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

Reply
Old 16th November 2018, 09:43 AM   #2321
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You gonna stand by that?
Ooops, no way. For some reason I had surface area in mind. Circumference is of course a linear dimension. Thanks for the correction.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:48 AM   #2322
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Here's something curious.

Figure 4 in Anomalous Head from Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate is identical to Figure 2 in Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source.

Didn't Markie tell us that those were completely different experiments and that the former was just a preliminary trial to the more comprehensive latter?
Yes they were two different experiments. The latter simply referenced some of the former, including setup diagrams. I don't see the problem.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 10:19 AM   #2323
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Sure. works with fire: wood, coal, oil, propane, natural gas, etc. Also works with nuclear fission. It would work with hydrinos or cold fusion, if either of those actually produced heat.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:02 AM   #2324
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,191
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Yes they were two different experiments. The latter simply referenced some of the former, including setup diagrams. I don't see the problem.

Oh, I do:

Quote:
ESCA analyses were also done by Lehigh on samples of nickel tubing removed from coil #4. The results of these analyses show the characteristic hydrino peak at 55 eV. This peak is shown in Figure 2, confirming that excess heat can be produced by diffusion of hydrogen through nickel contacting K2CO2 as well as by electrolysis.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:56 AM   #2325
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Oh, I do:
It looks like Figure 2 from the long experiment is identical to the graph from the previous, shorter experiment. My take is that coil 4 was indeed examined at LeHigh university and the same 55 eV peak result was found as with the previous experiment. But for one reason or another Thermacore just reposted the old graph.

BTW Lehigh had been testing Mills' electrodes even before the first Thermacore paper and had reported the same anomalous 55 eV peak.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 12:11 PM   #2326
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Sure. works with fire: wood, coal, oil, propane, natural gas, etc. Also works with nuclear fission. It would work with hydrinos or cold fusion, if either of those actually produced heat.
Just imagine if the oxygen in our atmosphere was 2 percent rather than 20, or if fission didn't so often lead to a chain reaction. Perhaps then we wouldn't be taking our conventional power sources for granted.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 12:22 PM   #2327
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Given you are only skeptical as opposed to biased, you are probably in the minority.
What do you think is the difference between being skeptical and being biased? I do not believe there is such a thing as a hydrino. But give me evidence and I will change my mind. The more and the better evidence presented, the more I will believe in the possibility of Hydrinos. Right now it is zero. Does that make me biased? How about you? Are you biased? You sounds like a true believer to me. Your scepticism seems to me to go out the windows when you hear Mills name.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
For sure it is up to Mills to show a device that is clearly working and producing useful amounts of excess energy. But for people like me who take over over two decades of experimental evidence at face value, a device doesn't have to be close to market in order to believe in a lower energy state of hydrogen.
And all I see are claims of experimental evidence, no evidence as such.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
I highly doubt that another company would have succeeded. They would have given up long ago, as did Thermacore. Mills is uniquely positioned as a driven theoretician, experimentalist and business owner.
I honestly do not understand why you venerate Mills so much. He has a lot of claims but no products and his research is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community. What concrete successes are you referring to?

I think you seriously underestimate the enormity of Mills claims. He is basically claiming to have invented free energy. If that was true it would drastically change the world. The profit would be immense. Nations would spend billions on research IF they though it a possibility. Heck, if Saudiarabia believed they might even invite Mills to their closest consulate.
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 01:00 PM   #2328
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
What do you think is the difference between being skeptical and being biased? I do not believe there is such a thing as a hydrino. But give me evidence and I will change my mind. The more and the better evidence presented, the more I will believe in the possibility of Hydrinos. Right now it is zero. Does that make me biased? How about you? Are you biased? You sounds like a true believer to me. Your scepticism seems to me to go out the windows when you hear Mills name.
You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.

Quote:
And all I see are claims of experimental evidence, no evidence as such.
What do you want to do, visit the labs yourself?

Quote:
I honestly do not understand why you venerate Mills so much. He has a lot of claims but no products and his research is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community. What concrete successes are you referring to?
His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.

