# NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

## General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: GI-Thruster on 04/04/2009 06:46 pm

Title: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/04/2009 06:46 pm
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 04/04/2009 07:21 pm
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/04/2009 07:34 pm
Yes well, I'm familiar with the controversy and I'm not proposing Mills' physics.  I would however point out several interesting issues here:

a) BLP's board is not composed of quacks.  There are several top CEO's and 4 ex-senior officers from CIA there.

b) The reactors are working.

c)  The calorimetry studies at Rowan are open for anyone to observe and contribute to how they can be bettered.  This is open university science and honestly, I would not want to be the one to hold someone like Dr. Peter Jansson to task.  The guy is a brilliant MIT grad and Cambridge Ph.D. with lots of contract work for places like NIAC under his belt.

Sooooo. . .what does that all mean?  I dunno!
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/05/2009 12:02 am
I want to link up this forum I've found recently, as it appears to be specific to nuclear propulsion as we are specific to spaceflight:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/

I've seen similar proposals. Is it really all that? I seem to recall that there are obstacles to using thorium effectively.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/05/2009 12:06 am
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.

Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 04/05/2009 12:53 am
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.

Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

I am perfectly aware of how electron transitions work. What the blacklight people are claiming is that they can take hydrogen with its electron in its normal, stable, first orbit, known as "1s", and somehow get it to drop to a lower orbit that has never been observed, and somehow extract energy when the electron snaps back to its normal higher orbit. This is pure snake oil and is not supported by real physics.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/05/2009 01:19 am
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory.  I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed.  That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now.  There have been many thousands of observations.  There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals.  There are the NIAC studies done years ago.  There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.

Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours.  I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong.  If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades.  And truly, this is how science works.  All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance.  If it did not, the scientific process would not work.

But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan.  I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!"  That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task.  And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing.  At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 04/05/2009 01:33 am
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory.  I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed.  That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now.  There have been many thousands of observations.  There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals.  There are the NIAC studies done years ago.  There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.

Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours.  I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong.  If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades.  And truly, this is how science works.  All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance.  If it did not, the scientific process would not work.

But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan.  I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!"  That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task.  And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing.  At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.

If they are getting net power, I would venture to say that it is far more likely that the hydrogen, being in a magnetic field, is seeing its electron jumping back and forth between its p and s orbits, which in hydrogen are at the same quantum energy EXCEPT when in a magnetic field.

I dont see any references to Mills or his work in wikipedia articles on hydrogen and electron configuration.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: kfsorensen on 04/05/2009 01:48 am
This is not the thread to argue about the merits of Blacklight power...take it somewhere else and return this thread to the given subject.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/05/2009 01:54 am
Vanilla, I agree.

mLorrey, you can venture to say where the energy is coming from.  I can't.  I'm not a scientist or an engineer.  However, my experience with these things is that they're not so simple as one would at first imagine.  Now if you think you have a viable theory as to where the energy is coming from, I suggest you take just a few minutes and drop Dr. Jansson a note.  He's a very amiable guy, completely likeable and he's not tied to Mills theory in any way.  He has no opinion of it.  He's just doing the engineering to show there's heat.  Now there has already been a few attempts to hunt down possible sources and they seem to indicate no answer.  So, if you have an answer, write Dr. Jansson.  I'm sure he'd be thrilled to hear from you.

[email protected]

Now, back to our regularly scheduled show. . .  :-)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/05/2009 08:15 am
I'm not even remotely qualified in quantum physics, but in instances like this I think the better approach is to simply see if the energy produced is real and not experimental artefact. Who cares where the energy is coming from, if it can be reliably used then it can be used. Just like solar neutrinos didn't care about theory, if it's there we can't ignore it. Certainly I can grok that there can't be a 0th energy level, the equations simply don't allow that. And if there is some reason why, well, that'll really require a PhD in quantum physics to really grasp it. Unless there's something wrong with the Standard Model.

At the very least, these hydrino molecules seem to be quite interesting. Perhaps as a new form of rocket propellant even if the energy extraction side is bogus. The other app I can see is high-density radiation shielding. The stuff would be perfect for a storm shelter (if it can be reasonably stable). Not to mention all the other chemical weirdness they're talking about. I don't think that the reactor per se would really be able to function as a substitute NERVA for earth lift-off owing to power densities (hydrogen being the working medium).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/05/2009 04:43 pm
Well, one thing is for sure: if Mills is right, the standard model is in huge error.  This is the reason for the contention over the years.  Mills is saying that basically, all of QM is wrong.  He started saying this back in the '80's before he had any evidence in hand which instantly made him an outcast and maverick.  I'm not saying this could be different in any way.  Even had he waited until he had lots of physical evidence to make his outrageous claims, he would still necessarily have the antagonistic response he's had for more than 2 decades.  You just can't tell people they're wrong about everything, from the structure of an electron, to the structure of an atom, to all the interpretations of QM phenomena over the last century, and not steam some people.

I personally don't have an opinion about BLP's physics.  It appears to meet the criteria of both quackery and revolutionary science.  I can't say one way or the other what it is.  I can say they appear to be producing power, lots of power; and that the circumstantial evidence, like who's on the board, who's given financial support, etc. is a bit overwhelming.

I've even heard that one of the current NASA center chief's is in for big pesos himself.  I'd never say who that is but I believe what I've been told here and upper tier NASA leaders are not just average engineers or researchers.  I've talked with this guy and he is just as sharp as tacks.  So I'm just saying, the jury is still out on BLP as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: drbuzz0 on 04/24/2009 05:52 am
The more I read of this the more certain I am that it is snake oil.   They don't even seem to have a consistant story of what this thing is.  On one page it says it is a fully closed system (implying overunity) and on another it says that the only waste product is this hydrogen at a lower-than-grounded state.   On one other page it says this process can be used as a hyper-effecient light source.

It is possible that some of those involved in the testing are honest, credible scientists and academics.   Being a good scientist does not mean you're not gullible.   Many very intelligent people have been fooled by some smoke and mirrors to make something seem to be doing something that is not so.   (They don't consider someone rigged the calorimeter ahead of time or something).

The whole concept behind this thing looks, at best, extremely suspicious.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 04/24/2009 07:21 am
If NASA people are involved (and I have to say, I've never even heard of the Rowan University that allegedly verified this system, they are apparently a young university founded as a teachers college. if BLP is in Princeton, NJ, why didn't they go to Princeton's physics dept?), then the first thing they should be doing with this theory is producing hydrino fuel for the space shuttle that is significantly denser than hydrogen fuel. Liquid hydrino fuel should be significantly denser than liquid hydrogen and provide more energetic reactions, so should have higher Isp than LOX/LH2. This is obviously rather groundbreaking for NASA and they should be all over experimenting with this stuff if it is real. So where are the NASA studies?

Here is an in depth analysis and criticism of Mills' theory:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/7/1/127/njp5_1_127.html
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 04:15 pm
Rowan University was renamed for Mr. Rowan when he gave $100 million to improve the NJ state university. It used to be called "Glassboro" college and was a bit of an embarrassment to the state system, the place you'd go with mommy and daddy's money to get a degree in recreation and leisure, etc. The stated goal of Mr. Rowan is to turn the university into a world-class engineering institute that can rival places like MIT. I can tell you, they're well on their way. They've been building like mad for years now and hiring the best PhD's they can find. I live about 25 minutes from the campus and drive through regularly on the way to visit friends and family. The new engineering buildings are impressive by any standard. I doubt it's true BLP went to Rowan to get a replication. It's probably Anthony Marchese originally took an interest and filed for a NIAC grant. There's a completed paper of that work back in 2002-3 but I can't seem to find it. I did find this: http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html Note that Peter Jansson was also a part of that project so it seems to me a natural extension of the previous work to do the calorimetery engineering to test the BLP reactors. Note that Rowan and Jansson are not involved in the disputes about Mills' science. They're just doing the testing and making their test process available to the public for review. This is good science. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 04:23 pm Here's the final report of the thruster study: http://niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf Mills' response to the Rathke: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf I should also mention that I did read somewhere that the phase II follow-on asked for at the end of the thruster paper was never granted by NIAC, but it was granted by DARPA. I've never seen a copy of such a report and never asked Peter Jansson whether they did the follow on because I suspect if they did, and it's not posted on the web, this is because it's classified. In such an instance Peter could tell me about it, but then he'd have to kill me. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Danderman on 04/25/2009 02:09 am This is cold fusion all over again. On the other hand, if we are lucky, one of these "snake oil" approaches to energy production may work, so all we can do is wait and see what happens and hope for the best. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: jak42 on 04/25/2009 02:36 am If Blacklight is showing some kind of excess heat, it may, in fact, be due to The Physical Effect Formerly Known as Cold Fusion (now known as "low energy nuclear reactions" aka LENR). Blacklight's explanation - a quantum state below the lowest orbital in the hydrogen atom (aka hydrino) seems quite unlikely. LENR seems to involve a combination of electroweak and strong nuclear force: a proton and an electron combine to form a very slow, "cold" neutron with a very large cross section and a neutrino. The neutrino escapes undetected while the neutron, being large and slow, almost immediately combines with another nucleus on the metal to form isotopes. Chemical analysis afterwards detects the isotopes. This is the Windom-Larsen theory, and it can also be used to explain data in other cases: flux tubes on the sun and exploding wires. It has, however, nothing to do with fusion. The Coulomb force is simply too large for fusion to be occuring. For more information, see the following link: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/25/2009 03:28 am I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model. Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . . Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: mlorrey on 04/25/2009 08:41 pm I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model. Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . . Can you point to any studies by particle physicists in a reputable lab observing hydrogen becoming hydrinos? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/25/2009 09:36 pm I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model. Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . . Can you point to any studies by particle physicists in a reputable lab observing hydrogen becoming hydrinos? I can't really but I haven't studied this in more than 5 years. I still keep tabs on BLP but I'm not a cheerleader. Just because I don't know off hand of a study like that doesn't mean there hasn't been one. And didn't Vissiar (sp?) win his Nobel prize with his "tightened states of matter" theory? Seemingly the same stuff only he wasn't telling everyone that their physics is wrong, just their chemistry. You're not suggesting that's the only sort of evidence you'd accept? You don't think looking at what BLP is saying is looking at evidence? I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence. Don't you? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 04/26/2009 12:33 am I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence. Don't you? Yes, it's quite telling. In more than 10 years, BLP hasn't actually produced any evidence, despite pulling in millions from gullible investors. What they have produced is incoherent pseudoscience (http://www.articlearchives.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-power/940667-1.html) and press releases. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/26/2009 04:43 am Oh it's worse than that. They've already sold two commercial licenses. You'd think before an electrical utility forks out tens of millions in cash they'd want some evidence. But you say there is none. I bet you looked really carefully too. Poor electrical utilities. . .C'est domage. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 04/26/2009 05:52 am They've already sold two commercial licenses. You'd think before an electrical utility forks out tens of millions in cash they'd want some evidence. But you say there is none. I bet you looked really carefully too. Poor electrical utilities. . .C'est domage. You mean poor utilities share holders. Big companies getting suckered isn't new. Look at the firepower fiasco in Australia. This assuming the commercial licenses are real and properly represented by Blacklight. Blacklight claims it sold a license to Farmers' Electric Cooperative of New Mexico (not exactly a huge utility with an R&D wing capable of evaluating blacklights claims!), yet strangely the word "blacklight" doesn't appear on FECs site. The other license is to Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative also of NM, also small, and also not mentioning blacklight anywhere on their site. Nor is the value specified. Maybe these coops paid a dollar on the off chance that something comes out of it. Or maybe blacklight paid them, or took the board members on a nice golf outing. If this stuff worked, and utilities were buying it, don't you think they'd be using it to produce power ? If a utility company builds a megawatt power plant based on this "technology" I'll take back every bad thing I've said about blacklight. Until then, I'll continue to call what looks, walks and quacks like a fraud, a fraud. If something looks like fishy (which blacklight surely does) why would you trust their version of events ? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/26/2009 08:00 am "If this stuff worked, and utilities were buying it, don't you think they'd be using it to produce power ? If a utility company builds a megawatt power plant based on this "technology" I'll take back every bad thing I've said about blacklight. Until then, I'll continue to call what looks, walks and quacks like a fraud, a fraud. If something looks like fishy (which blacklight surely does) why would you trust their version of events ?" The only thing that looks fishy in the least at BLP is the physics. Everything else has a lot of reasons to trust. Maybe you didn't read the posts in this thread and you'd like to go back and do that? I don't trust BLP at their word except when, for example, my friends at CIA tell me that their board reads like a fortune 50 company and that none of these guys would ever dare get involved with something that isn't above board. BLP may be wrong in their physics, but you really need to have something resembling evidence before you go waving the crookery flag about. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. These are ex-CIA senior officers, ex-CEO's from places like Johnson and Johnson and Westinghouse IIRC. Why would guys like that risk their reputations selling a scam? This is the perfect example of what I'm talking about above--people with passion over this issue who have not done more than read a piece of hack journalism, think they know what's going on and are not only willing to call this pseudo-science, but fraud. All with no evidence and completely ignoring the evidence for the science. The first commercial-grade pilot reactor plant is scheduled to start up this year. Has been for some time. I hate sounding like I'm advocating for BLP because I honestly don't know about their physics but truly, no one who glances over the 1,200 page thesis written by Mills could possibly believe this is a scam. Mills totally believes he's right and thinks he's going to prove it to the world. There is NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS to anyone who has viewed the evidence, just as there is NO DOUBT that Mills has done what he needs to do to throw the ball to academia. There are now thousands of data points delivered to the American Chemical Society for them to verify. This is not what a quack or a fraud would do. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 04/26/2009 09:27 am The only thing that looks fishy in the least at BLP is the physics. Everything else has a lot of reasons to trust. Funny, it looks like a classic "fleece the investors with bogus science" scam to me. On a larger scale than most basement nutjobs, but not qualitatively different. Quote I don't trust BLP at their word except when, for example, my friends at CIA tell me that their board reads like a fortune 50 company and that none of these guys would ever dare get involved with something that isn't above board. You think these people are immune, or above fleecing suckers ? See firepower again. Those guys were selling a pill that would supposedly miraculously increase your gas mileage. Obvious baloney, but they pulled in millions and endorsements from all kinds of reputable people. As for your "friends at the CIA"... yeah. Quote These are ex-CIA senior officers, ex-CEO's from places like Johnson and Johnson and Westinghouse IIRC. Why would guys like that risk their reputations selling a scam? Several options: 1) They are suckers 2) They think they can make a buck and pass the blame off somewhere else. 3) They don't actually exist, or aren't actually involved in blacklight. Quote All with no evidence and completely ignoring the evidence for the science. ROFL. That's the whole problem... blacklight has no evidence, and, according to pretty much all of the physics community (including the astrophysicist you dismissed as a "hack journalist" (http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5138)) who have bothered to look at it, their "theory" is incoherent. But they sure are big on press releases and wild claims. Quote The first commercial-grade pilot reactor plant is scheduled to start up this year. Has been for some time. Yes, classic scammer fashion, the big breakthrough is always some short time away, and has been for years. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/26/2009 04:15 pm I'm always stunned at how otherwise rational people can go on and on like this, completely ignoring the evidence while claiming there is none, and making arguments from completely irrelevant illustrations of other situations. The issue doesn't sit well with them so the issue needs to be demonized. As it turns out, since I'm a philosopher and did careful study in epistemology about how and why this sort of thing happens, I should not be surprised. Doesn't matter. I am. And Hop isn't the exception here. Most of us are just the same. This is why I said much earlier up in the thread that there is no way to tell whether BLP is wrong, or if they are what they claim to be, an instance of revolution in scientific structure. Let me just describe what that's all about for a moment. All of us have a host of beliefs we hold commitments to. Almost all of those beliefs are internally consistent or coherent with one another. This is called our "noetic structure." In those few instances where we find a conflict between beliefs meaning, there is an incoherence; this generates angst and tension in us--what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" or "CD". Any time a person is suffering CD, they will be highly motivated to remove the tension in their belief system. Likewise, it is precisely because this sort of thing happens that people do not easily change their deeply held beliefs. When we speak of someone changing a significant portion of their noetic structure or world view at once, we use special terms like "conversion", "reformation" and "revolution." These things are difficult on everyone. Even the thought of altering our understandings of science generates deep angst. It's emotionally upsetting to think we could be wrong for example, about our "standard model" and all of our interpretations of seeming QM phenomena. It is that emotional upset, not the consequence of reason, that drives people to persecute anyone who proposes a revolution in scientific structure. Note, this is true whether the science proposed is good or bad science. The emotional response to any such proposal will always be the same--irrational--just as the arguments here most recent above. So nothing against Hop. We're all this way. If I may make just a handful of suggestions concerning how we can be more rational in considering things like whether BLP could be a revolution in scientific structure: 1) Read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You can get it in paperback used for less than$5.  If you don't understand what scientific revolution is all about, you are in no position to judge BLP.

2)  Consider the benefits.  If BLP is right, this explains why physics has been at a stand still the last half century.  Something like this would remove road blocks to our scientific discovery.

3)  Stop making vain appeals to authority.  Forget standing on the status quo.  Forget what everyone else thinks and look at the evidence for yourself.  Especially if you're a technically-minded person, you probably have the skills to do a decent investigation for yourself.  Even if you don't have the advanced physics skills to argue with Mills, you can look at all manner of evidence for yourself.  You don't need to make recourse to the sad, irresponsible web journalism of our day for your authority for belief.  Invest yourself in some real thinking.  You'll have actually earned your commitments on the issue, wherever they fall.

BTW, Aaron Barth is a "hack" because he deliberately misleads his audience in the article sited above.  His telling of the story is completely and deliberately inaccurate.  For instance, where he writes;

"Mills' mistakes are legion. He starts with an incorrect equation of motion for the electron. He uses a wave equation which does not actually have solutions corresponding to bound states of an electron in an atom, because the equation doesn't account for the electromagnetic force which holds the atom together. He makes the unwarranted assumption that the electron is confined to thin spherical shells whose radii are given by the Bohr model. He ignores the fact that this assumption is mathematically inconsistent with the equation of motion he chooses, and he uses this internally inconsistent solution to predict that there are energy levels below the ground state of hydrogen. This doesn't amount to any kind of a meaningful physical theory."

he is deliberately misleading his audience.  The salient fact Barth is hiding from his audience here is that Mills did not pluck his theory from the air but rather, he was reading Maxwell when he discovered Schrodinger was wrong.  Pretending Mills' work is unfounded when it relies completely upon Maxwell is hack journalism and a deliberate attempt to deceive--which it seems he's succeeded at quiet well.  Anyone who invests 5 minutes in reading Mills knows that Barth is here completely disingenuous.  He deliberately avoids mention of Maxwell and where Mills says he got his theory from in order to make it seem preposterous.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 04/26/2009 05:33 pm
As it turns out, since I'm a philosopher and did careful study in epistemology about how and why this sort of thing happens, I should not be surprised.

I would say you need to get off your high horse, and stop generalizing how stupid we all are.

I can't talk for others, but I do not think that our current knowledge of physics is unshakeable. But, it also does not mean we are necessarily wrong about it all.

The truth is, today's scientific community is rather receptive to new ideas, even crazy ones. It's not like we burn "heretics" alive. No, we really do not.

However crazy your idea is, you will be listened to, and if you have tangible results, people will try to verify and reproduce them.

I do not understand what you are complaining about. You think that people _must_ take any wacky sounding idea for truth? That criticism is not allowed or that it is detrimental to the process of establishing the truth?

Cut the crap. Show the evidence you have.

Since blacklight people claim that they have working devices producing energy by converting hydrogen to "hydrino", they must have "hydrino" byproduct in kilogram quantities. Can they send it to labs for analysis? Until they don't, I reserve the right to think that it is a scam.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/26/2009 06:00 pm
As I said, I'm not going to spend my time here advocating for BLP.  I'm just saying if you want evidence, go out and find it.  The crystals were sent out to dozens of labs more than a decade ago.

And yes, we do burn heretics or at the least, refuse them their graduate degrees if they don't absorb the status quo.

I'm not suggesting the scientific community should be or even could be more open than it is.  I'm just saying the lack of objectivity is fully human and the natural result of how emotions come from reason.  This is not a generalization that we are all "stupid" but rather that we are all human.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 04/27/2009 12:15 am
3)  Stop making vain appeals to authority.
This is rather amusing given your own repeated appeals to your alleged contacts at the CIA etc.
Quote
...snip pointless ramble about philosophy of science...
This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ? From what I've seen so far, the answer is a strong no. A few people of questionable independence (Marchese who did the NIAC work was already associated with BL AFAIK) have produced potentially interesting results, but that's a long way from confirming "hydrino theory".
Quote
Forget what everyone else thinks and look at the evidence for yourself.
When I want an opinion on a highly technical matter, I look to experts in the field. If I find the opinion at odds with my experience or common sense, I might go for a second or third opinion, but working things out from first principles isn't really an option. Particularly in science, a long standing, well established consensus in the field is a strong indicator that it represents the best available model to date.
Quote
He is deliberately misleading his audience.  The salient fact Barth is hiding from his audience here is that Mills did not pluck his theory from the air but rather, he was reading Maxwell when he discovered Schrodinger was wrong.
Your argument here seems to boil down to claiming that Mills is right and Barth is wrong. This is not the least bit convincing, especially given Barths demonstrated expertise in this field. Nor is Barth alone in calling Mills "theory" nonsense. Mills may think he discovered Schrodinger was wrong, but that doesn't mean he wasn't effectively pulling his "theory" out of thin air.

For someone who claims to not be advocating BLP, you seem to have spent a lot of time doing exactly that.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/27/2009 12:57 am
"This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ?"

No.  That is not the question at hand.  I have repeatedly stated I am not advocating for BLP.  The question is whether it is intellectually justified for people to accuse people they don't know, and groups they know nothing about of pseudo-science, fraud and lying.  You've now moved from accusing BLP of pseudo-science and fraud, to accusing me of lying--all with no evidence.

You see the problem here?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/28/2009 03:22 pm
"This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ?"

No.  That is not the question at hand.  I have repeatedly stated I am not advocating for BLP.  The question is whether it is intellectually justified for people to accuse people they don't know, and groups they know nothing about of pseudo-science, fraud and lying.  You've now moved from accusing BLP of pseudo-science and fraud, to accusing me of lying--all with no evidence.

You see the problem here?

Okay then explain the purpose of your thread?  You created it - you claim to not advocate for it, yet attack those who question the merits of the subject itself.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/28/2009 03:31 pm
No, I didn't start the thread.  We bumped into this issue when, in another thread; I said that the BLP reactor ought to have a higher power density than using solar for electric propulsion.  Chris separated those thoughts from that thread and started this one.  From that time everyone here has been calling this stuff snake oil, pseudo-science and fraud.  I'm sure it's just a matter of time until it gets called "oogie boogie."

My point is as any philosopher.  If you want to castigate anything, you ought to have some evidence.  I've yet to see evidence anyone here has done anything other than taken the word of those in the status quo position.  So point in fact, if indeed Mills were right and this were an instance of a revolution in science, everyone here would be doing EXACTLY what they're doing--not because this is good science but because this is what even good scientists do!  But truly, out of hand rejection like this is the practice of religion, not science.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/28/2009 04:39 pm
I will admit one thing I would advocate for with regards BLP and that is, someone at NASA to consider replacing JIMO with a spacecraft using a BLP driven power system.

I always thought JIMO was a great idea.  If we're to learn more about our planetary system, we have to have these more capable spacecraft with KW's of power aboard rather than a few watts.  JIMO was scrapped because it was just so spendy--more than a billion dollars.  Imagine if the power system could be replaced cheaply?  A few of these 50 Kw reactors and their subsequent sub systems are apparently not going to cost much.  You can do direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity so very little radiator mass is needed.  No need to build an enormous spacecraft.  It seems to me if we could take BLP's word for a thumbnail sketch study, we'd learn what it would take to build and fly a JIMO-like mission without a nuke.  Also, if indeed their reactor works the way it's claimed to, this is a fabulous opportunity to improve VASIMR by a couple orders magnitude thrust efficiency.  Imagine if we had a JIMO like craft capable of both huge thrusts and super high Isp's, that drew it's power from the stuff it uses as plasma?

I don't know about you but I think this is all worth some investigation and its not as if BLP has been hiding from the scientific establishment.  I'd bet anyone who has the skills to do a JIMO type mockup could get the answers they need from guys like Peter Jansson as well as from BLP.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 04/28/2009 09:54 pm
I will admit one thing I would advocate for with regards BLP and that is, someone at NASA to consider replacing JIMO with a spacecraft using a BLP driven power system.

I always thought JIMO was a great idea.  If we're to learn more about our planetary system, we have to have these more capable spacecraft with KW's of power aboard rather than a few watts.  JIMO was scrapped because it was just so spendy--more than a billion dollars.  Imagine if the power system could be replaced cheaply?  A few of these 50 Kw reactors and their subsequent sub systems are apparently not going to cost much.  You can do direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity so very little radiator mass is needed.  No need to build an enormous spacecraft.  It seems to me if we could take BLP's word for a thumbnail sketch study, we'd learn what it would take to build and fly a JIMO-like mission without a nuke.  Also, if indeed their reactor works the way it's claimed to, this is a fabulous opportunity to improve VASMIR by a couple orders magnitude thrust efficiency.  Imagine if we had a JIMO like craft capable of both huge thrusts and super high Isp's, that drew it's power from the stuff it uses as plasma?

I don't know about you but I think this is all worth some investigation and its not as if BLP has been hiding from the scientific establishment.  I'd bet anyone who has the skills to do a JIMO type mockup could get the answers they need from guys like Peter Jansson as well as from BLP.

Lets see a working generator on earth first that is selling power back to the electric grid.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: khallow on 04/29/2009 11:11 am
All I can say is that when I looked at BLP (which admittedly was some time ago), all I saw was yet another perpetual motion machine. They claimed at the time that they somehow could extract energy from ground state hydrogen, somehow dropping it to a lower than lowest energy state. But in practice, it was just a fancy closed cycle loop.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/29/2009 04:12 pm
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition.  They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional  or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right.  The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933.  With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question.  Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.

Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills.  When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model.  However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work.  Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.

As I said, the reactor is running. . .
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: khallow on 04/29/2009 07:33 pm
As I see it, the problem with that claim is that we haven't seen evidence of this hydrino state in nature. Remember roughly 3/4 of visible mass is in the form of hydrogen and we've experimented with hydrogen for more than a century. If the hydrino state truly were a lower energy state for atomic (or perhaps molecular) hydrogen in either stars, near Earth conditions, or nebula, then we would see it. In other words, we have strong negative results for hydrinos already.

That implies to me that if the hydrino state really exists, it's at a much different temperature, density, and pressure than the usual for hydrogen (say something like metallic hydrogen). That means you have to expend considerable energy to get hydrogen to the desired intermediate state where it can then fall to the hydrino state.

And sure the reactor is running, but does it produce net power?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/29/2009 08:31 pm
Well, this is why we need to have more scientists involved in examining BLP's claims.  They do for instance claim that there is cosmological evidence for this state of hydrogen and those claims need to be examined more closely.  In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect.  That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.

That said, there are reasons to suppose this contracted state of hydrogen would be rare because it can only be formed through use of a catalyst under low pressure conditions.  Still, some posit that it is the hydrino state of hydrogen that is the "dark matter" out there.  Conjecture like that is not interesting to me personally because we'd need to find some evidence that's so but, it does provide a possible answer to your objection.

