ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Closed Thread
Old 11th January 2019, 05:50 AM   #3841
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,467
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It is no delusion. It is quite reasonable to think that the environment to which an electron is subject - whether it is a magnetic field in the Stern Gerlach experiment or slits in the double slit experiment - actually has a physical effect on the electron. Imagine that!
And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:40 AM   #3842
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
As of today, we have to wait a mere 23 (53) (-9) 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.

Some interesting responses to my "daily countdown" post yesterday; I'll follow up later.

Originally my plan for today was to write something about the "theory" counterpart to yesterday's "practice" one. But it didn't pan out.

For starters, there's no counterpart claim to something like "BLP will produce a dozen working prototype hydrino-based generators by next Thursday". For example while markie thinks Mills deserves at least three Nobel Prizes, he's said nothing on when he thinks even the first might be awarded (of course, Mills will win exactly the same number of Nobel Prizes as I will win, zero).

What, then, will be the legacy of Mills' ideas, hydrinos, orbitspheres, the whole nine yards? Will it be anything more than a minor footnote in some tally of crackpot physics ideas of the late 20th and early 21st centuries? If so, what? Myself, I think that's about it: his mathematics is well-known (and anyway he applies it inconsistently); his physics is classical (with no real new insights); his techniques and approaches, while perhaps somewhat unorthodox, are not in any way exceptional (other than bad); and so on.

What do you think?
As of today, we have to wait a mere 22 (52) (-10) 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.

I'm an astronomer; my focus is extra-galactic astronomy, i.e. I don't much "do" stars or planets, rather galaxies, quasars, clusters of galaxies, etc.

I'd like to share with you my initial reaction to reading that Mills had "explained" something in my field (I think it was a cosmic soft x-ray background, but it may have been dark matter) ... something like "you have GOT to be kidding me! How can you be SOOOO ignorant!?! "

This is different from my initial reactions to, say, learning that Mills (and his fans) think they have a good replacement for QM (never QFT): my curiosity is aroused, I think it's nonsense, but nothing like the reaction I describe above.

To be clear: in the astronomy example, I know I could rip the posted nonsense to shreds, at any level any Mills fan is willing to engage me: I know where to find the key papers; I could write coherent, succinct summaries of key aspects quite easily; etc. So I'm not writing about an emotional reaction only.

To get to be an astronomer these days you need to have learned more than Physics 101, ditto more than Mathematics 101. So at least in principle, I should be able to rip Mills' QM nonsense to shreds too ... it's just that it would likely involve several days' of digging and research. Fortunately, there are other ISF members more familiar with QM (not to mention QFT; strange, eh?) than I am, and they are usually pretty vocal.

But what's your experience? Do you sometimes have a very different reaction when you see Mills nonsense posted about something you're extremely familiar with, vs nonsense that you're not?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:46 AM   #3843
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You really need to understand your sources and do basic reraserch try to find out how reliable they are UncertainH.

A "Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" paper with no mention of a extended election model.

A viable, working model of an extended electron would be a groundbreaking model published in an appropriate, well known, high impact journal. This is not the newish, obscure, low impact Frontiers of Physics.
Single author papers are dubious.
A preprint published in the condensed (solid) matter section.
Three (3) citations of the paper all including him as an author.

Thus: The paper is obviously invalid that it has been ignored for at least 8 years.

An irrelevant history/philosophy of physics "" preprint from Werner A Hofer.
An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer
I linked those papers because they can be understood by readers with a minimal math or physics background. So a paper like this:

Frontiers of Physics Volume 12, Issue 3, June 2017
Spin and the extended electron model
co-authored by Tom Pope in a newish peer reviewed journal with an impact factor of 2.579 (2016)

https://link.springer.com/article/10...467-017-0669-7

recently published - check, co-authored - check, peer reviewed - check. So you are saying that an impact factor of about 2.5 is not good enough and therefore is irrelevant. Please tell me what an acceptable impact factor is. I also see that they have another accepted for publication in April 2019.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...-molecules.pdf

Albeit in the same "low impact" journal
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:48 AM   #3844
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?
Ah but that depends on whether the electron can see the detector before it can see the slit(s)!

