Brilliant Light Power  Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow


Eric Walker: Did you manage to read Mills introduction to GUTCP where he explains what is off with QM. It's not that much text...
Hi Wyttenbach, I've reviewed pp. 315 (secs. I.2.1I.2.4). Now that I've had a chance to glance it over, I am interested to know what you find insightful about it. Please mention something specific, so that we can take a closer look at it. 
What a deal ! A high efficiency, high temp, high irradiance PV array and three phase electronics that OUTPUTS 250 kW after ALL THE LOSSES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, with an added factor for PV efficiency "fade" due to aging during 20 years, but wait there's more !!!! Taking a SWAG,
there might be another 500 to 700 kW of heat to warm your building, make your water hot of even deice your parking lots and driveway.Hey, my Fluke BS meter just blew a fuse,,,,

When some environmentalist places a muon detector near a SunCell, the jig will be up. All that venture capital will be flushed down the tubes and the SunCell will need to spend its life protected behind a magnetic bottle. The same for Rossi and whatever IH comes up with. There is no such thing as a perfect power source.

Hi Wyttenbach, I've reviewed pp. 315 (secs. I.2.1I.2.4). Now that I've had a chance to glance it over, I am interested to know what you find insightful about it. Please mention something specific, so that we can take a closer look at it.
@Eric Walker: I think it's up to you to falsify Mills objections: What about to try to calculate the stored magnetic energy of the Hydrogen atom out of the Schrödinger equation?

Quote
When some environmentalist places a muon detector near a SunCell, the jig will be up
If the muons would be generated in SunCell, it wouldn't already evade the attention, because the muons make many metals radioactive in similar way, like the neutrons. On this mechanism the muon detection with silver/copper/aluminium foil is based, after all  and the SunCell reactor contains lotta silver and copper.

Eric Walker: I think it's up to you to falsify Mills objections: What about to try to calculate the stored magnetic energy of the Hydrogen atom out of the Schrödinger equation?
As you will perhaps appreciate, the burden of supporting whatever position you champion is squarely on you, and not on me to disprove it. But I was going to ask you something similar, since you have pointed to the first chapter of GUTCP as being relevant and insightful to understanding the problems with quantum mechanics. I figured you would be able to elaborate on what led to your approving of it. I will be straightforward about the impressions I came away from the part of the chapter I read: (a) it raised obvious complaints about the Schrodinger equation being nonrelativistic and not accounting for spin, which no one would dispute, and which are dealt with in more sophisticated approaches to QM; (b) much of it was a strawman argument, conflating implications drawn from presentations of the Copenhagen interpretation with all of quantum mechanics; (c) what remained gave the impression of being word salad. I can definitely appreciate why some people who have read it thought it sounded like a hoax.But perhaps you will disagree with this impression and help us to understand why the material in this chapter is insightful and why quantum mechanics must be given a significant overhaul or be set aside.

But perhaps you will disagree with this impression and help us to understand why the material in this chapter is insightful and why quantum mechanics must be given a significant overhaul or be set aside.
@Eric Walker : I should have reminded you that this text has been written in 1995.. or even earlier back in 1991. In the mean time there were huge efforts to work around some QM deficits! Just to say it again: Newton was wrong, as we know today. QM is wrong as we know today, even ART is wrong as we know today, but: We, so far, have no better theories with a global consent. Just look at GUTCP, what is does better and where it fails. That's the way to deal with theories.
But may be you can still try to solve the "QM problem" I gave you in the former post... 
Eric Walker : I should have reminded you that this text has been written in 1995.. or even earlier back in 1991. In the mean time there were huge efforts to work around some QM deficits! Just to say it again: Newton was wrong, as we know today. QM is wrong as we know today, even ART is wrong as we know today, but: We, so far, have no better theories with a global consent. Just look at GUTCP, what is does better and where it fails. That's the way to deal with theories.
I take it you still approve of the argument made in the beginning of GUTCP, then? If so, can we take a closer look at some specific points that are made in that chapter that you approve of?But may be you can still try to solve the "QM problem" I gave you in the former post...
Because you are very knowledgeable, and have come to an understanding of what Mills is saying sufficient to give your approval to it, I was hoping to do exactly this with your help, in the context of one or two claims made in the intro to GUTCP. We can walk through it together. 
Because you are very knowledgeable, and have come to an understanding of what Mills is saying sufficient to give your approval to it, I was hoping to do exactly this with your help, in the context of one or two claims made in the intro to GUTCP. We can walk through it together.
@Eric Walker : I posted the magnetic energy sample some months ago. It's the most compelling proof that Mills does something correct. The anomalous magnetic moment can be calculated (first order  maxwell) in GUTCP where as QM has to relay on experimental data. This is the most obvious deficit (failure ..) of QM.
From my old post: Just one example; For the calculation of the electron gfactor You can sum the results up 20'000 Feynman diagrams (recently completed with a perfect match) or you can use the "simple" Maxwell'ian derived formula of Mill's, which he got out of the spinflip transition of the hydrogen electron: (p.105 GUTCP 2016 R. Mills)

