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 8th May 2017, 05:56 PM   #281
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by markie View Post
More like bremsstrahlung, but it involves both acceleration and deceleration of the electron. The inward collapse of the electron orbitsphere bubble stops when force balance is achieved, i.e., when the outward centrifugal force of the spinning electron mass equals the inward coulombic force. The electron is not treated as a point ...
Not treated as a point? I'm reasonably confident that the symmetrical collapse of a thin spherical shell of charge (the orbitsphere) would not radiate because the electrical field lines outside the shell are the same before, during and after the collapse. The world sees the orbitsphere as a point charge at its centre, and symmetric changes of radius do not cause any changes in electrical field and therefore do not emit photons via a bremsstrahlung-like process.

Of course, this discussion is the equivalent of discussing detailed properties of the tooth fairy, as we have seen earlier in this thread that the concept of the orbitsphere is fundamentally inconsistent. We can get all hirsute again if you like.
hecd2 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 8th May 2017, 06:02 PM   #282
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You seem algebraically nimble enough, you would probably enjoy digesting Mills' GUTCP.
It's indigestible nonsense, so riddled with internal inconsistencies you can't make any sense of it, from page to page. And then there are the incompatibilities with well-established experimental and observational results.

Just my HO of course ... but it seems to me that RC, and several other ISF members, share my opinion. As do those who've written papers critiquing it.

Much of what you find on viXra is worse, but then there's some there that is far better than Mills' crackpot ideas. Still crackpot nonsense, but at least they're not into scams, and certainly don't need to explain why they do not have the relevant NJ environmental permits ...

Last edited by JeanTate; 8th May 2017 at 06:05 PM.
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 8th May 2017, 06:03 PM   #283
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by markie View Post
...,when the outward centrifugal force of the spinning electron mass equals the inward coulombic force.
In the real world that statement leads to your "spinning electron mass" spinning faster than the speed of light ! But then the whole idea of an electron being a shell of "spinning electron mass" is insanely ignorant about physics, e.g. the fact that electrons and other particles pass through that shell.

12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
12 April 2017 markie: A 2012 paper showing a Mills lie about spectra and conventional explanations for them (no hydrinos need apply!)
Reality Check 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 8th May 2017, 06:21 PM   #284
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which applies to collections of point particles, not charged shells which is one of Mills lies.
Well, acording to the linked article, Goedeke wrote:

Quote:
Naturally, it is very tempting to hypothesize from this that the existence of Planck's constant is implied by classical electromagnetic theory augmented by the conditions of no radiation. Such a hypothesis would be essentially equivalent to suggesting a 'theory of nature' in which all stable particles (or aggregates) are merely nonradiating charge-current distributions whose mechanical properties are electromagnetic in origin.
So it sounds like the nonradiation condition could apply to something besides point charges. (Also interesting that Mills doesn't seem to cite Goedeke)
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 8th May 2017, 07:02 PM   #285
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Well, acording to the linked article, Goedeke wrote:
The "distribution of accelerated charges" that the condition is based on seems to be a collection of point particles.
Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory by G. H. Goedecke (1964) - the abstract does not mention a continuous distribution.
On the radiation from point charges by H. A. Haus (1986) derives the condition from a point particle.

21 February 2017: Ignorantly using the Haus condition for a collection of point particles on a single particle he imagines to have extent.
Quote:
Page 17 (ONE-ELECTRON ATOMS: NONRADIATION SONDITION) does in fact begin with a classic bound electron because that is explicitly stated in the lie about the Haus condition: "The condition for nonradiation for a moving point charge...". The condition is for an ensemble of moving charges as Mills even states in the next sentence!
Appendix I (page 1685) refers to the nonradiation condition for a moving point charge in Haus and derives it as in Haus.

There is an assertion that the Haus condition must apply to a "moving charge-density function" because "charge obeys superposition". But it is the electric from charged point particles that can be superimposed.
Reality Check 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 8th May 2017, 10:41 PM   #286
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You seem algebraically nimble enough, you would probably enjoy digesting Mills' GUTCP.
What for ? I can read , I am literate enough, and I do not enjoy flat earther writings.
Aepervius 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 8th May 2017, 10:47 PM   #287
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Need to determine whether we are talking about most probable radial distance or expectation value (average radius).