Everyone knows that slits with detectors on their backsides behave more like asses than slits with detectors on their bow ties.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 07:00 AM   #3845
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What quantum mechanics actually states is
[*]The overwhelming evidence is that electrons have no extent so treat them as point particles unless otherwise needed.
There is growing evidence that they do have extent
Quote:
[*]Point particles have intrinsic properties.
Like infinite density
Quote:
[*]Point particles are radially symmetric.
Zero dimensional singularities cannot have radial symmetry because the term 'radial' implies a finite length in the radial direction. The term "point particle" is an oxy moron
Quote:
[*]Point particles have no moment of inertia.
Well that's for sure, either that or an infinite moment of inertia

Quote:
This is not a problem because QM works !
So did epicycles
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 07:28 AM   #3846
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.
Page 269 where Mills states
Quote:
This result arises even though the electrons are not physically interacting with each other. Nothing is actually interfering
Somehow RC interprets this and creates a deluded lie and fantasy
Quote:
It is just the utter stupidity of the electron splitting into 2 parts and diffracting with itself
Now who needs a reality check. I do not consider myself to be a Mills "believer" but it is far more productive to discuss what Mills is actually saying than what you imagine him to be saying. Putting down page numbers and writing the words "lies, delusions and fantasies" is not a debate at all but more akin to a Monty Python sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 07:41 AM   #3847
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Very nice. In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.



This means that even though the two rotations are independent, they cannot be described by a product of two real variables. In our view, this was the key mistake of John Bell, which makes the Bell inequalities inapplicable to such a situation



Using the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities [23], and setting coincidence counts equal to the coincidence probabilities in our model:...one arrives at the standard expectation values for coincidences :



The wave properties are in this case not intrinsic to an electron or photon, they are externally imposed due to the interactions with the slit system.



However, it does not collapse into a definite state - which is usually thought to occur when spin, which is isotropic in three dimensional space, is measured - but it only reveals the direction of the spin vector with respect to the vector of motion. The crucial omission in the conventional frame- work in this case is the possibility that measurements directly affect the spin properties of a system.
How much excess electricity does that generate?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 07:59 AM   #3848
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
And when you add a detector to one of the slits in the double-slit experiment, suddenly neither slit has an affect on the electron?
Even with a detector(s) any open slit will still diffract the electron. However a detector(s) will mess with fields around the slits, altering the photon distribution released from the slits as the electron approaches and washing out the discreteness of the momentum pattern.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:04 AM   #3849
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Even with a detector(s) any open slit will still diffract the electron. However a detector(s) will mess with fields around the slits, altering the photon distribution released from the slits as the electron approaches and washing out the discreteness of the momentum pattern.
Except when the detector is on the backside. Or when the detector is turned off (i.e. when it's just a passive slit). Or when the detector is turned on after the electron has gone through. Or ... when markie's knowledge of the double slit experiment is comparable to his knowledge of the cosmic soft x-ray background.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:08 AM   #3850
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The problem you and others have is, no 'commercial device' is just about all your vision entails.
What else but practical applications of such a development could we envision?

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Thanks tlp. I love personal anecdotes like that that bring more human elements into the equation.
...oh. Feelings. I see.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:25 AM   #3851
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
There is growing evidence that they do have extent

Like infinite density

Zero dimensional singularities cannot have radial symmetry because the term 'radial' implies a finite length in the radial direction. The term "point particle" is an oxy moron

Well that's for sure, either that or an infinite moment of inertia


So did epicycles
Can we take discussions like this out of this thread please?