Mills, in the CNN piece: "Just from inspection, you can tell it's making enormous amounts of power."
Bullshit! Reminds of me of Rossi and his moronic stethoscope applied to his nonworking kludge.Announcer: "CNN first featured Mills in 2008 ... but his fuel cell never made it to market."
Could that be because the claims were lies (same lies for >25 years) and the thing didn't work?Proof is now delayed to 2018. Oh, OK.
Btw, one apparent fly in the Mills' ointment is cooling. He is generating what average power? 25kW in a sphere a few inches in diameter? And cooling it how? With what looks like a couple of lame copper pipes not in thermal contact with the sphere? And he is extracting 25kW average power with a very small photocell array inside the device? This seems likely to work to anyone? Why? What unknown technologies of all sorts is Mills using?
QuoteJon Soderberg wrote:Mills said at least 100 KW/H up to 150 KW/H of electricity, the leftover heat is part of the pricing. The output can even be higher but the parts can only handle certain temperatures. Watch the whole video all the information is in there somewhere.
That one puzzles me. What is a KW/H? What does the "H" stand for? 
That one puzzles me. What is a KW/H? What does the "H" stand for?
Mary, this term, KWH/H has been hashed and squabbled over numerous times in this forum and others. It is a term used (mostly, but not exclusively) in continental Europe to describe the continuous power rating of a system. For example, you might have a diesel generator capable of producing a megawatt at full power, that has a 'continuous' rating of just 700KW. Thus one engineer might describe it to a colleague as having a capacity of 700 KWH/H  meaning it can produce that level of power for as long as you want. Each and every Hour of the day and night.
It is not a term usually used in earshot of the unwashed.

And he is extracting 25kW average power with a very small photocell array inside the device? This seems likely to work to anyone? Why? What unknown technologies of all sorts is Mills using?
@MY: If you would restrict your post just to technical critics, then you would get far more responses...
Currently the highpower photocells are able to convert 40% of the light into current. 60% are heat quite a lot!
But I simply assume that the cells work only a few seconds as silver will cover them with a curtain and make them blind,  if they have no mechanism to shield the PVcells from the vapor...

@Eric Walker: I think it's up to you to falsify Mills objections: What about to try to calculate the stored magnetic energy of the Hydrogen atom out of the Schrödinger equation?
There are 18 versions of quantum mechanics. Which version is the correct one?

Quote from Wyttenbach
I posted the magnetic energy sample some months ago. It's the most compelling proof that Mills does something correct. The anomalous magnetic moment can be calculated (first order  maxwell) in GUTCP where as QM has to relay on experimental data.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this: QED has done a phenomenally good job of calculating the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (that is gS2  where gS is the electron spin correction) with exquisite precision (and without handwaving) that matches experiment. One of the predictions that makes physicists so confident that whatever GUT we will in the end have, it must be isomorphic to QM at most scales.
I don't see anywhere a derivation of this exact value of gS2 in Mills's writing. He does however quote known 1loop approximate result (alpha/2pi)  as derived in my ref below  without justifying it. It is true that the 1 loop result is a lot simpler than its QED proof! But stating results is not physics, especially when priority of publication does not exist. I'm not sure when the QED result was first published, but I go back at least as far as Schwinger (1948) for a QMbased radiative correction of alpha/2pi. When did Mills develop his ideas?
I reference a decent introduction to the gS calculation. It is complex, but both selfconsistent and predictive (maths is like that  a correct bit of maths, however complex, stays correct).
And Wikipedia gives an OK intro to the comparison of QEDderived theory and experiment. I'll answer the "QED needs experimental data to calculate gS" after Wyttenbach and perhaps Eric have commented. I'm very willing to be corrected.
Quote from AxilThere are 18 versions of quantum mechanics. Which version is the correct one?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
@axil  I think you confuse theory with interpretation. Interpretations of QM do indeed abound  and it looks as though now we are getting close to a very exciting resolution with the latest speculative ideas based on spacetime as an emergent quantum phenomena. But who knows? That is the fun.
But critically all of these interpretations give rise to the same numeric predictions which can be validated by comparison with experiment. I realise you are mostly interested in levels of description that do not make numerical predictions, so might not pick up on the importance of this, but it is in fact the level at which different interpretations and philosophical ideas coalesce to become a definite theory.
THH