And yes, the 50 kW reactor is running at Rowan and less than 1% of the power being generated can be explained through recourse to normal chemistry and physics.  The whole point of Rowan running the replication is so others can come in and examine their protocols so this is very open science.  Anyone with an interest can examine and comment on the techniques used to measure the heat.  They're looking to improve their methods in any way possible.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 04/30/2009 07:05 am
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect.  That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.
If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Celebrimbor on 04/30/2009 09:19 am
Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.

Is that what is going on here?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 04/30/2009 09:51 am
Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.

Is that what is going on here?

Mass of free neutron > mass of free proton + mass of free electron.

What you describe (I believe it's called "K-capture") happens only in some isotopes where the energy deficit is covered by the energy release from new nucleus formation (it is more stable than old one).

In hydrogen, it's impossible.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/30/2009 02:49 pm
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect.  That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.
If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.

I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog.  People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 05/02/2009 03:34 am
I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog.  People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.
I see you've simply ignored the fact that your original claim that Barth didn't provide data is wrong. Instead, you've just moved on to attacking the medium in which it was printed.

This is disingenuous in a couple of ways. First, its factually wrong: the article originally appeared in a print publication (Skeptic magazine), not a blog. Secondly, its simply ad-hominem (or should I say ad-medium ?) While the blogosphere certainly contains plenty of rubbish, it does not follow that anything found on the blogosphere is necessarily rubbish.

It isn't a peer reviewed article (and no one has claimed it was), but it does appear to be serious, well documented argument by an expert in a relevant field.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 02:51 pm
Go back and reread the article.  Barth DID NOT provide the data.  He provided a reference.

Look, this is shmoe journalism.  Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.  There's no accountability.  No responsibility.

I have to tell you the truth here, as an epistemologist it just grinds my shorts that skepticism has so dominated that field since Descartes.  It's one thing to use skepticism as a tool for critical thinking.  Its something else entirely to use it to show how we don't "know" anything except perhaps that we exist.  That's just pointless brain drain nonsense and Skeptic mag is known not for critical thinking, but for their own distinctive lack of common sense in this area.  Yes, if all you want to do is win an argument, meaning you're motivated not by finding the truth but rather by "winning" in some obscure fashion, then by all means; be a skeptic!  It's true!  If you like you can show that we have doubts about even our own existence!  But it's also a dopey waste of time.

In any event, it's a simple thing for you to go on the BLP web site and look at the origins of Mills theory.  You can also look at the real debate about it.  It was never with Barth.  It was with Rathke.  Go on the web site, look at what Mills says about where his theory came from, come back and report to us about how deceptive Barth is in his shoddy journalism.  Here's a clue for you: Barth is using a rhetorical fallacy know as the "generative fallacy" in order to discredit Mills theory, by trying to sell the notion Mills has simply plucked the theory from the air.  I'm not here making an ad hominem attack on Barth.  I'm saying this is what he did in his paper and why you are better off to ignore people like Barth.

Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence?  The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.  Screw what Barth said back in 2001.  He's not half dopey enough to say it today.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 04:15 pm
Hop, I want to be sure I'm not being hasty here with you.  I made that mistake with Jim some months ago and created a conflict that was truly my fault not his.  While I'm on the subject let me make here a formal apology to Jim.  In the weeks and months since, its become very obvious to me that Jim is a sensible guy and though he does not suffer fools well, he always seems to be level-headed and correct.  I want to extend that same sort of assumption about you and everyone else here at NSF.

Given this, I think the reason you and I don't respond similarly to things like Barth is that we have very different backgrounds. So, let me take a moment and explain why I don't appreciate Barth nor the Skeptic.  It concerns the state of epistemology and the misuse of the tools of skepticism.

If you'll remember, and I'll try to get the story right though it's been a long time; Rene Descartes who was a brilliant mathematician and philosopher; was home sick one day.  He had a high fever and was hallucinating.  When the hallucinations were done with, he had a very sensible concern over how he could have been so wrong in his seeming apprehensions.  This sent him down the path to pondering what the limits of knowledge are.

Descartes wrote a beautiful formalism concerning how he could be wrong about almost anything.  He systematically disassembled his entire noetic structure through skepticism or doubt about whether he could be wrong until he finally came to that bare essential, what he could find no way to doubt (though others have after him), the proposition that "I think, therefore I am."

After this, Descartes uses pure reason to make his own version of the ontological argument, the previous argument from pure reason by Aquinas for the existence of God.  Then he posits God would not allow him to be so deceived and from there rebuilds his entire noetic structure.  Even those of us who don't particularly think the ontological argument obtains can see some true elegance in Descartes method here.

In modern epistemology, Descartes' method of rigorous disassembly of belief has run amok. The skeptics have been using Descartes original method to doubt anything and everything and I can tell you first hand, they always win their arguments.  If you are at first willing to grant the skeptics their original premise, that all claims to "knowledge" entail what is called "intellectual justification" and that this justification requires that one could not be wrong in any way, then the skeptics will win their pointless argument and the result is you have to say you don't know much of anything, if anything at all.  After all, one can think of a situation where you'd be wrong.  We could be brains in a vat.

This is all a big waste of time and when you see debunkers using this method, rather than a common sense method, you know they're misusing the tools of critical thinking.

I prefer the common sense epistemology of people like G.E Moore and the brilliant contemporary champion of this, Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame.  Plantinga has brought the question of how we think back to basics.  Instead of asking , "is there ANY way I could be wrong?" he asks "what is the proper warrant for belief?"   and "How can I think rationally and be warranted in my beliefs?"

It would take too long to cover Plantinga here but let me just note that Plantinga posits that our ability to apprehend truth is tied directly to the proper functioning of our noetic faculties.  He's saying yes, we could be deceived through for example an hallucination, but that failure is do to a failure in our noetic faculties.  In general, we are justified like G.E. Moore in holding up our hand and saying "this is my hand."  To doubt this is generally a failure of common sense and I think once we come to understand this, we also come to understand that most of what we see in places like the Skeptic, utterly lacks common sense.  It is in the tradition of skepticism run amok, not in the tradition of those who earnestly want to find the truth.

So, you can see my commitment here.  I think if you want to find the truth about something like BLP, you have to first look at BLP's claims in a common sensical sort of way.  Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.  You need to go to the raw evidence, IMHO.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 05/02/2009 04:37 pm
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.

Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct? :)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 05:28 pm
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.

Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct? :)

That's a good question.  You'd have to ask Dr. Jansson what they're doing with it.  If you want to do that, you'll want to do it soon since he's off to Cambridge soon.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 05/03/2009 04:04 am
Go back and reread the article.  Barth DID NOT provide the data.  He provided a reference.
The reference is sufficient for any qualified individual to determine whether his interpretation representation of the data is accurate or not. So your complaint appears to merely be a dishonest diversion.
Quote
Look, this is shmoe journalism.  Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.
More vague ad-hom, again changing your story when your error is noted. First it was blogs, now just appearing in Skeptic makes it junk.
Quote
Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence?  The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.  Screw what Barth said back in 2001.  He's not half dopey enough to say it today.
If there were actual evidence, you'd have a point. The stuff at Rowan is run by Mills pals, using blacklights materials. This isn't independent validation.
Quote
Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.
This is classic scammer/kook argument. "The establishment wants to suppress the new revolutionary theory!". It's bogus, because anyone who could actually prove the kind of things Mills claims would be collecting their Nobel pronto. You're place in history would be assured if you overturned giants like Bohr and Schrödinger. If the theory made sense, up and coming physicists would be falling over each other to prove it, not trying to suppress it.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/03/2009 12:02 pm
Look Hop, you can stop putting words in my mouth.  I tried with you.  I honestly did.

Believe whatever you want but stop slandering people you know nothing about.  Have you no conscience?  Have you no common sense?  You think an MIT grad and Cambridge Fellow who teaches at a cutting edge university engineering program is running a scam because he's saying something you don't want to believe?  And the other 7 professors spread out over several departments and two colleges--they're all lying?  And their grad students, all lying too?

That's an aweful lot to presume with no evidence.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 05/04/2009 02:56 am
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition.  They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional  or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right.  The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933.  With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question.  Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.

Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills.  When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model.  However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work.  Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.

Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/04/2009 03:01 pm
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition.  They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional  or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right.  The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933.  With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question.  Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.

Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills.  When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model.  However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work.  Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.

Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.

When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon.  It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus.  Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system.  In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process.  It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity.  Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient.  And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.

Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 05/04/2009 04:38 pm
Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.

When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon.  It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus.  Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system.  In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process.  It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity.  Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient.  And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.

Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.

Well not sure I buy all that. For power generation, all you really need is a differential between whatever energy state you are in and the ground state. Doesnt really matter if you are above or below the ground state (hence AC vs DC, etc) it is the potential difference that does the work.

IMHO the way to work it is you use the hydrinos to absorb waste heat IR photons, so this increases the temperature differential on either end. Hydrinos should come out supercool, so absorbing waste heat is the way they would get some additional work done.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/04/2009 05:02 pm
I've never seen anything talking about reversing the BLP process.   As I've said, it's 5 years since I've looked at all this carefully.  I only keep tabs on their progress these last 5 years.  After all, they're no longer seeking investment.

What I can tell you is that in every instance, atoms store their internal energy based upon the location of their electrons.  The closer the electron, the lower the energy state of the atom.  Moving the electron back out away from the nucleus is endothermic.  It will not release energy; it will require energy.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/11/2009 04:50 pm
Whew.  Coming in late to the party, I would have thought that a thread started by GI-Thruster, and entitled "Blacklight Power" would countenance a discussion of the merits of, well, blacklight power.

The power generation companies are not currently selling electricity generated by this method, nor, according to trade reports, are they widely experimenting with this methodology.

Color me confused.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/11/2009 08:37 pm
I am in favor of discussion concerning BLP but not between folks who know nothing about it.  Anyone who can claim that Mills says his process does not radiate, despite the salient fact the process is NAMED AFTER SUCH RADIATION, is quite confused and has nothing of value to share.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: mlorrey on 05/11/2009 09:01 pm
Atoms store their energy in two things, not one:

a) velocity
b) electron orbits

lets say you've got a bunch of hydrinos mixed with hydrogen. The average velocities of both should be equal since they are of equal atomic mass. The hydrinos should absorb energy from the hydrogen atoms that have an electron at a higher than ground orbit due to photon absorption or impact with another hydrogen atom. Thus hydrinos should all return to the ground state while absorbing ambient waste heat, and thus should have a cooling influence on any matter above 0 K.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/11/2009 09:20 pm
I agree with all this though, I'm not certain whether the original premise, that you have hydrinos mixed with hydrogen, is something that actually occurs.  Lets remember hydrogen is diatomic and not normally found in single atoms except in plasma state.  Also, there is the quantum energy transfer issue.  It seems to me likely in theory that one could bump a hydrino back up above normal ground state in a manner like you suggest, but it also seems this energy transfer would need to be carefully mediated by a catalyst, same as the original process, or perhaps pumped with a laser of specific frequency, etc.  But in general yes.  I would think the process would be reversible.  I have just never read about it before.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Zachstar on 05/22/2009 07:09 am
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.

Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it. Let the scientists ensure there is nothing remotely interfering with the results.

I think both sides are doing more harm than good with this stuff. We dont need everyone calling snake oil which can be considered slander. And we dont need potential fanboys defending decisions by them to refuse simple but effective field evidence.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 05/22/2009 09:26 am
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.

Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it.

In this case, it's even simpler. Give hydrino samples to the chemists interested in analyzing them. Hydrino atoms should be easily detectable, as they differ for any other known atom.

Sorry, "we offered samples but nobody was interested in doing that" does not count. Find somebody who is interested.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 02:44 pm
They did that ten years ago.  The chemists are satisfied.  It's the physicists who are all jittery.

The reactor at Rowan and its calorimetery apparatus are both open for anyone to examine and offer concerns or suggestion on how to improve the experiment.  How many times do I need to say this?  The evidence is out for anyone who has a notion to view for themselves.  This is very PUBLIC science being done at a state university.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 05/22/2009 03:51 pm
They did that ten years ago.  The chemists are satisfied.  It's the physicists who are all jittery.

Oh really? Provide URLs to a few ecstatic scientific publications "wow, a completely new state of ordinary hydrogen is found!"

Quote
The reactor at Rowan and its calorimetery apparatus are both open for anyone to examine and offer concerns or suggestion on how to improve the experiment.  How many times do I need to say this?

You may repeat that ad nauseum. Until there are more people who confirm that "hydrino" exists, repeating won't help.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 04:00 pm
"Oh really? Provide URLs to a few ecstatic scientific publications "wow, a completely new state of ordinary hydrogen is found!"

Here's a better idea.  You go spend your time looking for it.  BLP presents before the American Chemical Society each year.  You go trace it down.  Not worth my time.

Lets face facts.  The whiners here aren't going to trace anything down.  They're just going to keep whining that the evidence hasn't been collected for them just like they'd whine the evidence was cherry-picked if it had been collected for them.

That's why it's not worth my time to do your research.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Pittsburgh on 05/22/2009 05:37 pm
If the chemists were satisfied ten years ago, then that was about the same time that evidence was provided for neutrinos having mass.  Flipping to the index and then the appropriate page, my physics textbook from 2004 references this.

I'd imagine that the textbook publishers operate their revisions on roughly the same time cycle for both physics and chemistry.  I'll see if I can get my hands on a new chemistry textbook and look up hydrino in the index.  You figure that if chemistry as a field has decided that there are states lower than the ground state, that will merit at least a footnote.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 05:43 pm
I'm not saying anyone has supported BLP.  I'm saying the whining is coming from the physicists, not the chemists.  This has nothing to do with text books!  What are you saying?!

Look, each time I make a call for some common sense here, an adversary comes along and places me in the position of a BLP advocate.  I'm not.  I'm just a humbe philosopher of technology suggesting that anyone who wants answers here can get them for themselves.  This is public science.  Avail yourself to it if you have an interest.  Otherwise, why waste time supporting the status quo position when there is so much evidence that this position may be in error?

That's not science and it's not thinking.  It's mob mentality.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Pittsburgh on 05/22/2009 06:05 pm
The claim posited in this thread is that ten years ago hydrinos were provided to the scientific community, and while the physicists balked, the chemists were fine with it.  OK, at roughly the same time, evidence about neutrinos came to light, and the physics texts were changed within five or six years.  If chemistry as a field really does believe in hydrinos, then I'd expect to see a similar change in the chemistry books.  If I can't find reference to hydrinos in modern chemistry textbooks, then I'm forced to believe that chemists as a group don't believe in hydrinos.  Is that common sense?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 07:06 pm
Ah.  I see your point and this is an interesting test or measure of what entails scientific orthodoxy.  Certainly, school text books are a pretty fair measure.  I would point out a few issues with the naive application of this method though:

Neutrinos had been the constant source of discussion for decades before the first argon tank tests. They were in text books before the tests or certainly a guy like me would not have run across them thirty years ago.

Chemists are never going to promote the notion of hydrinos until the physicists have at.  That's not how scientific revolutions occur.  They're much less orderly than this.  We should expect biting, kicking and eye-gouging for a couple decades AFTER the evidence is out in an unassailable fashion, meaning things like a working reactor.

Just IMHO but again, let me recommend that the best place to get a sense of what this process is like is to read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  You can get it in paperback used from Amazon for about $5 and it's a fun read. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Zachstar on 05/23/2009 12:07 am They did that ten years ago. The chemists are satisfied. It's the physicists who are all jittery. The reactor at Rowan and its calorimetery apparatus are both open for anyone to examine and offer concerns or suggestion on how to improve the experiment. How many times do I need to say this? The evidence is out for anyone who has a notion to view for themselves. This is very PUBLIC science being done at a state university. Um no that is NOT what I meant. When I mean the middle of nowhere I mean middle of nowhere. Not "Reactor at Rowan" I mean "Reactor somewhere in the desert" I could care less how many times it is said. All I see is power bills going up. Want me to believe? Lets make it even simpler.. Use this gizmo to pump cheap clean power to the grid this year. Surely if its been proven time and again the power companies are required to buy back power in many states. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/23/2009 12:19 am Zach, I'm all there. I'd love the opportunity to visit Rowan and I want to see the evidence that power utilities are generating electricity based upon this method. As it happens, I'm half hour drive from Rowan and the first BLP reactors are slated to go into commercial production this year. So what does it take to get a fair handling of the evidence with regards BLP? I dunno but I think more than we visit Rowan. I think it takes time. Lets wait and see if the power utilities actually deliver? Sounds good to me. Just a few months' wait it seems. But no joke, even if it happens, if guys like Eric Lerner deliver this year, BLP needs to find another venue for pesos. Maybe batteries. Diamond films. Whatever, but fusion is several orders magnitude energy density past what BLP is proposing. Want my guess? Energy STORAGE is going to prove itself the dominant player over energy generation the next two years. Folks like EEStor are going to be the game changers if these other schemes work out. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Zachstar on 05/23/2009 01:07 am Storage is solved. Not only did EEstor recently break the "Bull" barrier but you have now upwards of 10 "competing" technologies. Some even talking twice EEstor values. All on track for the 2015 2020 timeframe. Fair? There is no "Fair" in the energy industry. If BLP can't handle skeptics. How are they going to handle political pressure from the coal industry? Its not a conspiracy that BLP would cut into their profits and thus they would rather it be studied "further"' But yes battery investments is prime right now. Mainly because they would work well as grid balance. Which promises huge contracts. If you say they are but a few months from showing something concrete such as power production directly to the grid then let us not discuss this further. Proof is in the action not words. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/23/2009 01:27 am I'd like to know more about what is competing with EEStor. If you have some links or other intel, please write me privately. In particular, I always research high frequency caps and such as I'm involved with M-E research. Any leads you have here would be appreciated. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 05/23/2009 03:57 am Zach, I'm all there. I'd love the opportunity to visit Rowan and I want to see the evidence that power utilities are generating electricity based upon this method. As it happens, I'm half hour drive from Rowan and the first BLP reactors are slated to go into commercial production this year. You continue to ignore the fact that the actual Rowan experiment is neither independent nor reproducible in any scientifically meaningful sense. It relies on Blacklight supplied proprietary material and even if the results are accurate, they don't actually confirm Mills loony physics. At best, they demonstrates that the material undergoes and exothermic reaction when heated. A more parsimonious explanation is an ordinary chemical reaction that they didn't properly account for, but independent verification is impossible since the experiment relies on Blacklights material. It is telling that they focused on the calorimetry, rather than the alleged hydrino byproduct. You protested earlier that Barths criticism wasn't credible in part because it wasn't published in the peer reviewed literature, but as far as I can tell the "independent" report you find so convincing is only published on Blacklights web site. Even Janssons own home page links to it on Blacklights site, along with a little infomercial video starring.... Mills and Jansson. As for commercial productions starting this year, it's been starting "real soon now" for the last decade. This certainly looks like typical scammer behavior. Quote So what does it take to get a fair handling of the evidence with regards BLP? For evidence to be handled fairly, there would have to be some evidence to handle. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: mlorrey on 05/23/2009 06:03 am Zach, I'm all there. I'd love the opportunity to visit Rowan and I want to see the evidence that power utilities are generating electricity based upon this method. As it happens, I'm half hour drive from Rowan and the first BLP reactors are slated to go into commercial production this year. You continue to ignore the fact that the actual Rowan experiment is neither independent nor reproducible in any scientifically meaningful sense. It relies on Blacklight supplied proprietary material and even if the results are accurate, they don't actually confirm Mills loony physics. At best, they demonstrates that the material undergoes and exothermic reaction when heated. A more parsimonious explanation is an ordinary chemical reaction that they didn't properly account for, but independent verification is impossible since the experiment relies on Blacklights material. It is telling that they focused on the calorimetry, rather than the alleged hydrino byproduct. You protested earlier that Barths criticism wasn't credible in part because it wasn't published in the peer reviewed literature, but as far as I can tell the "independent" report you find so convincing is only published on Blacklights web site. Even Janssons own home page links to it on Blacklights site, along with a little infomercial video starring.... Mills and Jansson. As for commercial productions starting this year, it's been starting "real soon now" for the last decade. This certainly looks like typical scammer behavior. Quote So what does it take to get a fair handling of the evidence with regards BLP? For evidence to be handled fairly, there would have to be some evidence to handle. This article points to a good explanation for the burst of energy that is unsustainable: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127/2 It says the raney nickel that the sodium hydride is on is oxidizing, which is an extremely exothermic process. BLP would have to show that the raney nickel was not oxidizing to eliminate this proposed explanation. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/23/2009 03:09 pm Thanks for the link. That is certainly one of the best pieces I've ever seen written about BLP. On your objections, I think we can agree. The onus is on BLP to show that there are no conventional chemical processes that can account for the energy coming out of their reactors. I think there has already been some outside work on this, for instance, the other profs at Rowan who did their own chemical analysis which is in the study. That doesn't mean the issue is solved. It's not and this is because these things take time. On the other hand, there is a bit of a catch 22 going on here. I'm reading complaints that Rowan is in cahoots with BLP and that the Rowan work is not therefore an independent replication, and on the other hand, we certainly can't hold BLP responsible for the work done or not by others. That's not their concern. If this is the real complaint, that we need more independent verification, then I agree completely and have made the point myself many times. But this is not a complaint against BLP. It's a complaint against the scientific community at large. Finally, in returning to this observation that the Rowan work is not an independent verification because they use a BLP reactor--I agree that it is wrongfully termed an "independent verification" when using a BLP reactor. However, the whole point of the Rowan replication is to show that the calorimetry is correct, not the reactor. The piece linked above is certainly correct when it quotes that doing calorimetry is very dicey work and it's very easy to make mistakes here. THAT is the point of the Rowan work, to show they can do the calorimetry correctly and THAT is why their process is open for observation to anyone who wants to contribute. That is good science. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 07/02/2009 01:44 am so as not to pollute http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17647.60 with BLP stuff, I'll reply here I think it is in a small sense already available. There's one running months now at Rowan University. It's a gross misrepresentation to imply that the Rowan experiment was a demonstration of a viable power production technology. It's a "reactor" only in the sense that it's a vessel which contains a reaction. When they heated a proprietary substance they got a spike of additional heat out. They didn't run a continuous process with net power production, and they didn't do anything that would validate the claimed underlying physics. They did claim that ordinary chemistry couldn't produce the observed results, but the credibility of this is dubious given that the proprietary nature of the fuel. At least one apparently plausible mechanism has been suggested. Bizarrely they did not appear to make any attempt validate the underlying physics claims. Proving the existence of "hydrinos" would be Nobel prize territory. Getting a brief exothermic reaction out of some mystery substance provided by a third party, and publishing a non peer reviewed report and an cheesy infomercial video starring the lead investigator and the company founder ? Not so much. Quote there's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV, I forget which. Best I can tell, what actually happened was two small rural NM utility cooperatives allegedly purchased licenses for an unspecified amount. The terms of the licenses are only described in the vaguest terms in blacklights press release, and strangely, the two licensees didn't find it significant enough to even mention on their web sites. edit: the press releases and licensees http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightProcessEstacadoPressRelease121108.html http://www.rcec.org/ http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightProcessFarmersPressReleaseFINAL010609.html http://www.farmerselectric.org/ ConEd and PG&E, they are not. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 07/03/2009 04:13 am GI-Thrusters response here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17647.msg430040#msg430040 didn't contain much of substance, but there's a couple things worth pointing out. Certainly what I wrote was not a gross misrepresentation. The reactor is running. A plain reading of the "independent" report (http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf) shows that the "reactor" is a container of Blacklights "fuel" in a calorimeter. "Running" it means of applying heat, and measuring additional heat produced for a brief period following. While the Blacklight web site has various pretty animations of power plants, that's not what was tested. You shouldn't need an advanced degree in anything (never mind philosophy!) to see that describing this as a demonstration of a viable power source is unjustified. Moreover, the amount of "excess" heat produced (about 1 megajoule) could easily be produced by an ordinary chemical reaction involving a small fraction of the "fuel". Some speculation on possible sources can be found at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/something-strange-comes-this-way-well.html The report does claim that conventional sources were ruled out, but it's not clear that conclusion is justified by the analysis they did. Quote But it is really silly to presume that BLP is oogie boogie considering the years this has been going on, and the quality of folks associated with it. Again, it is not rational to argue this is a hoax or a fraud, considering the people involved Because scientists (http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2002-07-15/article/13513?headline=Lawrence-lab-admits-bad-science) and respected (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=bernie+madoff) figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk) have never (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=enron) ever (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Allen+Stanford) engaged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n) in long running, large scale fraud. Right. I'm not saying Blacklight is necessarily a fraud. However, dismissing the idea out of hand does not seem justified, especially considering how much of Blacklights behavior has in common with other fraudulent energy schemes. I should also mention that Blacklight being fraudulent would not require that the Rowan experiment also be a fraud. For whatever reason, the scope was limited such that it doesn't touch on the important parts the Blacklight claims. Quote Hop, make whatever argument you like in the BLP thread. I'll be happy to read it and consider it but I don't intend to respond further. ::) Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/03/2009 05:27 pm Hop, I honestly don't want to get drawn into yet another debate on this issue. I will just close in saying that it is you, not I; who is misreading the report. Anyone here can open the link you've provided and read from page 11 under Conclusions and see that: a) It is a reactor. They call it that because that's what it is. b) They claim to be an "external" team. Your argments about how independent they are make no sense. This is not independent in that they rely upon the BLP folks for guidance and resources, but it is a completely external experiment run by a state university. c) They did do what they consider adequate chemical analysis and they have concluded this is a novel reaction. The heat generated cannot be explained through recourse to normal chemistry. You can offer vague notions that you have no confidence in this sort of investigation, but the onus at this point is on you, not the Rowan team; to show Rowan's analysis is in error. Lacking that, you can still make the argument that we need to see more research, more independent research and more evidence. I will agree with you. :-) Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 07/03/2009 10:17 pm a) It is a reactor. They call it that because that's what it is. Rather than playing word games, how about addressing what it actually does ? Here's are reminder of what you said earlier: Quote I think it is in a small sense already available [as a viable spacecraft power source]. There's one running months now at Rowan University. There's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV... Now look at what the Rowan "reactor" is: It's container of 1.5 kg of "fuel" that when heated, releases ~1MJ of additional energy. Once this is done, the fuel is expended. If you want to dispute this, please reference where the report says otherwise. 1MJ is ~0.27kwh, which AFAIK a similar mass lithium ion battery can produce about the same in electrical power. To claim that this represents a demonstration of a viable energy generation system is, as I originally said, a gross misrepresentation. Doesn't matter if you call it a "reactor" or not, doesn't matter if there are actually "hydrinos" involved or not. Your second claim also appears to be inaccurate: The two small NM utility coops obtained licenses to Quote ... use the BlackLight Process and certain BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power. Estacado may produce gross thermal power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 250 MW or convert this thermal power to corresponding electricity. Unless you have additional information, there's no indication that a plant is actually being built. For all we know, BLP bought the coop managers lunch in return for signing a license so they could issue a press release. Why am I arguing about this ? Because you are repeating exactly the kind of misleading spin Blacklights activity appears designed to produce. e.g.: - Calling their 1MJ fuel block a "50kw reactor" - Trumpeting licenses that on closer examination appear of limited significance. - Obtaining* independent tests that don't actually support the viability of their system, and don't investigate the core of their claims. * How the Rowan team came to do this test isn't clear. Although not explicitly stated, it looks to me like it was sponsored by BLP. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does raise some questions about the strange limitations on the scope of the experiment. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: AnalogMan on 07/03/2009 10:32 pm - Obtaining* independent tests that don't actually support the viability of their system, and don't investigate the core of their claims. * How the Rowan team came to do this test isn't clear. Although not explicitly stated, it looks to me like it was sponsored by BLP. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does raise some questions about the strange limitations on the scope of the experiment. Yep - Blacklight Power, Inc. provided grants of at least$351k to the Rowan principal investigators for the period July 06 to present date.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/03/2009 10:56 pm
Hop, I said that it in some small sense already exists.  I did NOT say what you inserted into the quote in brackets.  If you want to quote someone, especially with the quote bar here at NSF, then quote them.  Don't stick your words in their mouth.  I did not say what you utterly and deliberately misrepresented me as saying.  In conclusion I said, if it is not available now, it's because of the fueling issue--just what your argument says.