If I remember right the most probable radial distance for the 2p electron is 4a0and for the 2s electron it's about 5.3a0 based on differentiating the probability density and looking for r at which the differential goes to zero. The expectation values are different from these and greater, eg 5a0 for a 2p electron. 1s, 2p, 3d folows Bohr radii exactly (the polynomial in r has only one term).

In any case, the radius in nth shell is not na0

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong.
You are right, I lazied out, I took the most probable radial distance, because this is the one easy enough to calculate without integration to disprove the n*a0.
Aepervius 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 9th May 2017, 03:22 AM   #288
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Wait, is this according to Mills' theory? Because if it is, and if Mills' theory also disallows quantum (non-classical) leaps of electrons from one radius to another, then when a electron enters an excited state by trapping a photon the electron would have to classically move from the smaller radius to the larger radius, which would require the electron to accelerate, which would cause it to emit photons.
My understanding of particle physics is almost zero, but this doesn't seem right to my limited understanding. Surely something which accelerates is gaining energy, and therefore wouldn't be emitting photons? Or am I completely wrong about that?
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 03:47 AM   #289
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
My understanding of particle physics is almost zero, but this doesn't seem right to my limited understanding. Surely something which accelerates is gaining energy, and therefore wouldn't be emitting photons? Or am I completely wrong about that?
An accelerating charge is any charge which when viewed from an inertial frame is changing velocity. According to classical electromagnetism, an accelerating charge radiates electromagnetic energy (and therefore photons). The energy radiated is zero in the direction of the acceleration vector rising to a maximum perpendicular to it. This is the basis for a transmitting antenna in which charges are accelerated in some sort of cyclical fashion radiating EM waves, and is the basis for bremsstrahlung or free-free emission in which the velocity of electrons is changed by interaction with other particles resulting in photon emission. It can be derived from Maxwell's equations for the non-relativistic case.

Last edited by hecd2; 9th May 2017 at 03:49 AM. Reason: typos
hecd2 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 9th May 2017, 04:47 AM   #290
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
An accelerating charge is any charge which when viewed from an inertial frame is changing velocity. According to classical electromagnetism, an accelerating charge radiates electromagnetic energy (and therefore photons). The energy radiated is zero in the direction of the acceleration vector rising to a maximum perpendicular to it. This is the basis for a transmitting antenna in which charges are accelerated in some sort of cyclical fashion radiating EM waves, and is the basis for bremsstrahlung or free-free emission in which the velocity of electrons is changed by interaction with other particles resulting in photon emission. It can be derived from Maxwell's equations for the non-relativistic case.
I'll take your word for it, but it seems counter-intuitive, to me. I'd have thought that an increase in acceleration would require an increase in energy, not a decrease. And if it's just any old change in velocity, then wouldn't that mean that any particle that was moving in a circular path would have to constantly be emitting photons?
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 05:36 AM   #291
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,276
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'll take your word for it, but it seems counter-intuitive, to me. I'd have thought that an increase in acceleration would require an increase in energy, not a decrease. And if it's just any old change in velocity, then wouldn't that mean that any particle that was moving in a circular path would have to constantly be emitting photons?
Ooooh, I know this one. Yes. It is called synchrotron radiation.

I'm no expert either, but to accelerate a particle to move in a circle would require some source of energy from outside the particle. So, if the source of energy to produce the photons is your concern, that's the answer. (I think.)

-- Roger

Last edited by jadebox; 9th May 2017 at 05:37 AM.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2017, 06:23 AM   #292
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Ooooh, I know this one. Yes. It is called synchrotron radiation.

I'm no expert either, but to accelerate a particle to move in a circle would require some source of energy from outside the particle. So, if the source of energy to produce the photons is your concern, that's the answer. (I think.)

-- Roger
It seems that the energy to make a particle move in a circle can be just a magnetic field, and I can't see how that could be an outside source of energy which, in essence, the particle that's accelerating is converting to photons.

Reading a little about synchrotron radiation on Wikipedia, it appears that it's not necessary for there to be an outside source of energy, as the particle does lose energy (6.7 keV per turn in the LHC, apparently). So that does answer that question (and I'm assuming that this doesn't apply to electrons orbiting nuclei because electrons don't actually orbit nuclei, despite what they teach you in high school).

