[Continuation] Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 4 - Page 9

Dancing David · 1st April 2019, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks

Looks like April Fools!

Darat · 1st April 2019, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks

But why? He has already claimed he has had proof for decades that hydrinos exist. I thought he was working on his prototype commercial model generators now? Seems a rather large step backwards to me.

jrhowell · 1st April 2019, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks

I see nothing in that about the continuous generation of power. It refers to "continuum light", which apparently means a continuous spectrum vs. one with lines.

Both this and their recent calorimetry results are based on operation in a one-shot mode. They are assuming that no unexpected reactions are occurring that could account for the supposed excess energy. Without actual continuous operation there is a lot of room for measurement/experimental error.

-----
Added: A one-shot reaction that occurs in a very short amount of time produces a lot of power, but not much energy.

Red Baron Farms · 1st April 2019, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks

From the claim, "no energy releasing conventional chemical reaction was possible"

Out a unicorns behind there is no possibility!!

Another complete lie!

HappySkeptic99 · 1st April 2019, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

From the claim, "no energy releasing conventional chemical reaction was possible"

Out a unicorns behind there is no possibility!!

Another complete lie!

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input.

They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements?

There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy.

Still, pyrotechnics plus bad calibration and consideration of reactants = a scam that keeps giving.

Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation.

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

Squeegee Beckenheim · 1st April 2019, 04:14 PM

My mistake. I misread. Thanks for the corrections.

The Man · 1st April 2019, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

Also as i recall, they prepare that "silver shot" in a particular fashion. So the energy consumed in simply creating the shot fuel would have to be subtracted from that modest energy output.

HappySkeptic99 · 1st April 2019, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

OOps, that was 80mg of silver, worth about 5 cents. Still, 1kWH would be $36 of silver.

Darat · 2nd April 2019, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input.

They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements?

There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy.

Still, pyrotechnics plus bad calibration and consideration of reactants = a scam that keeps giving.

Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation.

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

The "paper" linked to is about "experiments" in Feb and March of this year.

HappySkeptic99 · 2nd April 2019, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

The "paper" linked to is about "experiments" in Feb and March of this year.

Did you read the paper? https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/...ort_040219.pdf

It specifically says that the measurements were from August and October 2017.

Perhaps you are thinking about the water bath video?

Darat · 2nd April 2019, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Did you read the paper? https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/...ort_040219.pdf

It specifically says that the measurements were from August and October 2017.

Perhaps you are thinking about the water bath video?

Yeah crossed wires, I was thinking you were talking about the "Calorimetry" paper, sure SBs link lead to that originally!

Squeegee Beckenheim · 5th April 2019, 02:57 PM

1st Quarter Update

Shareholder meeting presentation

LTC8K6 · 5th April 2019, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

1st Quarter Update

Shareholder meeting presentation

Meh...

Same old same old.

With Edison yet...

I was only able to get the shareholder presentation.

I couldn't find any 1Q19 update.

Darat · 6th April 2019, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Meh...

Same old same old.

With Edison yet...

I was only able to get the shareholder presentation.

I couldn't find any 1Q19 update.

Whilst it is, it is also a reset, all those promises of commercial prototypes... oh dear we are back to the beginning again, got to prove the research again...

Hans · 7th April 2019, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Whilst it is, it is also a reset, all those promises of commercial prototypes... oh dear we are back to the beginning again, got to prove the research again...

Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL

Horatius · 8th April 2019, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Hans

Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL

Well, it has been quite a few years since he "sold" anything to anyone, so he should probably look into ~~scamming~~ selling it to someone else, he's due.

Of course, this will be a bit harder than the last time, what with there not being sky-high oil prices and an economic downturn making people desperate to find cheaper energy.

Perhaps he could try selling it to all the Albertans outraged over the new Canadian Carbon Tax. "Stick it to Justine True-dough's Libtards! They can tax carbon, but they can't tax Hydrinos(TM)*!"

Come to think of it, could you fake up a reason why a Hydrino reaction could cut down on CO2 production? I'm sure there's coal fired plants out there run by morons who would fall for it.