They distract from what this thread is about, namely BLP going to market with a "free energy" device (note the quotation marks). As the OP states, very clearly.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:35 AM   #3852
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What else but practical applications of such a development could we envision?
...oh. Feelings. I see.
There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit. One example is Townes and his maser. If Townes had not had tenure his research would have been stopped. Townes was driven not by a vision of practical application but by the challenge of creating coherent light of one pure frequency. Rather like science for the sake of ... truth finding, now there's a concept.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:45 AM   #3853
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Except when the detector is on the backside. Or when the detector is turned off (i.e. when it's just a passive slit). Or when the detector is turned on after the electron has gone through. Or ... when markie's knowledge of the double slit experiment is comparable to his knowledge of the cosmic soft x-ray background.
If a detector is 'on' and is emitting appreciable signal or substance to alter an extended electron's momentum, whether before the slits or after, it will wash out the momentum differentials.
Don't think that the science community is of one mind in its view of the double slit experiment. See for instance https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/6480
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 09:05 AM   #3854
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by markie View Post
There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit.
They also laughed at bozo the clown.

You're missing the point: without actual demonstration, the claim is not proven.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 09:11 AM   #3855
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If a detector is 'on' and is emitting appreciable signal or substance to alter an extended electron's momentum, whether before the slits or after, it will wash out the momentum differentials.
Don't think that the science community is of one mind in its view of the double slit experiment. See for instance https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/6480
Well, of direct pertinence to this thread, the scientific community is of one mind wrt Mills' crackpot nonsense ideas (for avoidance of doubt, hydrinos do not exist).

And of the likelihood that there will be at least one working prototype BLP hydrino-based generator delivered to a truly independent testing facility before 2 March, 2019 (i.e. zero).
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 09:19 AM   #3856
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,598
Originally Posted by markie View Post
That's like saying, since you can see two slits, does the slit pattern wave a magic wand so that you can actually see both of them? Of course not ; no magic is involved; it's the way photons are reflected from the slits that lets you see them as they are. Similarly an electron can 'see' either one slit of two slits, and that is because the approaching electron's field will stimulate photon emission from one slit only (if there is one slit open) or both slits. The emitted photon(s) will interact with the electron and alter its momentum. See https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/ and look at the two 4 second animations to see what is going on.

Ah, I see. According to the animation, as the electron approaches the two slits, the Death Star flies out of the slits and zaps the electron, altering its trajectory.

Can we get serious instead? I can't see the slits if it's dark, because my eyes do not emit visible photons nor do they cause the objects they're looking at to emit photons. Even in ambient light, I may or may not be able to see the slits depending on their contrast against the background.

Electrons have charge, so of course they can interact electromagnetically with the slit apparatus. Photons are the gauge bosons of the electromagnetic force, and as such are exchanged between objects interacting electromagnetically... according to quantum theory. (But isn't Mills's theory supposed to be classical?) Such interactions, and therefore the diffraction pattern, would depend very much on how the material of the slit responds to a moving charge; that is, on what the slit is made of, such as its permeability and permittivity.

Is that what electron double slit experiments show?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 11th January 2019 at 09:20 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 09:24 AM   #3857
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by markie View Post
There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit. One example is Townes and his maser. If Townes had not had tenure his research would have been stopped. Townes was driven not by a vision of practical application but by the challenge of creating coherent light of one pure frequency. Rather like science for the sake of ... truth finding, now there's a concept.
And of direct pertinence to this thread, BLP is not conducting any scientific research, in the usual meaning of the term.

A BLP hydrino-powered generator would could be of great practical benefit. Too bad there is not even a working prototype available for truly independent testing ... after almost 30 years!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:05 AM   #3858
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,799
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And of direct pertinence to this thread, BLP is not conducting any scientific research, in the usual meaning of the term.

A BLP hydrino-powered generator would could be of great practical benefit. Too bad there is not even a working prototype available for truly independent testing ... after almost 30 years!
Its like the search for Atlantis there is in the mind of the searcher the idea that the possibility of it existing is more important than the probablity it doesn't.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:10 AM   #3859
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,443
Wow this rabbit hole now has a whole wing of imaginary quantum mechanics
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:11 AM   #3860
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Can we take discussions like this out of this thread please?

