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

[markie]

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


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


Now I'm totally confused.

What does this have to do with magnetic dipoles?

I'm simply making a general point : the environment in which a magnetic dipole is in, or a photon is in, will physically influence that dipole or photon.

 

[The Man]

It seems to me that Mills' extended 2D model covers both wave and particle aspects. Regarding interference patterns, I'll repeat that it only resembles interference. For instance a light 'wave' does not interfere with a light wave. It's a boson thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Bosons

As far as the "boson thing" goes, the only boson that isn't its own antiparticle is the W boson. Again what seems to you is trivially and demonstrably wrong. You'll have to tell all those physicists involved in interferometry that "a light 'wave' does not interfere with a light wave".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry

 

[markie]

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

Here's what I wrote:

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


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


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.

If you're asking about how 'forbidden' the hydrino transitions are compared to hydrogen's highly forbidden 21cm transition, I'm not sure. Maybe the book has it, but I don't recall it offhand.

 

[markie]

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.

Hey wouldn't it be ironic if accomplished marine welders like yourself discovered H20 as a hydrino formation catalyst well before Mills but just didn't realize it at the time.
I'm not sure if the 'splatters' in welding are all that related to the 'sputtering' at electrodes, but maybe they are.

 

[markie]

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

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

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.

I've read Phelps and Clementson several time a while ago. I still think it's a reach. Mills has since addressed Phelps in subsequent papers, and his more resolving spectrometers confirm even more that the 'continuum' is not a 'pseudo continuum' of unresolved lines as conjectured by Phelps.

 

[markie]

16 January 2019 markie: Paranoia and stupidity about Rathke's funding.

A critical analysis of the hydrino model by A Rathke (2005)
Rathke was a physicist working at the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. There is no specific funding for the paper.
This is paranoia that the ESA knows about Mills delusions and wants to address them plus the stupidity that scientists only work on agency approved topics.

It shouldn't be hard to see that ESA would know about Mills since around the same time Marchese at Rowan University was funded by NASA to investigate hydrino powered propulsion.

Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al. by Phelps and Clementson (2012)

markie: is the US Department of Energy paying authors to debunk Mills work?

Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm by J.E. Lawler, C.J. Goebel (2012)

markie: more authors paid to debunk Mills work?

I highly doubt the funders are trying to debunk Mills. But the people they are funding I think have a conflict of interest, and the bias clearly shows.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But what's 60 orders of magnitude discrepancy between theory and observation. Just a number. And lest we forget ; dark energy must increase in proportion to the amount of space expansion since its density in space remains the same. So much for any law of energy conservation.

Much like Mill's magical hydrinos, but who's counting?


You seem stuck on the false dichotomy of the basic structure, "Physicists don't know everything, thus Mill's hydrinos must be true."

However, it is very telling that here it is many days later and you still refused to answer my questions for you. Where is the cryodistilled dihydrino gas? Why did Mills just ermmm "dispose" of it rather than send it off to be verified, a trivially easy task much more straight forward than those mythical slag particles he calls hydrino crystals.

Even more importantly, now that you know Mills is lying to you, why are you still in denial?

 

[markie]

Um, no. Dipoles don't "want" anything. That is childish anthropomorphism. And tha fact that your claim is baloney. In fact, science uses unaligned dipoles to track the movement of Earths magnetic poles over millions of years. (snip)

Lots of physicists speak in such casual terms, because they are aware the audience knows that 'want' generally translates to nature's propensity to go to a lower energy state. Dipoles are at their highest potential energy when they are perpendicular to the magnetic field lines. Thus, they don't want to remain in that state. Dipoles in a crystal lattice have to, among other things, compete with lattice forces, so comparing the outcome of magnetic alignment in rocks to the Stern Gerlach experiment is not a good idea.

 

[markie]

There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

On the contrary, Mills' theory is coherent in that it describes phenomena on all scales based on the same principles. The same cannot be said of QM. It must be paired with an incompatible GR.
Granted, Mills' derivations can be obscure, and he does pick and choose what he wants from existing theory. The former can be remedied in time, and the latter is unavoidable.
Also FYI Mills does utilize wave equations, just not the Schrödinger equation.