"*because they don't exist...."

HappySkeptic99 · 9th April 2019, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

1st Quarter Update

Shareholder meeting presentation

They are links to the same PDF.

Really, are shareholders going to sit still for all those slides?

I actually got angry reading it. It is so full of B.S. . There is literally zero information on successful energy production - only a few glowy or explody things, and a talk of how they "might" produce energy with the SunCell or Magneto-hydrodynamic generator.

They did go out of their way to say that everything about Hydrinos are now "proved", 100% and conclusively. They are the biggest ***** liars around. The thing is, the number of people in the company that know it is lies, might only be a few people. I bet they have very strong NDAs at the company, preventing any whistle-blowing. I doubt they have many Ph.D.s on staff, either.

Hans · 12th April 2019, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, it has been quite a few years since he "sold" anything to anyone, so he should probably look into ~~scamming~~ selling it to someone else, he's due.

Of course, this will be a bit harder than the last time, what with there not being sky-high oil prices and an economic downturn making people desperate to find cheaper energy.

Perhaps he could try selling it to all the Albertans outraged over the new Canadian Carbon Tax. "Stick it to Justine True-dough's Libtards! They can tax carbon, but they can't tax Hydrinos(TM)*!"

Come to think of it, could you fake up a reason why a Hydrino reaction could cut down on CO2 production? I'm sure there's coal fired plants out there run by morons who would fall for it.

"*because they don't exist...."

Yes what lies will he try next? Same old same old or something new.....It is exciting watching a scam live (one feels for the defrauded investors thou)

Squeegee Beckenheim · 15th April 2019, 08:09 AM

CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit

As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step.

He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test.

Reality Check · 15th April 2019, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit
...

The replies include good examples of how people support cranks and pseudoscience with idiotic arguments.

optiongeek: A "Miils" argument that asserting things about currents in rings magically produces an induced electric field that stabilizes Mills electron as a shell around a nucleus woo.
Rings have the same problem as a shell - they are unstable. Even worse, they repel each other and so a perturbation is more likely to make the "shell" break.

WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data.

JeanTate · 15th April 2019, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit

As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step.

He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test.

He gives one such explanation.

Another is that Mills’ predictions - i.e. the values for various parameters - differ from experimentally determined values (many of them anyway), by more than 3 sigma (sometimes by much, much more).

If you accept Mills’ claims at face value, just a single, robust mismatch is enough reason to ignore the whole thing ....

MarcoM85BG · 16th April 2019, 12:57 AM

Hi everybody,

I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist. I got interested in Mills' theory because of the CP approach, so also about the hydrino-related work and the Suncell. I'm quite fascinated about the theory and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, but I'm also quite disturbed about the big late in the so-called "hydrino" energy technologies.

So, my question.

Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet)
And look at the calculations (attach 02).

My own results are that the showed spectra is related to something diatomic, with a bond length of circa 0,36 Ångström, very like the half of a "normal" hydrogen molecule (so also the smallest known molecule).

Had anyone done this calculation yet?
Do you maybe have an other "classical" explanation for this results or the origin of this spectra?

Thank you in advance for any help.
Hope you like my contribution.
* sorry for the italian in the excel frame

Kind regards,
M.M.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 16th April 2019, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by JeanTate

He gives one such explanation.

I did say "a", not "the".

Squeegee Beckenheim · 16th April 2019, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data.

He's a weird one. Claims to be an engineer, to work in a lab, to have worked with researchers at top universities, and to have the knowledge/access to equipment to have attempted to build his own hydrino reactor before Mills shut him down, but he's absolutely terrible at critical thinking. Half of what he posts is completely irrelevant to what everybody else is talking about, he's 100% in on the whole "all physicists are deliberately suppressing Mills' research because they earn their living from quantum mechanics being true", will buy wholesale anything said by an authority that agrees with him, and if presented with facts that contradict his beliefs will either come up with convoluted reasons for why those facts cannot be true or are irrelevant, or will completely switch his reasoning on a dime to incorporate those facts while not altering the conclusion that he draws from those facts one iota.