That means that the only bit I'm finding it hard to get my head around is that it must mean that the particle loses energy in discrete chunks, rather than linearly. But I think I can safely chalk that up to the not-entirely-original observation that concepts concerning the quantum realm can often be counter-intuitive and difficult to get a grip on using a brain evolved to comprehend things in the macro realm.

Thanks to both you and hecd2.
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 06:47 AM   #293
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'll take your word for it, but it seems counter-intuitive, to me. I'd have thought that an increase in acceleration would require an increase in energy, not a decrease. And if it's just any old change in velocity, then wouldn't that mean that any particle that was moving in a circular path would have to constantly be emitting photons?
When you say increase in acceleration, do you mean increase in velocity? The thing is that velocity (and kinetic energy) are not invariant under Galilean transformations. For example in some inertial frames a certain change in velocity results in an increase in the magnitude of velocity (an increase in the speed) while in other inertial frames the same change in velocity results in a decrease of speed. From both inertial frames the acceleration a = dv/dt where bolded variables are vectors is the same. Acceleration is invariant under Galilean transformations and energy is conserved, so in any inertial frame the change of energy of the particle equals the work done on it.

Classically any charged particle moving in a circular path is accelerating and radiates. This was a problem for the Bohr model of the atom, because the electron orbiting the atom should radiate, lose energy and fall into the nucleus. QM prevents this disaster (and other disasters of classical physics such as the ultraviolet catastrophe).
hecd2 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 9th May 2017, 06:58 AM   #294
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The electron is never a point ; a free electron is a 2D flattened disk of spinning charge with radius conforming to the deBroglie relation. When the free electron disk approaches an atom it can be captured, in which case it wraps itself around the atom to achieve minimum energy. Why only certain sizes of orbitsphere are allowed is a topic for another day.
Do you have any idea how spherical the electric field of an electron is? It's been measured to be one of the most perfectly spherical things to exist. It's not a disk.
phunk 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 9th May 2017, 07:00 AM   #295
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It seems that the energy to make a particle move in a circle can be just a magnetic field, and I can't see how that could be an outside source of energy which, in essence, the particle that's accelerating is converting to photons.
Yes, classically, the work done by a magnetic field on a charged particle is zero since the force is given by the cross product of the particle velocity and the magnetic field, so is perpendicular to the velocity. The calar product of force and velocity (the work) is then zero.

Quote:
Reading a little about synchrotron radiation on Wikipedia, it appears that it's not necessary for there to be an outside source of energy, as the particle does lose energy (6.7 keV per turn in the LHC, apparently).
Exactly it's a loss, and the particles lose energy.
hecd2 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 9th May 2017, 10:18 AM   #296
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
By the way, it's worth reminding peole that it's the 8th May and crow and hats are off the menu and likely to remain so indefinitely.
OP quoted his own article on some kind of libertarian site. In that article, commercial production was going to be about now.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 9th May 2017, 10:27 AM   #297
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,812
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
OP quoted his own article on some kind of libertarian site. In that article, commercial production was going to be about now.
And here's the OP, quoted in its entirety so people are reminded of what exactly was originally claimed:

Originally Posted by michaelsuede
As I did with the now infamous Bitcoin thread back in 2011, I am here to make another prophecy that could be potentially lucrative. Bitcoin was worth $20 bucks a coin when I made my original post. Today it's worth around $900.

I'm here to let you know that free energy generators will be hitting the market within a year, with mass production ramping up rapidly within two years. If you're able to short energy sector stocks and hold the position long term, you will definitely make your money back.

I did a full article on the company doing it here, but I'll summarize the main points below.

The "essentially free" energy generator was created by a company called Brilliant Light Power (BrLP), that was founded by Dr. Randell Mills, a Harvard trained medical doctor.

In basic terms, the generator works by reacting a very tiny amount of hydrogen with a silver catalyst and then exposing that reaction to an electrical discharge. When the hydrogen, silver and electrical discharge combine, the hydrogen atoms shrink, releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process. Using Mills process, a gallon of water has the same energy potential of around 2000 gallons of gasoline. The amount of hydrogen needed is so small that the generator can pull the hydrogen it needs from water in the surrounding air. This enormous release of energy is then used to basically form the filament of a carbon light bulb.

