 1H NMR spectra on sealed samples of liquid- nitrogen-condensable helium-hydrogen plasma gases dissolved in CDCl3 relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS). The solvent peak was
observed at 7.26 ppm, the H 2 peak was observed at 4.63 ppm, and a singlet at 3.22 ppm matched silane. Singlet peaks upfield of H2 were observed at 3.47, 3.02, 2.18, 1.25, 0.85, 0.21, and -1.8 ppm relative to TMS corresponding to solvent-corrected absolute resonance shifts of -29.16, -29.61, -30.45, -31.38, -31.78, -32.42, and -34.43 ppm, respectively. Using Eq. (12), the data indicates that p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10, respectively. The data matched the series H2(1/2), H2(1/3), H2(1/4), H2(1/5), H2(1/6),H2(1/7),and H2(1/10).


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.3438&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Two H(1/p) may react to form H2(1/p) that has vibrational and rotational energies that are p^2 times those of H2 comprising uncatalysed atomic hydrogen (Mills, 2004, 2006). Rotational lines were observed in the 145–300 nm region from atmospheric pressure electron-beam excited argon-hydrogen plasmas. The unprecedented energy spacing of 4^2 times that of hydrogen established the internuclear distance as 1/4 that of H2 and identified H2(1/4). H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction using an high-vacuum (10–6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen cryotrap and was characterised by Mass Spectroscopy (MS). The condensable gas had a higher ionisation energy than H2 by MS (Mills et al., 2005a).

OK much better. Now we have this supposed dihydrino gas that is liquified in a liquid nitrogen crytrap and that has a higher ionization energy and a different boiling point that the hydrogen/ helium liquid used to trap the dihydrino. That's the claim at least.

Now we have something serious to discuss.
1) Why wasn't a vial of this liquefied gas mixture sent off to an independent lab for verification? Why was it simply disposed of unceremoniously?
2) Why didn't Mills do a simple distillation of this trapped dihydrino/hydrogen/helium mixture to obtain pure dihydrino liquid?
3) Why didn't Mills send this distilled dihydrino to be verified by an independent lab?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true. He has proved nothing, only given an opinion. He did not conduct experiments did he. And his conjectures were unsubstantiated. Did he, for instance, provide an explanation as to why his hypothesis of electrode 'sputtering' - in an attempt to explain the eUV as coming from deep electron ionization in metals - only occurred when hydrogen was present and not in the controls? No. It's amazing what 'skeptics' will believe so readily when it suits them.

I didn't need such explanation because the hydrogen Mills used was actually water which ionizes and makes big impressive splatters when used with welding equipment. So yes, I had no problem taking Phelps Clementson 2012 at face value. In fact anyone who ever welded under less than perfect conditions knows all about splattering....knows all about hydrogen embrittlement too... can easily see through this facade of "sciency" sounding unicorn poop. But it was nice to actually see in a journal that experimental Physicists were not fooled by the sloppy experiments Mills claims are producing dihydrino gas.

100's and maybe 1000's of hours experience inspecting welds and grinding off splatter means I don't in any way need to question Phelps Clementson 2012 regarding the splatter Mills purposely creates to obfuscate what's going on. It is painfully obvious that's happening just by watching those ridiculous youtube vids. I even said it myself multiple times long before I found Phelps Clementson 2012.

Edited to add: Or didn't you know that the agricultural research I do is actually at the scale of "hobby farm" and I am actually a retired marine engineer? You can take at face value that any marine welding done is almost certainly done under less than ideal conditions, and we fight water getting into everything and all the various forms of corrosion on a daily basis. We need to KNOW ... not think..but KNOW those welds will hold or else it could easily lead to a life or death situation. So yeah. I have staked my life on exactly the sort of knowledge Mills so glaringly lacks.

 

[UncertainH]

Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.

Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-physics-8211-and-its-laws-8211-must-evolve/

The problems are rooted in the way the career and funding structures of the academy reward me-too science, lack of courage, entrenchment of failed research programs, legacy building, empire building, narrowness, defensive strategies and groupthink. These should be of concern to anyone in a position to craft incentives for academics, such as officers of funding agencies and foundations, university leaders and administrators, private donors. Many spoke to me and are concerned and a few are making efforts to craft incentives that reward high risk/high payoff, transformational science and avoid groupthink, low risk/low payoff and me-too science. I can mention the Templeton Foundation and FQXi as leaders in this field. But not nearly enough is being done. A first step would be to divert 10% of research funding to transformational high risk/high payoff research.

 

[LTC8K6]

Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-physics-8211-and-its-laws-8211-must-evolve/

Yes, because no one has been funding Mills for 30 years, and Mills has had to keep quiet for 30 years...

If you believe that, I have a deal for you...

 

[Hans]

Yes, because no one has been funding Mills for 30 years, and Mills has had to keep quiet for 30 years...

If you believe that, I have a deal for you...

I cannot speak for the technical fields as I was in Archaeology. There you lived or died based on what you found and what you published. I mean it was nice and valuable too if you published ten volumes about five digs that verified everything we already knew about the Roman colonies in Belgium and maybe found a few oddites but you would get nothing like the fellows who discovered places like Catalhuyuck, Gobekli Tepe, L'anse aux Meadows, Lucy, Hobbits or a single finger bone from a Denisovian.

In my first Anthropology 200 class in 1972 my prof said (I paraphrase) if you want tenure, people wanting you to write a book or textbook, corporate or government funding, private funding, working at the best university or getting a call from National Geographic (which at that time meant a documentary and star like status and private funding) - find something no one has ever seen before or overthrow what was thought to be correct or establish a new theory of why we are who we are.

Being successful and finding new stuff is key.

 

[Reality Check]

Usual unthinking, spewing out of Mills delusions of detecting hydrinos

Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases...

16 January 2019 markie: Usual unthinking, spewing out of Mills delusions of detecting hydrinos.

markie is well aware of how extraordinary Mills' hydrinos are and thus Mills needs extraordinary evidence to show that they exist. That is spectra that can only come from hydrinos. It is not spectra that an obsessed, deluded, and ignorant Mills says has to come from hydrinos.

 

[Reality Check]

Rather insane lies about "Phelps' conjectures"

It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true..

16 January 2019 markie: Rather insane lies about "Phelps' conjectures"
Red Baron Farms wrote

The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop

Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al. by Phelps and Clementson

An explanation of the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu, most recently in [Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 65 (2011)], is presented using conventional atomic, plasma, and discharge physics. It is argued that the observed EUV emissions during their pulsed discharges originate from transitions in ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes. Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particles.
...
In summary, the EUV data presented in references [1–4] can be explained in terms of conventional collision, radiation, and gas discharge processes and do not support the hydrino hypothesis [1]. A Comment on the
more general aspects of the hydrino theory has recently been published by Lawler and Goebel [20].

The "conjecture" lie is rather insane because Phelps and Clementson plot actual data and model data to show that Mills results can be explained by convectional physics.

Fig. 1. (Color online) EUV emission data from pulsed discharge
experiments with tungsten (a) and molybdenum (b)
electrodes. The dotted curves are from figures 12a and 4a
of [4].

Fig. 2. (Color online) EUV emission data for Mo ions. The
curve from Mills et al. for Mo is from figure 4a of [4]. The
low and high resolution curves for Mo are calculated from
NIST/ASD tables [12] assuming Gaussian line profiles with
widths (FWHM) of 0.15 and 0.01 nm, respectively.

Fig. 3. (Color online) Spectral scans for Ta electrodes with H2,
He, and O2 fill gases from figures 3e, 3c, and 3a, respectively,
of [1]. For the He and O2 gas fills, a small background decreasing
with wavelength (such as expected for scattered light) and
≤10% of the peak pseudo-continuum at 20 nm is subtracted
from the original data.