His posts remind me of the worst of the cranks that we've had here over the years who have claimed to be able to disprove Einstein, etc., except that if what he posts is true he actually should be qualified to offer some meaningful commentary rather than being comparable to someone who's just pulled an idea out of the aether and thinks that that's the same thing as doing science.

I mean, it shouldn't surprise me, given what I know about the way the human mind works, but I can't help but have it strike me as odd.

The Man · 16th April 2019, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

Hi everybody,

I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist. I got interested in Mills' theory because of the CP approach, so also about the hydrino-related work and the Suncell. I'm quite fascinated about the theory and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, but I'm also quite disturbed about the big late in the so-called "hydrino" energy technologies.

So, my question.

Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet)
And look at the calculations (attach 02).

My own results are that the showed spectra is related to something diatomic, with a bond length of circa 0,36 Ångström, very like the half of a "normal" hydrogen molecule (so also the smallest known molecule).

Had anyone done this calculation yet?
Do you maybe have an other "classical" explanation for this results or the origin of this spectra?

Thank you in advance for any help.
Hope you like my contribution.
* sorry for the italian in the excel frame

Kind regards,
M.M.

Welcome to the forum and thread MarcoM85BG,

According to the operation procedure...

https://smif.pratt.duke.edu/sites/sm...edure_Rev9.pdf

the 1200 grating and 325nm laser configuration is not within the operational functionality for the Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRam Aramis Raman/PL System

Reality Check · 16th April 2019, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist...So, my question.

Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet)
...

Hi MarcoM85BG. This thread has been going for a couple of years and Mills previous stupidity with the Raman spectra has been explained before. Mills ignorance of physics has been explained before (frequent ignorant claims that his results cannot come from standard physics when physicists say that they can!).

As a chemist, you will have used scientific instruments. You know that they come with manufacturer's instructions on how to use them to get valid data. You know that if you violate these instructions, you will get invalid results. That is what Mills spent years doing. That is the period where that Raman "spectra" was published.

Your calculations are not for this thread and are based on invalid data as above. The thread is about Mills' calculations, e.g. in Mills' deluded and lying book.

P.S. Raman spectroscopy is "is a spectroscopic technique used to observe vibrational, rotational, and other low-frequency modes in a system". If that spectra were valid the peaks need not come from vibrating hydrogen molecules and especially not from Mills hydrino delusion.

You may not understand how deluded hydrino are, MarcoM85BG, since you seem to believe in Mills theory.

Mills does not have a "CP theory". Mills has assertions with classical physics and cherry picked parts of QM. That includes QM energy levels. What QM says about adding energy levels below the ground state is that the lowest level becomes the ground state. Thus a normal hydrogen atom in Mills' delusion would be in the lowest possible hydrino state. This does not happen in the real world. Mills stops this with a catalyst delusion.
Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
Chemists expect that this is a delusion because they know about chemical bonds and their shapes.
Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
High school science students suspect this is a delusion because they know about the shell theorem. The net force between the shell and nucleus is zero wherever the nucleus is within the shell. Bump the shell and the nucleus is ejected!
Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
The measured size of bound electrons is less than that of a proton!
The upper limit of the radius of an electron is 10^-22 meters from considering an electron in a Penning trap.
Mills has the delusion that a free election is some kind of flying disk.
Electrons scattering from each other act like small, spherical particles.
Mills has the delusion that he can arbitrarily add QM features to classical physics.
QM theory includes the experimental observation that quantum particles have intrinsic spin that is impossible in classical physics. Mills merely asserts that electrons have that QM spin.

Reality Check · 16th April 2019, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

...and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics,

Are you aware that all of the maybe hundreds of ionization energies listed in Mills' book are wrong, MarcoM85BG?
Mills even emphasizes this in his tables with % differences from measured values. The possibility of getting correct values is only in Mills head.

On the other hand, QM calculations do get correct values.

malbui · 20th April 2019, 06:02 AM

I now have my Tesla Model 3 and a very fine car it is indeed. Where's the BLP generator to stick in the boot so I never have to worry about recharging again?

