Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

Quote from Wyttenbach

Zephir_AWT: In the Hollmlid case Rydberg matter might be the wrong term. Hydrogen very easily can reach a BEC state if it condensates in a cavity, especially at the ultra vacuum pressure Holmlid uses.

The key to get a room temperature BEC with hydrogen could be, that some Rydberg electrons are just traveling into the carrier, which further reduced the density of the remaining H7, H12, H17 etc. clusters.

What makes Holmlid a scientist and Mills a flim flam man is the way that they theorize the collapse of the way the electron orbitals fall into a tight configuration near the positive cluster core. Mills uses imagination, whereas Holmlid uses the quantum mechanical method of Rydberg blockade

http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo…v5/n2/full/nphys1178.html

to form atomic rydberg clustering via a QM template where one element(potassium) forms a condinsation plan for another element(hydrogen). Holmold uses potassium as a catalyst to lead hydrogen into consideration. Mills knows that this is somehow happening but he invents some scientifically outlandish non QM contrivance to portray what is happening to the electrons in the condensed matter. Mill uses all this flim flamery to keep himself pore of the LENR taint. This cowardness in the denial of persecuted LENR truth is Mill's greatest sin.

Quote from optiongeek

@Zephir,

I appreciate the description behind the Holmlid theory, however brief. However, when going head to head with Mills, I think there's a high bar. I can use Mills theory to make very accurate calculations of atomic and molecular properties. I can lift equations from his text, and construct models in Excel that perform these calculations. Unless someone can show me how to use Holmlid's theory to do the same or better I'm going to have a hard time understanding why we should believe Holmlid. I'm willing to give it a shot however. Where do I look for analytical derivations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

Quote

Shahriar Badiei and Leif Holmlid from the University of Gothenburg have shown in 2004 that condensed metallic states made of excited hydrogen atoms (Rydberg matter) are effective promoters to metallic hydrogen.[20]

Holmlid is a scientist, Mills is a flim flam man.

Quote from axil

Quote from Shane D.: “This resistance to Mills from the pro-Rossi camp baffles me. Mills has abided by the scientific method, while Rossi has abused it. ”

Both Mills and Rossi have reached some level of experimental success through trial and error…

I don't agree and that's why I thought the quote from Ed Storms was relevant. The point is that Mills would NEVER have gotten this far without a workable theory. Mills spends the first 45 minutes to an hour of his talks explaining this, but I don't think it resonates with people. Mills would not have a working SunCell if he had not spent 2 decades of research on the Hydrino and solved it to a precision of 85 decimal points as he likes to say. He would be nowhere right now.

And that is what Ed Storms is saying. The reason many LENR researchers are flailing, or are nowhere, is because they do not have a working theory. The SunCell right now is an engineering problem. There are real issues to solve to get it to become a working commercial product, but the science is done. If you don't believe in the science then you don't believe in his spectrometry, his measurements, his calibration, or the video where the SunCell is operating even though it says "Ignition Off". As Mills just said, how do you melt Tungsten, which has a melting point of 6,000 degrees Farenheit with the power of 2 hair dryers?

Quote from Deleo

If you don't believe in the science then you don't believe in his spectrometry, his measurements, his calibration, or the video where the SunCell is operating even though it says "Ignition Off". As Mills just said, how do you melt Tungsten, which has a melting point of 6,000 degrees Farenheit with the power of 2 hair dryers?

In the january demo Mills states that the activation spark lasts for 1.5 microseconds, but the reaction goes on for 21.5 microseconds. He then states that this behavior cannot be explained under the scope of science.

Next, he extends this behavior into a self sustained mode that lasts minutes and claims that it can be made to persist indefinitely. The reason behind this behavior is caused by silver vapor and gives some theory that he invented to explain it.

The silver vapor cause is correct because this vapor condenses into nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction via well known nanoplasmonic based polariton process.

Mills first discovers how to get the reaction to work and then he invents an explanation based on the need to connect his system to his propaganda and dogma.

Quote from Shane D.