 

[markie]

Pretty much the usual ignorant gibberish from markie.

As already stated Mills starts with an equation (number 22) about a magnetic field which allows any orientation. Mills then adds his insanity of including the QM quantized electron spin which has no north or south poles .

The electron has a spin up and spin down, basically the same as saying a north and south pole.

 

[markie]

I agree that Mills use of the quantized spin in a classical way make no sense. The measurement of spin quantization is not just about the quantization of the magnitude of the magnetic moment, but that the observable value must be along the z-direction of an external field. That last one is a purely QM result, and does not follow for a classical electron with a spin in any direction.

It is a classical result that a dipole should align in the direction of an external field.

 

[markie]

If you read the rest of this unfortunately long thread you will also see that Mills is deluded because he ignores some basic classical physics, optiongeek.

This is the shell theorem

The same applies to any inverse square law, e.g. between a charged shell and an interior charge. Mills delusion in this electrostatic treatment has an atomic nucleus that cannot stay inside his "electrons". Any perturbation and the nucleus blasts through his shells. A rational, knowledgeable person would address this fatal flaw.

Try to find "shell theorem" in Mills' deluded and lying book!

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the shell theorem does not apply ; orbital mechanics do apply.

 

[markie]

(snip)
To a scientifically literate reader, what's impressive about Mills equations (1.156) and (1.157) is that Mills inserted the (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) and failed to perform any of the obvious simplifications in equation (1.156). I can think of no reason for Mills to have written equation (1.156) the way he did unless he was trying to impress people like optiongeek with the sort of integral that first-semester calculus students would be expected to solve in about three minutes while taking their final exam.

ETA: If optiongeek wishes to continue this conversation, he should explain where the (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) in equation (1.156) came from, and why he thinks Mills decided to write the number 1 that way in that equation.

Oh lordy. Look at equation 1.158 where instead of cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) it is 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta). Clearly Mills wanted to have both the internal and external magnetic energy equations in the same general form and to give insight into how they were derived from the earlier equations involving i.
Instead of mathematical sensibility I see ... accusations of 'trying to impress'. Again, lordy.

 

[Blue Mountain]

That was the argument in favour of epicycles as well: they "worked". They even worked better than the new upstart theory.

Which upstart theory was that?

 

[JeanTate]

That was the argument in favour of epicycles as well: they "worked". They even worked better than the new upstart theory.

Back to the irrelevant one-liners, eh markie?

No sign of an SB rebuke yet ...

 

[JeanTate]

It seems to me that Mills' extended 2D model covers both wave and particle aspects. Regarding interference patterns, I'll repeat that it only resembles interference. For instance a light 'wave' does not interfere with a light wave. It's a boson thing.

And yet, still no sign of a working prototype hydrino-base generator, ready for truly independent testing. After ~30 years.

Strange, too, that Mills has not yet been awarded a Nobel.

I wonder if the two are related?

 

[JeanTate]

But what's 60 orders of magnitude discrepancy between theory and observation. Just a number. And lest we forget ; dark energy must increase in proportion to the amount of space expansion since its density in space remains the same. So much for any law of energy conservation. But who's counting.

Of course, this is directly relevant, because Mills claims to be tapping into Dark Energy, as the ultimate source of the free energy for his non-existent generators. Right?

Or perhaps not; it’s actually unicorn poop, isn’t it?

 

[Myriad]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the shell theorem does not apply ; orbital mechanics do apply.

You keep repeating that, but no explanation of why the shell theorem does not apply. It has to be one of the following:

1. The orbitsphere is not spherical.

2. The charge is not evenly distributed over the surface of the orbitsphere.

3. The attractive force between opposite charges is not proportional to the inverse square of distance.

4. Math doesn't work.

... but which one?

 

[JeanTate]

I haven't looked but have little doubt that Mills knows that a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field will experience a torque which will align it parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field.

Or, in other words, Mills incorporates QM into his supposedly purely classical “theory”.

Just that he doesn’t say so.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm simply making a general point : the environment in which a magnetic dipole is in, or a photon is in, will physically influence that dipole or photon.

Thanks.

So the point you were/are making has no relevance to what we are discussing? Good to know.