Hellbound · 20th April 2019, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by malbui

I now have my Tesla Model 3 and a very fine car it is indeed. Where's the BLP generator to stick in the boot so I never have to worry about recharging again?

It was put on the delivery unicorn last week; are you sure it hasn't reached you yet?

Mike! · 21st April 2019, 03:49 PM

Latest video from BLP?
Maybe an actual Hydrino^TM based product on the shelves now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hans · 23rd April 2019, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Latest video from BLP?
Maybe an actual Hydrino^TM based product on the shelves now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Mike I might be wrong but I suspect, suspect I say again, that you may not hold BLP's claims to be fully true?

MarcoM85BG · 24th April 2019, 01:43 AM

Sorry for showing up only now after my first post.

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills.

To "Reality Check": really I don't get why my calculations are not for this thread, if the formulas are real, checked and actually applied worldwide. They're from the normal lectures of physical chemistry and I can assure you that at college I saw the instrument giving this kind of spectra, and the given difference in the peaks revealed exactly the bond length of the analized molecule. So they work!

For all the rest you wrote to me, sorry if I gave you the idea that I was a fan. I'm only interested in deepen all the aspect of the most promising new ideas in physics, and obviously, I'm really exited about the new ones about atoms: i MUST deepen. Why Mills is provoking this "anti"fan reaction in you?

In the meanwhile, considering correct the Raman formulas, if you both can help me to check the evidences of why this or these spectras ar false, I really appreciate.

Greetings and good search for the thruth.

Marco

MarcoM85BG · 24th April 2019, 01:56 AM

Sorry, I read also your post about the exactness of QM computational models...
I REALLY do not agree: I studied, in deep, for 3 years, computational chemistry. I used ALL the softwares like Gaussian, Spartan, Hyperchem etc making A LOT of calculation (I was quite obsessed about the calculation of the electronic levels of molecules...). I can assure you that also the BEST models (post-HF like B3LYP density functional, Moller Plesset and so on...) CAN'T get you exact energy levels with tiny differencies compared the experimental ones. For molecules, obviously, and not for the simple H atom.
Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT.
We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules.
Greetings

MM

W.D.Clinger · 24th April 2019, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills.

That's okay. No one else has been able to replicate those results either.

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT.
We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules.

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

HappySkeptic99 · 24th April 2019, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist).

Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work.

halleyscomet · 24th April 2019, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist).

Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work.

That's not an answer to the question you're replying to...

JeanTate · 24th April 2019, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

Sorry for showing up only now after my first post.

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills.
<snip>

(my bold)

Marco,

May I ask, why do (did) you make that assumption?

I mean, Mills’ interpretation/reported results is/are highly unusual. And - as far as I know - there are no independent reports confirming Mills’ results. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

optiongeek · 24th April 2019, 04:59 PM

Marco,

Apologies for communicating with you in the public thread - I tried sending you a private message but I guess you haven't noticed.

I fear you'll find little in the way of support or constructive engagement regarding Mills' theory on this board. Please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions.

MarcoM85BG · 25th April 2019, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by JeanTate

(my bold)

Marco,

May I ask, why do (did) you make that assumption?

I mean, Mills’ interpretation/reported results is/are highly unusual. And - as far as I know - there are no independent reports confirming Mills’ results. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

Precisely, yes. It's frustrating simply not to see any other lab replicating or, at least, trying to replicate these experiment and publish their results with spectrums. Has someone found any publication that I can finally read?

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

That's okay. No one else has been able to replicate those results either.

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

You hit the problem, Clinger! The three-body has an EXACT solution, using numerical methods (iterations), and I mean EXACT speaking about that the numerical result derived by the formula replicate EXACTLY the measurable one. Yet, these kind of math trick is very similar to the iterative methods used by all the QM methods to calculate the energy levels of atoms and molecules. But, in this case, the "solution" is only the final convergence of the numerical method (pointing to the lower energy level of a multidiminesional potential surface) and, IT NOT COINCIDE with the experimental one. There is ALWASY the so-called "correlation error", as my old professor Sironi said to us.