You see why I don't want to have this discussion with you--you have no concern for the facts.  Discussion over.  Stop misrepresenting me.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 07/04/2009 01:34 am
Hop, I said that it in some small sense already exists.  I did NOT say what you inserted into the quote in brackets.  If you want to quote someone, especially with the quote bar here at NSF, then quote them.  Don't stick your words in their mouth.
Not my intention, and I honestly don't believe that I did. If anyone else thinks I've been way out of line here, feel free to let me know (via PM if you like). Here's the complete context, with links to the original posts:
GI-Thruster: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17647.msg429920#msg429920
Quote
A 50 kW BLP reactor is the size of a basketball so the power systems for this could, in that case be very small and hard to see.

Jim: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17647.msg429971#msg429971
Quote
3.  when will that be available?

GI-Thruster: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17647.msg429981#msg429981
Quote
I think it is in a small sense already available.  There's one running months now at Rowan University.  There's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV, I forget which.  I don't know if there's anything one would want to launch quite yet but I'm sure CIA is fully aware of how close they are to access
I don't believe that [as a viable spacecraft power source] substantially misrepresented the position expressed above. The implication is clear that you are suggesting a basket ball sized "50kw" BLP reactor is a near term, plausible spacecraft power supply, and that the Rowan experiment somehow supports this.

The last is obviously untrue. To call the difference between what the Rowan test showed and a viable power supply a "fueling issue" is strange... the only thing that has been demonstrated is a "fuel" with lower energy density than existing, off the shelf technology.

AnalogMan:
Thanks for that. Do you have a source handy ?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/04/2009 01:40 am
AnalogMan:
Thanks for that. Do you have a source handy ?
Rowan University are quite open and above board with the grants that they receive for sponsored research.  You can find monthly and annual summary reports on their website here:
http://www.rowan.edu/open/provost/grants/quarterly_reports/quarterly_reports.cfm (http://www.rowan.edu/open/provost/grants/quarterly_reports/quarterly_reports.cfm)

Grants received from Blacklight Power, Inc. listed in these reports are as follows:

Date     Principal investigator(s)    Grant   Jul 06   Jansson                     $75,000Dec 07 Jansson$ 35,000Jul 08   Mugweru                     $20,807Sep 08 Mugweru & Ramanujachary$ 50,028Nov 08   Jansson                     $116,359Nov 08 Mugweru & Ramanujachary$ 54,104Total                                $351,298 Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/17/2009 05:09 pm http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightAkridgeLicenseAgreementPressReleaseFINAL073009.htm http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightPowerPhysicsGrandSlamFINAL081209.htm and note the "fueling issue" has been solved: http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Commercializable%20Paper%20080709S.pdf Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: bad_astra on 08/21/2009 05:45 pm Rowan University conducted the experiment with their own equipment this time. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Zachstar on 08/29/2009 12:11 am So where is it? Where is the stuff ready to use? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/29/2009 05:28 am So where is it? Where is the stuff ready to use? My quick scan of the most recent materials suggested that there is no stuff yet ready to use. There was a comment in one of the most recent papers that the breakthrough with the feeding of the reactors would step them up in their schedule mightily which suggests that they are not at the point of commercial application. I don't care. If there is anything to these claims, the aerospace community should be looking at them. I don't care about Mills' oddball physics. I don't care about the bad press. All I see is mounting evidence that they are onto something and it is an American tragedy that DOE, DOD, DOT, NASA and the American Academies of Science have not been tasked to look into this. A careful and revealing study would cost a million or two and we'd have answers. Likewise, it is near criminal negligence that we are not pressing for answers concerning the EEStor super-cap issue. These are technologies that all evidence says are game changers and especially when our nation is under the economic gun, it only makes good sense to investigate technologies that could offer life changing solutions to our energy needs. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: alexterrell on 08/30/2009 09:52 pm Blacklight claim to take hydrogen down to a lower energy state, and that this energy state is stable. Taking hydrogen down to the lower energy state releases a lot of heat. This would be unique, as it would be a phyiscal process that nature hasn't achieved. Fission, Fusion, etc, nature does them. I can see how the lower state would be stable, as moving to the higher state would absorb energy, and send the temperature to below absolute zero, so it would be impossible. So if this lower energy status were possible, would it not dominate the Universe? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/31/2009 03:16 am Alex, I want to remind again that I did not start this thread. I blundered onto the BLP subject in another thread and it generated so many posts that Chris snipped the posts and started this new thread. I'm not a BLP cheerleader. I believe in the scientific process and I believe that BLP does show the signs of revolutionary science as is outlined in Thomas S. Kuhn's landmark work "The Structures of Scientific Revolutions" however, I also realize that Mills' claims are somewhat startling and his critics past counting. I realize that this bodes of either bad science or revolutionary science and honestly, the proof is in the empirical evidence generated. So to answer your question, I can't answer your question without re-igniting the firestorm of controversy that always surrounds discussion of BLP. I suggest instead if you have an interest, spend the time to better understand BLP's claims by reading some of the volumous detail available on the BLP website or by simply reading back through this thread. For my part, I'm content to call for good science. I think BLP has indeed earned the ear of the scientific community (even though they haven't recieved a fair hearing--they have earned one) and even if Mills' physics is flawed, it is worth looking at the evidence. It's also always worth reconsidering the current scientific paradigm. Unfortunately as Kuhn explains, it is not until the current paradigm is shown to be inadequate, that most people will even consider a critical view of the paradigm of their time. We always presume we're the enlightened generation with the real answers, even when our ignorance is pointed out to us. This is what all humans do, throughout the ages, scientists and religious folk alike--cling to what they believe until they simply cannot so cling anymore. It's a shame we call this "science" but that's just the way we are. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: tamarack on 08/31/2009 10:03 am ... This would be unique, as it would be a phyiscal process that nature hasn't achieved. Fission, Fusion, etc, nature does them. ... So if this lower energy status were possible, would it not dominate the Universe? BlackLight Power claims to have detected emissions in the high UV / low X-ray spectrum (BlackLight) suggesting three things: 1) Energized Hydrinos emit photons when the e-shells(another topic)return to their base orbit. The papers I've read are fuzzy as to a single, or multiple, stable Hydrino orbits. 2) Empty deep-space and the Sun's corona emit these wavelengths making this a natural-occurrence that was previously unexplained. 3) Since 90% of the Universe is dark matter(another topic) and 90% of known matter in the Universe is Hydrogen, BlackLight theorizes that dark matter is actually Hydrinos, the lowest-energy matter possible. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: bad_astra on 02/18/2010 03:04 pm Technical presentation was added to their site, yesterday. Interesting reading, I think many would agree: http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/TechnicalPresentation021710.pdf Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Zachstar on 02/19/2010 12:06 am A presentation with lots of math but where is the real evidence? Why is he not hopping from college to college to prove this? Maybe its because even if it does work hes got his cozy new bank account full of money from industry that wants to use something or another and like for reasons unrelated to power generation. The website gets updated what? Once every few months? Heck atleast the "Overunity" people are trying. People the point is most of the time these people are out to get money and lots of it. Using the internet as a means of amassing suckers is a good way to do it. And even if they don't suddenly fly to a country that does not have extradition treaties with us to "retire" tell me have you seen ONE of these magical devices make it to general market? Where is the "Water Car" where is the "Zero Point Energy" generator in that youtube video? where almost every comment was that this machine was going to break the back of the oil or coal or whatever industry.... Now please don't get me wrong. I do not assume man is god.. The laws of physics stand but that is only because they had broken the "laws" before it. I am fully willing to keep an open mind and hey I might even be interested in investing! But you don't get Investments from sane people when you think a single university is validation. When your website is more about who has "Partnered" with you instead of ways to validate. You have to understand there has been scam after scam after scam after scam before now. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: bad_astra on 01/14/2014 04:41 pm Suppsedly (source: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html ) Blacklight will have a live demonstration on the 28th of January. Research published here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02 I realize this and the LENR stuff is on the margins, and for all I know, 99% of the researches in this field cling to incorrect theories while continuing to plod along in an Edisonian fashion, but in the last 12 months too much has gone on to ignore, and what it may mean to space exploration and colonization is intriguing. I remain skeptical, but open eyed. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/14/2014 06:17 pm All the validations they listed are about 2 years old somewhat brief. Mills has a long history of overpromising and not delivering. The underlying "theory" is anything but mainstream. I remain extremely skeptical. On the other hand, the power levels they are reporting are quite big. I would certainly like to see what people attending their presentation have to say. Provided they have full access to the equipment and that the presentation keeps running long enough, it should be possible to assess whether there is something to it. I would however require something a lot better than a "Rossi- demo" to even consider them to be real. Anyone here, who can attend the demo? Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: aceshigh on 01/15/2014 05:52 pm Attend the demo? Am I the only one skeptical enough to doubt they would allow anyone interested to attend the demo? From where Blacklight gets the money to keep running? Probably from charging people that want to attend their demos. I bet you either pay to attend the demo or you are SELECTED from a list of people who subscribed... and they probably make a good selection, only letting in people who will make press and NOT DOUBT their nonsense. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 06:07 pm Attend the demo? Am I the only one skeptical enough to doubt they would allow anyone interested to attend the demo? From where Blacklight gets the money to keep running? Probably from charging people that want to attend their demos. I bet you either pay to attend the demo or you are SELECTED from a list of people who subscribed... and they probably make a good selection, only letting in people who will make press and NOT DOUBT their nonsense. I agree to be skeptical. They do claim that they will live broadcast it on the web, though. Not sure that means much though. Either way, if I was in the area, I would certainly apply for a seat at the demo. I would probably bring James Randi with me ;) Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 01/16/2014 03:14 am Back in 2009, it was noted that BLP claimed to have "licensed" their technology to several utilities http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430000#msg430000 (links have broken, but the corresponding press release appear to be available from http://www.blacklightpower.com/press/ ) The suggestion was made that the utilities would begin generating power with BLP tech Real Soon Now and all the naysayers would sit down to a large helping of crow. Anyone one want to bet that any of those utilities are actually generating power using the BLP system? ::) Almost 5 years ago I said it had all the trappings of the a scam. I don't see anything that would cause me to change that opinion. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/16/2014 08:07 am You really just can't get more crackpot than this. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: bad_astra on 01/16/2014 03:34 pm How long ago did Virgin Galactic start selling seats on their spaceship? I'll wait for the demo. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: hop on 01/16/2014 08:22 pm How long ago did Virgin Galactic start selling seats on their spaceship? This isn't a good analogy at all. Suborbital flight is demonstrably possible, without any new physics. Before VG started selling seats, SS1 showed that it could be done with a vehicle similar to what VG proposed to use. VG is unquestionably building and flying real hardware that has a realistic chance of accomplishing their stated objectives. That doesn't mean VG will succeed, or that they haven't over-promised or engaged in misleading spin, but it would be very difficult to make the case that VG is an outright scam or crackpot invention. Quote I'll wait for the demo. Highly unlikely a stage managed demo will provide conclusive evidence. This kind of thing is SOP for crackpots and scammers. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: sanman on 01/17/2014 05:33 am How can you go lower than ground? By definition, ground is the lowest state, and any deviation from it amounts to higher energy potential. If he's so smart, let's see him build some working device with it. Their ridiculous lawsuit against the US Patent Office says they're just a bunch of aggressive fast-talkers, just like that Wolf of Wall Street movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power#Patents Quote BLP holds several patents based on graphic modelling software,[20] but has had problems with other patents. A 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[21][22] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and other concerns about the viability of the described processes. A column by Robert L. Park[23][24] and an outside query by an unknown person[25] prompted Group Director Kepplinger of the USPTO to review this new patent herself. Kepplinger said that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.[24] She contacted another Director, Robert Spar, who also expressed doubts on the patentability of the patent application. This caused the USPTO to withdraw from issue the patent application before it was granted and re-open it for review, and to withdraw four related applications, including one for a hydrino power plant.[23] One of the four applications was so near to issuance that it appeared in the USPTO's Gazette as US 6,030,601.[23] BlackLight filed suit in the US District Court of Columbia, saying that withdrawal of the application after the company had paid the fee was contrary to law. In 2002, the District Court concluded that the USPTO was acting inside the limits of its authority in withdrawing a patent over whose validity it had doubts, and later that year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ratified this decision.[24][25][26][27] Applications were rejected by the UK patent office for similar reasons.[24][28][29][30][31] The European Patent Office (EPO) rejected a similar BLP patent application due to lack of clarity on how the process worked. Reexamination of this European patent is pending.[24] In 2014 BLP announced having lodged applications for multiple worldwide patents covering power generation systems based on their SF-CIHT cells.[32] What kind of brazen chutzpah argues that because a patent fee has been paid, that the filer deserves credibility from the Patent Office? Ugh, the stupid, it burns... Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/21/2014 11:52 pm http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blacklight-power-demo/ To be frank, this makes no sense to me whatsoever and I believe that Mills will disappear again for a few years after this demo and more funding (that will inevitably result from this) only to reemerge again with a new story once the money is gone, but then I would be so happy to be wrong. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: sanman on 01/22/2014 12:19 am If this nonsense were even remotely plausible, there would be national laboratories and top universities investigating it. But the fact is that it doesn't even pass the giggle test, and nobody is paying attention except for gullible scientifically illiterate investors. Fools and their money are soon parted. On the other hand, that so many would be enticed into giving their money to this sham shows how desperate the global markets are for energy breakthroughs. The Polywell people seem to conduct themselves in a very credible way by comparison. They are as transparent as possible, and are at least circumspect in their claims, instead of being wildly optimistic. I really like their style. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: lcs on 01/22/2014 12:51 am On the other hand, that so many would be enticed into giving their money to this sham shows how desperate the global markets are for energy breakthroughs. "Global markets" are only desperate to make a buck. That they can be so easily duped is remarkable but well known to manipulators. It is the oldest game on earth, but not the oldest profession. But the end result is the same. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: adrianwyard on 01/30/2014 12:12 am So, it's the 29th. There's no mention on the website so presumably the demo scheduled for yesterday didn't happen? Big surprise there... http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Is it only me who thinks it might be telling that the work is published with Wiley Online? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_E._Coyote http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02 Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/30/2014 02:35 am No, it did happen and there is a vague account of it. Lots of praise of Mills, but not much substance. I am honestly not sure what to think about all this. My strategy is to wait and see what happens. Cant go wrong with that. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/report-from-the-blacklight-power-demonstration/ Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: bad_astra on 01/30/2014 02:21 pm Is it only me who thinks it might be telling that the work is published with Wiley Online? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_E._Coyote http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02 It is probably only you. Nice potshot. John Wiley & Sons, Inc publishes academic papers. Title: Re: Blacklight Power Post by: JeanPierre_LeRouzic on 01/30/2014 04:22 pm Hi, There is too much reliance on peer review. Being published doesn't mean much, either at a conference or a commercial publisher as often their acceptance rate is around 1/2. The selection criterion with such a rate are: Is it written in correct English, does it respect our template and is it barely understandable? Only a few journals have more selective acceptance rates. You have also to remember that one third of scientific papers are of bad quality: http://www.nist.gov/mml/acmd/peer-090913.cfm At Wiley and other publishers there are even options so that everyone can publish if she is willing to pay publication fees (US$3000) :
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/CTA.asp#oo

However I don't know if it is the case here.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/03/2014 07:45 pm
BLP put up the video of the presentation in their news section (news from the 29th of January):
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: kch on 02/03/2014 07:56 pm
Is it only me who thinks it might be telling that the work is published with Wiley Online? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_E._Coyote

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02

It is probably only you. Nice potshot. John Wiley & Sons, Inc publishes academic papers.

Had to chuckle -- Wiki got the Coyote's first name wrong in the URL (although it's correct in the article) ...  ;)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/03/2014 10:24 pm
Want to admit, I have only watched part of their presentation. Some things really did not make much sense to me. They are talking about megawatts of power from small amounts of water. To me megawatts per volume are meaningless. I would like to know MWh or kWh per liter. That would make a lot more sense. The little bursts they showed in the videos did not look all that impressive either.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/04/2014 06:55 pm
I am pleasantly surprised to see the video was posted. After trashing BLP and Wiley Online, I shall - for my sins - watch this two hour video...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Prober on 02/06/2014 04:21 pm
I am pleasantly surprised to see the video was posted. After trashing BLP and Wiley Online, I shall - for my sins - watch this two hour video...

So does Blacklight work?  :-X
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 05:08 pm
So does Blacklight work?  :-X
I honestly don't know. The video was not all that convincing to me. All we got to see was a few (not too impressive) explosions and the claim that these released a certain amount of energy (more than the charge they put into it). I have no way of verifying that rather extraordinary claim. So I still haven't made up my mind about them. They claim to be only weeks away from a self sustaining prototype. That will be interesting to see (if we get to see it).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/06/2014 08:07 pm
I did watch the video (all 2.5 hours), and I can see why BLP is a conundrum: Mills’ certainly doesn’t sound like a quack, but every once in a while he calmly makes a claim that should earn him several Nobel prizes - if he’s correct.

He didn’t stray beyond freshman physics for the whole talk, which gives the impression that there’s nothing particularly complex or involved in their system. This may have been dictated by the audience. Investors?

For those who don’t know Mills has a Chemistry bachelors degree, but his doctorate is in medicine.

Highlights:
+ The theory behind their discovery relies on classical physics only (5m00s).
+ Quantum Mechanics is false, is not-predictive, and excludes the hydrino because it wasn’t known at the time QM was developed.
+ His extension of classical physics works at the atomic scale. (see 41m47s for diagram of the structure of an electron).
+ Dark Matter is made up of hydrinos. (Hydrino is a hydrogen atom at lower than (traditional) ground state.) Hydrino’s are unreactive, don’t emit or absorb light - dark.
+ His theory predicted cosmic acceleration before it was discovered experimentally.

The demo, and claims about what was shown:
+ The test equipment consists of spot welders configured to use high current (15-20,000 Amps) at low voltage ~8 V. (9m50s)
+ And as far as I can tell, that’s what makes the reaction go. Passing that current through water causes the hydrogen in the water or hydrates to transition to the hydrino state, releasing energy.
+ The energy gain is 100 times.
+ The demos used a couple of ‘fuel’ capsules, a ‘jumping jack’ and a ‘cute christie’ (I think that’s right, sound was poor.)
+ The ‘jumping jack’ is a copper vessel containing a little water. The Cute Christie is Silver with MgCl that has absorbed water.
+ The jumping jack releases a broad spectrum of wavelengths (not a discrete spectral line) others (all?) release extreme UV.
+ The extreme UV is one of the evidences that this is not a conventional discharge. Quote: "Unchallengeable signal and proof that we’re making a new state of matter. This absolutely disproves the current theory of quantum mechanics.” (32m0s)
+ They are seeing 1kJ released from 0.01 ml of water in <1 millisecond. The demo released ~1MW.
+ So energy density is 0.1TW per Liter of water.
+ 1 Liter of water is equal to 100 liters of gasoline. (1h25m)
+ Expect to deliver energy for under \$10 per kW. (1h6m)
+ NMR testing shows evidence of a hydrino-hydrino molecule.

A skeptical response:
Two things were shown:
+ Spot welders creating flashes during several discharges.
+ A computer monitor showing the output of a calorimeter.

It seems to me that placing a little water between the electrodes of any old spot welder would make a flash and bang. We have to trust Mills that what we’re seeing is unexpected.

And of course computer displays can be fabricated in numerous ways.

+ If Mill’s theory is correct and the results are what he claims them to be, then reproducing and verifying them should be dead easy.
+ Unlike many outlandish theories it seems quite possible for them to trap some of the produced hydrino gas and make it available for testing. Mills was asked about that (1h56m) and said they had only been detected by signature (e.g. UV).
+ Or if the hydrino gas stays in the system but becomes ‘dark', then a closed system should see an increase in mass or pressure beyond that caused by the observed material.

For those interested, his book is available online. On page 197 he discusses how the the photoelectric effect and classical wave theory were misconceived (by Einstein et al). Interestingly, this is right after a discussion of Photon Torpedoes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The good news is what Mills claims should be able to produce extraordinary evidence. Thus far, we've not seen it.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 08:22 pm
+ They are seeing 1KJ released from 0.01 ml of water in <1 millisecond. The demo released ~1MW.
+ So energy density is 0.1TW per Liter of water.
+ 1 Liter of water is equal to 100 liters of gasoline. (1h25m)
This part made no sense to me whatsoever. I would measure the energy density of 100 liters of gasoline in kWh, not in kw. Yet they say 0.1 TW per liter of water and 100 times more than gasoline. Now gasoline has a energy content of about (from the top of my head, so don't nail me if I am off a bit) 9 kWh per liter. So this means that 100 times gasoline would be about 900 kWh per liter.
Another calculation, assuming he meant TWh when he talked TW, we get this: 1kJ/ 0.01ml = 100kJ/ml = 100MJ/l.
100MJ are ~ 28 kWh. Please someone correct me if my math is wrong. I am doing that in my head whilst compiling code. So I have very little time.
So where the 0.1 TW fit in, no one knows. It seems to me like a total gibberish of numbers and units.

It seems to me that placing a little water between the electrodes of any old spot welder would make a flash and bang. We have to trust Mills that what we’re seeing is unexpected.
That is exactly what I think as well.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/07/2014 12:02 am
To be fair, I may have misheard a few things - the audio was recorded on-camera and hard to hear.

I think they are generally referring to 1ms as the event duration, and then assuming you could repeat that 1000 times per second for max theoretical power output. So if 0.01 ml of water gives you 1MW, then a full liter could indeed give you a max of .01TW.

According to Wikipedia the energy density of gasoline is 31MJ per Liter.

It is a little suspicious to me that all the numbers are powers of ten.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/07/2014 12:10 am
To be fair, I may have misheard a few things - the audio was recorded on-camera and hard to hear.

I think they are generally referring to 1ms as the event duration, and then assuming you could repeat that 1000 times per second for max theoretical power output. So if 0.01 ml of water gives you 1MW, then a full liter could indeed give you a max of .01TW.

According to Wikipedia the energy density of gasoline is 31MJ per Liter.

It is a little suspicious to me that all the numbers are powers of ten.
I got 36 MJ per liter. Either way, 31 MJ means even less kWh per liter than my number did. So it adds up even less. I still don't get the calculation like that. You can not have X TW per liter. You can have X TWh per liter. Anything else does not make any sense.
The only number I see for time in this context is 1 ms. So maybe the .01 TW is released for a time of 1 ms. So if we took 10 GW and divided this by 1000 to get one second, we get 10 MWseconds. Then divide this by 3600 to get an hour and we get 2.7 kWh... Not all that impressive. So I doubt that he meant that.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/07/2014 12:31 am
I can't right now find place where he said the energy density was 0.1TW/l, so my notes may be in error on that.

So at a minimum, he's saying 0.1TW is the max theoretical power output of a 1 liter system.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/07/2014 12:36 am
I can't right now find place where he said the energy density was 0.1TW/l, so my notes may be in error on that.

So at a minimum, he's saying 0.1TW is the max theoretical power output of a 1 liter system.
No, you were not wrong. I heard him say the same thing, which is why I am complaining. I cant make any sense of his units in the context they are provided in. Energy density/content is measured in kWh per liter. If we are not talking about energy density, then what is the point of talking about liters at all?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: sanman on 02/07/2014 12:56 am
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Prober on 02/07/2014 02:08 am
So does Blacklight work?  :-X
I honestly don't know. The video was not all that convincing to me. All we got to see was a few (not too impressive) explosions and the claim that these released a certain amount of energy (more than the charge they put into it). I have no way of verifying that rather extraordinary claim. So I still haven't made up my mind about them. They claim to be only weeks away from a self sustaining prototype. That will be interesting to see (if we get to see it).

Do admire his use of "off the shelf" components.  This video gives a decent idea without watching the whole long version video.  I'm finding the Patent application fills in the questions of the video, and the research papers explaining further the thinking.

Would enjoy tinkering with this :o

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: apollolanding on 02/07/2014 11:47 pm
As Rowan University is my Alma Mater, I sincerely hope their contributions are completely on the up and up... That being said, the Wile E. Coyote jokes are kind of applicable considering the rocker arm spot welders shown in the video do sport "ACME" branding. ;-)  I'm with the "wait and see" crowd and while I hope this is more than an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption, I'm not disconnecting the mains to my house just yet.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Prober on 02/08/2014 12:29 am
As Rowan University is my Alma Mater, I sincerely hope their contributions are completely on the up and up... That being said, the Wile E. Coyote jokes are kind of applicable considering the rocker arm spot welders shown in the video do sport "ACME" branding. ;-)  I'm with the "wait and see" crowd and while I hope this is more than an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption, I'm not disconnecting the mains to my house just yet.

Reading the one patent application I'm impressed and even a little shocked.    Some of the thinking is very well done.  Yet I'm getting the impression the company might be better researchers than business people.  Maybe the firm should hire a professional PR person.

The cube processor design is being misunderstood.  It's still an overkill design to provide the power of 10,000 homes if I read this right.  Just getting around the edges of the material so I might be wrong.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/08/2014 01:25 am
I don't know what to think. It's a very long detailed book. However, I'm sure people with a better grasp of Physics than me could take issue... Or maybe not...
I'm suspicious but hopeful about the claims of net power...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: sanman on 02/08/2014 12:46 pm
There is no such thing as a "hydrino" - it's simply fiction. You can't make up your own science - no matter how slick and appealing - and then expect things to work in real life.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Nilof on 02/08/2014 01:43 pm
Indeed.

Atomic physics are very well understood, and hydrogen atomic states are simple enough that any student in an introductory quantum mechanics class can easily find the wavefunction of every energy eigenstate by hand. There simply isn't any lower energy state than ground - and if it did exist, all the hydrogen in the universe would have settled into it after the big bang, which it hasn't.

This is like claiming that a bass drum has previously unknown vibration modes, so that you could start with an inert drum and play it such that it would release more energy than you put into it as it started vibrating. As mentioned before, it doesn't even pass the giggle test. It's obviously not true even without proper knowledge of the harmonics of a drum.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/09/2014 02:22 am
Not quite. I agree with your analysis, but have you read the alternate 'physics'... Appealing to authority is a false argument...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Cinder on 02/09/2014 04:21 am
Appeal to authority is fallacious when said principle's caveats aren't respected.  The odds are low that the "current model" of physics as shaped by countless experiments is so wrong, and odds are also low that the consistence between Mills and his theory and "experiments", and crackpots and their theories and "experiments" is merely unfortunate (ahem) coincidence.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/09/2014 05:01 am
You don't actually try to address the validity or otherwise of Mills 'theory'
I will keep an open mind however, but I agree Mills is probably wrong and/or a crank.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/09/2014 05:41 am
+ Quantum Mechanics is false, is not-predictive, and excludes the hydrino because it wasn’t known at the time QM was developed.