Axil,

I disagree, but this one sentence did make sense. Everything after that, no.

Let me help:

butt extractions techniques means pulling "facts" from one's butt.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_out_of_one's_ass

Quote

(idiomatic, vulgar, transitive) To fabricate (a factual-sounding claim) from no factual basis or evidence

Quote from axil

Holmlid is a scientist, Mills is a flim flam man.

I would urge a word of caution here. Mills has shown an ability to raise vast sums and apparently has the backing of his investors to spend it defending his reputation against uninformed and inaccurate statements. If you check Mills publication history of over 100 refereed articles, you'll see that he is very much a scientist. I get that you don't like what Mills is saying, but if you think you can say anything you want with impunity you are very much mistaken. Criticize his ideas, but if you call him dishonest you better have some evidence to back that up.

Quote

Mills has been honest to the scientific method? Has be been open and honest?

There's no doubt, that Randell Mills is very diligent and hardly working and stubborn researcher. In many aspects he's a bright renaissance man, a true genius. He can be compared with Stephen Wolfram, Craig Venter or even Elon Musk easily, if only he wouldn't research the energy technology, which competes and potentially upsets so many powerful players. So if his technology works, I wouldn't ask about his methods, simply because I know, that the contemporary social environment is hostile and not fair to this type of research. Therefore it also doesn't deserve fully fair approach - or better to say, it even requires tactics for success. For example, in alternative energy research just the publishing of scientific article is not enough - you must reach full commercialization for being handled seriously. And for commercialization of technology a quite different set of criterions applies: you can be never such open, as I like and as the pure scientific attitude would require.

This doesn't mean, I trust everything about Mills. His Millsian software is naive, orbital models trivial. His interpretations of many experimental results are boundary misconduct, his claims of hydrino compounds were never verified and replicated. Regarding the hydrino stuff, I'm already not so sure - I just don't see any good reason, why this artifact should exist. IMO more probable is, he runs some sort of plasma cold fusion. I'm even suspicious regarding the actual energy production in his SunCell reactors, but no more than for A. Rossi. But frankly, this type of fraud would be solely Randell Mills problem, as it's impossible to cheat investors and customers just in energy industry (where all production can be measured exactly) for very long time. If he would sell some homeopathic remedies, then it has a meaning to struggle for protection of customers - but the potential customers of Randell Mills are impossible to cheat - so no worries here. And even if the Mills technology wouldn't work exactly as announced, then it's still an interesting piece of research work, which opened new horizons.

Quote

Holmlid is a scientist, Mills is a flim flam man

In similar way like the hydrino for Mills, Rydberg matter is still supported with Holmlid's team only. Holmlid is also quite nonchalant regarding the scientific interpretation of his experiments.We recently discussed his explanation of the broadening of reflected laser spectrum, which can be interpreted in more general way, than just with Rydberg matter. IMO Friedwardt Winterberg understands Holmlid's experiments better.

MY-: "So how do you detect..."

Not with a tool that's constructed for detecting neutrinos, and not by smashing things together at high energies. What you do is to actually read what Mills publishing and do the same. With state of the art spectroscopy you can find evidences
of hydrinos. Lock at the video linked at the beginning of this thread, Mills will tell you that the spectroscopy needed is top notch and state of the art and you find that equipment and people who can run it in very few places. Now ask yourself if
you think that the physics community have the right focus. We have a window in radiations that is pretty unexplored and we don't pour especially much of our funding and effort into doing that exploration.

Axil: "flim flam"
Mills is nowhere close to flim flam. He brings controversial ideas that is hard to melt due to the theories we have been fed with. Basically he want's us to change our view of matter being point particles and in stead view the world being built by
EM and 2D surface singularities. Reading Mills you will then realize that he actually calculates things to many correct decimals with basically very little room for curve fitting and fudging. Again as far from flim flam that you can position yourself in todays science where flim flam ideas is rightly attributed by Mills to quantum mechanics in stead, where curve fitting and fudging is done with very low level of critical analysis.