Quote:
I think you seriously underestimate the enormity of Mills claims. He is basically claiming to have invented free energy. If that was true it would drastically change the world. The profit would be immense. Nations would spend billions on research IF they though it a possibility. Heck, if Saudiarabia believed they might even invite Mills to their closest consulate.
The proposed hydrino reaction is no more "free energy" than is combustion or fission. IOW it isn't free and it is much more difficult to master than combustion or fission. So much for instant gratification.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 03:15 PM   #2329
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,326
Markie,
If hydrinos are real why isn't this 'below' ground state for hydrogen atoms not seen around the world, it seems to only appear for Mills.

Why isn't this observed everywhere?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 05:19 PM   #2330
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.
My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. But again, show me the evidence, or rather show that the relevant experts accept the evidence, or even better show a working product and I would be very happy that I was wrong the whole time. I have no stake in this emotionally or economically. Can you say the same?


Originally Posted by markie View Post
His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.
"Certain circles" is such a vague expression that it is practically meaningless. Could you please point to what circles you are referring to?
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 05:36 PM   #2331
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Markie,
If hydrinos are real why isn't this 'below' ground state for hydrogen atoms not seen around the world, it seems to only appear for Mills.

Why isn't this observed everywhere?
Why? One might ask why it was that Helium was doubted to exist even ten years after it's discovery. See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...868-180970057/

(my bold)

Seeking proof to back up the claim that he’d helped discover a new element, Lockyer went to English chemist Edward Frankland to attempt to reproduce the wavelength pattern in the lab. Frankland theorized it might be caused by hydrogen under extreme temperature and pressure, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to recreate it.

The skepticism over the possibility of an element existing in space but not on Earth is perhaps no surprise, given that it was the first of its kind. Science historians James L. Marshall and Virginia R. Marshall write, “Frankland, perhaps cautious because of the many erroneous ‘newly discovered elements’ arising from the high resolution spectra now available, maintained that he did not want to have his name associated with this imaginary element,” even after Lockyer went public, dubbing it “Helium,” after the Greek name for the sun.


Now, imagine if helium did not have discrete spectral lines at all. How long would it have taken to discover it? Then it would have akin to hydrino: very small, inert, not detectable by spectral lines, and escaping rapidly to space. But there would have been a glaring vacancy in the periodic table for Z = 2 and an active search would have been on. No so with the hydrino. No one would be looking for it. It would take someone like Mills. When one considers the methods Mills uses to both produce and detect hydrino, no one is going to find it unless he is actively looking for it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 06:02 PM   #2332
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. But again, show me the evidence, or rather show that the relevant experts accept the evidence, or even better show a working product and I would be very happy that I was wrong the whole time. I have no stake in this emotionally or economically. Can you say the same? "Certain circles" is such a vague expression that it is practically meaningless. Could you please point to what circles you are referring to?
Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.

You appear to be content looking at Wikipedia and Main Street Science for your information. You will have to dig deeper and discover for yourself the relatively few scientists who have worked with Mills and backed him in his discoveries over the years.

Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? Why not? The huge festering problem preceding it was, incredibly, not in the purview of the mainstream, nor even considered by the vast majority of 'experts' in finance.

Lesson learned? Count me skeptical.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 06:44 PM   #2333
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,103
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You would be biased if it your mindset prevented you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. Yet, if appears you haven't even looked at the evidence, given you give hydrinos a "zero" possibility. If you have read Mill's latest paper from earlier this year from the Chinese Journal of Physics, and have read the other relatively few previous papers that have not been paywalled, and you have looked at Rowan university reports and have looked at the various validation reports and are still "zero", then I can't help you. In fact, you will have to help yourself anyway. If you care.


What do you want to do, visit the labs yourself?



His research is accepted in certain circles in academia and business. But then the pseudoskeptic mantra is if it's not in Nature or Science or on a Home Depot shelf it can't be real.



The proposed hydrino reaction is no more "free energy" than is combustion or fission. IOW it isn't free and it is much more difficult to master than combustion or fission. So much for instant gratification.


Dude. The “evidence” is garbage. You’re the one who is biased. You’re defending a paper with a missing page that reused a graph from something else for crying out loud!
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:58 PM   #2334
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,191
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Dude. The “evidence” is garbage. You’re the one who is biased. You’re defending a paper with a missing page that reused a graph from something else for crying out loud!
There is more than one missing page. Page 30 is not there, either.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 08:19 PM   #2335
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
You appear to be content looking at Wikipedia and Main Street Science for your information. You will have to dig deeper and discover for yourself the relatively few scientists who have worked with Mills and backed him in his discoveries over the years.
How I make my research is a complete unknown to you.