And that right there is all the evidence anyone should need to be convinced Blacklight Power is nonsense.

The claim that quantum mechanics is not predictive is laughable.  It's like claiming Newton's law of gravitation is not predictive.  We now know that Newton's theory of gravity was incomplete, but before it could be replaced with the more accurate theory of relativity, relativity had to explain why Newton's theory fit observations so well over certain domains.

If someone wants to put forward an alternative to replace quantum mechanics, that person needs to explain why quantum theory has fit so many experiments so well for decades.

Since Mills doesn't explain why quantum theory correctly predicts the results of so many experiments and instead dismisses it as "not predictive", we can confidently dismiss Mills as either woefully ignorant or a liar.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Cinder on 02/09/2014 06:54 am
You don't actually try to address the validity or otherwise of Mills 'theory'
I will keep an open mind however, but I agree Mills is probably wrong and/or a crank.
My mind is made up on the validity and pitfalls of an appeal to authority.  That's the purely by principle aspect, which was /your/ specific assertion.

Applied to Mills, I would say the philosophical's consistent with the practical: Mills has, like Rossi, kept it all but totally black boxed.  This lack of transparency is, whatever the motivation, an obstacle to the very mechanic of science.  An open mind won't get any more than a "closed" mind from a mute subject.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 02/10/2014 03:31 pm
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either. We seem to be reaching a kind of late-18th century conservative state in science where the underlying current is that all is known and therefore anything left to know must be the few polishing touches on our glorious reasoned society. I'll just call it anomalous heat.

I'll call it anomalous heat because anything else the experimenters in this field have called it, cold fusion, LENR, Bose-Einsteain Condensation fusion, Muon catalyst fusion, etc, tends to get the reasearches or proponents viewed as kooks. I do not know if Blacklight or Rossi's claims will hold out, but I suspect we will find out very soon, what I am certain of is that the anomalous heat has been replicated many times (see the Martin Fleishman Memorial Project,  Michael McKubre's and Peter Hagelstein's work) and is certainly more than a pointless curiosity.

Much as with the Woodward Effect, I have to wonder why the bulk of the scientific community continues to ignore most of this. Perhaps they do not want to finish their lives in exile like Pons.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/10/2014 03:42 pm
Actually from what I have seen so far, the MFMP guys have failed to clearly reproduce anomalous heat, unless their have been some recent developments that I missed.
I suggest to wait and see. BLP claims that they are only weeks away from having a prototype that can run in self sustaining mode. If they can indeed produce that, then it should be fairly straight forward to test this and get proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mills will get rich and famous and a Nobel price, physics will be revolutionized and everyone will live happy ever after. I would really like this happen, but... I just cant see that happening. Too many things just don't add up.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 02/10/2014 03:44 pm
Applied to Mills, I would say the philosophical's consistent with the practical: Mills has, like Rossi, kept it all but totally black boxed.  This lack of transparency is, whatever the motivation, an obstacle to the very mechanic of science.  An open mind won't get any more than a "closed" mind from a mute subject.

The patent process has become so difficult for anything involving new science that one cannot (in the US at least) get a patent to cover any of these devices unless you essentially are dishonest about how they work. The devices not being commercialized like the Nanor and the Celani tube do not have the same claimed yields, but they are a start. I do not hold it against any of those inventors, or Brillouin for keeping quiet about their processes. If Industrial Heat LLC is actually having LENR heaters built in China, there will be little to keep private, anway.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 02/10/2014 03:46 pm
Actually from what I have seen so far, the MFMP guys have failed to clearly reproduce anomalous heat, unless their have been some recent developments that I missed.

Jean-Paul Biberian duplicated the gamma pulse results in November.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/10/2014 03:51 pm
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either. We seem to be reaching a kind of late-18th (sic) century conservative state in science where the underlying current is that all is known and therefore anything left to know must be the few polishing touches on our glorious reasoned society.
As a generalization I think this is clearly false: while terrestrial human-scale physics (mostly electro-magneticsm and Newtonian mechanics) has been sorted for a while, theoretical physics is still working on closing some embarrassingly large holes in our understanding: the reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory of quantum gravity) is chief among them, and more recently smoking-gun observational evidence of what we're calling dark matter and dark energy. Frankly, you could argue that even after 100 years QM itself is still not settled as there are rival interpretations on what's actually happening at the micro-scale. Remember how disappointed Hawking et al were when LHC found the Higgs Boson as predicted - adding more evidence that the Standard Model is correct? They were hoping for something crazy and new.

But you are certainly correct that tenure-track scientists are aware that some research interests will be frowned upon, and stay clear.

The good news with Mills' work is it seems simple enough that a kickstarter campaign of a few tens of thousand dollars would be all it takes to replicate his results.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/10/2014 03:59 pm
Jean-Paul Biberian duplicated the gamma pulse results in November.
A small gamma pulse does not mean anomalous heat, which is to the best of my knowledge still elusive.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/10/2014 05:30 pm
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either. We seem to be reaching a kind of late-18th (sic) century conservative state in science where the underlying current is that all is known and therefore anything left to know must be the few polishing touches on our glorious reasoned society.
As a generalization I think this is clearly false: while terrestrial human-scale physics (mostly electro-magneticsm and Newtonian mechanics) has been sorted for a while, theoretical physics is still working on closing some embarrassingly large holes in our understanding: the reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory of quantum gravity) is chief among them, and more recently smoking-gun observational evidence of what we're calling dark matter and dark energy. Frankly, you could argue that even after 100 years QM itself is still not settled as there are rival interpretations on what's actually happening at the micro-scale. Remember how disappointed Hawking et al were when LHC found the Higgs Boson as predicted - adding more evidence that the Standard Model is correct? They were hoping for something crazy and new.

But you are certainly correct that tenure-track scientists are aware that some research interests will be frowned upon, and stay clear.

The good news with Mills' work is it seems simple enough that a kickstarter campaign of a few tens of thousand dollars would be all it takes to replicate his results.

I was reading the other night that there still seems to be alot of wiggle room for the Standard Model, much like Bode's Law seemed to describe the orbits of the planets to within an acceptible degree of accuracy.

Now, after all the exoplanets that we have found so far, Bode's Law suddenly becomes a footnote in history.  I suspect that a similar mechanism is at work in this case.  We have a model that SEEMS to describe Quantum Particles in good detail, but we have no real framework for how this interrelates to both classical and Quantum physics.

Overall, I supect that we're going to find that what we are referring to as Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a very different phenomena than has been suspected up to this point.  I have a suspicion of what is happening, but I don't have the high level math skills to even BEGIN to define what has been bouncing around in my head.

Can't put together a workable theory without the math.

Jason
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 02/10/2014 08:54 pm
I suggest to wait and see. BLP claims that they are only weeks away from having a prototype that can run in self sustaining mode. If they can indeed produce that, then it should be fairly straight forward to test this and get proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mills will get rich and famous and a Nobel price, physics will be revolutionized and everyone will live happy ever after. I would really like this happen, but... I just cant see that happening. Too many things just don't add up.
BLP has been claiming practical applications Real Soon Now for the last decade or more. They seem to do a big PR push every few years, with little if any explanation of why the last iteration failed to pan out...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/10/2014 09:08 pm
BLP has been claiming practical applications Real Soon Now for the last decade or more. They seem to do a big PR push every few years, with little if any explanation of why the last iteration failed to pan out...
I know and I noted as much earlier in the thread :)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: adrianwyard on 02/10/2014 09:29 pm
The 'safe harbor' legal disclaimer at the beginning of the video, and on-display on the monitors during the presentation is a clear indication that someone in BLP believes they might not be able to deliver on all the promises they make verbally.

The presentation was missing two tell-tale signs of a scam:
a] requests for the last bit of funding needed to complete the research,
b] references to a secret/black-box technology that can't be revealed for IP/patent-protection reasons.

In fact, the absence of b] is likely to scare away investors because the BLP implementation could be copied.

However, here's one guess at a scenario that fits what we see: They already have investor(s) lined up who will only release funds if/when BLP do the following:
a] Perform a public demo of the technology working,
b] have their results verified by an independent third-party (Dr Ramanujachary of Rowan University.)

And that's what this video shows.

So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Remes on 02/11/2014 09:19 am
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either.

The difference between dark matter and any sort of scam: Everyone is free to observe the universe. Everyone is free to estimate the masses of galaxies. Everyone is free to come up with a mathematical, replicable and understandable model how gravity/centrifugal forces/... interact and form our universe. In the end, your model's output should somehow fit the current universe.

Physics doesn't prove! Physics observes and tries to deliver an mathemtical model which explains what's going on. Over time we observe more, models change, ..., there is and will never be a "proof of dark matter", there will be experiments/observations/... which can be explained by dark matter.

The guy in the 2h15min Video and with his 1820pages book could have defined an experiment which can be repeated by others, he failed for a long time to do that. He could have had a nda with some corporation scientists, who could check his model/experiments/results. Science is all about repeatability. Didn't happen with these guys statements.

I watched the movie "The wolf of wall street", where the bad guy is asked "couldn't you sell the stocks to rich people, which can afford to loose the money", and he answers "rich people are to clever to by this trash". I don't like the implication of rich=clever, poor=...., but watching this thread this words came to my mind. Very esoteric. Very scam.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/11/2014 01:39 pm
So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.
So far their MO has been to just disappear for a few years and then return to light when they needed more funding. Some skeptics have raised doubts about Rowan universities credibility in regards to this technology.
To be fair, Mills has a lot less of a black box issue than the infamous Rossi has. At least Mills has published a theory and some technical details about the process.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 02/12/2014 05:18 am
There is no such thing as a "hydrino" - it's simply fiction. You can't make up your own science - no matter how slick and appealing - and then expect things to work in real life.

Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.
Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".

To your first statement - Are you sure? I'm not either way, but the theory, function, mathematics and experimentation make it much more plausible than the absurd quantum and sonic alternatives to dark matter and coronal heating, respectively, while explaining spectrographic observations. It also explains and defines the often-dismissed results of cold fusion experiments dating back decades - the reason of which BLP and hydrino research began.

And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: sanman on 02/15/2014 12:01 pm
What they're saying is that there's some "new ground state" which hasn't been detected before - in which case, how come it's not more obviously manifested in nature?
Or else they're saying that the new state is "below ground state" - in which case, that's an oxymoron, since any deviation from ground has elevated energy potential by definition, since you can't fall away from the ground.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: sanman on 02/16/2014 03:23 am
Come on  - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof is on them not me, since I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: MP99 on 02/16/2014 10:38 am
And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

ISTM that misses the point. It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified.

EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Nilof on 02/16/2014 11:10 am
Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.
Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.  It is also the foundation for all modern physics. The "leaps of reasoning" are certainly not baseless, they are based on direct observation and have consistently led to extremely accurate predictions, often on the order of 15+ decimals, an accuracy that was previously unheard of in the history of science. Following the scientific method isn't a fallacy.

Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for. In particular, Bell's inequality which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. Arrays of real numbers as in classical mechanics simply won't cut it, as the experimental confirmation of Bell's theorem has explicitly falsified all such theories. Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.

You could technically replace QM with something more complicated, but you can't replace it with anything classical and fully describe the real world at the same time.

And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

While in General Relativity gravity isn't a force, General Relativity is still a gauge theory and it can be quantized straightforwardly. Quantizing it will lead to a graviton, which is nothing more than the exitation modes of the field. The "problem" is that due to various symmetries the graviton has to have spin 2.

The fact that it's spin 2 complicates attempts to describe it with perturbation theory, as that approach will lead to infinities - unless you introduce a very natural concept called supersymmetry, in which case all the infinities disapear and predictions can be made fairly easily. However that simply means that finding solutions in a given theory of gravity is going to be hard, which is hardly surprising considering that this is already true in General Relativity, where exact solutions to Einstein's equation are only known for highly symmetric cases.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 02/16/2014 01:50 pm
1)... It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified.
2) EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions.

Cheers, Martin
Re1) When it comes to gravity, General Relativity may be right or wrong (everything points to right), but the Quantum Theory notion of gravity as an actual force, defined by a quantum force or field has proven itself repeatedly wrong. If something is unequivocally fallacious (like the quantum definition of gravity), how can you say it must be included and "unified" into General Relativity or GR must become inaccurate to merge with QM?
Re2)  You just combined two different theories. There have repeated attempts to steer QT's interpretation of gravity away from a force or field and towards a spacetime distortion (like GR) so it makes sense. These are based on describing ST as quantum foam formed by Loop Gravity (includes mass and is nearly GR), Entropic Gravity (which is variable and falls completely apart except in rare instances) and String Theory (which is like LG, but includes all forces, multiple extra dimensions and the most malleable and fungible mathematic assumptions to work - a grand unified attempt).

All these QT attempts at redefining gravity are necessary lest all QT falls apart. So far it's been completely unsuccessful. Another excuse is the incorrect claim GR breaks down within singularities and needs redefining - it doesn't. As gravity approaches infinity and volume approaches zero, GR still applies. If the math is twisted to achieve infinite gravity/energy and actually zero volume, GR doesn't work. But that situation is only a mathematic exercise, not a possible occurrence as infinity is just an expression (not a thing) and even QT postulates there is no zero volume.
When it comes to gravity, General Relativity is currently accurate in every test while QT has failed in every way (though Loop Gravity shows the highest promise).

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.
4) It is also the foundation for all modern physics. ... Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for.
5) In particular, Bell's inequality (entanglement) which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. ... Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.

Re3) Physics is the understanding of the Universe and mathematics is the language used to describe and predict it. Once statistics and probabilities are thrown into the math it is no longer a description of the Universe, but a tangential exercise in mathematics alone. A century ago, and apparently ever since, physicists' noses have been so close to their calculations they forgot it is supposed to describe actual physics and the Universe, not just kick out a desired result. That's when contrived ignorance replaced knowledge.
Re4) Really, because that's how you view things now - everything else must work within it? What naïve arrogance and dismissal of The Fact science is always our "current understanding", not the absolute truth and often that "understanding" branches onto dead ends. What experiments do you "require" the QT definition of the Universe exclusively and why does QT fail when scaled beyond the micro to the macro, fail at it's micro level and require distorting the ties between the Universe and Quantum math to show any relevance at all? You can't keep rowing that failboat while demand everyone jump aboard. That would just devolve all scientific understanding to a common point of failure, or lowest common denominator - Quantum Theory.
Re5) So because you can't figure out how entanglement works or how wave-particle duality can exist with a Relativistic understanding of spacetime, there must be something really complicated at work (meaning you don't get it)? And if chasing absurdity or prioritizing formula over function doesn't work (QT) there must be something even more complicated, bizarre and theoretical (you really, really don't get it)? Or, the scientific community of the last century is neither clever, wise or even scientific, but myopic, foolish and oblivious. The Universe indicates the latter and I'm inclined to agree.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Nilof on 02/16/2014 06:09 pm
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

A very large class of models(classical physics) has been falsified experimentally. It turns out that a very simple modification, replacing (commuting) real numbers with (non-commuting) linear operators, makes everything work. It turns out that this modification ends up being consistent with the results of thousands of experiments over the last century, many of them explicitly designed to disprove it. This has nothing to do with ignorance, it is simply a damn good theory.

There is no loss of intuition either - it is perfectly possible to build a strong intuition in quantum mechanics, which also ends up being damn useful when considering classical problems. As it turns out, QM also has numerous applications in industry, including designing transistors for the computer that you are currently using to read this.

Trying to replace a highly reliable century-old model, with a model based on an outdated understanding that has already been falsified by countless experiments, is simply not following the scientific method. This applies to both anti-quantum zealots trying to reintroduce classical mechanics, and young earth creationists trying to "prove" that the earth is 5000 years old.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: QuantumG on 02/18/2014 02:35 am
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: RonM on 02/18/2014 03:48 am
A few things to remember:

"Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Oxford Dictionary

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/18/2014 01:19 pm
i have been reading this thread for as long as it's recent resurrection until the present and rated it's possibility of being true as lower than Rossi's ECAT which has more going for it probability-wise than this in my opinion.

However; I have been thinking about if something like this could be possible or not due to the thread. I would never have even considered the possibilty were it not for this thread. that being said there is a tenous chain of reasoning that could just put it on the microscopically possible. i decided to describe  my speculation on it and That does not mean I think it is true just that it (very remotely) could be.

all the fuss about the ground state and lower than ground state argument and conjecture:

the energy states of an electron are determined by quanticisation. It is a quantum property. No electron has ever been observed in an energy state lower than the accepted ground state.

however there are  ground states that exist below what we think of as ground state in other things such as the vacuum. it has often been called the false vacuum. it is this false ground state that is credited with the possibility that the universe can even exist at all. but it has also been said that the universe's vacuum state could collapse to true vacuum and that that would cause the universe to cease to exist.

Google "false vacuum" for cites on this concept.

so there exists ground states below the apparent ground state of the universe.

in physics there are several special states of matter beyond the four we are familiar with; in addition to solids, liquids, gases and plasma. Bose Einstein condensates and several other weird states also exist in which matter takes on strange properties that you would never expect if all you knew was the ordinary states of matter.  There are also strange configurations of nuclear and electronic shells such as nucleonic isomeres.

it is possible that some procedure could force an electron into a extremely rare situation where it exists below its normal orbital so long as the new orbital is quanticized. and it is entirely possible for such a state to be completely unobserved by science to date because no one is looking for it and there are countless electrons the vast majority of which would be where we would expect them to be and doing what we expect them to do.

there is physically plenty of room between the lowest electron shell to the nucleus. an atom is mostly made of space. I mean there is so much room if you enlarged an atom so that it's nucleus was the size of a basket ball the first orbital electron would be miles away from it.

i think some set of circumstances could drop an electron below the accepted lowest ground state. but cannot see a way for that to happen and actually produce a gain in energy. It would take energy to produce the circumstances and forces that would make the electron behave abnormally. at best you would have a battery to store energy but you would have to provide the energy to charge that battery. and there is no telling what the relaxation time would be. it would probably be worse than the nucleonic isomer relaxation problem.

so anyway It is on the edge of possible that there is something to this stuff. a finite but tiny probability. personally i have more faith in LENR than this and that is saying something. but i will not completely rule it out as some seem to be eager to do. too eager in my humble opinion. i just don't know enough about the proper physics specializations to go beyond that. i kind of doubt that most of the most vocal critics do either.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/19/2014 07:44 pm
A couple of new "validation reports" have been posted on the BLP website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/
report Glumac:

report Weinberg:

Now, the reports are rather short. They also were conducted at the BLP facilities and as it seems with BLP equipment during experiments conduced by BLP staff. These things raise some flags with me as they mean that these are not truly independent validation reports, but rather reports about experiments that were merely observed (and not conducted) by the people writing the reports.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/19/2014 08:25 pm
well such things do not always mean fraud. it might be a protective measure for the intellectual property. or...

it might be to protect humanity from itself.

imagine someone invents some sort of gravimetric propulsion system that easily gets up to 99.9999 percent light speed. can you then give every kid that hover board? make all cars and trucks flying vehicles. give everyone access to relativistic speed? when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it? one lapse in security anywhere, one stolen machine or wreck of a machine and the thing will be weaponized by up to several billion crazed thanatos-esque nihilistic psychopaths. could you give it to the govt that couldn't keep spies from stealing the atomic bomb? the one that de-protected computer tech which is now used in the weapons of every enemy nation on earth for profit? leaks like a sieve even when it doesn't want to? could you leave it s principles, schematics and so forth on university servers? in text books? the patent office? there are no safety interlocks, performance governors or anti tamper schemes that could possibly prevent all reverse engineering. what inventor would be confident enough to unleash this on the world? who would be willing to be responsible for delivering a true doomsday weapon into the hands of anyone who wants it?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: IRobot on 02/19/2014 08:45 pm
it might be to protect humanity from itself.

when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it?
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/19/2014 08:56 pm

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.

the destructive potential of even an atomic bomb is miniscule compared to a relativistic impact. a 20 kilogram slug of inert metal travelling at 1.3 percent the speed of light is equal to 10 hiroshima bombs. increase the mass...increase the velocity and the damage is exponentially greater. sufficient mass and velocity can quite literally reduce the earth to gravel and fling the gravel out of the sun's gravity well.

compared to that McVeigh was a dust mote.

EDIT: and the presence of people like McVeigh in the hundreds of millions is a big part of my point. They must never have access to such knowledge or technology.

EDIT 2:  Example of relativistic impact of 1 kilogram mass at 90 percent Light speed:

Relativistic weapon: 1 kilogram at 90% c

1.2 x 10^17 Joules    29 Mt of TNT (larger than a city killer type atomic bomb)

multiply that by a vehicle mass of 1000+ KG (for a car sized vehicle) to millions of KG for an super tanker sized craft.

and then imagine millions of them all over the world waiting for a madman bent on death and destruction to get at the helm.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: a_langwich on 02/19/2014 09:39 pm
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.

What do you have in mind?

Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications.  If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on.  These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: QuantumG on 02/19/2014 09:45 pm
What do you have in mind?

Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications.  If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on.  These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.

All of Taxonomy? (I was specifically thinking Taxonomic Entomology, but any field will do).

Observation and measurement are science too, and they inevitably precede hypothesis formation.

.. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.

Heck, Mathematics?

The Queen of the Sciences - Carl Friedrich Gauss.
The science that draws necessary conclusions - Benjamin Peirce.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Ric Capucho on 02/20/2014 09:00 am
(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.

Heck, Mathematics? (snip)

How about string theory? So tautological that it can mathematically describe everything... and so tells us nothing specific about anything.

Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. So what *accepted* physical process could explain the flash bang? Can the state changes from water to steam to plasma (or "plasma") really be so energetic?

TW
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/20/2014 09:28 am
(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.

Heck, Mathematics? (snip)

How about string theory? So tautological that it can mathematically describe everything... and so tells us nothing specific about anything.

Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. So what *accepted* physical process could explain the flash bang? Can the state changes from water to steam to plasma (or "plasma") really be so energetic?

TW

It might be a matter of semantics. I found this link discussing whether maths is a science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science

Personally I have always liked the Karl Popper definition so I wouldn't call mathematics a science... I might be talked around on that, after all there is a universe of unknown mathematical principles you can explore just as there is a physical universe to explore.. perhaps mathematics is not a science but the processes of extending it are...? Im confusing myself now :)

Im vague on what Taxonomy is, but grouping organisms by characteristics should be able to help you make all sorts of predictions even before understanding evolution. It would be incredibly boring and pointless to me if it were just a list of facts.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 02/27/2014 04:09 am
Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. ...
That's a fairly bold assumption. Why would "mainstream physicists" look for something they're sure couldn't exist? What makes you think fractional ground states weren't already and/or accidently found, but dismissed as error or categorized as another "quantum" phenomenon? Simply look to Stormbringer 1) below stating these initial dismissals, desire for quantum categorization and yet possibility of ignorance.

1) the energy states of an electron are determined by quanticisation. It is a quantum property. No electron has ever been observed in an energy state lower than the accepted ground state. ...
it is possible that some procedure could force an electron into a extremely rare situation where it exists below its normal orbital so long as the new orbital is quanticized. and it is entirely possible for such a state to be completely unobserved by science to date because no one is looking for it and there are countless electrons the vast majority of which would be where we would expect them to be and doing what we expect them to do.
...
2) in physics there are several special states of matter beyond the four we are familiar with; in addition to solids, liquids, gases and plasma. Bose Einstein condensates and several other weird states also exist in which matter takes on strange properties that you would never expect if all you knew was the ordinary states of matter.  There are also strange configurations of nuclear and electronic shells such as nucleonic isomeres.
...
3) i think some set of circumstances could drop an electron below the accepted lowest ground state. but cannot see a way for that to happen and actually produce a gain in energy. It would take energy to produce the circumstances and forces that would make the electron behave abnormally. at best you would have a battery to store energy but you would have to provide the energy to charge that battery. and there is no telling what the relaxation time would be. it would probably be worse than the nucleonic isomer relaxation problem.
Re2) Condensates, superfluidity, entanglement, superconductance, Josephson junction, - Why must these use "quantum" descriptions?
Theory of Relativistic superconducting circuits; http://www.sciencentechnologyupdates.com/2011/06/einsteins-theory-applied-to.html#.Uw68MMKYbcs
The quantum theory of Cooper pairs addresses the superconductive question of no electron excitation by violating c and inventing electron bonding, but doesn't lower energy state shells address the same without dismissing the Laws of Physics? In essence, superconductivity and superfluidity are the rejection of electrons to maintain sub-ground state.
Isn't it also likely entanglement and Bose-Einstein condensates are the result of Relative proximity below ground state as with the Josephson junction article listed, not dubious superposition?

Re3) Collision and cooling. The first as result of high energy reactions (such as BLP's) or impacts (as in the Sun's superheated, twisted Corona). In each the energy is transferred or expelled as photons (BLP claims observed high-UV in tests and nature). Through cryogenics electron shells can be "squeezed" to below ground state, especially within a molecular structure (ie: silicate superconductors) when there's simply not enough "room" the temps would be much higher.
As you've mentioned, the question is how long this remains. If these then reject electrons, as I've offered as a possibility, is it photons that must "recharge" it to ground state?

----------------------------------------

The most important aspect of science is to pursue knowledge, regardless if the results are undesirable. If Geocentrism must be tossed along with the social and religious implications, if man-made CO2 can't account for anything its business model dies, if Newtonian Gravity cannot explain Mercury's orbit or the bending of starlight, if Quantum Mechanics is simply absurd - As scientists these facts must be accepted and truth discovered.

"It ain't great, but it's what we got."
Nothing wrong with that statement from a practical sense, but it's intellectually lazy and unacceptable from a scientific perspective. Ask a nuclear engineer, technician or designer when an atom will decay and he'll say, "I have no idea, but I know how long and how much heat a mass will produce." Ask a Quantum Physicist and he'll say, "Maybe it just did, or maybe in twenty years, or maybe twenty thousand." If I asks Ms. Clio when I'm going to die and she said the same, we'd both acknowledge she's a fraud and I should get my money back.

To the Quantum Ms. Clios here; The ruse is up and I want my money back.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Ric Capucho on 02/27/2014 03:54 pm

Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. ...
That's a fairly bold assumption. Why would "mainstream physicists" look for something they're sure couldn't exist? What makes you think fractional ground states weren't already and/or accidently found, but dismissed as error or categorized as another "quantum" phenomenon? Simply look to Stormbringer 1) below stating these initial dismissals, desire for quantum categorization and yet possibility of ignorance.

Oh come on, my statement's one of the least bold made anywhere on this thread so far.

Consider the claims made by the Blacklight folks: fractional ground states undetected by mainstream science; a new state of hydrogen hitherto unseen by mainstream science; an explanation for dark matter; oh, and vast amounts of easily realisable energy in every scoop of water. I'd have to get up hours before I go to bed to make a bold assumption that could compete with that lot.