They distract from what this thread is about, namely BLP going to market with a "free energy" device (note the quotation marks). As the OP states, very clearly.
Well since Mills doesn't and never has claimed that his device(s) are "free energy" devices then I would have to say that he will never bring a "free energy" device to market.
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:14 AM   #3861
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,446
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Well since Mills doesn't and never has claimed that his device(s) are "free energy" devices then I would have to say that he will never bring a "free energy" device to market.
Some people in the thread, especially the person who started the thread, have referred to it as "essentially free".
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:17 AM   #3862
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Ah, I see. According to the animation, as the electron approaches the two slits, the Death Star flies out of the slits and zaps the electron, altering its trajectory.

Can we get serious instead? I can't see the slits if it's dark, because my eyes do not emit visible photons nor do they cause the objects they're looking at to emit photons. Even in ambient light, I may or may not be able to see the slits depending on their contrast against the background.

Electrons have charge, so of course they can interact electromagnetically with the slit apparatus. Photons are the gauge bosons of the electromagnetic force, and as such are exchanged between objects interacting electromagnetically... according to quantum theory. (But isn't Mills's theory supposed to be classical?)
The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.

Quote:
Such interactions, and therefore the diffraction pattern, would depend very much on how the material of the slit responds to a moving charge; that is, on what the slit is made of, such as its permeability and permittivity.

Is that what electron double slit experiments show?
For the electron double slit experiment the material around the slits would have to be conductive or else static charge would build up around the slits and and swamp the effect. Given a conductive material, yes I do tend to think the condition of that material may well effect at least the sharpness of the pattern. For example I tend to agree with Hofer that an ultra cold slit material could produce a somewhat sharper contrast pattern. Don't know if such an experiment has been carried out yet.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:38 AM   #3863
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And of direct pertinence to this thread, BLP is not conducting any scientific research, in the usual meaning of the term.
If by "the usual meaning of the term" ... you mean university research, then no, apart from certain universities performing adjunct investigations. And that is part of the problem ; people expect BLP to behave like a university lab doing research. It isn't that. BLP is a private company engaged in both pure and applied research, and like other smallish research companies (say in nanotechnology) has its own particular motivations to publish in the scientific literature when and what it will.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:46 AM   #3864
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If by "the usual meaning of the term" ... you mean university research,
Actually, I mean something like "follows the scientific method, publishes results in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and welcomes requests for samples".

BLP fails, by these criteria.

Quote:
then no, apart from certain universities performing adjunct investigations. And that is part of the problem ; people expect BLP to behave like a university lab doing research. It isn't that. BLP is a private company engaged in both pure and applied research, and like other smallish research companies (say in nanotechnology) has its own particular motivations to publish in the scientific literature when and what it will.
(my hilite)

Poppycock and balderdash. If you're doing pure research, you "publish in the scientific literature". Period.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:56 AM   #3865
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Well since Mills doesn't and never has claimed that his device(s) are "free energy" devices
As has already been pointed out, the OP certainly did make such a claim. And he claimed to have a deep understanding of BLP and Mills' work.

Quote:
then I would have to say that he will never bring a "free energy" device to market.
Indeed.

So what has BLP (and Mills?) actually claimed?

To have produced (not "will produce", the claims are very concrete in this regard) devices which generate more output energy in the form of heat, light (more?), than is input (in those forms, plus electrical energy). Call this "free energy" (note the quotes; this is a definition).

From where does this "free energy" come, according to BLP/Mills?

From the conversion of hydrogen atoms to "hydrinos", using things like silver, gallium, "nascent water", etc as "catalysts". As "hydrinos" do not exist, this is the equivalent/a form of magic.

Or, if you prefer, the production of "free energy" by magic.

Of course, I could be totally wrong!

When, UncertainH, do you expect BLP will make available for truly independent testing, a working prototype of a hydrino-based "free energy" (per my definition) generator?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:48 PM   #3866
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
When, UncertainH, do you expect BLP will make available for truly independent testing, a working prototype of a hydrino-based "free energy" (per my definition) generator?
I don't know and don't really care to speculate. Probably not this year.... again
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:52 PM   #3867
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,301
There is absolutely no doubt and no ambiguity here, imo.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have made devices that produce more power than they consume. Often on an incredible scale.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have had these devices running for extended periods of time.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have large amounts of data on these devices and these runs.