I am not surprised that you will not name the supporters he got. Your answer implies that his only support is from his inner circle. That is as meaningful as having your mother as a character witness. Since I do not trust Mills I obviously do not consider his partners reliable. I would like to remind you that Mills have lied on more than one occasion. (You call it optimism or 'forward thinking statements' if I recall.)

Have Mills been able to convince anyone with relevant competence, except his inner circle, since the 90´s? If not, that IS a rather strong reason to suspect that there is nothing there.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? Why not? The huge festering problem preceding it was, incredibly, not in the purview of the mainstream, nor even considered by the vast majority of 'experts' in finance.

Lesson learned? Count me skeptical.
A wonderful example of why you should never write in affection. One believes one to be clever and instead it just becomes a turd.

1. It is completely ot. 2. It has nothing to do with me or my post. 3. It equates predicting financial crashes with suspecting scams. 4. You could not avoid being condescending or maybe you really think avoiding scams is a kind of magic?
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 08:49 PM   #2336
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,195
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Consider my 'investment' in this dialogue as due to my personally felt moral obligation to bring some fairness into the discussion of Mills and his discoveries.
Fairness?
Is it fair to acquire millions of dollars to research a dead end? Money that actually could help change the world? Really?

To be fair Mills needs put in prison. That's fair.

Be sure if I stole 1/100th the money Mills has stolen through deception, I would be sitting in jail typing this.

But Mills gets a free pass to try and steal even more? This is fair? really?

You can also be sure I actually do have a way to change the world with an investment of 1/100th what Mills scammed for. I bet there are at least 100 others sitting in the same position as me. It is absolutely infuriating.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 16th November 2018 at 08:52 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 01:00 AM   #2337
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,228
@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 04:44 AM   #2338
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,283
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Oh yes, everybody here would just love for Mills' claims to be true. That is why, despite no one offering a plausible scientific explanation for the excess heat in this one simple, early experiment from 1994, the only response from pseudoskeptics is to assume that the excess heat observed is somehow a mistake or a result of fraud.
Yes, that's how real science works. Remember when the scientists at CERN got results that appeared to indicate a particle moving faster than lightspeed? They checked, and they double-checked, then they released all of their data for people to check for themselves, and asked people at other particle accelerators to see if they could replicate the results independently, because their first assumption, and the one they considered most likely was that they had made a mistake.

Or, just last month, another groups of researchers found indications that there may be a new particle. But they say that it's probably statistical noise and are not only working to do more analysis themselves to try to rule it out, and have got independent researchers to analyse their own data to see if they have comparable results.

This is the bottom line in science - if you think you've broken the laws of physics, then you probably haven't. Error and statistical anomalies are far more likely as explanations. You then make all the data publicly available for everybody to go over (rather than a half-arsed paper where your readers have to assume almost everything about the experiment) and get truly independent replication.

Replication and falsifiability. The absolute foundations of real science. And all good scientists will always assume error or statistical noise first and foremost, and then devise further experiments/carry out further analysis in order to rule those things out. This doesn't mean that they don't want the results to be true. It just means that what they're doing is actual science.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 04:56 AM   #2339
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,283
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Now, imagine if helium did not have discrete spectral lines at all. How long would it have taken to discover it? Then it would have akin to hydrino: very small, inert, not detectable by spectral lines, and escaping rapidly to space.
I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 05:12 AM   #2340
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,218
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?
You have to keep things in order, I think spectral analysis is used in the second quarter of the new cycle he starts every 2 years. I think that means we aren't due to hear about the important spectral analysis "evidence" again until in the new year.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:05 AM   #2341
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,228
Oh are we back at the inert hydrino? So all the hydrino compounds claimed by Mills are lies then?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:09 AM   #2342
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
Fair enough.

How I make my research is a complete unknown to you.

I am not surprised that you will not name the supporters he got. Your answer implies that his only support is from his inner circle. That is as meaningful as having your mother as a character witness. Since I do not trust Mills I obviously do not consider his partners reliable. I would like to remind you that Mills have lied on more than one occasion. (You call it optimism or 'forward thinking statements' if I recall.)