MY: "reproducing the effect independently"
This is difficult because as Mills said in the speech in Washington DC he could find scientists that wanted to reproduce the effect at top notch universities but they where politically hindered from actually doing the work. There is a real resistance to help Mills in any ways by the establishment - the opposition is tough and have caused great delays for Mills who actually express that he wanted to coop much more about this project than has been the net effect so far. It is really interesting and fun to see the presentations where Mills is showing how he has a gold medal in teasing the most number of nobel lauriates which sort of show the reason why he is hated by e.g wikipedian guardians who wants to be good guardians of science but with less brain to actually to understand what science is.

Furthermore in order to bring new pathways for humanity you need to think against the tide and be persistant. You have to believe in what you do until evidences show up. The spectroscopic evidences are now so strong that Mills would be a fool to disbelieve them. The problem is that it is not replicated but that is a catch 22 situation and not a sign of fraud. And now he does experiments that vaporizes heavy tank armor with a net input of couple of hair dryiers. If he is a joke please then propose actual real evidences that it is a joke. Just saying it's a joke is actually a good joke as far as I can see. Everything looks professional and logical to me. There is actually a lot of opposition to Mills from many technical persons and I follow the dizscussions closely. It should not be hard to convince me that Mills is a fraud or a fool.

Finally, the companies Mills works with has seen the suncell stuff and tend to work their butt (to use a word people seam to like here) off to help him in his quest. Have MY seen any joking flim flam frauster have that effect on companies?, no what you get when you mix real companies with a fraudster you get litigations or scilence. I have never seen anything like the suncell story before and calling it a joke is a great joke indeed.

A great hug or warm christmas greetings (depending on your culture).
/Stefan

Hi Axil,

What is your strongest argument against the existence of hydrinos? (assuming your objection to Mills is hydrinos)

Quote from Zephir_AWT

His Millsian software is naive, orbital models trivial.

I find this statement to be bold. Can you back it up with anything besides hand-waving? Let's take the Pepsi challenge - you cite a molecule, pretty much anyone will do but within reason, and a specific physical property such as bond dimensions, angle, etc. Then we'll both present analytical formulas that can generate the particular value for said property. I'll take my value from Millsian, you from whatever system you believe superior. The glove has been thrown, will you pick it up?

Quote from Mary Yugo

No, he has not. He CLAIMS to have had them. When one looks closely at these, from a scientific perspective, which you NEVER do, Shane, one finds the evidence absent or sloppy. Let me know when a national laboratory or major testing center verifies that Mills' kludges actually make energy.

It's not just Mills' claims. Real companies with real business models and real reputations at stake are backing Mills. The CTO of Columbia Tech (a company with 200 employees, all of whom have a job on the line and every interest to avoid the scandal of a fraud) has personally verified the reaction as Mills has claimed. You simply don't fool an expert like this in his own lab when you vaporize thick tungsten using the power of two hair dryers. Are you saying the CTO is in on the fraud or is he simply confused?

Quote

Appreciate the reference to Carroll. However, I find the easiest way to believe in impossible and mutually contradictory things is to read my Quantum Mechanics! Electrons are simultaneously point charges and everywhere at once. Impossible & mutually contradictory? Check and check. An electron has infinite mass density but a finite amount of angular momentum. Impossible & mutually contradictory? Check and check. Space is empty yet filled to the brim with "virtual particles" that wink into and out of existence whenever deemed necessary to solve an intractable mathematics problem. Impossible and mutually contradictory? Check and check. Poor old Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Impossible and mutually contradictory? Check and check. If you ever get tired of all this impossible stuff, Mills' theory is highly satisfactory. Things just make good sense in a very concrete way. You can step out of the "Looking Glass World" and back into reality where math is no longer a devotion but the tool it is meant to be.

If this is an argument for Mills it is a very bad one. Theoretical Physics is profoundly simple and beautiful, but not intuitive or concrete.

Why should it be? Our physical intuition comes from 3D interaction with macroscopic objects over a lifetime of learning the effect our interventions have on an external world.