I mean, another time: THIS is the main problem. If (assuming) I could use the most powerful supercomputer, the actual QM model can't simulate in the right way the behaviour of atom and molecules, denying to us to have the possibility to exactly forecast any physico-chemical event. We can only continue to make "better approximations", but, the "correlation error" is always present.

The three body problem, beeing solved, just permitted us to explore space. So, Newtonian Mechanics works!

Greetings and good 25 April

MM

Squeegee Beckenheim · 25th April 2019, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by optiongeek

Marco,

Apologies for communicating with you in the public thread - I tried sending you a private message but I guess you haven't noticed.

I fear you'll find little in the way of support or constructive engagement regarding Mills' theory on this board. Please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions.

For "please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions" read "please check your private messages for my suggestions on where you're less likely to find knowledgeable people who challenge Mills, and where such people tend to be shouted down".

1st April 2019, 10:51 AM	#321
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks Looks like April Fools!
	__________________ 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

1st April 2019, 10:53 AM	#322
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,987	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks But why? He has already claimed he has had proof for decades that hydrinos exist. I thought he was working on his prototype commercial model generators now? Seems a rather large step backwards to me.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

1st April 2019, 11:41 AM	#323
jrhowell Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tampa Bay, Florida Posts: 714	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks I see nothing in that about the continuous generation of power. It refers to "continuum light", which apparently means a continuous spectrum vs. one with lines. Both this and their recent calorimetry results are based on operation in a one-shot mode. They are assuming that no unexpected reactions are occurring that could account for the supposed excess energy. Without actual continuous operation there is a lot of room for measurement/experimental error. ----- Added: A one-shot reaction that occurs in a very short amount of time produces a lot of power, but not much energy.
	Last edited by jrhowell; 1st April 2019 at 12:04 PM.

1st April 2019, 11:55 AM	#324
Red Baron Farms Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 5,174	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim New claim of continuous generation of 1MW, with 10MW peaks From the claim, "no energy releasing conventional chemical reaction was possible" Out a unicorns behind there is no possibility!! Another complete lie!
	__________________ 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

1st April 2019, 12:31 PM	#325
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms From the claim, "no energy releasing conventional chemical reaction was possible" Out a unicorns behind there is no possibility!! Another complete lie! True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time. There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input. They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements? There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy. Still, pyrotechnics plus bad calibration and consideration of reactants = a scam that keeps giving. Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation. Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Last edited by HappySkeptic99; 1st April 2019 at 12:57 PM.

1st April 2019, 04:14 PM	#326
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,249	My mistake. I misread. Thanks for the corrections.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st April 2019, 04:46 PM	#327
The Man Unbanned zombie poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 15,182	Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time. Also as i recall, they prepare that "silver shot" in a particular fashion. So the energy consumed in simply creating the shot fuel would have to be subtracted from that modest energy output.
	__________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ

1st April 2019, 05:17 PM	#328
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI! OOps, that was 80mg of silver, worth about 5 cents. Still, 1kWH would be $36 of silver.
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97

2nd April 2019, 02:29 AM	#329
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,987	Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time. There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input. They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements? There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy. Still, pyrotechnics plus bad calibration and consideration of reactants = a scam that keeps giving. Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation. Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI! The "paper" linked to is about "experiments" in Feb and March of this year.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

2nd April 2019, 08:19 AM	#330
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Originally Posted by Darat The "paper" linked to is about "experiments" in Feb and March of this year. Did you read the paper? https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/...ort_040219.pdf It specifically says that the measurements were from August and October 2017. Perhaps you are thinking about the water bath video?
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Last edited by HappySkeptic99; 2nd April 2019 at 08:58 AM.

2nd April 2019, 12:53 PM	#331
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,987	Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 Did you read the paper? https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/...ort_040219.pdf It specifically says that the measurements were from August and October 2017. Perhaps you are thinking about the water bath video? Yeah crossed wires, I was thinking you were talking about the "Calorimetry" paper, sure SBs link lead to that originally!
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

5th April 2019, 02:57 PM	#332
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,249	1st Quarter Update Shareholder meeting presentation
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

5th April 2019, 03:07 PM	#333
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,421	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 1st Quarter Update Shareholder meeting presentation Meh... Same old same old. With Edison yet... I was only able to get the shareholder presentation. I couldn't find any 1Q19 update.
	__________________ 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; 5th April 2019 at 03:09 PM.