Have Mills been able to convince anyone with relevant competence, except his inner circle, since the 90´s? If not, that IS a rather strong reason to suspect that there is nothing there.
See, I can tell you haven't even tried. People like Dr. Jonathan Phillips, Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Randy Booker, Dr. Peter Jansson, Nick Glumac and Dr. Conrads have all experienced Mills and his work firsthand and backed him in one way or another. Will you find that on Wiki? No. You will have to look at the original research. But since you are not a scientist you probably won't.

Quote:
A wonderful example of why you should never write in affection. One believes one to be clever and instead it just becomes a turd.

1. It is completely ot. 2. It has nothing to do with me or my post. 3. It equates predicting financial crashes with suspecting scams. 4. You could not avoid being condescending or maybe you really think avoiding scams is a kind of magic?
My point about the 2008 crash had naught to do with scam. It had to do with the issue of trusting mainstream sources and so called experts who are distant from what is going on and are less informed that you would think.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:14 AM   #2343
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Fairness?
Is it fair to acquire millions of dollars to research a dead end? Money that actually could help change the world? Really?

To be fair Mills needs put in prison. That's fair.

Be sure if I stole 1/100th the money Mills has stolen through deception, I would be sitting in jail typing this.

But Mills gets a free pass to try and steal even more? This is fair? really?

You can also be sure I actually do have a way to change the world with an investment of 1/100th what Mills scammed for. I bet there are at least 100 others sitting in the same position as me. It is absolutely infuriating.
Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:16 AM   #2344
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.

The reaction is in-between chemical and nuclear in energy. Much closer to chemical. Since it has to do with electrons it really is chemical.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:23 AM   #2345
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I thought spectral analysis was one of the purported pieces of evidence for the hydrino?
Different kind. You won't be able to heat this and see discrete lines like you can with ordinary compounds.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:25 AM   #2346
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Oh are we back at the inert hydrino? So all the hydrino compounds claimed by Mills are lies then?
By inert I am referring to the most common form of hydrino, which is dihydrino gas. However, hydrino hydride compounds are also quite stable, more stable than normal hydrides.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:29 AM   #2347
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Different kind. You won't be able to heat this and see discrete lines like you can with ordinary compounds.
So hydrino compounds don't vibrate or rotate?

Wow, this really is some weird state of matter!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:43 AM   #2348
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.
I submit that Mills is wildly successful.
He has to be the best ever.

He's made an incredible amount of profit over the last 30 years without producing much of anything at all.

Without even describing much of anything at all.

He wrote one main theory, I think, which no one else has managed to use to produce anything at all, either.

I'd like to shake his hand for his profitability.

I'm frankly getting older and getting tired of trying to stop people from throwing their money into such bonfires.

I'm close to deciding to stop debunking altogether. I am slowly moving to the idea that it's a colossal waste of my time.

The scams never seem to end. The line of suckers never gets shorter. The sycophant crowds never get smaller. The paid / invested shills never go away.

In fact, the same scams just keep coming around again and again.

When Mills fails to produce anything, let's say 5 years from now, Markie you will still be on boards pretending.

What do I know though? Maybe Planet X is actually going to kill us all next week.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 07:09 AM   #2349
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.
That sums it up nicely I think.

Last edited by hgus; 17th November 2018 at 08:08 AM.
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 08:07 AM   #2350
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
My education is in economics. I have no competence to evaluate state of the art physics. I do listen to what people with relevant competence say. And from that I draw my conclusion on the scientific side of things. I have read some of the non-scientifical stuff and it all looks fishy to me. The modus operandi of the operation alerts my scam-sensors. ....
Originally Posted by markie View Post
....Were your Spidey senses tingling before the financial crash of 2008? ....
Originally Posted by markie View Post
My point about the 2008 crash had naught to do with scam. It had to do with the issue of trusting mainstream sources and so called experts who are distant from what is going on and are less informed that you would think.
Oh no. You were not! Refering to my 'spidey senses' do not make any sense in that context. You were being condescending and your irritation was showing.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
See, I can tell you haven't even tried. People like Dr. Jonathan Phillips, Dr. Ramanujachary, Dr. Randy Booker, Dr. Peter Jansson, Nick Glumac and Dr. Conrads have all experienced Mills and his work firsthand and backed him in one way or another. Will you find that on Wiki? No. You will have to look at the original research. But since you are not a scientist you probably won't.
I know my limitations, I hope at least. 'Do your own research' is only meaningful if one have the basic knowledge to understand what one is researching. In this case I have not. So why should I read papers and experiments that I could not hope to evaluate? That would just be arrogant and deluded. But I do tend to trust mainstream science and most of your detractors on this thread. Funny isn't it? I have trust issues with Mills and you with everybody except Mills.