TW
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 02/28/2014 11:37 pm
Oh come on, my statement's one of the least bold made anywhere on this thread so far. ...
I suppose perspective determines what a "bold statement" is. Is it bold to say almost all subatomic physics post Maxwell, Einstein and Bohr is an ill-conceived and misguided dead end? Inversely, is it bold to say that because 95% of "experts", decades of work and extensive computer simulations come to a conclusion, it must be accurate?

Specifically on superconductors, superfluids and "dark" matter;
Is it bold for quantum theorists to dismiss Occam's Razor as simplistic and, if an answer cannot be found (as is the ongoing case of all quantum physics) than the answer must be even more complex? Is it bold to point out making up such dubious and malleable math to produce a result that fits a flawed theory, but falls apart if extended to other problems, isn't science at all?

Specifically on the assertion Quantum Physics is accurate;
Is it bold to point out statistics and probabilities are a man-made system for guessing, not a path to defined answers, and then remind you the Universe doesn't guess and has defined answers? If realized, is it bold to deduce all mathematics used to define the Universe and subatomic physics that uses statistics, probabilities and quantum physics is nothing but a mathematical exercise of approximation with no bearing or insight into the Universe?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 02/28/2014 11:55 pm
Oh come on, my statement's one of the least bold made anywhere on this thread so far.
I'm making this a separate point as it's tangential, but quite important.
There is a common fault in claiming "because all the experts say so, it must be true." Yes, "experts" means they're knowledgeable and usually correct, but the fault lies in unquestioned acceptance to what those that are "experts", "educated", older, more experienced, titled, etc will say or claim. Many here, as with other inaccurate "science" and sometimes catastrophically so, fall into that trap of unquestioned acceptance. FYI; Like you, they're only human.

The lesson of flint mapping;
In the right hands a piece of stone can be struck with just the right amount of force at a perfect angle to produce the desired shards. It would be foolish to claim those shards are integral to the original stone as their creation was entirely man-made.
We have made incredibly well engineered atomic shard producers - colliders - but why do we assume the shards we create are integral to the original particles? Further, under what absurd reasoning can we then name one shard "pop", another "spitz" and so one, then try to attribute all the forces of the Universe to these shards? As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard Model? What then of using incredible engineering to produce shards that fit into this foundationless model?

What of all the "experts" that without any evidence, only bogus theories and doctored shards, can claim to have discovered all the forces of the Universe and structure of subatomic particles? Why then is there so much that is completely undefined (dark matter/energy, inflation, etc) if what they've done supposedly answers it all?
To the quantum Ms. Clios here; The ruse is up and I want my money back.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 03/01/2014 04:05 am
As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard Model
Now that is a bold statement. However, it ignores the obvious fact that quantum physics and the standard model work extremely well. They may well be wrong, but they are less wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) than everything that came before.

If you have something actually works better, congratulations in advance on your Nobel. On the other hand if all you have is vague philosophical objections, that's certainly your right but it's not relevant to actual physics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: rusty on 03/01/2014 04:41 am
Now that is a bold statement ...
See post made 18minutes earlier for explanation. It's at the bottom of the previous page.
Post #162 just above it goes into greater detail about replacing Quantum Mechanics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: IRobot on 03/01/2014 07:51 am
As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard Model
Now that is a bold statement. However, it ignores the obvious fact that quantum physics and the standard model work extremely well. They may well be wrong, but they are less wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) than everything that came before.
You can still think of them as a very valuable tool, but that does not correctly explain what is happening. Personally I prefer to think of a string moving on 11 dimensions on a straight path than a particle that pops in and out of existence in random positions and times.

Like Newton's gravitation law compared to Einstein's relativity. Newton produced a very useful tool, but it did not explain the reason. It started with the permissive that mass attracts mass, without explaining why. Einstein explained that with space-time distortion.

Still, relativity is again a useful tool, but it was built around an observation, while for example string theory, instead of trying to explain gravity, found, "by chance," a mathematical model of a particle that could  be the graviton. On the opposite direction, the standard model changed itself to incorporate the graviton.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/03/2014 07:05 pm
BLP posted 3 new videos showing something that resembles and early stage prototype of the continuous power device presented in their video from January:

Still not too impressed, but maybe there is hope that they will actually show a self sustaining device in action some time soon (provided this whole thing actually works).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 03/03/2014 08:09 pm
As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard Model? What then of using incredible engineering to produce shards that fit into this foundationless model?

Ultimately, physical theories are ONLY judged by how well their predictions match the observations. All other metrics, such as "beautiful", "elegant", "makes sense", or your "fallacious", are subjective.

For example, electron has a magnetic moment. It can be measured. OTOH, quantum physics and SM make a prediction about its magnitude. The experimental value and the prediction match to better than 10^-9.

I and many other people won't care that you think that QT and SM are crap as long as you are unable to propose an alternative which predicts such experimental values at least as well as they do.

Quote
What of all the "experts" that without any evidence, only bogus theories and doctored shards, can claim to have discovered all the forces of the Universe and structure of subatomic particles?

They have evidence. It's your method of reasoning what is bogus here.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Prober on 07/03/2014 03:16 pm
Any updates on Blacklight?   If memory serves they should have some type of demo system operational??
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/03/2014 04:33 pm
They did show some demos to a selected crowd recently. Videos of that are here:

part1:
part2:

Still far from convincing, but something is moving...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Prober on 07/05/2014 05:09 pm
Not very impressive
Not going to invest the time watching the hrs of video first 5 min on the 2nd video tells me this is more about investment then some real device, how sad.

The basic design and many off the shelf parts shown here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg1157733#msg1157733

Should have brought the custom CAD parts into printable format and ordered them from one of the 3D print houses, couple of weeks work.

Sorry but BL should have had something tangible.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob Shaw on 07/05/2014 05:40 pm
TANSTAAFL. RAH was right again!
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/08/2014 05:00 pm
11 million in funding...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/08/2017 06:34 pm
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;

Here is an earlier peer reviewed paper;

A paper regarding spectum measurments;

There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.

But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake. Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.

It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/08/2017 07:01 pm
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

Based on a cursory overview of information available online, Mills seems to be a scam artist who has been fleecing investors with promises of ultra-low-cost energy production for well over a decade without producing any functional results.

On the plus side, a libertarian news aggregate page, which calls him "A Living Legend, Greater Than Einstein and Tesla Combined," has a link to his most recent paper (from May). Warning, it's 111 pages long.

That's the problem with 'cursory overviews', they lead to snap judgements like the editors at Wikipedia. Mills does oversell his optimism as to timelines but he bases his extreme optimism on the real potential of his discovery. He's no 'scam' artist, he's a Harvard and MIT educated scientist who has devoted his life to what he believes is a major discovery "greater than fire" as he often says from a key insight given to him by an MIT professor regarding electrons and radiation during acceleration. And if true, that's certainly true. From that key insight, he developed a new model of the hydrogen atom which led to the hypothesis of the hydrino state he later discovered. His professor at MIT, Herman Haus, was aware of and supported his work but privately. The problem is too many people rely on the reaction of others to make up their own minds.

Anyone interested in a greater background on Mills and his ideas can read Brett Holverstott's excellent book which follows the development of Mills' theory and the difficult path to commercialization over the decades including setbacks and false leads;

https://www.amazon.com/Randell-Mills-Search-Hydrino-Energy/dp/0692760059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496948076&sr=8-1&keywords=Hydrino

As to 'fleecing investors for well over a decade' let's compare that to the parade of fusion researchers who have been hyping the importance of their results to an unwitting Congress and to the taxpayers for over six decades with promises of unlimited power just around the corner if they only can continue their research...
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/08/2017 07:21 pm

With just the emdrive itself having serious credibility problems, it's surely not a good idea to associate it with other fringe-y concepts.

Thanks. No activity since 2014 though. Folks here might be interested in Mills' hypothesis that the electron is not affected by gravity and that they also can be knocked into a shape he calls 'pseudoelectrons' that repels gravitational sources. He refers to that as the 'Fifth Force'. He has developed that idea into a spacecraft concept that can be experimentally tested. The bummer is that it only works around large masses such as planets and stars and wouldn't be useful in deep intersteller space away from such sources.

Anyone interested can check out chapter 35 of Mills' three volume tome. It's available for free;

The paper below measures gravitational force on electrons as 0.09mg. The authors though interpret that there is an induced electromagnetic force in the apparatus that counters gravity but others disagree with that interpretation.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1049
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/08/2017 07:55 pm
Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;
You are making the claims, I am not going to do extensive research to support your claims, and searches on the subject mostly bring up many references and peer reviewed papers providing a long list of problems with Mill's experiments and theory. Meanwhile, everything you provided is from Mills, and based on the fact that direct replications of his experiments by NASA contradicted his findings, there is strong reason to doubt results that he publishes.

There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction ...
Then why did you not provide any?

and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.
Your confidence seems to be based on ignoring the preponderance of evidence. Wikipedia does not censor information, but I am guessing that the policy of "no original research" is one of the problems that people may have run into if what you say is true. (And if it is, you can easily prove it by looking providing a link to the relevant revisions in the article history.)

But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake.
This is basically you agreeing with the original point that extraordinary claims  require extraordinary evidence.

We should probably end the conversation here, but I'll respond to the rest of your post for completeness.

Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.
Schrodinger's equation hasn't changed to my knowledge. From what I have seen of Mill's theory, he takes an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation, plugs in numbers explicitly inconsistent with the derivation of the equation, and claims magic happens. This isn't modifying QM, this is just him making up a self-inconsistent theory.

It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.

Somehow I knew you would make exactly this point, and it is completely wrong. First you need to be aware of the difference between physics and engineering. The physics of fusion was demonstrated in the 50s, and I don't think there have been any real significant updates in decades. The engineering of controlled fusion is a harder problem, but we know the relevant physics and it has been clearly demonstrated. The only question is if we can find creative enough containment methods to make it economical, and solving some things that are difficult to model theoretically, like material degradation under high energy neutron bombardment.

On the other hand, none of the physics behind the hydrino has been demonstrated, your comment about government funding is both wrong (NASA did tests) and irrelevant (quick research indicates tens of millions of dollars of investment.) Meanwhile, if there were other states of the hydrogen atom, a simple high school level experiment of a glass tube full of hydrogen, with a pair of high voltage electrodes and a spectrometer would be able to demonstrate it. Also, electrons tend to the lowest available energy state, so lower energy states should literally be impossible to miss.

If you really want to discuss this further, we should take it to the relevant thread that as58 found. With your apparent agreement with the claim that started this tangent, there is no longer any meaningful relevance to this topic. (this site has nothing against resurrecting even very old threads, but it does have rules against off-topic posts)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/08/2017 09:59 pm
Any updates on Blacklight?   If memory serves they should have some type of demo system operational??

No demonstration system yet, they always seem to be a year out from that.

But a libertarian news aggregate page, which calls Mills "A Living Legend, Greater Than Einstein and Tesla Combined," has a link to the most recent published paper (from May). Warning, it's 111 pages long.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 06/09/2017 06:50 am
11 million in funding...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?
~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!

(A BLP fan was assuring us that BLP had signed contracts with utilities back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg395582#msg395582), and BLP had already been pushing variations on the theme with "real soon now" promises 10+ years before that.)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 07:17 pm
11 million in funding...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?
~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!

(A BLP fan was assuring us that BLP had signed contracts with utilities back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg395582#msg395582), and BLP had already been pushing variations on the theme with "real soon now" promises 10+ years before that.)

There have been peer reviewed papers. And a lot of progress. There was a breakthrough regarding reaction kinetics around 2014 and the state of the device is advancing rapidly yet turning a high power reaction to a commercial device is not trivial.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 08:02 pm
Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;
You are making the claims, I am not going to do extensive research to support your claims, and searches on the subject mostly bring up many references and peer reviewed papers providing a long list of problems with Mill's experiments and theory. Meanwhile, everything you provided is from Mills, and based on the fact that direct replications of his experiments by NASA contradicted his findings, there is strong reason to doubt results that he publishes.

There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction ...
Then why did you not provide any?

and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.
Your confidence seems to be based on ignoring the preponderance of evidence. Wikipedia does not censor information, but I am guessing that the policy of "no original research" is one of the problems that people may have run into if what you say is true. (And if it is, you can easily prove it by looking providing a link to the relevant revisions in the article history.)

But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake.
This is basically you agreeing with the original point that extraordinary claims  require extraordinary evidence.

We should probably end the conversation here, but I'll respond to the rest of your post for completeness.

Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.
Schrodinger's equation hasn't changed to my knowledge. From what I have seen of Mill's theory, he takes an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation, plugs in numbers explicitly inconsistent with the derivation of the equation, and claims magic happens. This isn't modifying QM, this is just him making up a self-inconsistent theory.

It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.

Somehow I knew you would make exactly this point, and it is completely wrong. First you need to be aware of the difference between physics and engineering. The physics of fusion was demonstrated in the 50s, and I don't think there have been any real significant updates in decades. The engineering of controlled fusion is a harder problem, but we know the relevant physics and it has been clearly demonstrated. The only question is if we can find creative enough containment methods to make it economical, and solving some things that are difficult to model theoretically, like material degradation under high energy neutron bombardment.

On the other hand, none of the physics behind the hydrino has been demonstrated, your comment about government funding is both wrong (NASA did tests) and irrelevant (quick research indicates tens of millions of dollars of investment.) Meanwhile, if there were other states of the hydrogen atom, a simple high school level experiment of a glass tube full of hydrogen, with a pair of high voltage electrodes and a spectrometer would be able to demonstrate it. Also, electrons tend to the lowest available energy state, so lower energy states should literally be impossible to miss.

If you really want to discuss this further, we should take it to the relevant thread that as58 found. With your apparent agreement with the claim that started this tangent, there is no longer any meaningful relevance to this topic. (this site has nothing against resurrecting even very old threads, but it does have rules against off-topic posts)

First, I'm not 'making the claims', I'm telling you of claims others are making. They happen to be true irregardless of what you think. Second, the NASA results didn't 'contradict' Mills findings. The engineers involved recommended further work but the managers decided to end it. That's not proof it didn't work. Also,those experiments are not like the newest experiments at all so please don't lump everything together.

And regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work, if I point you to talks by them and they appear with Mills you are going to just claim they aren't 'independent' and discount their work.

Your comments on Wikipedia make little sense. You're saying it's  fine for them to keep Mills work unspecified and uneferenced while keeping public comments by Mills' critics, which are NOT scientific statements. So Wiki is only for old established ideas and not new, emerging ideas and one can only learn about new and controversial ideas by hearing from the critics and opponents but not proponents.

You missed the whole point about the 'key' equations of QM. It's not that the Shrodinger equation was modified, it was replaced with the Dirac equation because it was 'wrong', being incomplete. The Dirac eq. was replaced by Quantum Electrodymanics and so on. These equations are approximations that are used withing certain limits and they were constructed to fit the data that existed at the time, nearly a century ago.

Your point regarding physics vs. engineering is weak because the physics of hydrino reactions were introduced two decades ago and Mills is primarily working on the engineering of it to a commercial reactor. Your personal unawareness or rejection of the fundamental physics regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction is irrelevent to the argument. It exists in spite if your unfamiliarity if it. And since you are also dismissive of hydrino physics you wouldn't have an adequate handle of whether it's more or less complicated to engineer a hydrino based reactor than it is a fusion based reactor. All you know is that fusions difficult. But I'll tell you, I think it's a very hard problem but still much easier than fusion.

Your statement regarding what a high school student should be able to demonstrate hydrino's if they existed is wrong unless you modify the experiment to create the proper conditions to form hydrino's. Do you know those conditions? If you don't then please learn them and propose a better experiment. Your statement about electrons always going to lowest state and could not be missed also misses important aspects about the nature of the hydrino state, how it forms and how it doesn't form.

And no, I didn't contradict my original point, I'm saying that science can be held back by that attitude.

I think you should listen to Mills himself as he spoke at Fresno state recently;

Finally, what do you make of this spectrum for the hydrino reaction? Are you going to claim it's just 'artifact'?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/09/2017 08:11 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 08:19 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/09/2017 08:28 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 08:38 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/09/2017 08:40 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

That's not information. Anyone can post any drivel they like to youtube.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/09/2017 09:34 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/09/2017 09:39 pm
Mills could convince everyone by giving hydrinos to other scientists. No one other than Mills and his associates have observed such things, but if Mills' devices work as he claims, they must be producing hydrinos as waste. However, he seems to rely on energy output demonstrations that are just about as convincing as Rossi's ECat.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/09/2017 10:05 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

There are two main problems I see here:

1. These reports are filtered through the company.  To really be independent, they should be published by a third party, where the reporter is free to report honestly everything that person observed.  If they are having some people make observations and report them to the company, then the company puts them on its web site, it brings up various kinds of issues.  Did the company agree in advance to publish the results no matter what they were?  Did they publish all reports from all observers, or did they pick and choose what to publish based on the reports?  What were the financial arrangements between the observers and the company?

2. The observers have no training in spotting deception.  Someone might be a good experimental physicist, for example, but not have the experience or training to spot deliberate fraud.  There are people who specialize in investigating claims that are counter to established scientific principles, both deliberate fraud and innocent mistakes.  For example, there is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.  I'm sure they would be happen to send an investigator to observe the claims of hydrinos and give and independent report.

http://www.csicop.org/si
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/10/2017 03:47 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/10/2017 04:03 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

There are two main problems I see here:

1. These reports are filtered through the company.  To really be independent, they should be published by a third party, where the reporter is free to report honestly everything that person observed.  If they are having some people make observations and report them to the company, then the company puts them on its web site, it brings up various kinds of issues.  Did the company agree in advance to publish the results no matter what they were?  Did they publish all reports from all observers, or did they pick and choose what to publish based on the reports?  What were the financial arrangements between the observers and the company?

2. The observers have no training in spotting deception.  Someone might be a good experimental physicist, for example, but not have the experience or training to spot deliberate fraud.  There are people who specialize in investigating claims that are counter to established scientific principles, both deliberate fraud and innocent mistakes.  For example, there is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.  I'm sure they would be happen to send an investigator to observe the claims of hydrinos and give and independent report.

http://www.csicop.org/si

Regarding point 1, that's true but realize 'independent' vs. Collaboration doesn't mean true vs. False. I believe the Validators are competent researchers who understood what and why they are doing. Point 2 is speculation on your part and if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud. Also, CSICOP is in reality mostly oriented to debunk psychic phenomonon and not equipped to do this kind of science. They would be more likely to do a cursory (and wrong) analysis.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/10/2017 04:12 pm
Regarding point 1, that's true but realize 'independent' vs. Collaboration doesn't mean true vs. False. I believe the Validators are competent researchers who understood what and why they are doing. Point 2 is speculation on your part and if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

I don't know whether he is a fraud or is delusional, and in the greater picture, it does not matter.

The claimed physics contradicts today's understanding of quantum electrodynamics, should have been discovered some 70 years ago if it were true, and as such is very very likely, almost certainly wrong.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/10/2017 04:32 pm
Mills could convince everyone by giving hydrinos to other scientists. No one other than Mills and his associates have observed such things, but if Mills' devices work as he claims, they must be producing hydrinos as waste. However, he seems to rely on energy output demonstrations that are just about as convincing as Rossi's ECat.

He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas. What should convince other scientists are two things, spectra of the hydrino formation process which is the gold standard, and cosmic events anyone can observe which are very well explained by the hydrino formation process. Mills has reproduced spectra in the lab that mimics certain astrophysical processes as well as being far far beyond the spectra of normal chemical reactions. Mills is mainly interested in getting his device to market thinking that a stand alone working energy threat or will convince people.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: aceshigh on 06/11/2017 01:09 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

No, you have NOT.

"Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results."

He asked names but more specifically, he asked for links to the PAPERS OF THEIR WORK, THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND RESULTS.

The Earth is flat. I will post videos from Youtube providing all the necessary information. What you do with that information is up to you. But Earth is undeniably flat, as can be proved by Youtubers.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/12/2017 05:23 pm
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

No, you have NOT.

"Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results."

He asked names but more specifically, he asked for links to the PAPERS OF THEIR WORK, THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND RESULTS.

The Earth is flat. I will post videos from Youtube providing all the necessary information. What you do with that information is up to you. But Earth is undeniably flat, as can be proved by Youtubers.

I pointed to what is available. There are no official papers yet. You can get the names of those Validators from Mills web site if you like and contact them for more details if you like.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/12/2017 05:51 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.

No, they did not do any experiments. The reports which I found listed on the BLP website are observations of a demonstration unit which was run by BLP.

They did not say there was a new reaction, nor did they confirm the existence of the hydrino.

If anyone is doing experiments that have confirmed the hydrino, please tell who has done / is doing so, and if possible, link to their papers.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/12/2017 06:16 pm
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.

No, they did not do any experiments. The reports which I found listed on the BLP website are observations of a demonstration unit which was run by BLP.

They did not say there was a new reaction, nor did they confirm the existence of the hydrino.

If anyone is doing experiments that have confirmed the hydrino, please tell who has done / is doing so, and if possible, link to their papers.

Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.
The fact that that appear in public demonstrations with Mills is a tacit endorsement.

Mills says more validations will be forthcoming but aren't public yet. I don't have inside information. Obviously, if there were more professional interest there would be more papers. But interest is slowly growing.

BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 06/12/2017 07:52 pm
Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.
Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756).
Quote
BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.
That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg460865#msg460865) they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.

Strangely, all those old press releases have gone down the memory hole, and their robots.txt is apparently configured to disallow archive.org from archiving. ::)

Why anyone would presume good faith at this point is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/12/2017 08:07 pm
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/12/2017 11:32 pm
Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.
Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756).
Quote
BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.
That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg460865#msg460865) they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.

Strangely, all those old press releases have gone down the memory hole, and their robots.txt is apparently configured to disallow archive.org from archiving. ::)

Why anyone would presume good faith at this point is a mystery to me.

Why? Because I follow it closely and don't make judgements based on silly things like it being a story for '25 years' as if there is some scientific rule that says things always go smoothly.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/12/2017 11:34 pm
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/13/2017 12:07 am
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2017 07:29 am
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.

You literally just said that if I was going to bring up the possibility of fraud, you would refuse to discuss it, then simply asserted there was no fraud.  That is not being open to reasonable arguments.  That is saying you are going to refuse to listen to all arguments, reasonable or not.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/13/2017 04:05 pm
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.

You literally just said that if I was going to bring up the possibility of fraud, you would refuse to discuss it, then simply asserted there was no fraud.  That is not being open to reasonable arguments.  That is saying you are going to refuse to listen to all arguments, reasonable or not.

I'm just saying that in my mind, I've long ago established that there is no intentional fraud, I believe he believes what he claims about hydrino's. For one thing, it seems he spends most of his money on facilities, research and staff,  not foreign banks accounts and big houses. I'm happy to discuss alternative views or entertain skepticism to that idea but I'm offended by claims of fraud. Fraud means he knows it's not true but claims it anyway unless you have a different definition. If that's primarily where you want to focus on that I'm not very interested. I'm open to a discussion of why you think hydrino's cannot exist and why all of Mills' experiments 'must' be wrong.are you open to the possibility that Mills' may be right?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/13/2017 04:15 pm
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true.  Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.

No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.

I highlighted an interesting part of your quote. Experiments that confirm existing physics do confirm the physics they confirm but are not proofs that additional physics does not exist beyond the range of those experiments. To support your statement it would have to be proved that each of those experiments would show the existence of the hydrino even though they were not designed to. There are assumptions that hydrino's would necessarily show on in all simple common experiments. For example, why would  hydrino's necessarily show up in simple specta of hydrogen atoms being excited?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: RonM on 06/13/2017 04:41 pm
Here's the conclusion from a paper by the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. They analyzed the hydrino model and found problems. Note that they did not address the experimental data, but suggest it be reinterpreted under conventional physics.

Quote
Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.html

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/13/2017 06:32 pm
Here's the conclusion from a paper by the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. They analyzed the hydrino model and found problems. Note that they did not address the experimental data, but suggest it be reinterpreted under conventional physics.

Quote
Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.html

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

Rathke's paper was refuted by Mills who claims Rathke made fundamental errors in his analysis as well as misunderstandings of his work. It's telling that they didn't bother to actually analyze the data since it's always possible that Mills discovered hydrino's AND has logical flaws in his written theory. Serendipity has happened before in science so Rathke should have considered that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/13/2017 10:38 pm
165 pages to reply to 9. This seems like a similar technique to a Gish gallop. Anyway, I lost count of errors and nonsensical statements by page 2.

For example, he assumes that there are only 2 spatial dimensions, and allows non-normalizable wavefunctions.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/14/2017 06:14 pm
165 pages to reply to 9. This seems like a similar technique to a Gish gallop. Anyway, I lost count of errors and nonsensical statements by page 2.

For example, he assumes that there are only 2 spatial dimensions, and allows non-normalizable wavefunctions.

He says the electron is a two dimensional membrane in his model, not that only two spacial dimensions exist. And he doesn't use "wavefunctions" at all. Also, the second shorter paper addresses specific mistakes Rathke makes.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/14/2017 11:54 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/15/2017 12:15 am
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: QuantumG on 06/15/2017 02:19 am
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Oh no! I sure hope we don't have to borrow Elon's boring machine and restart the core!
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/15/2017 04:08 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/15/2017 04:14 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.

Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev  per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/15/2017 04:21 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.

You've got the idea of Dark Matter backwards: it DOES gravitationally interact with the rest of the universe - its gravitational effects are how we know it's out there - but otherwise it emits no EM radiation and it interacts weakly with the other forces.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/15/2017 04:26 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.

You've got the idea of Dark Matter backwards: it DOES gravitationally interact with the rest of the universe - its gravitational effects are how we know it's out there - but otherwise it emits no EM radiation and it interacts weakly with the other forces.

No, that's what I'm saying (or trying to say).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/15/2017 06:24 pm
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.

Quote
Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev  per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?

Nothing, which is why I said not hugely much more energy that normal reactions. The point is that there should be significant amounts of hydrinos in the waste. For example, with 204 eV per reaction, a 10kW reactor operating for an hour should produce about 3.6 grams of hydrinos. I don't see how all that could be hidden so that their presence wouldn't be obvious to other scientists if they were allowed to study the waste products.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/16/2017 12:53 am
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.

Why would you think I meant "exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter"?  It wouldn't fall through the Earth if it didn't interact gravitationally.  It would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth if it *only* interacted gravitationally with normal matter.  If you think it's going to "float off into space" then you have to believe that it doesn't interact gravitationally with normal matter (and hence isn't an explanation for dark matter).

Anyway, whether it drops through the Earth or floats into space or whatever, my point remains: either the hydrinos produced would stick around and they could be provided to other scientists as proof it works, or they leave somehow and the reactor loses significant mass.  It has to be one or the other, and either should be a simple way to provide strong evidence of hydrinos.  But we've never been given such evidence.  Why not?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/16/2017 05:06 pm
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.

Quote
Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev  per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?

Nothing, which is why I said not hugely much more energy that normal reactions. The point is that there should be significant amounts of hydrinos in the waste. For example, with 204 eV per reaction, a 10kW reactor operating for an hour should produce about 3.6 grams of hydrinos. I don't see how all that could be hidden so that their presence wouldn't be obvious to other scientists if they were allowed to study the waste products.

Agreed. Nobody said they were hidden. They would be created at a rate of about 1 milligram per second at the rate you quote. Mills has measured the spectrum of hydrino's forming which looks like the first slide below and any scientist could also measure this. The second to the last plot shows the ro-vibrations spectra of DiHydrino has in the H2(1/4) state.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/16/2017 05:53 pm
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.

Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.

Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.

Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth.  And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.

Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.

Why would you think I meant "exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter"?  It wouldn't fall through the Earth if it didn't interact gravitationally.  It would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth if it *only* interacted gravitationally with normal matter.  If you think it's going to "float off into space" then you have to believe that it doesn't interact gravitationally with normal matter (and hence isn't an explanation for dark matter).

Anyway, whether it drops through the Earth or floats into space or whatever, my point remains: either the hydrinos produced would stick around and they could be provided to other scientists as proof it works, or they leave somehow and the reactor loses significant mass.  It has to be one or the other, and either should be a simple way to provide strong evidence of hydrinos.  But we've never been given such evidence.  Why not?

It's been suggested by some that have no knowledge and give no support to Mills' ideas that dark matter may be just a strange form of hydrogen that doesn't radiate or are just very hard to detect. In any event, I hope you at least admit the possibility that if you eventually are convinced the hydrino state exists, that it has to be at least considered as a potential candidate for dark matter.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/421111/fulltext/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/21/is-dark-matter-mostly-dark-atoms

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03592

I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so. A stalemate of sorts. In fact Mills has in the past sent out hydrino hydride compounds for study and a few scientists at a few labs looked at them and they showed highly unusual properties but nobody really believed them either.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/16/2017 10:16 pm
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.

This is total nonsense. We are not in 1600s anymore when new ideas were punished.
And more recently, since birth of quantum mechanics (circa 1920) physicists are even more willing to look at "weird" ideas (because history has proven that sometimes "weird" ideas are actually right).

If someone has a repeatable experiment, and it is confirmed by others, scientists _will not_ ignore it, no matter how "weird" it is. It will be studied. Theories will be developed to explain it. There is no "cabal" to suppress such things.

But hydrino people don't have verified experimental data. They have only "trust us, it's real!" PR and "experiments" made by them. Not independently verified.

Basically, what you are doing in this thread is more hydrino PR.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/17/2017 05:11 pm
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.

This is total nonsense. We are not in 1600s anymore when new ideas were punished.
And more recently, since birth of quantum mechanics (circa 1920) physicists are even more willing to look at "weird" ideas (because history has proven that sometimes "weird" ideas are actually right).

If someone has a repeatable experiment, and it is confirmed by others, scientists _will not_ ignore it, no matter how "weird" it is. It will be studied. Theories will be developed to explain it. There is no "cabal" to suppress such things.

But hydrino people don't have verified experimental data. They have only "trust us, it's real!" PR and "experiments" made by them. Not independently verified.

Basically, what you are doing in this thread is more hydrino PR.

I agree it will be studied but sometimes it takes a very long time. And it is taking a very long time but slowly it's happening. I never said there was a cabal suppressing it. I said there is a dearth of corroborating evidence which is a fact. It's also a fact that there seems little interest in investigating the hydrino. Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/17/2017 06:21 pm
I agree it will be studied but sometimes it takes a very long time. And it is taking a very long time but slowly it's happening. I never said there was a cabal suppressing it. I said there is a dearth of corroborating evidence which is a fact. It's also a fact that there seems little interest in investigating the hydrino. Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.

Why wouldn't it be? It's just yet another theory that makes no sense with no independent evidence to back it up. The only difference to many other theories is that it's well-marketed.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 06/17/2017 07:16 pm
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Which leads to the obvious question, why?

New physics is what most physicists get really excited about. New physics that can be explored for less than gigabucks AND has potential near term real world benefits AND addresses major questions in cosmology is pretty much unheard of these days. If it was even vaguely plausible, interest from the wider physics community should be off the charts. Who would want to spend years putting another decimal point on some obscure corner of the standard model when they could pioneer a whole new field?

If BLP could demonstrate that the supposed underlying physics worked, they'd have the richest nations in the world breaking down their doors to throw money at them to bring it to industrial scale, plus a Nobel and global recognition on a par with Einstein. Everything CERN has ever done would be small potatoes in comparison. Given the supposedly easily observable macroscopic effects, demonstrating the effect is real should not be a high bar.

Yet back in the real world, BLP have spent the last quarter century doing dog and pony shows aimed at investors, and essentially no one outside of Mills immediate circle has found it interesting enough to pursue. This doesn't guarantee Mills is wrong, but for anyone without an physics degree trying to evaluate the situation, it should be a pretty strong prior.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/18/2017 01:06 am
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Which leads to the obvious question, why?

New physics is what most physicists get really excited about. New physics that can be explored for less than gigabucks AND has potential near term real world benefits AND addresses major questions in cosmology is pretty much unheard of these days. If it was even vaguely plausible, interest from the wider physics community should be off the charts. Who would want to spend years putting another decimal point on some obscure corner of the standard model when they could pioneer a whole new field?

If BLP could demonstrate that the supposed underlying physics worked, they'd have the richest nations in the world breaking down their doors to throw money at them to bring it to industrial scale, plus a Nobel and global recognition on a par with Einstein. Everything CERN has ever done would be small potatoes in comparison. Given the supposedly easily observable macroscopic effects, demonstrating the effect is real should not be a high bar.

Yet back in the real world, BLP have spent the last quarter century doing dog and pony shows aimed at investors, and essentially no one outside of Mills immediate circle has found it interesting enough to pursue. This doesn't guarantee Mills is wrong, but for anyone without an physics degree trying to evaluate the situation, it should be a pretty strong prior.

People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong. Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/18/2017 12:35 pm
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:

-NASA has tested devices and found Mills' measurements to have been wrong, actual generated power levels are consistent with classical explanations.
-There are multiple ways that given results matching what Mills claims to have gotten, clear demonstrations should be available by now. (working power generation, hydrino samples, hydrogen disappearing from the samples, etc.)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/18/2017 11:36 pm
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true.  They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.

That's nonsense.  Most scientists love learning new things.  They particularly love the idea of getting in on something new in the early days and beating their colleagues to the new stuff.

The only one ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their world view here is you.  Look at the past century of progress that has come directly from mainstream science.  Now look at what has come from what mainstream science calls pseudo-science.  Every bit of evidence suggests our mainstream science establishment is looking for new ideas all the time and embraces new ideas quickly when there is reason to think they are valid.

Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.

Not at all.  Most correct ideas in science took no time at all getting traction.  The few that didn't were in areas where evidence is subjective and hard to interpret, not areas such as physics where evidence is very easy to interpret and experiments are very easy to replicate.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 04:02 pm
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:

-NASA has tested devices and found Mills' measurements to have been wrong, actual generated power levels are consistent with classical explanations.
-There are multiple ways that given results matching what Mills claims to have gotten, clear demonstrations should be available by now. (working power generation, hydrino samples, hydrogen disappearing from the samples, etc.)

It's not that I "know" or that I'm a "believer", it's that I'm convinced by the data I've seen so far and unimpressed by the arguments of the critics. I always reserve the right to change my mind with further evidence.

You can't use twenty year old NASA results based on an electrochemical effect many orders of magnitude less powerful to argue Mills power levels are just conventional chemistry while ignoring twenty years of progress in reaction kinetics and power. If there are multiple ways to explain Mills hydrino reactions, what is happening here?;

Clear demonstrations are available now. You just don't believe them yet.

Here is a presentation of an independent academic on the validation process;

But more importantly, how do you explain this;

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 04:24 pm
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true.  They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.

That's nonsense.  Most scientists love learning new things.  They particularly love the idea of getting in on something new in the early days and beating their colleagues to the new stuff.

The only one ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their world view here is you.  Look at the past century of progress that has come directly from mainstream science.  Now look at what has come from what mainstream science calls pseudo-science.  Every bit of evidence suggests our mainstream science establishment is looking for new ideas all the time and embraces new ideas quickly when there is reason to think they are valid.

Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.

Not at all.  Most correct ideas in science took no time at all getting traction.  The few that didn't were in areas where evidence is subjective and hard to interpret, not areas such as physics where evidence is very easy to interpret and experiments are very easy to replicate.

Sure, most do. Scientists do love new things but not controversy. They worry about their careers.  I think Mills' case is somewhat unique in that he contents a major discovery was missed a century ago. That really galls folks. Do you believe that it is impossible that physics and chemistry could have missed the hydrino state a century ago? Mills has done the experiments so someone has to do the same experiments and show they get the same energy and power levels but explaining it by some conventional reaction. I'd be happy to read such a paper but as far as I know, nobody's even bothered to do that.

You see to have a romantic view of the history of science. I have a realist view.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/19/2017 05:42 pm
Mills is either a hero, or a crackpot following a delusion, or a scam artist.

It's very difficult to see how a "hydrino" state could have been missed - atoms have been very thoroughly studied, after all.

An alternative explanation for what's going on in the demonstrations is pretty hard to give, since nobody has been allowed to independently study his experimental setup. That's a huge red flag, by the way. All BLP has allowed in are observers who have been allowed to measure the output of the apparatus during brief demonstrations, but they have never been allowed to actually use the equipment itself.

All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions - and yet, no anomalous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.

How is it that nobody has ever independently verified the existence of the hydrino?

The "realist" view is that Mills is a scam artist who has taken millions of investment dollars and never produced a working product.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 06:05 pm
Mills is either a hero, or a crackpot following a delusion, or a scam artist.

It's very difficult to see how a "hydrino" state could have been missed - atoms have been very thoroughly studied, after all.

An alternative explanation for what's going on in the demonstrations is pretty hard to give, since nobody has been allowed to independently study his experimental setup. That's a huge red flag, by the way. All BLP has allowed in are observers who have been allowed to measure the output of the apparatus during brief demonstrations, but they have never been allowed to actually use the equipment itself.

All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions - and yet, no anomalous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.

How is it that nobody has ever independently verified the existence of the hydrino?

The "realist" view is that Mills is a scam artist who has taken millions of investment dollars and never produced a working product.

It's true Mills does things differently and is highly protective of his methods and procedures for archiving his reactions. Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA. I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment. But I agree he could be more open and would possibly gain more support.

It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century. It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics, the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/19/2017 08:33 pm
It's true Mills does things differently
Only if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."

Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.
These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.

I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.
At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf)

It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.
Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.

It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,
Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.

the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.
What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 04:03 pm
It's true Mills does things differently
Only if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."

Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.
These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.

I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.
At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf)

It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.
Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.

It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,
Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.

the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.
What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that?

The spectrum I showed you has continuum in the EUV and UV. That happens when hydrino's form because it's a complex process. It's not jumping between discreet lines. I showed a picture recently of the process. There are multiple stable states like a staircase has multiple stable eqilibrium states. Which state it goes to depends on the catalyst. Currently, the typical reaction goes to H(1/4). Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts. Mills discovered how to first make hydrino's with a low power electrolytic process similar to a so -called 'cold fusion' cell being studied at the time. In fact he argued the cold fusioneers were likely seeing hydrino's in some cases of excess heat. Then, he gradually developed higher power processes but the real breakthrough came about four years ago when the reaction kinetics were enhanced a million fold by a high current that separated charges which were limiting the kinetics. Now he gets megawatt level power as the spectrum I showed indicates and hopefully, commercialization is imminent but it's a complex development problem so if it takes some time, that is not proof nothing's there.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/20/2017 04:33 pm
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.

Convenient, isn't it?  Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated".  They're all part of the "orthodoxy".  It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:30 pm
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.

Convenient, isn't it?  Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated".  They're all part of the "orthodoxy".  It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.

Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant. I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed. You seem to think that's impossible. I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist. I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science. Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century. The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not. Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.

It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/20/2017 05:49 pm
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.

Convenient, isn't it?  Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated".  They're all part of the "orthodoxy".  It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.

Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.

Then you're missing my point.

I'll lay out my point in more detail.  One chemist claims evidence for the hydrino.  He has claimed evidence for it for decades.  You find his evidence compelling.  The scientific community does not find his evidence compelling.  So, either you're wrong or the entire scientific mainstream is wrong.

Your claim that the scientific mainstream is so biased that it missed clear evidence for decades is not based on any external evidence.  There's no other phenomenon that modern physics ignored the evidence for for decades, then was eventually proven true.  So your belief that mainstream science is biased enough to miss clear evidence is based entirely on you deciding your judgement about the current evidence for the hydrino is better than the judgement of the entire scientific community about the same evidence.

That's convenient for your continued belief in your own judgement, but not persuasive to anyone else.

I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.

And you're speculating that because you don't want to accept the idea that if you think one thing and the entire scientific community thinks another, it's more likely that you're wrong than that they're wrong.

You seem to think that's impossible.

Not impossible, just extremely unlikely.  I'm making that judgement based on the evidence.

I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"

By "this kind of thing" I mean physics.

and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.

You fundamentally misunderstand scientists.  Nearly every scientist follows the evidence, even if that evidence contradicts what they thought they knew.  Nearly every experiment in physics today is looking for evidence to contradict existing theory.  Physicists want that.  Just confirming the existing theory doesn't garner much glory.  Success in physics comes much more from uncovering evidence of something outside what current theory predicts.

I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.

Not at all.  If there was convincing evidence that they exist, I'd be thrilled.

Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.

No, I don't believe it could not have.  I think it's unlikely.  The claim that it did requires persuasive evidence.  I'm not persuaded by the current evidence, and neither is the scientific community.

The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.

No, you're not attacking the process, but you're attacking scientists.  You are claiming they are heavily biased and unable to see clear evidence.  And your basis for claiming that is that you disagree with their evaluation of the evidence.

Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.

It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?

If they were confirmed, I'd be happy to hear it.

See, there's the difference.  I'm willing to accept the judgement of people who know more about the subject than I do.  You are not.  The scientific establishment has judged the evidence and found it lacking.  You are not willing to accept that.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 05:58 pm
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.
You apparently have no concept of the number of people doing scientific research. We have discovered many things that we didn't know exist before we discovered them. Claiming that doing so is impossible is simply wrong.

I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
You seem to be offended by any implication that Mills is wrong. The only difference between this and a pot/kettle/black situation is that you have effectively no supporting evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against Mills that you continue to ignore.

It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
Accepted by scientists implies that strong evidence exists, and every reasonable person here would also accept it.

Now a simple question for you: Given the lack of sound theory, the lack of any supporting evidence, the replications that failed to replicate claimed power levels, and the mountain of historical science that conflicts with the concept, why do you still support Mills?

Relatedly, why are you convinced that replications exist when there is no evidence that any replications exist?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pm
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.

Convenient, isn't it?  Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated".  They're all part of the "orthodoxy".  It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.

Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.

Then you're missing my point.

I'll lay out my point in more detail.  One chemist claims evidence for the hydrino.  He has claimed evidence for it for decades.  You find his evidence compelling.  The scientific community does not find his evidence compelling.  So, either you're wrong or the entire scientific mainstream is wrong.

Your claim that the scientific mainstream is so biased that it missed clear evidence for decades is not based on any external evidence.  There's no other phenomenon that modern physics ignored the evidence for for decades, then was eventually proven true.  So your belief that mainstream science is biased enough to miss clear evidence is based entirely on you deciding your judgement about the current evidence for the hydrino is better than the judgement of the entire scientific community about the same evidence.

That's convenient for your continued belief in your own judgement, but not persuasive to anyone else.

I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.

And you're speculating that because you don't want to accept the idea that if you think one thing and the entire scientific community thinks another, it's more likely that you're wrong than that they're wrong.

You seem to think that's impossible.

Not impossible, just extremely unlikely.  I'm making that judgement based on the evidence.

I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"

By "this kind of thing" I mean physics.

and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.

You fundamentally misunderstand scientists.  Nearly every scientist follows the evidence, even if that evidence contradicts what they thought they knew.  Nearly every experiment in physics today is looking for evidence to contradict existing theory.  Physicists want that.  Just confirming the existing theory doesn't garner much glory.  Success in physics comes much more from uncovering evidence of something outside what current theory predicts.

I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.

Not at all.  If there was convincing evidence that they exist, I'd be thrilled.

Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.

No, I don't believe it could not have.  I think it's unlikely.  The claim that it did requires persuasive evidence.  I'm not persuaded by the current evidence, and neither is the scientific community.

The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.

No, you're not attacking the process, but you're attacking scientists.  You are claiming they are heavily biased and unable to see clear evidence.  And your basis for claiming that is that you disagree with their evaluation of the evidence.

Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.

It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?

If they were confirmed, I'd be happy to hear it.

See, there's the difference.  I'm willing to accept the judgement of people who know more about the subject than I do.  You are not.  The scientific establishment has judged the evidence and found it lacking.  You are not willing to accept that.

First, thanks for the discussion. I enjoy the dialog and appreciate your time.

Planck said science advances one funeral at a time. Science is not about absolute consensus. If it were, few advances would be made. I may be wrong, Mills may be wrong, yet I'm just not convinced at this point. I'm more convinced that the process is not complete and Mills discovery hasn't been given an honest assessment. It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds. We shouldn't make assumptions about what would have happened or what cannot be true. We should let the data speak. People are letting their theory disprove the data. They claim good data must agree a-priori. That's a problem for me. You can't prove a negative. One null test doesn't disprove a possibility. But you can show something works which is what Mills is currently doing. I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.

I think we are in the midst of the process of science working but it takes a lot longer I wish precisely because of the human factor. I think in the end it will work.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:43 pm
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.
You apparently have no concept of the number of people doing scientific research. We have discovered many things that we didn't know exist before we discovered them. Claiming that doing so is impossible is simply wrong.

I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
You seem to be offended by any implication that Mills is wrong. The only difference between this and a pot/kettle/black situation is that you have effectively no supporting evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against Mills that you continue to ignore.

It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
Accepted by scientists implies that strong evidence exists, and every reasonable person here would also accept it.

Now a simple question for you: Given the lack of sound theory, the lack of any supporting evidence, the replications that failed to replicate claimed power levels, and the mountain of historical science that conflicts with the concept, why do you still support Mills?

Relatedly, why are you convinced that replications exist when there is no evidence that any replications exist?

I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist. Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.

I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims. But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/20/2017 06:59 pm
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.

What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 07:21 pm
I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.
Nothing "supposedly" about it. And it clearly demonstrates that Mills has large experimental errors, to the point that his basic competency is called into question.

Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.
I discount them because as best I can tell they don't exist. I will stop claiming this when you point to a single case of someone testing this with positive results.

I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.
I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.
See how this works? Although I am not sure what assertions I have made that I didn't provide supporting evidence for, meanwhile you have not provided any evidence.

But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.
Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/20/2017 07:39 pm
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.

The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.

But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").

_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 am
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.

The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.

But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").

_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).

Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:30 am
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.

What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?

Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:41 am
I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.
Nothing "supposedly" about it. And it clearly demonstrates that Mills has large experimental errors, to the point that his basic competency is called into question.

Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.
I discount them because as best I can tell they don't exist. I will stop claiming this when you point to a single case of someone testing this with positive results.

I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.
I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.
See how this works? Although I am not sure what assertions I have made that I didn't provide supporting evidence for, meanwhile you have not provided any evidence.

But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.
Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.

I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have  done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because  you claim his math is inconsistent.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/21/2017 01:59 am
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

That is not a statement of fact.  That is a statement of opinion.  Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue.  Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.

Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.

I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have  done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because  you claim his math is inconsistent.

You're missing the point.  It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs.  It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.  meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 02:45 am
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

That is not a statement of fact.  That is a statement of opinion.  Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue.  Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.

Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.

I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have  done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because  you claim his math is inconsistent.

You're missing the point.  It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs.  It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.  meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.

I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/21/2017 02:52 am
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

That is not a statement of fact.  That is a statement of opinion.  Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue.  Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.

Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.

I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have  done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because  you claim his math is inconsistent.

You're missing the point.  It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs.  It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.  meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.

I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.

Rathke's analysis was published in the New Journal of Physics, a peer-reviewed publication.  So his analysis was reviewed by independent experts who agreed with his conclusions.

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/21/2017 03:09 am
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.

What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?

Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.

And how do we know that? What exactly were the conditions where the spectra were measured?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: CharlieWildman on 06/21/2017 03:30 am
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Okay... just jumping in here.

Please provide evidence to support your claims.  Patent numbers, Links to articles, publications etc. So I can make up my own mind about what you say.  If you do not, I will have to assume you are a conspiracy crackpot with an axe to grind.

Mods. Sorry, I know this post probably falls outside the 'be awesome to each other' goal of NSF but this post from Bob0 really got my blood pressure up!

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/21/2017 04:43 am
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke,
You accuse scientists of abusing Mills when they raise technical objections, yet you can put down Rathke by referring to his analysis as a "joke."

radii led with misunderstanding and errors.
Name one error. And requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors, so if you are going to point back to Mills response you are going to have to find something in there that doesn't depend on those points.

And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO.
That is sure an  ... interesting ... interpretation of events.

Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year.
You mean me applying critical thinking when presented with theory, and wanting evidence to back assertions? Speaking of which:
But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
At this point I can only consider this statement to be objectively false, because you have been asked for evidence of this repeatedly and provided none. The only explanations I can come up with for why you continue to repeat this without evidence are:
- that you are just outright lying, because you are a troll or similar,
- you are simply incapable of sufficient rational thought to understand that you have provided no supporting evidence,
- or there is supporting evidence that only exists in delusions within your mind.

If it is the first, good job, you got us all to bite, now please stop. If it is one of the others, please do yourself a favor and get professional help from a psychiatrist. If it is none of the above, then please explain.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/21/2017 12:55 pm
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.

The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.

But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").

_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).

Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

Yeah, more defensive posts, and more accusations that there are evil forces at play. I'm telling you, this is not what needs to be done if hydrino theory wants to get traction.

Flat Earthers are also routinely "terribly mistreated".
How dare we to attack their theory? How dare we mock them? So what that it contradicts current knowledge? We should keep an open mind! Conspiracy!
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 06:12 pm
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

That is not a statement of fact.  That is a statement of opinion.  Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue.  Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.

Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.

I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have  done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because  you claim his math is inconsistent.

You're missing the point.  It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs.  It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.  meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.

I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.

Rathke's analysis was published in the New Journal of Physics, a peer-reviewed publication.  So his analysis was reviewed by independent experts who agreed with his conclusions.

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 06:17 pm
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.

The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.

But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").

_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).

Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.

Yeah, more defensive posts, and more accusations that there are evil forces at play. I'm telling you, this is not what needs to be done if hydrino theory wants to get traction.

Flat Earthers are also routinely "terribly mistreated".
How dare we to attack their theory? How dare we mock them? So what that it contradicts current knowledge? We should keep an open mind! Conspiracy!

Hydrino theory is gaining traction albeit slowly. Being defensive, which is what Mills' critics are doing, doesn't tell for correctness or error. It's just a human response.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 06:42 pm
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Okay... just jumping in here.

Please provide evidence to support your claims.  Patent numbers, Links to articles, publications etc. So I can make up my own mind about what you say.  If you do not, I will have to assume you are a conspiracy crackpot with an axe to grind.

Mods. Sorry, I know this post probably falls outside the 'be awesome to each other' goal of NSF but this post from Bob0 really got my blood pressure up!

It's all laid out in chapter nine of Brett Holverstott's book on Amazon;

https://www.amazon.com/Randell-Mills-Search-Hydrino-Energy-ebook/dp/B01LDVWJ0I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498069619&sr=8-1&keywords=Hydrino

Also a Village Voice article from 2000 is here;

https://www.villagevoice.com/2000/04/25/the-empire-strikes-back/

It patent 6030601.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 07:06 pm
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.

What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?

Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.

And how do we know that? What exactly were the conditions where the spectra were measured?

Exact conditions of these kinds of experiments are here;

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/21/2017 07:29 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/21/2017 08:06 pm
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos

Again what errors? If you had read my post, you would already realize that response is simply wrong.

As I already said multiple times, requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors.

Also: RathkeMills made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills'existing theory both of which millsRathke pointed out.
When I can keep doing this to your sentences, it is probably because you aren't communicating anything with them. Unlike you I can point out a specific error made by Mills. He allowed wavefunctions that don't go to 0 at infinity. When you normalize such a wavefunction, you get the equation 1 = infinity. I hope you can see the problem there.

really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.
He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.

Quote
“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”
Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.

In a universe that is almost certainly not ours where hydrinos turn out to be real, it is easy to predict the kind of statements that Rathke would say, such as "these clear independent replications show that there is <insert value> energy produced by this reaction", and "This new theory of the hydrino is significantly different from the original to actually be consistent with known results in quantum mechanics, and to be internally self-consistent."

Meanwhile, your use of the word "will" in the sentence about Rathke admitting hydrinos exist indicates that you do not care about evidence and refuse to accept any possibility that they don't.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/22/2017 10:32 am
Guys, we are wasting time and repeating ourselves.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/22/2017 05:36 pm
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos

Again what errors? If you had read my post, you would already realize that response is simply wrong.

As I already said multiple times, requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors.

Also: RathkeMills made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills'existing theory both of which millsRathke pointed out.
When I can keep doing this to your sentences, it is probably because you aren't communicating anything with them. Unlike you I can point out a specific error made by Mills. He allowed wavefunctions that don't go to 0 at infinity. When you normalize such a wavefunction, you get the equation 1 = infinity. I hope you can see the problem there.

really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.
He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.

Quote
“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”
Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.

In a universe that is almost certainly not ours where hydrinos turn out to be real, it is easy to predict the kind of statements that Rathke would say, such as "these clear independent replications show that there is <insert value> energy produced by this reaction", and "This new theory of the hydrino is significantly different from the original to actually be consistent with known results in quantum mechanics, and to be internally self-consistent."

Meanwhile, your use of the word "will" in the sentence about Rathke admitting hydrinos exist indicates that you do not care about evidence and refuse to accept any possibility that they don't.

Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed  you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/22/2017 05:48 pm
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed  you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
The so-called "errors" include at least 2 things that are obviously not errors, and  seemed  as if removing those would make Mills' entire response invalid.
If there are any real errors please describe them here yourself. Quoting and paraphrasing are acceptable, assuming you actually understand what Rathke or Mills wrote.

Otherwise I agree with gospacex, there is no point in continuing this conversation. You seem immune to both logic and evidence and incapable of providing evidence to back your own assertions.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/22/2017 05:49 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.

I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment  to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.

But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/22/2017 05:55 pm
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed  you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
The so-called "errors" include at least 2 things that are obviously not errors, and  seemed  as if removing those would make Mills' entire response invalid.
If there are any real errors please describe them here yourself. Quoting and paraphrasing are acceptable, assuming you actually understand what Rathke or Mills wrote.

Otherwise I agree with gospacex, there is no point in continuing this conversation. You seem immune to both logic and evidence and incapable of providing evidence to back your own assertions.

Mills can speak for himself. This is a conversation that you are free to participate in or not. But this thread is about Mills work so I feel free to debate it. I've provided links to everything you asked. You can read the first chapters of Mills tome yourself. It's free.

But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.

Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. "  which makes no sense at all because  that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.

Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/22/2017 05:57 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.

I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment  to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.

But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.

In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.

"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"

You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/22/2017 06:22 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.

I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment  to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.

But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.

In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.

"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"

You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.

I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that?  Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.

You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/22/2017 07:46 pm
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.
You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.

Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. "  which makes no sense at all because  that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.

Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/22/2017 08:09 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.

I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment  to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.

But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.

In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.

"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"

You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.

I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that?  Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.

You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.