6th April 2019, 05:23 AM	#334
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,987	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Meh... Same old same old. With Edison yet... I was only able to get the shareholder presentation. I couldn't find any 1Q19 update. Whilst it is, it is also a reset, all those promises of commercial prototypes... oh dear we are back to the beginning again, got to prove the research again...
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

7th April 2019, 08:27 AM	#335
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,460	Originally Posted by Darat Whilst it is, it is also a reset, all those promises of commercial prototypes... oh dear we are back to the beginning again, got to prove the research again... Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,460

8th April 2019, 06:34 AM	#336
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,024	Originally Posted by Hans Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL Well, it has been quite a few years since he "sold" anything to anyone, so he should probably look into ~~scamming~~ selling it to someone else, he's due. Of course, this will be a bit harder than the last time, what with there not being sky-high oil prices and an economic downturn making people desperate to find cheaper energy. Perhaps he could try selling it to all the Albertans outraged over the new Canadian Carbon Tax. "Stick it to Justine True-dough's Libtards! They can tax carbon, but they can't tax Hydrinos(TM)!" Come to think of it, could you fake up a reason why a Hydrino reaction could cut down on CO2 production? I'm sure there's coal fired plants out there run by morons who would fall for it. "because they don't exist...."
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

9th April 2019, 07:37 AM	#337
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 1st Quarter Update Shareholder meeting presentation They are links to the same PDF. Really, are shareholders going to sit still for all those slides? I actually got angry reading it. It is so full of B.S. . There is literally zero information on successful energy production - only a few glowy or explody things, and a talk of how they "might" produce energy with the SunCell or Magneto-hydrodynamic generator. They did go out of their way to say that everything about Hydrinos are now "proved", 100% and conclusively. They are the biggest ***** liars around. The thing is, the number of people in the company that know it is lies, might only be a few people. I bet they have very strong NDAs at the company, preventing any whistle-blowing. I doubt they have many Ph.D.s on staff, either.
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97

12th April 2019, 09:07 PM	#338
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,460	Originally Posted by Horatius Well, it has been quite a few years since he "sold" anything to anyone, so he should probably look into ~~scamming~~ selling it to someone else, he's due. Of course, this will be a bit harder than the last time, what with there not being sky-high oil prices and an economic downturn making people desperate to find cheaper energy. Perhaps he could try selling it to all the Albertans outraged over the new Canadian Carbon Tax. "Stick it to Justine True-dough's Libtards! They can tax carbon, but they can't tax Hydrinos(TM)!" Come to think of it, could you fake up a reason why a Hydrino reaction could cut down on CO2 production? I'm sure there's coal fired plants out there run by morons who would fall for it. "because they don't exist...." Yes what lies will he try next? Same old same old or something new.....It is exciting watching a scam live (one feels for the defrauded investors thou)
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,460

15th April 2019, 08:09 AM	#339
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,249	CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step. He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

15th April 2019, 01:58 PM	#340
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,715	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit ... The replies include good examples of how people support cranks and pseudoscience with idiotic arguments. optiongeek: A "Miils" argument that asserting things about currents in rings magically produces an induced electric field that stabilizes Mills electron as a shell around a nucleus woo. Rings have the same problem as a shell - they are unstable. Even worse, they repel each other and so a perturbation is more likely to make the "shell" break. WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

15th April 2019, 06:03 PM	#341
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim CSurveyGuy has popped his head round the door of the subreddit As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step. He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test. He gives one such explanation. Another is that Mills’ predictions - i.e. the values for various parameters - differ from experimentally determined values (many of them anyway), by more than 3 sigma (sometimes by much, much more). If you accept Mills’ claims at face value, just a single, robust mismatch is enough reason to ignore the whole thing ....
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

