Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:57 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:50 PMQuote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:50 PMQuote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.

Quote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.

This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.

Quote from: ppnl on 07/06/2017 07:39 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 05:55 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money. The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.You claim I said I don't understand Bell's theorem. Pease point me to where I said such a thing. I said I'm not an expert which is entirely a different concept. Thanks again for your clarification.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 05:55 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money. The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.

Quote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.

Quote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?

Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device. The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.

Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.

Even if much of Mills math was purely descriptive, for instance describing hydrino chemistry and rates of reactions, it's still better than some theorist declaring "it simply cannot be". Physics needs both yet real data should not be thrown out because people don't understand or like the theory. They should conditionally accept the data and replicate it then try and explain it. Not just ignore it because it doesn't fit QM.

Quote from: bmcgaffey20 on 07/07/2017 03:14 PMYes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.You may have read the title of the video, I'm saying read the description on the youtube video you linked to, where it says that it is a video of a BLP demonstration, so it doesn't just "resemble" it, it is one. This "technology" doesn't threaten Mills' life. That is absurd. The point many here are making is that it's not a credible idea.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 09:03 PMQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:57 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:50 PMQuote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?How many years has he been saying he'll have a deliverable power-producing product within a year? It very much seems to be the case that he's a con man who is using a gish-gallop of shoddy math to hoodwink investors. It is possible to convince me otherwise - if he opened up to in-depth investigation, allowed others to study his experimental setup, or produced papers showing his methodology and experimental setup so others can replicate what he's done, and so on. So far all that we have to see is the results of limited study, like of heat output from the setup (with separate runs producing wildly different results), that doesn't tell us a thing about what's actually going on inside it.

And some have.

Also, if he were merely a 'con man' trying to 'hoodwink' investors, why is he using that money to pay for expensive facilities, equipment and a staff of more than twenty scientists, engineers and technicians?

What con man does that?

If the founders of QM had had a better, Maxwell based reason for non-radiation, they would have used it and that may have led to an extended electron model something along the lines of Mills' model.

I'm agnostic as to whether Mills is a con artist or a true believer, or to what extent those around him are one or the other, but the incoherence of his theory and BLPs pattern of behavior over the last 25 years strongly suggests either is more likely than "hydrinos" being a thing.

Randell L. MillsP. RayJ. HeB. DhandapaniM. NansteelYing LuKamran AkhtarWilliam R. GoodR.M. MayoX. ChenZ. ChangAndreas VoigtG. ZhaoG. ChuYi LuJonathan PhillipsJ. LotoskiJinquan DongJ.E. ScharerNelson Greenig

This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."R.P. Feynman

†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.

Quote from: particlezoo on 07/09/2017 06:20 AM†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.It's actually a terrible assumption. At best, it's an indication they probably didn't think Mills was a fraud (presuming they were not a party to it) or total crackpot at the time of publication.

Co-author of papers reporting experimental results should not be assumed to buy Mills theory, and it should be remembered that some (like Jansson) were funded by BLP.

PS:There is a very long history of hucksters and cranks using patents to give their ideas an appearance of legitimacy.