As I previously mentioned, the "independent validators" weren't really independent and they didn't do much to validate Mills' claims. They were allowed to observe demonstrations and take some measurements of them. That's it. They did not replicate the experimental setup or the findings. None of them say that they observed hydrinos.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 06/23/2017 06:01 am
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that?  Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.

Jansson's work was funded by BLP as far back as 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756), and at that time at a least was using BLP supplied materials in experiments that did nothing to address the underlying physics claims.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 04:12 pm
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that?  Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.

Jansson's work was funded by BLP as far back as 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756), and at that time at a least was using BLP supplied materials in experiments that did nothing to address the underlying physics claims.

True, but that makes it neither untrue or dishonest. I think Jansson's work is both correct and an honest assessment.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 04:22 pm
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.
You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.

Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. "  which makes no sense at all because  that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.

Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.

Yes, thanks, First, n is implied and that's the way Mills uses the symbols here. It's not a problem. Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here. Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble. I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here. Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular  eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.

So, miscommunication, and yes, Mills isn't blameless here, and sloppy work led Rathke to his key conclusions. So sad that most physicists won't know all that and think that since someone of repute has debunked hydrino's, that's the end of it. I sent a message to Mills asking for clarification, something Rathke could have easily done. I'll let you know if I get a response. Thanks again for the discussion.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 04:45 pm
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.

I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment  to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.

But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.

In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.

"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"

You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.

I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that?  Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.

You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.

As I previously mentioned, the "independent validators" weren't really independent and they didn't do much to validate Mills' claims. They were allowed to observe demonstrations and take some measurements of them. That's it. They did not replicate the experimental setup or the findings. None of them say that they observed hydrinos.

I disagree. As I said, some clearly reproduced the results in their own labs and with their own materials. They confirmed the large energy gains unexplained by conventional chemistry.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: laszlo on 06/23/2017 05:23 pm
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/23/2017 08:54 pm
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.

I think that shutting up discussion should be used *very* sparingly. Even if you think it's useless, well, you can simply avoid it. But what if you are wrong and the discussion is in some way useful? Shutting it up destroys that.

There is a reason why Western political systems have "freedom of speech" component. It's extremely useful.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/25/2017 04:23 pm
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.
What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?

Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.
The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.

I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.
Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - rn).

Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular  eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.
Where is this sign error? I don't see it.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/26/2017 05:52 pm
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.
What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?

Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.
The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.

I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.
Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - rn).

Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular  eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.
Where is this sign error? I don't see it.

Equation 16 in Rathke's paper is the wrong function. You were correct, I used delta(r) and that doesn't work.
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly. Also, there would then be a problem with divergence as there would be zeros in the denominator which has 1/(r-r_n) terms. But of course if one evaluates the radial part first, then it trivially solves the radial Laplacian since there are is no r dependence at all. So now I think the solutions should, be written without the delta function, just constants/(r_n)^2. His solutions are solutions of the 2D wave equation. Mills solves for r_n by what he calls a Force balance equation. Rathke does claim Mills angular solutions can't work but Mills morphs the 2D angular equation into the famous rigid rotator equation with know solutions being the Ylm functions. Equation 9 in Rathke's paper should have a negative sign. It does in Mills' book and papers. See chapter 1 of Mills free book, page 63. Thanks for the discussion.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/27/2017 02:59 am
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.
To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.

Let me know if Mills ever responds to criticism by actually improving his theory and fixing flaws in it rather than using lots of words as a distraction to pretend there is no issue.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/27/2017 05:03 pm
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.
To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.

Let me know if Mills ever responds to criticism by actually improving his theory and fixing flaws in it rather than using lots of words as a distraction to pretend there is no issue.
Mills informed me that he did not use the wave equation directly to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations. He also stated that Rathke was solving a non existent problem. Just to be clear, I don't know Mills personally and all my exchanges with him are in the context of a discussion group online like this discussion with you. His answers are always terse and I can't claim to always know exactly what he means.

I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent but I am working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free. Until you do so you cannot know whether it really is inconsistent or not. Also, consistency is certainly desirable for any theory, it is not a necessary conditions for a theory to accurately describe nature.

Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being  'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong. Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It was constructed to get the right energy levels. It works great very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.

It occurs to me that the radial part of the electron solutions could not solely be derived from a classical wave equation without any information about EM interactions included but the angular parts can as Mills has shown its equivalent to the rigid rotator equation. What I would like to do now is to fully understand how Mills postulated his 2D electron function and understand what if any differential equation can be hypothesized which gives both the discreet radial solutions and the angular solutions together as the Schrodinger equation does and show if that is equivalent to Mills' process. It is my belief that Mills would benefit by recasting his theory and derivations in a format closer to what people are used to with the  Schrodinger equation. Thanks again for the discussion. Any inputs would be helpful.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 06/27/2017 05:12 pm
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.

If there is anything to this power source, then it certainly has space based applications. Compact heat and electrical power sources are critical to cheaper deep space utilization. I don't know if there's anything to this or not. So many times with too many miracle power sources it has been bait and switch. I remain open to seeing what will happen.

More realistic sources like Helion or LPP don't make claims as fantastic as BLP or Rossi, and there really is not much to say about them. Other fusion attempts like Wendelstein, ITER, or General are just too large to have much applicable use near-term, even if they were suddenly working tomorrow.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/27/2017 05:46 pm
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.
Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.

I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.

Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being  'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.
It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.

Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.
This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.

Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.
When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/27/2017 05:59 pm
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.

If there is anything to this power source, then it certainly has space based applications. Compact heat and electrical power sources are critical to cheaper deep space utilization. I don't know if there's anything to this or not. So many times with too many miracle power sources it has been bait and switch. I remain open to seeing what will happen.

More realistic sources like Helion or LPP don't make claims as fantastic as BLP or Rossi, and there really is not much to say about them. Other fusion attempts like Wendelstein, ITER, or General are just too large to have much applicable use near-term, even if they were suddenly working tomorrow.

It would be useful especially where water was available. It could provide high power to lift off the earth if devices were to be primarily powered by electrical means and not chemical thrust such as the EMDrive or MEGA thrusters.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/27/2017 06:39 pm
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.

It doesn't help that his mathematics is so terribly flawed that sometimes I don't even understand what he is claiming. A big part of the problem seems to be that his terminology is often at odds with what is commonly used in mathematics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/27/2017 06:54 pm
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.
Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.

I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.

Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being  'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.
It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.

Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.
This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.

Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.
When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium. HF methods give close numbers but amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions. Mills model does describe simple systems correctly and more complex systems within reasonable errors much easier. I included some pages showing Mills' model excited states of Helium calculations.

The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. There is nothing particularly 'quantum' about these functions, they show up many places in classical physics too. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be highly useful.

Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing. If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.

P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/27/2017 07:00 pm
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.

It doesn't help that his mathematics is so terribly flawed that sometimes I don't even understand what he is claiming. A big part of the problem seems to be that his terminology is often at odds with what is commonly used in mathematics.

Mills is very hard to understand and he uses his own way to describe things. It's different, difficult but not necessarily wrong or flawed.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/27/2017 07:55 pm
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.
Simply false, please stop making things up.

HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.
The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.

Mills model does describe simple systems correct.

The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.
Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."

Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.
See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.

If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.
And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.

P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.
You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/28/2017 07:11 pm
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.
Simply false, please stop making things up.

HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.
The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.

Mills model does describe simple systems correct.

The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.
Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."

Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.
See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.

If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.
And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.

P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.
You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.

Quantum and Classical are invented distinctions while Nature just is. Since once purely quantum phenomenon are now known to have classical analogues,  I wouldn't be surprised if even entanglement has macroscopic analogues too. Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement. So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.

Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.

Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension exactly as Mills has done.

No one has seen an electron. Even if it's confined to a 2D surface, the field is not and interacts with the measuring device. You would see the field intensity in space not the physical electron surface. As recently as twenty years ago I've heard a known chemist adamantly claim big atoms are mushy undefined things that have to be measured to be defined and can never be moved around by a probe because of their insistence on quantum fuzziness. Of course no one says that now because evidence has debunked that.

Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 06/28/2017 07:35 pm
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.

Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/28/2017 07:48 pm
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.

Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.

He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/28/2017 07:51 pm
Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement.
As we already covered, he doesn't actually have a model. This claim has no basis.

So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.
Not relevant, and deBroglie-Bohm  is quantum, not classical, it has particles as waves, discrete states and follows the Schrodinger equation. In fact as far as I know, there is no known experimentally determinable difference from probabilistic interpretations.

Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.
How much work it takes to compute is irrelevant. When you go to the Schrodinger equation, there aren't dozens of parameters, and it is not mathematically absurd. You might as well complain about how may terms an expansion needs to accurately represent pi. Mills can't do what you said, because he doesn't derive anything, he has no model from which to do so.

Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension exactly as Mills has done.
So many things wrong with that...
-The pressure and tension equations would be equivalent to a wave equation.
-Even if there is another way to calculate it, it still has to be consistent.
-Mills' solution has to come from somewhere, or it isn't a solution, just a made up equation
-When Mills provides an equation, and a solution, and the solution doesn't fit the equation, his theory collapses.

Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's?
Would yours if Mills admitted that he has no theory or real evidence for hydrinos?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/28/2017 08:05 pm
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.

Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.

He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.

He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.

Edit: typos
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/28/2017 08:46 pm
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.

Oh, I don't know about that. There's some very good crackpot checklists out there.

A Measure for Crackpots, by Fred J. Gruenberger, is a classic.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P2678.html

John Baez' Crackpot Index is well known, too.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/28/2017 10:51 pm

At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.

Something important is missing in that wall of text.

He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.

Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.

(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/29/2017 07:17 am
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.

Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 06/29/2017 07:21 am
Holy crap on a cracker! I had heard of blacklight power but had never really looked into it. That book is a mass of twisted crap.

Did anyone read his take on the Aspect experiments? I am stupider for having read it and my computer has lost 100mhz of speed just from showing it to me. The whole book seems to be sections of distorted science embedded in walls of text. According to Wiki some of that text is simply plagiarized from various physics books. I guess it had to be self published because no publisher would touch it.

The combination of plagiarism and the specific way the science is distorted make me think fraud rather than self deception. If so then his book is really a work of art that has earned him tens of millions. But maybe the best con men are able to become true believers.  If the corruption goes deep enough there may be no useful difference between a con and self deception.

The plagiarism was pointed out some time ago. I wonder if it has been removed. If it has ok but if not... those are some pretty big brass ones.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/29/2017 07:29 am
The version of the two slit experiment that really puts the final nail in the coffin of any attempt to explain it with a non-quantum theory is the one where a laser is set up to cross both slits and measure when the electron goes through.  If the wavelength of the laser is such that it's possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern disappears, but if the wavelength of the laser is such that it's not possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern reappears.  It's really, really hard to explain that one without concluding that the diffraction pattern is intrinsically linked with whether or not the information about which slit it went through is being captured.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 06/29/2017 10:46 am
The version of the two slit experiment that really puts the final nail in the coffin of any attempt to explain it with a non-quantum theory is the one where a laser is set up to cross both slits and measure when the electron goes through.  If the wavelength of the laser is such that it's possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern disappears, but if the wavelength of the laser is such that it's not possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern reappears.  It's really, really hard to explain that one without concluding that the diffraction pattern is intrinsically linked with whether or not the information about which slit it went through is being captured.

If you look at page 1635 he uses this to argue that QM is wrong and his classical theory must be right. Perverse beyond all measure I know. But there it is.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/29/2017 01:08 pm

Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/29/2017 01:15 pm
Guys, did you know that gluons are "heavy photons"?! And these "heavy photons" manage to somehow keep proton from falling apart despite a very large electrostatic repulsion between two up-quarks with +2/3 charge. (Since Mills posits that all bound quarks are infinitely thin rotating spheres of the same diameter, and they are co-located in a proton, the repulsion must actually be infinitely strong).

No explanation is offered why three-quark bound systems are possible but, say, two-quark systems are not, and why free quarks are never seen.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 06/29/2017 02:43 pm

Did you read about the twin paradox? Apparently absolute frames do exist but each particle has its own absolute frame that depends on what frame it was created in. So two particles apparently motionless with respect to each other can have vastly different kinetic energy. And apparently this is proved by the fact that quasars have no time dilation.

Man this stuff is comedy gold. Forget hydrinos. They are the least wrong and least interesting thing in the book. And least funny.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 03:03 pm
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.

Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.

He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.

He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.

Edit: typos

Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!"  is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 03:09 pm
Holy crap on a cracker! I had heard of blacklight power but had never really looked into it. That book is a mass of twisted crap.

Did anyone read his take on the Aspect experiments? I am stupider for having read it and my computer has lost 100mhz of speed just from showing it to me. The whole book seems to be sections of distorted science embedded in walls of text. According to Wiki some of that text is simply plagiarized from various physics books. I guess it had to be self published because no publisher would touch it.

The combination of plagiarism and the specific way the science is distorted make me think fraud rather than self deception. If so then his book is really a work of art that has earned him tens of millions. But maybe the best con men are able to become true believers.  If the corruption goes deep enough there may be no useful difference between a con and self deception.

The plagiarism was pointed out some time ago. I wonder if it has been removed. If it has ok but if not... those are some pretty big brass ones.

It was an extended quote and Mills should have been clearer in that but it's been fixed. Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.

Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 03:19 pm

Did you read about the twin paradox? Apparently absolute frames do exist but each particle has its own absolute frame that depends on what frame it was created in. So two particles apparently motionless with respect to each other can have vastly different kinetic energy. And apparently this is proved by the fact that quasars have no time dilation.

Man this stuff is comedy gold. Forget hydrinos. They are the least wrong and least interesting thing in the book. And least funny.

I think you misunderstand Mills ideas which is easy for casual critics to do when they parse the book just looking for errors. I'm not claiming even I agree with every idea Mills has but even the great scientists are not 100% right all the time. But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.

The fact that you would even say hydrino's are the "least interesting" is telling. There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 03:24 pm

At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.

Something important is missing in that wall of text.

He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.

Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.

(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.

Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 03:35 pm

Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D

Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2017 03:39 pm
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.

Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)

The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.
That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."

It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.

He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.

Edit: typos

Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!"  is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.

The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.

Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.
Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.

Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.
Which is why you look at the sources.

But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.
You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?

There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.

Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.

Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D

Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially  considering it isn't conserved classically either.

Edit: ironic typo in Einstein.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/29/2017 04:18 pm
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.

Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)

The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.
That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."

It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.

He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.

Edit: typos

Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!"  is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.

The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.

Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.
Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.

Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.
Which is why you look at the sources.

But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.
You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?

There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.

Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.

Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D

Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially  considering it isn't conserved classically either.

Edit: ironic typo in Einstein.
"Which is why you look at the sources."

Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major European journal in around 2011. The wiki site will not allow that reference to be listed. People put it up yet it disappears quickly. Why? Is it normal for a wiki page on a major topic to only allow references by critics and not references to the actual work?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: kenny008 on 06/29/2017 04:23 pm
Can you PLEASE just post the source?  A list of per-reviewed sources would make the last 3 pages unnecessary, as all of the questions would have already been answered.  Doesn't that make more sense than just saying, "There are papers that nobody is allowed to see?"
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2017 04:33 pm
"Which is why you look at the sources."

Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major European journal in around 2011. The wiki site will not allow that reference to be listed. People put it up yet it disappears quickly. Why? Is it normal for a wiki page on a major topic to only allow references by critics and not references to the actual work?
Good job finding the least relevant statement in my entire post to respond to.

Wikipedia has a no original research policy so people can't post their own work. They point to some primary sources, like Mills' book, but these aren't preferred. A list of 20 sources from Mills' and 20 sources against Mills from different scientists and news media wouldn't be exactly balanced. If there were the mythical independent confirmations you keep referring to, but can't point to, that would be another story.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/29/2017 05:10 pm

At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.

Something important is missing in that wall of text.

He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.

Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.

(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.

Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.

Double slit experiment is one of the experiments which lead to creation of QM. Contemporary theories couldn't explain it. QM wasn't born on a whim - it was created because this experiment (and a few others) was not explainable by what we had before.

If someone wants to propose an alternative theory (which by itself is not a wrong thing to do), then this person must give a satisfactory explanation of observed results of double slit experiment.

Specifically, the version of the experiment where electrons with fixed energy and momentum are shot at double slit, _one at a time_. The observed behavior is that diffraction pattern appears, and it is not reduced by increasingly stringent efforts to maintain the same energy and momentum of the electrons.

Same should be done of several other early 20 century experiments which also lead to QM, such as triple Stern-Gerlach (which demonstrates that spin components along different axes do not have simultaneously definite values) - they all should be explained. If this is not done, then this "new theory" is demonstrably worse than QM.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/30/2017 12:27 am

At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.

Something important is missing in that wall of text.

He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.

Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.

(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).

That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.

He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.

Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.

Double slit experiment is one of the experiments which lead to creation of QM. Contemporary theories couldn't explain it. QM wasn't born on a whim - it was created because this experiment (and a few others) was not explainable by what we had before.

If someone wants to propose an alternative theory (which by itself is not a wrong thing to do), then this person must give a satisfactory explanation of observed results of double slit experiment.

Specifically, the version of the experiment where electrons with fixed energy and momentum are shot at double slit, _one at a time_. The observed behavior is that diffraction pattern appears, and it is not reduced by increasingly stringent efforts to maintain the same energy and momentum of the electrons.

Same should be done of several other early 20 century experiments which also lead to QM, such as triple Stern-Gerlach (which demonstrates that spin components along different axes do not have simultaneously definite values) - they all should be explained. If this is not done, then this "new theory" is demonstrably worse than QM.

Mills does that in chapter 8 volume 1 of his tome.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:26 am
Mills does that in chapter 8 volume 1 of his tome.
gospacex read that section, and found no explanation.
Quote
Over  time,  the  electron  beam  statistically  produces  a  uniform  distribution  across  the  slits.    (Here,  the  statistics  are  deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.

Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/30/2017 05:52 am
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461   #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me

"a" is the fine structure constant.

The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.

Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.

So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 06:09 am
Quote
Over  time,  the  electron  beam  statistically  produces  a  uniform  distribution  across  the  slits.    (Here,  the  statistics  are  deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.

Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.

If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling. We can see randomness of the former-kind with Plinko chips falling through an array of pegs on the Price is Right.

It is the most obvious source of randomness that one can hardly be blamed for not mentioning.

Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....

....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
Mills rejects some aspects of relativity (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/12653) on experimental grounds (https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html). How? He speaks of a "particle production frame" for each particle. Furthermore, He claims that this can explain the quasar anomaly where newly-furnished particles near quasars are anomalously less time-dilated. Since the particles are newly-furnished when they are already inside the gravitational well, then they would not exhibit major overall time-dilation when compared to a particle that entered in the well from the outside. The reason? The latter would have accelerated greatly relative to its "particle production frame" and therefore subject to greater time dilation - not so much the former.

Personally, I think the electromagnetic Schott term (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=%22schott+term%22) is responsible for time-dilation in the Lorentzian Ether and that its accumulation is also responsible for the light-speed barrier, and that (just maybe) deformation of Mills' "orbitspheres" towards a somewhat (frustrum-ish) egg-shaped geometry is responsible for Schott terms (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=%22schott+term%22) underpinning what we call "gravitational work". But hey, what do I know? But let's say that was right and Mills and Einstein were wrong about relativity. Then perhaps under the framework of the Relativity of Hendrik Lorentz (b. 1853 - d. 1928) we could construct an alternative and more valid derivation of the rest of Mills' theoretical predictions unaltered, including the non-radiation condition, energy levels, fine-structure, hyper-fine structure, Lamb shift, g-factor, functional groups, ionization energies, etc. all of which just so happen to be accurately predicted by Mills regardless of the issues I may have with his "relativity".

If reading Mills' huge tome (http://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/) or even his recent paper (http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-060817.pdf) isn't your thing, a quick image search (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=ic:gray&tbm=isch&q=hydrino+electron+volts+molecular) for line-drawn images for hydrino+electron+volts+molecular can reveal quite quickly the kinds of information tables, charts, equations, and diagrams that a likely supporter would be drawn to and spend quite a few minutes if not hours on feeling buzzed about. At least you would understand the mindset of the supporters a bit better. Regardless of who is right, there remains plenty left that has gone unchewed here. At the very least, we can look at the equations involved and see if the derivations can be expressed, or made better, in a prosaic way, perhaps leading to a new interpretation altogether.

Mills' model is like a ship with multiple water-tight compartments. The question isn't if the hull is breached or not. The question is whether enough compartments are breached to sink the ship. To me, the ship still floats, albeit a bit rocky on some decks. It's good enough to stand on, but it might need to be anchored so that too much water isn't spilled over it.

Sincerely,

Kevin M.

Quote

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2846.pdf

The purpose of this lecture was to discuss some subtle points associated with interpretation of the radiation reaction force. We have shown that the Lorentz-Dirac equation in classical electrodynamics describes the balance of three and not just two momenta: the mechanical momentum of the particle, the momentum of emitted radiation, and the momentum carried by the electromagnetic field bound to the charge. The total momentum is conserved, but this does not imply an instantaneous balance of the emitted momentum and that of the particle.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2017 06:45 am
Quote
Over  time,  the  electron  beam  statistically  produces  a  uniform  distribution  across  the  slits.    (Here,  the  statistics  are  deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.

Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.

If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling. We can see randomness of the former-kind with Plinko chips falling through an array of pegs on the Price is Right.

It is the most obvious source of randomness that one can hardly be blamed for not mentioning.
But why does it NEED to be there? Why can't there just be a better focused electron beam? Also, he talks about a "uniform distribution", when something like a gaussian would make sense.

Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....

....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.

But this just sounds like another interpretation of quantum, when he supposedly rejects quantum. If it was formally written out, it would basically be a local hidden variable theory, which has been solidly disproven by tests of Bells' inequality.

Mills rejects some aspects of relativity (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/12653) on experimental grounds (https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html). How? He speaks of a "particle production frame" for each particle. Furthermore, He claims that this can explain the quasar anomaly where newly-furnished particles near quasars are anomalously less time-dilated. Since the particles are newly-furnished when they are already inside the gravitational well, then they would not exhibit major overall time-dilation when compared to a particle that entered in the well from the outside. The reason? The latter would have accelerated greatly relative to its "particle production frame" and therefore subject to greater time dilation - not so much the former.
That sounds great until you realize that the quasars are red shifted as expected, it is the periodicity of their brightness variations that is inconsistent. Even if there were no other issues with Mills' proposal, it is if anything worse at explaining the observed quasar behavior.

Mills' model is like a ship with multiple water-tight compartments. The question isn't if the hull is breached or not. The question is whether enough compartments are breached to sink the ship. To me, the ship still floats, albeit a bit rocky on some decks. It's good enough to stand on, but it might need to be anchored so that too much water isn't spilled over it.
As far as model and theory goes, it seems proper at this point to compare Mills' work to the current state of the Titanic. There is nothing left to be worth salvaging, Although going through the details of why it is wrong in some parts may be instructive.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/30/2017 07:03 am
meberbs and gospacex, I'm really impressed that you took so much time and effort to go through Mills' book and explain some of the problems with it.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 am
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461   #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me

"a" is the fine structure constant.

The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.

Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.

So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D

Here are the claimed justification for the corrections, as well as their amounts. There are more at the link (http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/#comment-14403).

Quote from: kmarinas86 June 20, 2012 at 4:56 am
The sections titled:
e: "THE ELECTRON-ANTIELECTRON LEPTON PAIR"
mu: "THE MUON-ANTIMUON PAIR"
tau: "THE TAU-ANTITAU PAIR"
....have content which cannot fully be explained in the relatively short space which I devote to my comment here, so I will select the key sentences which I believe provides the best distinction between the approaches to predicting their different masses.

e:
"Thus, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the same[Emphasis] as those for the transition state radius which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"In the lab frame, the relativistic correction of the [transition state] radius in the derivation of the Planck's equation for the transition state orbitsphere (Eq. (29.12)) is alpha^(-2)."

mu:
"In this case, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the inverse[Emphasis] of those of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere, which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the potential energy equations (Eq. (29.10) and (29.11)) is alpha^(-2)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], alpha^2"
"Furthermore, the potential energy equation gives an electrostatic energy; thus, the electron inertial time must be corrected by the relativistic factor of 2*pi relative to the proper time."

tau:
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the magnetic energy equations (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15)) is 1/((2*pi)^2*alpha^4)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], (2*pi)^2*alpha^4."
"Furthermore, the transition state comprises two magnetic moments. For v=c, the magnetic energy equals, the potential energy, equals the Planck equation energy, equals mc^2."
"Thus, the electron [inertial] time is corrected by a factor of two relative to the proper time."

As you might be able to see, the predictions are derived from boundary conditions applied to his energy equations as well as his "relativistic corrections". So tweak his model, either he would have to change his energy equations, "relativistic corrections", or the boundary conditions. Changing the "energy equation" would affect other parts of his theory in a significant way, as they would affect for example his predictions for the hyperfine structure of muonium. Changing his relativistic corrections would require him to change the very logic of his corrections. Since there is more than one mass ratio (i.e. tau vs. electron, not just muon vs. electron), changing one ratio would affect others, as they are based on magnetic and electric energies, respectively.

None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:42 am
Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....

....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.

But this just sounds like another interpretation of quantum, when he supposedly rejects quantum. If it was formally written out, it would basically be a local hidden variable theory, which has been solidly disproven by tests of Bells' inequality.

The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.

Another thing that has me wondering is that his concept of a cavity resonant photon "trapped" inside the atom is somehow able to produce an effective charge at the nucleus of an atom, permitting the force balance to change in a way permitting discrete excited states. The only way this could preserve charge if there was an equal-but-opposite charge formed outside the atom. The most natural way to assume such charges exist is to claim that magnetic fields rotate with their source, which results in a Goldreich-Julian charge density (https://www.google.com/search?q=Goldreich-Julian+charge+density) with a total charge of zero. All of this stays well outside of standard QM as well as Mills' theory.

Another thing that has me question is the electric field in Jefimenko's equations. For time-vary charge densities and constant current densities, we can get a rather disturbing result where we have *radial* electric field components whose intensity diminishes with the inverse of the distance close to the source of changing charge densities, which suggests once again a time varying charge density in the near field, not just at the source itself.

In the case that we are far away from the source of a time-varying electric quadrupole, we have an oscillating (time-dependent) radial term:

(http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?zoom=1.75&latex=%5Cdisplaystyle++-%5Cfrac%7B%5Cmu_%7B0%7Dd%5Comega%5E%7B2%7Dp_%7B0%7D%7D%7B4%5Cpi+r%5E%7B2%7D%7Dc_%7B%5Ctheta%7D%5E%7B2%7Dc_%7B%5Comega%7D%5Chat%7B%5Cmathbf%7Br%7D%7D%2B%5Cfrac%7B%5Cmu_%7B0%7Dp_%7B0%7Dd%5Comega%5E%7B2%7D%7D%7B%5Cpi%7Dc_%7B%5Ctheta%7Ds_%7B%5Ctheta%7D%5Cleft%28%5Cfrac%7B%5Comega+s_%7B%5Comega%7D%7D%7B4cr%7D-%5Cfrac%7Bc_%7B%5Comega%7D%7D%7B2r%5E%7B2%7D%7D%5Cright%29%5Chat%7B%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Ctheta%7D%7D+%5C+%5C+%5C+%5C+%5C+%2832%29&bg=eedbbd&fg=000000&s=0)

The left most term is the radial term. See http://www.physicspages.com/2015/01/25/electric-quadrupole-radiation/ for the full equation and details. It essentially implies that waves of charge of alternating value can be emitted from converging/diverging currents, and these could possibly allow particles to engage in strange sorts of couplings. I've found no one talking about this term. All this weirdness can be found without touching the uncertainty principle. Is not another formulation possible?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 06/30/2017 11:05 am
Quote
Over  time,  the  electron  beam  statistically  produces  a  uniform  distribution  across  the  slits.    (Here,  the  statistics  are  deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.

Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.

If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling.

If this would be true, then making a ten times more stable source of electrons, and cooling the material of the wall with slits to ten times lower absolute temperature should make interference pattern about ten times weaker: central spots should become much stronger, and other maxima much weaker.

In real-world two slit experiments, *this does not happen*. Interference pattern does not change.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:09 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.
Not clear that means a non-local theory, it would be local as long as the shape is allowed to distort when under acceleration. Some experiments have used distances measured in miles anyway, subatomic non-locality isn't good enough. Also, entire classes of "realist" non-local theories have been ruled out as well. See here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)

Not sure what the relevance or point of the rest of your post is.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 06/30/2017 01:45 pm

The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.

Yeah, thats not what non-local means. Non-local means some causal influence is traveling faster than light. Is Mills claiming faster than light communication?

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 02:46 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.

The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.
Not clear that means a non-local theory, it would be local as long as the shape is allowed to distort when under acceleration. Some experiments have used distances measured in miles anyway, subatomic non-locality isn't good enough. Also, entire classes of "realist" non-local theories have been ruled out as well. See here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)

Not sure what the relevance or point of the rest of your post is.

The divergence of the electric field is tied in with the definition of charge via Gauss' law. Conventionally it is thought that a divergent electic field cannot exist in a "vacuum" in classical theory, though this would be possible in Quantum theory due to the uncertainty principle. However, those four things I mentioned you did not quote suggest that speaking of divergent electric fields in "vacuum" is not out of the question for a neo-classical theory. This would imply a "non-local" wavefunction composed of variations of the "charge density", particularly with the last example I gave with the oscillating electric quadrupole.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2017 03:55 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.

The divergence of the electric field is tied in with the definition of charge via Gauss' law. Conventionally it is thought that a divergent electic field cannot exist in a "vacuum" in classical theory, though this would be possible in Quantum theory due to the uncertainty principle. However, those four things I mentioned you did not quote suggest that speaking of divergent electric fields in "vacuum" is not out of the question for a neo-classical theory. This would imply a "non-local" wavefunction composed of variations of the "charge density", particularly with the last example I gave with the oscillating electric quadrupole.
Again, does this have anything to do with hydrinos or Mills' theory?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/30/2017 07:55 pm
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461   #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me

"a" is the fine structure constant.

The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.

Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.

So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D

Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2017 08:33 pm
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461   #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me

"a" is the fine structure constant.

The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.

Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.

So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D

Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?
That is easy: mm/me. Good to infinity decimal places (though our knowledge of the parameters limits this). Most of the free parameters in the standard model are masses of the fundamental particles. This ratio is just 2 parameters.

How many free parameters went into Mills' equation? If it was a predictive formula, there would be a more general equation that it is derived from. Unless such an equation is provided, fiddling with the formula seems to be a likely explanation of how it was created. If asked, I am sure Mills could provide some justification along the lines of "raise it to the 2/3 power to account for the area to volume ratio, then multiply by 0.5 because only the near half contributes..." But this is gibberish, not a derivation, and each arbitrary step is basically a free parameter.

Also wrong is wrong. His equation does not match reality, and changing it to make it match would just be more free parameters.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/01/2017 07:06 pm
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461   #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me

"a" is the fine structure constant.

The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.

Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.

So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D

Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?
That is easy: mm/me. Good to infinity decimal places (though our knowledge of the parameters limits this). Most of the free parameters in the standard model are masses of the fundamental particles. This ratio is just 2 parameters.

How many free parameters went into Mills' equation? If it was a predictive formula, there would be a more general equation that it is derived from. Unless such an equation is provided, fiddling with the formula seems to be a likely explanation of how it was created. If asked, I am sure Mills could provide some justification along the lines of "raise it to the 2/3 power to account for the area to volume ratio, then multiply by 0.5 because only the near half contributes..." But this is gibberish, not a derivation, and each arbitrary step is basically a free parameter.

Also wrong is wrong. His equation does not match reality, and changing it to make it match would just be more free parameters.

The standard model doesn't  predict masses is the answer. Mills does have a general equation, that is equations 32.38a and 32.48b that he applies to each particle, it's not just fiddling around. If you wish to call a prediction of mass ratios accurate to 8 significant figures "wrong", feel free. Relating the Planck, electric and magnetic energies to lepton masses seems interesting to me. What are the odds the three energies would just work out to the masses of the three classes of leptons?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/01/2017 07:20 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.

I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos. Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.

I agree with you regarding being able to explain at least as much as standard physics. Of course even if Mills model is essentially correct, it would take decades and thousands of scientists working with the theory to fill out everything standard physics has already accomplished so if it were to compete it would be a very long process. Nobody would just throw out standard physics. Certain things like hydrino physics, chemistry and engineering would be immediately studied.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/01/2017 09:14 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.

I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos.
That statement is already central to the rest of physics as well. It doesn't differentiate his theory in any way. (Mills claims that quantum violates this and that there is some experiment that proves it. This is particularly strange because what kind of experiment could prove that quantum theory doesn't reduce to classical physics results in the limit of large numbers? This is a question of whether the theories are mathematically consistent within certain limits.)

Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.
This is closer to being a central proposition, but I haven't seen a sufficiently formal statement of what this means, and how it would lead to some of his results.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/02/2017 06:56 pm
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".
They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.

I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos.
That statement is already central to the rest of physics as well. It doesn't differentiate his theory in any way. (Mills claims that quantum violates this and that there is some experiment that proves it. This is particularly strange because what kind of experiment could prove that quantum theory doesn't reduce to classical physics results in the limit of large numbers? This is a question of whether the theories are mathematically consistent within certain limits.)

Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.
This is closer to being a central proposition, but I haven't seen a sufficiently formal statement of what this means, and how it would lead to some of his results.

I believe Mills primarily means classical laws such as Maxwell's equations and Special and General Relativity and deBroglie waves. I'll try and dig up a more formal statement on Mill's radiation boundary condition.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 10:39 pm

This being a space-related forum, as space-related analogy:

Suppose I were able to put a 1U cubesat on the Formosat launch next month from Vandenberg. And I claim my cubesat will be subject to the same constraint on its orbital radius as an electron is: p-->0 as r-->infinity.

So F9 puts my cubesat in polar orbit 600km or so above Earth. Citing my radius constraint, I claim this cubesat could fly by your bedroom window (ignoring atmospheric drag, etc.), and that it is also a threat to the ISS because it actually has a greater probability of being closer to the center of Earth than being at altitude it was released at. It has decreasing chances of hitting a GPS satellite, hitting a GSO commsat, hitting LRO, showing up on the EPIC camera of DSCOVR, or being seen by the HiRISE camera on MRO, but these chances are all non-zero. And, I also claim, in these journeys through space, it is just as likely to be observed moving east-west as north-south.

But if I made such a claim on this site, there would be dozens to correct me and point out why my cubesat couldn't possibly behave as I've described. And they'd be right. There are quadrillions of observations of trillions of objects that all show objects moving in a gravitational field always obey Newton's laws of motion and always conserve energy. My cubesat does neither so is not physically possible.

So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986: if we have quadrillions of observations of trillions of trillions of free electrons, moving through conductors and through space, that all show the electrons always follow Maxwell's laws and always conserve energy, why wouldn't a bound electron do the same?

If p-->0 as r-->infinity isn't a valid physical constraint on a gravitationally bound cubesat, is it any better for a electrically bound electron?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 11:19 pm

But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.

George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.

So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."

For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 07/04/2017 11:28 pm
So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986

I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/05/2017 01:28 am
But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.

George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.

So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."

For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.

Quantum Theory says that Maxwell's equations are only part of the truth.  They say there is a more complex truth and the Maxwell's equations are a special case of the more complex truth, a special case that covers the things we see at everyday scales.  So Quantum Theory provides the same answers as Maxwell's equations for the situations where Maxwell's equations are seen to work while providing better answers for other situations.

So, this objection to Shrodinger's Equation is bogus.  There's no need for a theory to match Maxwell's equations in circumstances where experimentation has shown the alternative matches experimental results better.

There may be good reasons to reject all or parts of Quantum Theory, but the reasons you have given are not good reasons.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2017 02:42 am
If p-->0 as r-->infinity isn't a valid physical constraint on a gravitationally bound cubesat, is it any better for a electrically bound electron?
You apparently don't even know what you just wrote. p->0 as r-> infinity for a cube sat means that the cubesat will not end up in the andromeda galaxy randomly. Rejecting this constraint guarantees that the satellite immediately ends up on the far side of the observable universe.

Your analogies are utterly flawed since you apparently don't understand anything that you are saying. The deBroglie wavelength of an electron is meaningful on the scale of an atom, the deBroglie wavelength of a satellite is almost immeasurably small, so it makes for a terrible analogy.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 07/05/2017 02:47 am
the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.

Yes, this is a simple and elegant hypothesis. This hypothesis was generally seen as likely by most of late 19th century scientists.

And then it ran into a brick wall: a bunch of new experiments probing properties of atoms and subatomic particles gave experimental results which could not be explained by this simple and elegant hypothesis.

Simple and elegant hypothesis which contradicts experiments is still a wrong hypothesis.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 am

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 07/05/2017 11:04 am
It's comical how Mills repeats the mantra of non-radiation condition: "...that its spacetime Fourier transform does not possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light...", but he doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:16 pm
It's comical how Mills repeats the mantra of non-radiation condition: "...that its spacetime Fourier transform does not possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light...", but he doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means.

It may interest you to know that his mentor, Hermann Haus at MIT derived that condition and used that language and Mills was his student and gave Mills his paper that started Mills on his quest for a better atomic model. Haus certainly understood it and Mills certainly had very close access to its meaning. Your claim Mills "doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means" is simply untenable.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 pm

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.

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?

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:32 pm
the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.

Yes, this is a simple and elegant hypothesis. This hypothesis was generally seen as likely by most of late 19th century scientists.

And then it ran into a brick wall: a bunch of new experiments probing properties of atoms and subatomic particles gave experimental results which could not be explained by this simple and elegant hypothesis.

Simple and elegant hypothesis which contradicts experiments is still a wrong hypothesis.

Don't equate could not be explained at the time with impossible to be explained within the classical physics paradigm.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 05:07 pm
But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.

George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.

So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."

For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.

Quantum Theory says that Maxwell's equations are only part of the truth.  They say there is a more complex truth and the Maxwell's equations are a special case of the more complex truth, a special case that covers the things we see at everyday scales.  So Quantum Theory provides the same answers as Maxwell's equations for the situations where Maxwell's equations are seen to work while providing better answers for other situations.

So, this objection to Shrodinger's Equation is bogus.  There's no need for a theory to match Maxwell's equations in circumstances where experimentation has shown the alternative matches experimental results better.

There may be good reasons to reject all or parts of Quantum Theory, but the reasons you have given are not good reasons.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2017 05:35 pm
So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986

I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.

So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all?
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 07/05/2017 06:36 pm
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).

Mills doesn't seem to say explicitly that L is the angular momentum of the Earth, though... Or what exactly m means, for that matter. So by choosing L/m suitably, the equation holds!

edit: Oh, he does indeed define L/m on the next line. I should have read the whole text. However, then Mills seems to go into something that can be best described as numerological speculation. After combining (generously rounded) radius and mass of the Earth with pi and G, he arrives at an expression which equals 136 s, or "approximately" \alpha^{-1} s (is that 136 a subtle nod to Eddington's theory?). The next sentence, however, is the real gem:
Quote
This close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pm
So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986

I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.

So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all?
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 pm
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:39 pm
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:45 pm
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2017 08:29 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

How does that make any of the following true?

2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 07/05/2017 10:09 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean

Yes. I know.

"What spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime interval really mean"

"Interval" is not "event". It's the (spacetime, IOW: four-dimensional) distance between two events.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: gospacex on 07/05/2017 10:22 pm
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.

The 'sec' Mills defines as a unit of time "defined by Eq. (36.2) in terms of fundamental constants and the electron mass" (page 1479).
There are _two_ hilariously stupid things linked to it.

(1) Later, on page 1548, Mills derives.... (drumroll)... _electron mass_ from fundamental constants and his 'sec'. What an amazing feat :o

(2) Physics already has one, and only one natural way to define natural unit of time: after you choose unit of length, the corresponding natural unit of time is time light needs to traverse your chosen unit of length. (If you use meter to measure distances, "meter of time" is about 3 nanoseconds). With such choice of units, speed of light is equal to 1 and all velocities are dimensionless values (they are no longer "m/s", but just numbers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units). Any other "improved units of time" are nonsense.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 07/06/2017 01:42 am
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean

Yes. I know.

"What spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime interval really mean"

"Interval" is not "event". It's the (spacetime, IOW: four-dimensional) distance between two events.

The "event" in question is actually an infinity of events not limited to a single point in spacetime but rather to an infinite set of points in spacetime that cannot coexist within the same lightcone.  This is possible because the orbitsphere is not a singularity. So events on the orbitsphere which comprise the "event", may in principle, be separated by space-like spacetime intervals.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 07/06/2017 01:59 am
Has anyone seen this video yet? Just a random youtube upload claiming to be a Suncell experiment. The reaction looks similar to that which is going on in Mills' youtube videos.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 07/06/2017 04:19 am
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).

Mills doesn't seem to say explicitly that L is the angular momentum of the Earth, though... Or what exactly m means, for that matter. So by choosing L/m suitably, the equation holds!

edit: Oh, he does indeed define L/m on the next line. I should have read the whole text. However, then Mills seems to go into something that can be best described as numerological speculation. After combining (generously rounded) radius and mass of the Earth with pi and G, he arrives at an expression which equals 136 s, or "approximately" \alpha^{-1} s (is that 136 a subtle nod to Eddington's theory?). The next sentence, however, is the real gem:
Quote
This close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.

Perhaps it (http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/#comment-14461) wasn't a coincidence.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/44/Alienscavemen.jpg) (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy#Aliensdidit)

Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/06/2017 07:23 am
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.
That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 04:46 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

How does that make any of the following true?

2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real

Mills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 04:48 pm
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.
That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.

Serendipity, fortuitous accidents and intuitive guessing 'hunches' and plain bad math have all led to great discoveries in science.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 05:18 pm
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.

The 'sec' Mills defines as a unit of time "defined by Eq. (36.2) in terms of fundamental constants and the electron mass" (page 1479).
There are _two_ hilariously stupid things linked to it.

(1) Later, on page 1548, Mills derives.... (drumroll)... _electron mass_ from fundamental constants and his 'sec'. What an amazing feat :o

(2) Physics already has one, and only one natural way to define natural unit of time: after you choose unit of length, the corresponding natural unit of time is time light needs to traverse your chosen unit of length. (If you use meter to measure distances, "meter of time" is about 3 nanoseconds). With such choice of units, speed of light is equal to 1 and all velocities are dimensionless values (they are no longer "m/s", but just numbers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units). Any other "improved units of time" are nonsense.

1) Those page numbers don't match my Sept. 2016 version. What version do you have?

2) If there were only one 'natural' way physicists wouldn't argue such definitions.

As far as Mills making 'hilariously stupid' mistakes, you can laugh at him after he wins his Nobel prize if you wish.  ;D
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 05:51 pm
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.
That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.

Serendipity, fortuitous accidents and intuitive guessing 'hunches' and plain bad math have all led to great discoveries in science.

Well there is certainly a whole bunch of the latter two going on here. We have yet to see any evidence of the first.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 05:55 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/06/2017 05:57 pm
Hey, clever people....why is it always the clever people who are rude to each other. Site rules are site rules. I don't want to see any uncivil posts on here or it'll be a trip to the naughty step for your clever backside. OK? :)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/06/2017 06:13 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

How does that make any of the following true?

2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real

Mills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.
Mills describes it as an event, not an interval. If your description is what he intended, but failed to communicate, it would break what was previously claimed here as one of the fundamental principles of his theory, that conservation laws are always held, since one particle would be created before the other (variable between frames). To avoid this, he would have to  let them start on top of each other, which then explains the "event" but leaves the problem with the "spacelike".

I think the point that Mills' theory is contradictory on every level has been well made here. The biggest flaws like in my post quoted here about real and imaginary numbers have simply been ignored by the supporters, sometimes by starting a tangent that just makes it look like they are responding while missing the main point. To any who would ignore the basically endless list of contradictions, and absence of any accurate math in support of Mills, I don't think any further discussion will do any good, so don't expect to hear much or anything more from me.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 pm
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!

Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.
The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?

How does that make any of the following true?

2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real

Mills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.
Mills describes it as an event, not an interval. If your description is what he intended, but failed to communicate, it would break what was previously claimed here as one of the fundamental principles of his theory, that conservation laws are always held, since one particle would be created before the other (variable between frames). To avoid this, he would have to  let them start on top of each other, which then explains the "event" but leaves the problem with the "spacelike".

I think the point that Mills' theory is contradictory on every level has been well made here. The biggest flaws like in my post quoted here about real and imaginary numbers have simply been ignored by the supporters, sometimes by starting a tangent that just makes it look like they are responding while missing the main point. To any who would ignore the basically endless list of contradictions, and absence of any accurate math in support of Mills, I don't think any further discussion will do any good, so don't expect to hear much or anything more from me.

While I thank you for the discussion and am disappointed that you are losing interest, I just don't agree that you have made arguments that are very convincing or have revealed all sorts of contradictions. What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 07:25 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 07/06/2017 07:39 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 07/06/2017 08:02 pm
I forgot that I wanted to include in my last post a partial list of what has been determined about Mills' claims in this thread as a summary. (Wording below assumes he isn't a fraud, though there should be clear reason to question that.)

-Mills does not understand anything about quantum mechanics. (His list of complaints about quantum are not actually true about quantum)

-Mills has no actual predictive theory
---He doesn't have a list of central assumptions
---Generally he just pulls equations from thin air, sometimes using results of theories he discounts
---If you parse through it, often his results are obtained from an original assumption that those are the results.

-Experimental evidence (measurements of electron position) disagrees with Mills' claim the electron is a 2d sphere.

-Claims that Mills can simply solve problems that are complex in quantum mechanics have not been accompanied by the supposed derivation
---The one response to this was a slide Mills had made that claims to support his theory, this slide shows an experimental picture with the fuzziness expected by quantum, and overlays a "prediction" to show it matches. The prediction looks like a result from standard quantum, and it is unclear how it could ever have come from Mills' "theory" (ignoring that he has no real theory)

-Deeper investigation of Mills' claims reveal direct contradictions, such as a real number equaling an imaginary number, or straight numerology.

-Claims that scientists are starting to support Mills have no real evidence backing them.
---at best a few people looked at Mills' device and say it seems to be producing some power.
---no independent replication or papers at all, except some old ones (e.g. NASA) which find less excess heat than Mills had claimed.

I may edit this post later, since I am likely forgetting a few important points.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:03 pm

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.

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.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:06 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:12 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.

Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.

Physics IS math.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:25 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.

Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.

Physics IS math.

That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. ;)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:29 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.

Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.

Physics IS math.

That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. ;)

The opposite is equally true. Physics cannot live on experimentation alone. If you can't mathematically describe what's happening in your experiments, you may as well be practicing witchcraft.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:38 pm
I forgot that I wanted to include in my last post a partial list of what has been determined about Mills' claims in this thread as a summary. (Wording below assumes he isn't a fraud, though there should be clear reason to question that.)

-Mills does not understand anything about quantum mechanics. (His list of complaints about quantum are not actually true about quantum)

-Mills has no actual predictive theory
---He doesn't have a list of central assumptions
---Generally he just pulls equations from thin air, sometimes using results of theories he discounts
---If you parse through it, often his results are obtained from an original assumption that those are the results.

-Experimental evidence (measurements of electron position) disagrees with Mills' claim the electron is a 2d sphere.

-Claims that Mills can simply solve problems that are complex in quantum mechanics have not been accompanied by the supposed derivation
---The one response to this was a slide Mills had made that claims to support his theory, this slide shows an experimental picture with the fuzziness expected by quantum, and overlays a "prediction" to show it matches. The prediction looks like a result from standard quantum, and it is unclear how it could ever have come from Mills' "theory" (ignoring that he has no real theory)

-Deeper investigation of Mills' claims reveal direct contradictions, such as a real number equaling an imaginary number, or straight numerology.

-Claims that scientists are starting to support Mills have no real evidence backing them.
---at best a few people looked at Mills' device and say it seems to be producing some power.
---no independent replication or papers at all, except some old ones (e.g. NASA) which find less excess heat than Mills had claimed.

I may edit this post later, since I am likely forgetting a few important points.

I think you just like the discussion. :)

I've discussed most of these. Mills has debunked your comment regarding measurements of electron position. Who besides Rathke has done 'deeper' investigation? Rathke was completely debunked. Mills' derivations of Helium excited states and other multi-electron atoms are available so that debunks you claim Mills doesn't solve complex problems. I've admitted the dearth of independent replications according to your standard, but that isn't an admission there isn't sufficient data available. You admit some people, see  the experiments 'producing some power' and you admit NASA saw some 'excess heat' so why are you so completely uninterested? Oh,right, QM math doesn't admit it so it must be errors. Right. ;D
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:43 pm
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.

If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.

Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.

Physics IS math.

That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. ;)

The opposite is equally true. Physics cannot live on experimentation alone. If you can't mathematically describe what's happening in your experiments, you may as well be practicing witchcraft.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:50 pm
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.

Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:57 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 09:03 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Req on 07/06/2017 09:12 pm
In case you haven't noticed, you seem to be the only one here who does not honestly believe that.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 09:22 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 07/06/2017 10:00 pm
Like someone already wrote many pages earlier, this discussion is not going anywhere at all. We can dig up loads of falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mills' tome, but nothing seems to have any effect on believers. Even the entertainment value in looking for silliness has worn off at least for me. I don't think this discussion is worth continuing unless there's some real new development (changing the name of the company doesn't count as real development).
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ppnl on 07/07/2017 01:00 am

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.

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.

There is no such thing as an expert on Bell's theorem. It would be like claiming to be an expert on 2+2=4. It is a very simple result that does not even directly involve quantum mechanics. It is simply a logical conundrum that places limits on any classical deterministic theory. In that sense it is aimed more at Mills' theory than quantum mechanics.

The problem is you have achieved epistemic closure. You trust Mills. You will believe him despite nearly thirty years and tens of millions of dollars of failure. You will believe what Mills tells you about Bell's inequality despite the simple and obvious fact that you don't have the tools to judge. It's like I'm trying to discuss calculus with someone who is not an expert on 2+2=4.

There are many places around the internet that will help you understand Bell's inequality. Blog posts, youtube videos, science forums, endless resources. What Mills has to say is not going to help. Break out of your epistemic closure by gaining an understanding apart from Mills.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 07/07/2017 02:37 pm
Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIZsc3cKufk
The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/07/2017 02:55 pm
Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIZsc3cKufk
The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 07/07/2017 03:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/07/2017 03:31 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 07/07/2017 05:17 pm
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.

Exactly. Data leads theory, not the other way around. Good data generated by a hypothesis inspired by a flawed theory and which contravenes other flawed theories is still good data that should be understood and applied. The "more useful theory" in the context of the data is the "better theory" for the purposes of said data. Theory isn't important because it describes nature,  its important because it permits hypothesis generation respecting testability and repeatability, at least in principle, which guides experimental design so we can understand nature better than before.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/08/2017 07:32 pm
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.

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.

The technology doesn't threaten Mills' life. Mills' business model is an open model so no enterprise, such as big oil or foreign interests needs to be shut out. I prefer to think it's not a credible idea because it's really such an incredible idea.  :D
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/08/2017 07:52 pm
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.

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.

His papers describe in exhaustive detail many experiments which a scientist skilled in the art could replicate. 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? It could very easily be verified if this is a fake claim or real facilities by anyone interested.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 07/08/2017 08:56 pm
And some have.
[citation needed]
Quote
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?
Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos. That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math.

And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.

Quote
What con man does that?
There are numerous examples of this in the "free energy" and "cold fusion" generas, though few as long running as BLP.

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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 07/09/2017 06:04 am
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.

^ That is the most important sentence in this entire thread.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 07/09/2017 06:20 am
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.

Introducing the list of
True Believers†

Quote from: 1-8 of 153 results for (0.4 seconds)
Randell L. Mills
P. Ray
J. He
B. Dhandapani
M. Nansteel
Ying Lu
Kamran Akhtar
William R. Good
R.M. Mayo
X. Chen
Z. Chang
Andreas Voigt
G. Zhao
G. Chu
Yi Lu
Jonathan Phillips
J. Lotoski
Jinquan Dong
J.E. Scharer
Nelson Greenig

†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer,
which is a very reasonable™ assumption.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 08/28/2017 07:24 am
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdf

FIG. 2I88 is a beast. 8)

FIGURE 2I88 is a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

(https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_image_drawings/[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@000324.tif)
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/28/2017 03:21 pm
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

It proves no such thing.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: as58 on 08/28/2017 03:38 pm
That figure pales in comparison to this behemoth (from US Patent 4681244).

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 08/28/2017 03:56 pm
"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
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 08/28/2017 04:53 pm
"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

A truism.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: hop on 08/28/2017 05:43 pm
†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.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: particlezoo on 08/28/2017 06:10 pm
†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.

*At the very least

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.

Of course.™

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

Another truism.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Propylox on 09/13/2017 04:10 am
Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos.
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production, not venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
Quote
That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math. And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.
Expanding a research facility for more employees, experiments and equipment (like BLP, General Fusion and others) after establishing the funding to do so is not the same as investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Propylox on 09/13/2017 04:14 am
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdf
FIG. 2I88 is a beast - a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

(https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_image_drawings/[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@@000324.tif)
bold emphasis, mine. Referring to them as "electrodes" implies currant, which I can only assume is ground?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 05:28 am
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.

venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.

Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 09/13/2017 02:54 pm
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Stan-1967 on 09/13/2017 03:29 pm
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.

Maybe that's what will tip the scales for the patent judge to grant a patent.  It has "some" utility.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: bad_astra on 09/16/2017 06:43 pm
They are stating they'll have a commercial product in 2019. They've made such statements before, of course.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:46 pm
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.

venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.

Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.

Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 10/05/2017 05:57 pm
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: wavelet on 10/10/2017 11:57 am
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.

In the pictures of the "reactor" there are copper tubes that go near two big black tubes below the chamber. These tubes go up and down with no apparent function, but I might be wrong here.
Hmm.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Tulse on 10/10/2017 03:00 pm
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
As that article notes, electron capture changes a proton to neutron (as one might expect), and thus reduces the atomic number of atom involved.  This cannot be the mechanism involved here.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:03 pm
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 10/11/2017 06:11 pm
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.

To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:21 pm
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.

To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?

I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 10/11/2017 06:50 pm
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming) on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 07:11 pm
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming) on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.

The paper I want you to see is this;

Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;

Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/11/2017 07:50 pm
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2

However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
Title: Re: Blacklight Power
Post by: meberbs on 10/11/2017 07:59 pm
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming) on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.

The paper I want you to see is this;

Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;