Mills has repeatedly claimed to have working free energy devices that simply were not commercially ready. That is, they worked just fine, he just could not put them on the market.

EDIT: IMO, all of those repeated claims were false and would still be false if made today.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 11th January 2019 at 12:54 PM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:10 PM   #3868
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,446
And there is his 1,000 page book and public patents which have lead to no breakthroughs or licensing deals.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:14 PM   #3869
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,446
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
I don't know and don't really care to speculate. Probably not this year.... again

Did BLP achieve their first goal for 2018: "One goal is to prove our power source to the world in the near term through power measurements, identification of the hydrino products of the reaction, and engineered power systems." How about that middle goal of hydrino products? They claim to have already had them at the time they stated that goal. The same report even has pictures of them. What's their excuse for not releasing those to world to achieve their stated goal?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 11th January 2019 at 01:16 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:41 PM   #3870
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,279
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And there is his 1,000 page book and public patents which have lead to no breakthroughs or licensing deals.
Mills has no patents that even mention hydrinos. His 1,000 page BBoB is riddled with convenient assumptions that result in predicting what is already known.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:55 PM   #3871
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,446
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Mills has no patents that even mention hydrinos.
I get the impression you misunderstood my post. I didn't say his patents mentioned hydrinos. However, some of his patents do mention hydrinos. And it doesn't really matter whether they mention hydrinos.

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
His 1,000 page BBoB is riddled with convenient assumptions that result in predicting what is already known.
I hope you don't think I don't know this or disagree with it.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:33 PM   #3872
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,598
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.

The physicists who carry out double slit experiments and who interpret their results have been aware of Maxwell's equations since the late 19th century. Yet they unanimously agree that the results of double slit experiments with one at a time particle flows are absolutely unexplainable with classical physics.

If the mere presence of an additional open slit (but only coupled with the absence of a detector) altered the trajectories of electrons via classical electromagnetic forces to the extent of creating or extinguishing an interference pattern, and physicists didn't know about such effects, then there seems little hope of their being able to get such devices as vacuum tubes, cathode ray tubes, and electron microscopes to function correctly. Yet, they did, decades ago.

Mills's argument not only claims quantum mechanics is wrong, it claims everyone's understanding of the simplest systems in classical physics, such as the trajectory of a charged particle in the presence of induced charges, over the last century and a half, is wrong too. Yet, electron microscopes work.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 05:28 PM   #3873
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
But what's your experience? Do you sometimes have a very different reaction when you see Mills nonsense posted about something you're extremely familiar with, vs nonsense that you're not?
Yes.

When completely or even moderately unfamiliar with the subject, I wonder whether it would be worth my time to learn enough about it so I could distinguish sense from nonsense. (I usually decide it isn't worth my time, but there have been exceptions, some of which can be inferred by examining my posts within this thread.)

When extremely or even moderately familiar, I just laugh at the nonsense. The howlers quoted below all come from the past week.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The web like hydrino hydride compounds have been characterized. New sections have been added to the 2018 edition of the book to describe such.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
What, do you want a posted picture of a vial of liquid dihydrino? Or it mailed to you? No can do. But in lieu of your disappointment you could read up on the methods used for detecting hydrino, even ask a materials scientist at a university what he thinks of Mills papers characterizing dihydrino and hydrino hydride compounds.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Not the same equipment. Times change. Much more capable spectrometers now. Essentially the same spectral results.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
There has been nearly 30 years of hydrino evidence, you have just chosen not to carefully examine it or believe it.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Dihydrino will be safe and inert. Hydrino hydride compounds will be more stable than the normal hydrogen counterpart.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
No I have not used QM in real world situations. But I was definitely a believer in quantum woo at an early age.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Then there is the 'entanglement' woo where the measurement result of an attribute of one particle will have an instantaneous effect on the measurement result of another particle a light year away.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Among other things, I like that Hofer predicts that the pattern lines for the double slit experiment for electrons will be more distinct (less fuzzy) at ultra cold temperatures since he, like Mills, thinks that the interference-like pattern has to do with interactions with atoms at the slit.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Very nice. In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.