IF Hydrinos were real I would expect to see something like this. An initial strong scepticism and denial. Then a discussion on the merit of Hydrinos and after that a slow increase in acceptance as confirmatory research starts to appear. And then when critical mass is reached it would be generally accepted. But what do we see with hydrinos? An initial interest from outside groups and then nothing.
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 08:31 AM   #2351
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
So hydrino compounds don't vibrate or rotate?

Wow, this really is some weird state of matter!

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Sure they can vibrate and rotate, as I've said before. For example dihydrino is predicted to have a specific rotational energy ; it rotates very quickly due to its small bond length.
Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University has measured this. Check out Mills, Fraser and Yu's paper in the Chinese Journal of Physics from earlier this year.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 09:22 AM   #2352
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
Oh no. You were not! Refering to my 'spidey senses' do not make any sense in that context. You were being condescending and your irritation was showing.
I'm very seldom condescending, it is reserved for special cases. So FYI you're reading me wrong. I wasn't being condescending and I'm not irritated.

Quote:
I know my limitations, I hope at least. 'Do your own research' is only meaningful if one have the basic knowledge to understand what one is researching. In this case I have not. So why should I read papers and experiments that I could not hope to evaluate? That would just be arrogant and deluded. But I do tend to trust mainstream science and most of your detractors on this thread. Funny isn't it? I have trust issues with Mills and you with everybody except Mills.
Actually, I tend to be quite trusting with most everyone.

Quote:
IF Hydrinos were real I would expect to see something like this. An initial strong scepticism and denial. Then a discussion on the merit of Hydrinos and after that a slow increase in acceptance as confirmatory research starts to appear. And then when critical mass is reached it would be generally accepted. But what do we see with hydrinos? An initial interest from outside groups and then nothing.
That's a reasonable position. Likewise, you are assuming the scientific culture today is consistently reasonable in the way it vets. It sometimes isn't.
As UncertainH quoted from Wiki a few days ago:

After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[4] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

FYI Julian Schwinger was a Nobel Prize winner and a formidable intellect in physics.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 12:31 PM   #2353
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Sure they can vibrate and rotate, as I've said before. For example dihydrino is predicted to have a specific rotational energy ; it rotates very quickly due to its small bond length.
Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University has measured this. Check out Mills, Fraser and Yu's paper in the Chinese Journal of Physics from earlier this year.
Then they will have unique, observable, spectral lines.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 01:58 PM   #2354
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by markie View Post
That's a reasonable position. Likewise, you are assuming the scientific culture today is consistently reasonable in the way it vets. It sometimes isn't.
As UncertainH quoted from Wiki a few days ago:

After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[4] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

FYI Julian Schwinger was a Nobel Prize winner and a formidable intellect in physics.
Mills is known to have lied about his business. His business modus operandi is shady. His theory is not accepted anywhere outside his inner circle. And he has not produced a single tangible thing, only promises. And yet you expect me to give him the benefit of the doubt? He lost my trust the first time he lied. After that his word is ash. But actions speaks loader then words, but there is no action, is there? 30 frigging years of no action!!

In Mills case I would say that the scientific culture is working as intended. In the start his ideas got a look into. There was nothing there and the interest waned and died.
hgus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 05:11 PM   #2355
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,315
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It looks like Figure 2 from the long experiment is identical to the graph from the previous, shorter experiment. My take is that coil 4 was indeed examined at LeHigh university and the same 55 eV peak result was found as with the previous experiment. But for one reason or another Thermacore just reposted the old graph.
No they did not "just repost(ed) the old graph". They specifically claimed that the figure represented the current experiment. From page 6,

Quote:
ESCA analyses were also done by Lehigh on samples of nickel tubing removed from coil #4[7]. The results of these analyses show the characteristic hydrino peak at 55 eV. This peak is shown in Figure 2, confirming that excess heat can be produced by diffusion of hydrogen through nickel contacting K2CO3 as well as by electrolysis.
If you want to pick nits (and I suspect that Markie will) it is possible to argue that the figure shows the "characteristic hydrino peak" in a generic sense, and does not directly claim that it represents this particular experiment.