There is no reason relativistic speeds should obey the same intuited laws, nor quantum scales. In fact no reason physics should obey at all our limited operational intuition.

If you look at the maths of QM it is so very beautiful and coherent, because simple. And it leads ineluctably to things very different from our intuition, and very precisely in accordance with experiment. So you want something more concrete. Fine, but that does not make you right, and it is an attempt to make the universe bend to the shape of your conceptualisation, when better would be to attempt the opposite.

"Electrons have infinite mass density but finite angular momentum". Neither statement makes any sense, except as an analogy. The spin of an electron is weird and described by spinors, which you can't conceptualise without a bit of matrix maths. The angular momentum of electrons, like their mass density, comes from the QM wave equation and what you say is not applicable because it uses macroscopic physical concepts.

QM is highly counterintuitive: as is GR. That is no reason to dislike it. It is neither impossible nor mutually contradictory. If you delve deep into the apparent contradictions you find such beautiful symmetry and consonance that I am confident it will disabuse you entirely of these anthropocentric feelings.

THH

Quote from optiongeek

It's not just Mills' claims. Real companies with real business models and real reputations at stake are backing Mills. The CTO of Columbia Tech (a company with 200 employees, all of whom have a job on the line and every interest to avoid the scandal of a fraud) has personally verified the reaction as Mills has claimed. You simply don't fool an expert like this in his own lab when you vaporize thick tungsten using the power of two hair dryers. Are you saying the CTO is in on the fraud or is he simply confused?

This type of reasoning has oft been used, and is never correct. That is, maybe Mills has what he claims, but this argument does not in anyway validate it.

No-one need say the CTO of Columbia Tech is either a fraud or confused. He may be simply human, and wrong in how he judges Mills and his work. In science this happens all the time and is not a big deal. In fact it is expected. Outside science it is sometimes related to major frauds, where convincing people turn out not to have what they claim and to have lied. More often, convincing people just don't have what they claim with no fraudulent intent.

There is something about the intersection of science with business that makes misjudgment more likely. I guess it is because most people reading Mills, or meeting him, don't judge what he claims by the standards needed in science, where 99% of claims are false and finding the 1% real is a noble and unending pursuit.

Quote from optiongeek

I find this statement to be bold. Can you back it up with anything besides hand-waving?

We already discussed it here in some detail.

Quote from THHuxley

QM is highly counterintuitive

I think this is the only part of your statement I agree with. QM is neither elegant nor beautiful. You were taught it at a young, impressionable age and you clearly feel a great deal of separation anxiety at the thought that it might not be what you were led to believe. It took me about five years to finally figure out what was so wrong with it and what was so right with GUTCP. However, I've never looked back. Yes, GUTCP really does solve all the unsolvables - in neat, closed-form equations with no adjustable parameters and only the constants that together make up the fine structure constant. You don't have to settle for a philosophy that says the universe is unknowable. There are actual solutions - to everything - you just have to be ready to accept them.

Quote from THHuxley

Quote from optiongeek: “It's not just Mills' claims. Real companies with real business models and real reputations at stake are backing Mills. The CTO of Columbia Tech (a company with 200 employees, all of whom have a job on the line and every interest…

I think this is what Mills has tried to hammer home in his last couple of talks. You don't even need to be a scientist to understand the amount of heat being generated. At Columbia Tech, in one of their glove boxes, with their employees present, on video, the power of two hair dryers was used to melt two tungsten electrodes plates. Tungsten has a melting point of 6100 degrees Fahrenheit. Something beyond any known chemical reaction is taking place for that to happen. And Mills didn't want it to happen. It melted the electrodes and forced him to come up with another engineering solution. He wanted to preserve the tungsten electrodes, not destroy them.

Also, what is amazing is that Mills wants the light from the reaction, not the heat, as so many people ask him about. How could someone create a device to melt tungsten like this and not even want that heat gain? Because he knows the energy density is in the light. He simply wouldn't be engineering the device he is today if the light wasn't there.