The carbon light bulb glows so brightly from the heat that it reaches the equivalent brightness of over 2000 suns, with the potential to go even higher in the future. The light bulb is surrounded by an array of special solar cells called concentrator solar cells that are able to harness the energy from this enormously bright light source. These special solar cells already exist and are in use in solar farms around the world today.

BrLP already has the “light bulb” portion of this generator fully prototyped and working. Obviously that’s the hard part since the rest of the parts for the generator already exist from off-the-shelf suppliers. Mills is projecting production units to be ready for delivery by the second half of 2017, with a fully prototyped working generator ready for field testing by the first half of 2017. Once Mills rolls out that first generator, be prepared for a monumental media **** storm to hit the public.

Now I'm sure many of you will scream, "IT'S A SCAM - THEY'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS!!!!!1111!! LSKDJFLSKDJFJ"

Don't be fooled by the naysayers who haven't done their homework like I have. They were wrong about Bitcoin and they are most certainly wrong about this as well.

You can watch a full public demo of the reactor here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjJYg4Abv50

I’ve been following BLP closely for nearly a decade now. I’m convinced Mills is the real deal. Contrary to what Forbes claims, numerous independent labs have verified his claims. He’s obtained funding from some of the wealthiest people on the planet, and he’s got a highly skilled team of engineers backing him. He doesn’t need any more investment capital so he’s got no reason to lie. Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work:

Rowan University’s report
Rowan University’s report II
UNC Asheville’s report
University of Illinois report

It’s also worth taking a look at Brilliant Light’s board of directors. These people don’t strike me as the type of people who are willing to throw their lives away over fraud charges:

H. McIntyre Gardner’s profile from Bloomberg:
  • Chairman of Spirit Airlines
  • Chairman of Merrill Lynch Bank USA
  • Chairman of Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company and Transamerica Advisors Life Insurance Company of New York
  • Director of Isola Group, SARL
  • President of the Board of Trustees at the Princeton Charter School

James E. Canty J.D.’s profile from Bloomberg:
  • President and General Counsel at Clough Capital Partners
  • Associate General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, and Director of Investor Relations at Converse Inc.
  • Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Goldstein & Manello
  • Certified Public Accountant at KPMG

John J. Gillen’s profile from Bloomberg:
  • Global Director of Finance at Towers Perrin
  • Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Dayton Power and Light Co.
  • Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers
  • Member of the Office of the Chief Accountant of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Jeremy Hux’s article from Yahoo Finance:
  • Managing director and global head of clean technology investment banking for Credit Suisse
  • President of HCP Advisors
  • Head of West Coast Clean Technology for Morgan Stanley

Barbara A. Nabial’s profile from Bloomberg:
  • Senior Audit Manager with Deloitte & Touche

And let’s not forget Mills, who has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Franklin & Marshall College, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School. He also did graduate engineering coursework at MIT.

If you’d like to learn more about the backstory to Mills incredible scientific achievement, a book on the subject was recently released by one of his former employees.

BrLP has contracted with Columbia Tech to have them do the prototype and manufacturing workups. CT’s Chief Technology Officer is projecting initial field testing of prototype units to take place in 6 months, with pilot commercial units available 6 months after initial field testing completes. Phase 1A design began on November 1st.

Masimo Semiconductor is responsible for creating the commercial photovoltaic converter comprising a denser receiver array of concentrator multijunction photovoltaic cells that will wrap around the black-body light source. Masimo’s Head of Business Development is projecting the photovoltaic array to be ready for the prototype field tests on time. They expect delivery of the first photovoltaic array on Jan 13. So perhaps a fully working prototype generator will be wheeled out for a public demo sometime in the near future.

You can see the presentations from the reps from Masimo and CT, along with several other important players here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=P...&v=fDJo833cGV0
The Norseman 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 9th May 2017, 10:53 AM   #298
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,445
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Not treated as a point? I'm reasonably confident that the symmetrical collapse of a thin spherical shell of charge (the orbitsphere) would not radiate because the electrical field lines outside the shell are the same before, during and after the collapse. The world sees the orbitsphere as a point charge at its centre, and symmetric changes of radius do not cause any changes in electrical field and therefore do not emit photons via a bremsstrahlung-like process.