This means that even though the two rotations are independent, they cannot be described by a product of two real variables. In our view, this was the key mistake of John Bell, which makes the Bell inequalities inapplicable to such a situation
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Even with a detector(s) any open slit will still diffract the electron. However a detector(s) will mess with fields around the slits, altering the photon distribution released from the slits as the electron approaches and washing out the discreteness of the momentum pattern.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If a detector is 'on' and is emitting appreciable signal or substance to alter an extended electron's momentum, whether before the slits or after, it will wash out the momentum differentials.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 06:16 AM   #3874
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by markie View Post
There are many examples where certain research work was frowned upon because it was thought the potential fruition of that research would be of no practical benefit. One example is Townes and his maser. If Townes had not had tenure his research would have been stopped. Townes was driven not by a vision of practical application but by the challenge of creating coherent light of one pure frequency. Rather like science for the sake of ... truth finding, now there's a concept.
And of course Mills is an example of the total opposite, not interested in the science beyond it making him money.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 06:19 AM   #3875
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They also laughed at bozo the clown.



You're missing the point: without actual demonstration, the claim is not proven.
The response to any of these diversionary posts by the likes of Markie is "how much excess energy does it produce?ď. We have to keep in mind Mills is not selling his science, he is selling his power generators.

And has failed at that goal for about 30 years.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 06:44 AM   #3876
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Don't think that the science community is of one mind in its view of the double slit experiment. See for instance https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/6480
That's an interesting paper. It does not, however, support markie's belief that Mills has come up with a classical reformulation of quantum mechanics. Aharonov et al. explicitly state that their deterministic account is based upon "nonlocal interactions"/"dynamical nonlocality"/"nonlocal equations of motion", which is an even stronger violation of classical physics than the "the more familiar kinematical nonlocality [implicit in entangled states...]" markie rejects as "woo".

It should also be noted that Bell's inequalities, whose relevance markie rejects because Mills can't explain why they are violated in all of the many experimental tests conducted so far, are a purely mathematical fact about probabilities, easily understood and proved without any mention of quantum mechanics or (markie's favorite) hidden variables.

The purely mathematical nature of Bell's inequalities is obscured by expositions based on the history of quantum mechanics and the famous Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen (EPR) paper suggesting that a deterministic account of the strikingly non-classical phenomena predicted (and observed!) by quantum mechanics might be obtained by supposing quantum mechanics is somehow "incomplete"; in particular, EPR suggested a deterministic version of quantum mechanics might become possible if there were "hidden variables". The EPR paper certainly inspired Bell to prove his theorem, and Bell's own exposition referred to the EPR paper and to hidden variables, but the theorem and its proof is just a calculation involving probabilities.

All proposed theories that are consistent with classical physics obey Bell's inequalities. Experiments do not obey Bell's inequalities, so all theories based on classical physics are inconsistent with experiment. New theories continue to be proposed, but the interesting question nowadays is not whether those new theories are based on classical physics, but which principles of classical physics do they abandon?

In particular, markie's oft-repeated claim that Randell Mills has given a purely classical explanation for quantum phenomena is hogwash, and markie's attempts to support that claim are slapstick comedy. ("The photon exchange would be described classically with Maxwell's equations.")
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 08:38 AM   #3877
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,766
I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 08:56 AM   #3878
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,301
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.
That's how every discussion goes when it's about something that people want to believe, that doesn't actually exist...

This is nothing compared to bigfoot.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 09:18 AM   #3879
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,532
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I don't understand how this discussion keeps going without anything new being said for years.
This.


Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
This is nothing compared to bigfoot.
Also this.
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 09:37 AM   #3880
8enotto
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 388
This thread has inspired me to try to learn algebra/calculus a bit so I can begin to see why mills shills find hope in it.

Logic says it just cannot be made to work. Now to understand why better.

But on no way can I hope to debate with those who do this as a career, never.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.