16th April 2019, 02:42 AM	#343
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,249	Originally Posted by JeanTate He gives one such explanation. I did say "a", not "the".
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

16th April 2019, 04:52 AM	#344
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,249	Originally Posted by Reality Check WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data. He's a weird one. Claims to be an engineer, to work in a lab, to have worked with researchers at top universities, and to have the knowledge/access to equipment to have attempted to build his own hydrino reactor before Mills shut him down, but he's absolutely terrible at critical thinking. Half of what he posts is completely irrelevant to what everybody else is talking about, he's 100% in on the whole "all physicists are deliberately suppressing Mills' research because they earn their living from quantum mechanics being true", will buy wholesale anything said by an authority that agrees with him, and if presented with facts that contradict his beliefs will either come up with convoluted reasons for why those facts cannot be true or are irrelevant, or will completely switch his reasoning on a dime to incorporate those facts while not altering the conclusion that he draws from those facts one iota. His posts remind me of the worst of the cranks that we've had here over the years who have claimed to be able to disprove Einstein, etc., except that if what he posts is true he actually should be qualified to offer some meaningful commentary rather than being comparable to someone who's just pulled an idea out of the aether and thinks that that's the same thing as doing science. I mean, it shouldn't surprise me, given what I know about the way the human mind works, but I can't help but have it strike me as odd.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

16th April 2019, 07:34 AM	#345
The Man Unbanned zombie poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 15,182	Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG Hi everybody, I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist. I got interested in Mills' theory because of the CP approach, so also about the hydrino-related work and the Suncell. I'm quite fascinated about the theory and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, but I'm also quite disturbed about the big late in the so-called "hydrino" energy technologies. So, my question. Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet) And look at the calculations (attach 02). My own results are that the showed spectra is related to something diatomic, with a bond length of circa 0,36 Ångström, very like the half of a "normal" hydrogen molecule (so also the smallest known molecule). Had anyone done this calculation yet? Do you maybe have an other "classical" explanation for this results or the origin of this spectra? Thank you in advance for any help. Hope you like my contribution. * sorry for the italian in the excel frame Kind regards, M.M. Welcome to the forum and thread MarcoM85BG, According to the operation procedure... https://smif.pratt.duke.edu/sites/sm...edure_Rev9.pdf the 1200 grating and 325nm laser configuration is not within the operational functionality for the Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRam Aramis Raman/PL System
	__________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ

16th April 2019, 03:47 PM	#346
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,715	Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist...So, my question. Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet) ... Hi MarcoM85BG. This thread has been going for a couple of years and Mills previous stupidity with the Raman spectra has been explained before. Mills ignorance of physics has been explained before (frequent ignorant claims that his results cannot come from standard physics when physicists say that they can!). As a chemist, you will have used scientific instruments. You know that they come with manufacturer's instructions on how to use them to get valid data. You know that if you violate these instructions, you will get invalid results. That is what Mills spent years doing. That is the period where that Raman "spectra" was published. Your calculations are not for this thread and are based on invalid data as above. The thread is about Mills' calculations, e.g. in Mills' deluded and lying book. P.S. Raman spectroscopy is "is a spectroscopic technique used to observe vibrational, rotational, and other low-frequency modes in a system". If that spectra were valid the peaks need not come from vibrating hydrogen molecules and especially not from Mills hydrino delusion. You may not understand how deluded hydrino are, MarcoM85BG, since you seem to believe in Mills theory. Mills does not have a "CP theory". Mills has assertions with classical physics and cherry picked parts of QM. That includes QM energy levels. What QM says about adding energy levels below the ground state is that the lowest level becomes the ground state. Thus a normal hydrogen atom in Mills' delusion would be in the lowest possible hydrino state. This does not happen in the real world. Mills stops this with a catalyst delusion. Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus. Chemists expect that this is a delusion because they know about chemical bonds and their shapes. Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus. High school science students suspect this is a delusion because they know about the shell theorem. The net force between the shell and nucleus is zero wherever the nucleus is within the shell. Bump the shell and the nucleus is ejected! Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus. The measured size of bound electrons is less than that of a proton! The upper limit of the radius of an electron is 10^-22 meters from considering an electron in a Penning trap. Mills has the delusion that a free election is some kind of flying disk. Electrons scattering from each other act like small, spherical particles. Mills has the delusion that he can arbitrarily add QM features to classical physics. QM theory includes the experimental observation that quantum particles have intrinsic spin that is impossible in classical physics. Mills merely asserts that electrons have that QM spin.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th April 2019 at 04:14 PM.