Of course, this discussion is the equivalent of discussing detailed properties of the tooth fairy, as we have seen earlier in this thread that the concept of the orbitsphere is fundamentally inconsistent. We can get all hirsute again if you like.
Just want to say I appreciate your posts
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 02:27 PM   #299
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
if it's just any old change in velocity, then wouldn't that mean that any particle that was moving in a circular path would have to constantly be emitting photons?
That is one reason why electrons classically orbiting the nucleus was discarded after the Rutherford experiments found that they were outside the nucleus.

The reason why the electrons lose energy in quanta is that they are bound to the nucleus. The solution to the Schrödinger equation for a bound particle quantizes the energy.
Reality Check 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 9th May 2017, 02:36 PM   #300
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Do you have any idea how spherical the electric field of an electron is? It's been measured to be one of the most perfectly spherical things to exist. It's not a disk.
We should not allow facts about the real world confuse a brain unable to recognize a scam artist !

This is a person who believes that a spherical shell of mass persists even when
  • We send particles through it starting with the Rutherford experiments in 1908.
  • Beta decay sends electrons through this shell.
Then there is ignorance of well known electromagnetism - a charged shell has no electric field inside it. There is nothing holding Mills imaginary shell centered on a nucleus. Bump a Mills atom and it disintegrates !
Reality Check 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 9th May 2017, 03:31 PM   #301
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Exactly it's a loss, and the particles lose energy.
Yeah, as I say, it boggles my mind a little. But I've done enough reading around the subject now to know that the answer to any questions I may have will basically boil down to "because that's how this equation that is beyond your mathematical ability is solved" and that it's deep enough science that any metaphors will be just that and therefore not really much more accurate than the faux-solar system model of atoms, and that when you're talking about things like this questions about what it "really" is is kind of meaningless.
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 03:48 PM   #302
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
...because based solely on the demonstrated lack of producing anything over 25+ years except wild claims, the 'SunCell' will never come into production which of course will never produce any pollution - a win for the environment given us by Mills' and his merry band of 'never-producing-anything-but-hot-air' group of scammers.
I fully expect them to solve the problem of Perpetual Motion Next......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 9th May 2017, 04:27 PM   #303
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,589
I'll mention it again:

If he had anything that worked, the first thing he'd do is eliminate his own electric bill.

Given the descriptions of his work, his electric bill must be impressively high.
__________________
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 9th May 2017, 05:55 PM   #304
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
And here's the OP, quoted in its entirety so people are reminded of what exactly was originally claimed:
And from that:

Quote:
BrLP already has the “light bulb” portion of this generator fully prototyped and working.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 9th May 2017, 06:26 PM   #305
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,812
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
And from that:
Yes, thank you for posting that snippet. I think I will sift through the OP and post some more points that are being pointedly ignored and/or trying to be buried under the farcical faux-physics flood.**
















** yes, that was intentional.
The Norseman 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 10th May 2017, 08:24 AM   #306
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,358
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I fully expect them to solve the problem of Perpetual Motion Next......
One would hope and I bet they will deliver it in the next two years - they all ready have manufacturers under contract.......lol

This is one of the finest examples of real life online comedy around. A scammer trying to defraud people, bumbling minions, sharp minded good guys, cutting said minions and 'Mr. Big' to pieces with science.....while the fraud grins on
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2017, 09:12 AM   #307
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
And here's the OP, quoted in its entirety so people are reminded of what exactly was originally claimed:
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwZDl56k_yc

So by the timeline they gave in my OP, they are a month or two behind having a deliverable prototype. They are further behind on the development of the PV system, but they are still projecting a fully completed PV system by Q1 2018, so we will see how that goes.

I'm still very confident they'll have some kind of deliverable product within a year, even if it isn't PV based.
michaelsuede 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 10th May 2017, 09:24 AM   #308
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,707
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwZDl56k_yc
Odd. By now, according to you, commercial applications were happening months ago yet they are not.

Explain that?