That doesn't wash. Any normal reading of the quote will come away with the impression that the figure shows the data mentioned.

There is a technical term for this: dishonesty. Not only that, exactly this behavior (representing the same data as applying to more than one experiment) is what brought down Harvard superstar John Darsee in 1981.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 05:26 PM   #2356
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,283
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Why? One might ask why it was that Helium was doubted to exist even ten years after it's discovery.
Because that's how science works. You'll notice in that story you posted that the common thread is that the scientists accepted what the evidence showed to be true, and that there was lots of independent verification.

So this doesn't really support your theory that scientists ridicule Mills because they're scared of the truth. Instead it supports what everybody else is saying - that if there were replicable results, then people would be convinced by them. And that is all ignoring the fact that you finished your quote just before the article started talking about those who did believe it when it was announced because they saw the evidence for themselves, and that this example is the best you could come up with and even then it's only 10 years before it was completely accepted by everybody.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 17th November 2018 at 05:28 PM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 05:31 PM   #2357
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Then they will have unique, observable, spectral lines.
And, as Mills has claimed, the sky will glow brightly in these wavelengths, as Dark Matter is hydrinos...
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 05:45 PM   #2358
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
@ hgus

Markie and Mills not only handwave away the non-detection of his mythical hydrino's by a scientific persecution complex, they also consistently ignore that IF the reaction were true we would detect it everywhere in nature as its energy is claimed to be similar to nuclear fusion, but the reaction is SO simple it can be performed in a garage with a phone camera to detect it, which would logically mean Jupiter for instance would be on fire.

You can also see the fraudulent nature of Mills et al in the way they keep focusing on unimportant minutia and 'soon to be developed' advances combined with tons of meandering technobabble. Actual scientists discovering a breaktrough share it with the world in a way designed to allow anyone to replicate it as quickly as possible to try and disprove it.
One more for hugs: lots (but not all) of what markie has posted these last few days has been posted here (or in a predecessor thread) before. Some of us who’ve been around this carousel before have stopped repeating ourselves in rebuttal; in one sense, markie is mimicking Mills: wash, rinse, repeat.

Interesting though, not much attempt to defend Mills in terms of his Nobel Prize deserving “theory” ... for those of us who’ve looked carefully at it, it’s crackpot nonsense, deeply flawed by its internal inconsistencies.

So that leaves just the experimental tests, and the wildly incredible observational inconsistencies; strange that markie focuses on the former and ignores the latter.

Oh, and he’s oddly silent on the health and environmental impacts of the many kilograms of hydrinos Mills has let escape from his lab in NJ ... it’s almost as if he believes there’s nothing to worry about ... because there are no hydrinos!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:00 PM   #2359
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,195
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Maybe you could start a go fund me. I can now understand why you are angry ; it's personal. When Mills succeeds maybe you'll feel better. Or worse. Hard to say.
It is personal with me, the same as when woo artists claim to psychic heal cancer and prey on those who are sick and desperate. All forms of fraud are stealing from those deserving. A lose lose for EVERYONE. Even you Markie. That;s right, even you lose when Mills successfully steals research money. It is just like stealing from legit alternative energy research making us all poorer.

Oh and PS
Mills can never succeed because hydrinos don't exist. His only chance to ever do anything meaningful in his whole life is drop the whole thing and start over trying to develope something that is actually real and might potentially advance human knowledge. Maybe in the field of medicine? Otherwise Mill's entire life becomes a sad waste of time, energy and a good mind. shameful
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 17th November 2018 at 06:45 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 06:08 PM   #2360
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,013
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Oh yes, everybody here would just love for Mills' claims to be true. That is why, despite no one offering a plausible scientific explanation for the excess heat in this one simple, early experiment from 1994, the only response from pseudoskeptics is to assume that the excess heat observed is somehow a mistake or a result of fraud.
Who the hell needs an explanation? It's been 24 years, stick the damn thing in a boiler and make some steam!
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 06:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.