16th April 2019, 04:19 PM	#347
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,715	Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG ...and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, Are you aware that all of the maybe hundreds of ionization energies listed in Mills' book are wrong, MarcoM85BG? Mills even emphasizes this in his tables with % differences from measured values. The possibility of getting correct values is only in Mills head. On the other hand, QM calculations do get correct values.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

20th April 2019, 06:02 AM	#348
malbui Beauf Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,775	I now have my Tesla Model 3 and a very fine car it is indeed. Where's the BLP generator to stick in the boot so I never have to worry about recharging again?
malbui Beauf Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,775	__________________ "But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?"

20th April 2019, 07:40 AM	#349
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day... Posts: 14,388	Originally Posted by malbui I now have my Tesla Model 3 and a very fine car it is indeed. Where's the BLP generator to stick in the boot so I never have to worry about recharging again? It was put on the delivery unicorn last week; are you sure it hasn't reached you yet?
	__________________ History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

24th April 2019, 01:43 AM	#352
MarcoM85BG New Blood Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 16	Sorry for showing up only now after my first post. To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills. To "Reality Check": really I don't get why my calculations are not for this thread, if the formulas are real, checked and actually applied worldwide. They're from the normal lectures of physical chemistry and I can assure you that at college I saw the instrument giving this kind of spectra, and the given difference in the peaks revealed exactly the bond length of the analized molecule. So they work! For all the rest you wrote to me, sorry if I gave you the idea that I was a fan. I'm only interested in deepen all the aspect of the most promising new ideas in physics, and obviously, I'm really exited about the new ones about atoms: i MUST deepen. Why Mills is provoking this "anti"fan reaction in you? In the meanwhile, considering correct the Raman formulas, if you both can help me to check the evidences of why this or these spectras ar false, I really appreciate. Greetings and good search for the thruth. Marco
MarcoM85BG New Blood Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 16

24th April 2019, 01:56 AM	#353
MarcoM85BG New Blood Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 16	Sorry, I read also your post about the exactness of QM computational models... I REALLY do not agree: I studied, in deep, for 3 years, computational chemistry. I used ALL the softwares like Gaussian, Spartan, Hyperchem etc making A LOT of calculation (I was quite obsessed about the calculation of the electronic levels of molecules...). I can assure you that also the BEST models (post-HF like B3LYP density functional, Moller Plesset and so on...) CAN'T get you exact energy levels with tiny differencies compared the experimental ones. For molecules, obviously, and not for the simple H atom. Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT. We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules. Greetings MM
MarcoM85BG New Blood Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 16

24th April 2019, 04:42 AM	#354
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. That's okay. No one else has been able to replicate those results either. Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT. We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules. In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise. Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,679

24th April 2019, 09:07 AM	#355
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise. Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem? QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist). Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work.
HappySkeptic99 Scholar Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 97

24th April 2019, 10:13 AM	#356
halleyscomet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 10,259	Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise. Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem? QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist). Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work. That's not an answer to the question you're replying to...
	__________________ Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

24th April 2019, 03:03 PM	#357
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG Sorry for showing up only now after my first post. To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills. <snip> (my bold) Marco, May I ask, why do (did) you make that assumption? I mean, Mills’ interpretation/reported results is/are highly unusual. And - as far as I know - there are no independent reports confirming Mills’ results. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

24th April 2019, 04:59 PM	#358
optiongeek Scholar Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 79	Marco, Apologies for communicating with you in the public thread - I tried sending you a private message but I guess you haven't noticed. I fear you'll find little in the way of support or constructive engagement regarding Mills' theory on this board. Please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions.
optiongeek Scholar Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 79