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
So by the timeline they gave in my OP, they are a month or two behind having a deliverable prototype. They are further behind on the development of the PV system, but they are still projecting a fully completed PV system by Q1 2018, so we will see how that goes.
Yet there is nothing. You simply extended your deadline yet again on the basis of nothing. Just because.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I'm still very confident they'll have some kind of deliverable product within a year, even if it isn't PV based.
30+ tears of promising this. When will you stop?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 10th May 2017, 09:29 AM   #309
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,358
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Odd. By now, according to you, commercial applications were happening months ago yet they are not.

Explain that?

Yet there is nothing. You simply extended your deadline yet again on the basis of nothing. Just because.

30+ tears of promising this. When will you stop?
Yes and we can sit back and watch the slow slide into non production while the minions dance and prance about saying all is well......
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2017, 09:50 AM   #310
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwZDl56k_yc
You do realise that that video doesn't actually provide evidence for any of those claims, don't you?

BTW, did you have your phone call with Mills yet? Did you mention that Cyclone Technologies had developed a steam powered engine that will work perfectly well to power all kinds of things including cars and that therefore he doesn't need to spend any time and money on developing a photovoltaic method of energy collection and can instead simply work on the much easier task of collecting energy from the heat, and that if he does so this company has commercial contracts already in place, guaranteeing him profit?
__________________
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 10th May 2017, 09:52 AM   #311
jrhowell
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.
And yet they still haven't actually tried closing the dome and running it in the configuration where it is supposed to produce more energy than it consumes. There is plenty of room left for further hurdles to appear when they attempt that.

Many of the of the problems likely to occur have been pointed out earlier in these threads.

ETA: I predict the next big announcement to be catastrophic failure of the graphite dome due to the "immense" energies produced. But of course they won't be able to just substitute a stronger material since that would be incompatible with the planned PV design. So it will be back to the drawing board.

Last edited by jrhowell; 10th May 2017 at 10:10 AM.
jrhowell 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 10th May 2017, 10:15 AM   #312
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,358
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You do realise that that video doesn't actually provide evidence for any of those claims, don't you?

BTW, did you have your phone call with Mills yet? Did you mention that Cyclone Technologies had developed a steam powered engine that will work perfectly well to power all kinds of things including cars and that therefore he doesn't need to spend any time and money on developing a photovoltaic method of energy collection and can instead simply work on the much easier task of collecting energy from the heat, and that if he does so this company has commercial contracts already in place, guaranteeing him profit?
Certainly you jest Sir!

When the pig in your poke is actually wadded up paper and drool, you don't open the poke in front of the marks.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2017, 10:31 AM   #313
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,096
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
30+ tears of promising this. When will you stop?
Perfect typo for the investors, yes.

Last edited by SezMe; 10th May 2017 at 10:32 AM.
SezMe 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 10th May 2017, 11:30 AM   #314
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You do realise that that video doesn't actually provide evidence for any of those claims, don't you?
Crazy. All people need is sparks, and they're mesmerized.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 10th May 2017, 11:56 AM   #315
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,912
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.

Another light show oversaturating the camera with no instrumentation shown or data provided to back up the claims.

In the video caption:
Quote:
...deploying the automated control system to maintain equal molten silver levels in the reservoirs of the dual molten metal injectors.
Eric Hermanson in the video comments says:
Quote:
The liquid silver electrodes are a very novel and clever new invention. Since the temperature inside the cell is something like 5,000K, any type of metal electrode would vaporize in seconds. The company needed a way to introduce electrons into the cell in order to ignite the Hydrino reaction, and then sustain it until it becomes self-sustaining with no need for input power. The liquid silver is electrified to achieve this goal. Secondly, when the temperature is high enough, the silver boils off into a vapor and the reaction then becomes self sustaining. So the silver serves dual purposes. It's just plain ingenuous in my opinion.

I'm trying to make any sense of any of this, but the little amount of information in the video is enough to contradict all my efforts. Creating a fluid reservoir and a pump is no great engineering challenge, even at high temperatures. The difficulty was supposedly to maintain two separate molten silver reservoirs while still recycling the silver flows; that is, to control the return flows to each reservoir to keep the fluid levels sufficient in both. Designing such a system might present a few subtle difficulties, but why are separate reservoirs necessary, rather than a single reservoir? The obvious reason is that the two silver streams must be at different voltages, in order to serve as electrodes that create an arc near the center of the cell where the two separate streams (nearly) converge.

That matches up with Hermanson's claim that the silver streams "introduce electrons into the cell."

But, watch the first two seconds of the video. Two streams, presumably the silver, are visible flowing from the left and right, with a bit of vertical offset so that they flow close to one another and approximately parallel to one another near the center.

And then the bright glows begin. But where does the light emerge from? Freeze the playback right about 0:02. Clearly, in the video, the bright glow doesn't start in the center where an arc between the two silver streams might conceivably occur, but out of the viewport frame at the extreme left and right (slightly earlier at the left), about where the streams would be entering the chamber. Why there? And if the "reaction" is happening there rather than where the "electrodes" approach one another, why the need for two streams, two reservoirs, and all that tricky molten fluid engineering they're so proud of accomplishing?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2017, 12:08 PM   #316
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,589
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later, they just posted a video of a fully automated startup and run, with the last hurdles to a closed system being overcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwZDl56k_yc
Well, it's a video of something.

I can't tell what, though.

I certainly can't tell if it has anything to do with the title they gave it.
__________________
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 10th May 2017, 12:20 PM   #317
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,589
Quote:
yakyakyak693 weeks ago
I wonder if it would be better to shoot them past each other with a set gap lateral to the streams instead of at each other so pressure is less important for a continuous arc?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eYDipzYuTY

Comment from the last video, with the streams of molten whatever hitting each other.
Now in the new video, we have just about what the commenter wanted...
__________________
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 10th May 2017, 02:16 PM   #318
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Today, ~6 months later,....
Today we have a gullible and ignorant person still believing a deluded scammer (Mills) and linking to a YouTube video containing no real results. There be a lot of videos over the last 30 years showing various Mills crank devices doing irrelevant stuff on their way to not working!

All we see is the use of electricity to melt silver which is very old technology.

Anyone with some knowledge of science would read Mills book and see the obvious ignorance, delusions and lies in it:
Part I: 37 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part II: 24 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part III: 18 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
His "hydrinos" are physically impossible and cannot power any of his devices.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th May 2017 at 02:20 PM.
Reality Check 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 10th May 2017, 03:02 PM   #319
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
But where does the light emerge from? Freeze the playback right about 0:02. Clearly, in the video, the bright glow doesn't start in the center where an arc between the two silver streams might conceivably occur, but out of the viewport frame at the extreme left and right (slightly earlier at the left), about where the streams would be entering the chamber. Why there? And if the "reaction" is happening there rather than where the "electrodes" approach one another, why the need for two streams, two reservoirs, and all that tricky molten fluid engineering they're so proud of accomplishing?
Good catch, if I am understanding correctly.

But really, getting into any technical details with a Dark Matter Generator con man is futile.

I wonder what the skimming coefficient is. According to different citations it looks like more than tens of millions, but less than $100 million that he's managed to bilk out of people. So what percent goes into lifestyle? One or two percent or eighty five percent?

This is someone who has no conscience. So I am speculating he's pocketed most of it. Wouldn't a million dollars be way more than enough to come up with a fake lab and a bunch of props?

This thing in the video is a prop. How much did this prop cost to put together and play with? Thousands? How many people are on salary? Does he even produce accounting records for investors? What paperwork do investors actually sign?
AlaskaBushPilot 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 10th May 2017, 03:08 PM   #320
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
And yet they still haven't actually tried closing the dome and running it in the configuration where it is supposed to produce more energy than it consumes. There is plenty of room left for further hurdles to appear when they attempt that.

Many of the of the problems likely to occur have been pointed out earlier in these threads.

ETA: I predict the next big announcement to be catastrophic failure of the graphite dome due to the "immense" energies produced. But of course they won't be able to just substitute a stronger material since that would be incompatible with the planned PV design. So it will be back to the drawing board.
If they are able to create a reaction so powerful that it blows a graphite dome apart as you suggest, then I take it you would at least concede they have an energy source that defies the standard model.
michaelsuede 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
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 09:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.