The formula is:
You can find it in page at page 105 chapter TOTAL ENERGY OF SPIN FLIP TRANSITION in a modern version of GUTCP.
I so far checked three of the terms and I believe the derivation is correct. The most difficult thing to follow is the change of reference systems done and corrections that comes from them. Mills use the same trick all over the place
and is consistently applied and today I think I can follow them as well, but as said, I found that very hard.The critique especially Mills has for the QM approach is that there have been a selection of terms included in the QM derivation from QED. That is fine to do if you don't look at the answer while doing this, I believe the critique is that this has not been the case and the derivation is bad science and a fluke. The approximation series you often find in QM is riddled with being divergent and there are many times a need to select which terms to include, which in this case actually can be fine to do if you stop the expansion before the divergence starts, but if you do that uncritically you can deduce whatever you want with the right selection. I'm still waiting for science to take up Mills glove and meet hem in pen fights about the theory  but he is ignored and we need to guess the truth.

@Alan It was KW/H which I questioned. Not kWh/h which although incredibly silly still passes dimensional analysis. I could as well say kW cow week/cow week. A cow week, by the way, is a measure of volume, being the amount of milk produced in a week by one standard cow.
QuoteI'm still waiting for science to take up Mills glove and meet hem in pen fights about the theory  but he is ignored and we need to guess the truth.
The reason Mills' extensive theories and mathematics are ignored is because, **according to Mills**, they predict generation of immense power and energy with his devices and so far, he has failed abysmally to prove cleanly that his devices indeed perform as he says. So in summary, modern quantum mechanics is highly predictive of reality on objects of appropriate size. Mills' theory, by contrast, predicts a powerful machine which he has built and made claims for but those claims have yet to be properly demonstrated and/or proven. So most people don't care about Mills and regard him as some sort of crank.

@Mary Yugo
Mills theory is based on adding to free space with electro magnetics the property that it can produce surface singularities of various types. The normal atom theory is based on one kind of surface types that one can accept as probable and close to classical theory. But the base of hydrinos will force you to accept an even more extreme surface phenomena which may be mathematically ok, just like it is okay to play with super symmetry etc, but for which a physical reality is not scientifically proven and has to be done experimentally. So you are wrong that Mills theory hangs on getting his machine to work  it is the opposite, very little hangs on it but you are right scientists mix it up and therefore ignore the theory. 
@stephan
Mills claims an expression for the anomaly based only on alpha, without high order corrections from QED interactions. That would be plausible except:
(1) Do we have any record of Mills actually predicting experimental data from this formula? It looks suspiciously ad hoc to me. When did Mills introduce these terms?
(2) The evidence for QED interactions is inescapable from other experiments. QED has made many other great predictions with experiment, using the same model, and if lepton mass ratios can influence this system (as all the other experimentally validated evidence would suggest) then there CANNOT be a closed form for these high order corrections independent of these.Let us look at QED. Here is a 2006 prediction based on much independent derivation of the complex maths (corrected again 1 year later by Aoyama when all these theoretical corrections were indistinguishable by experiment). It is 10X more accurate than the best available measurements of alpha and g (since this calculation, g, and alpha are all related any two can be used to check the other). Now look 4 years later: https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3627. QED goes on being validated to extraordinary and everincreasing accuracy by a newer 10X more accurate independent experimental measurement.
Mills ideas look good if you ignore the rest of theoretical physics, or reckon its wrong. the trouble is that the stuff that has to be wrong includes a lot of phenomena very well validated by experiment.
PS  have you checked how accurately this number tracks the experimental values of alpha and g2? I'm willing to bet that unless Mills updates it with new ad hoc terms it will not track the latest experimental data. Of course, that experimental data comes from other QED calculations...

I don't see anywhere a derivation of this exact value of gS2 in Mills's writing. He does however quote known 1loop approximate result (alpha/2pi)  as derived in my ref below  without justifying it.
@THH: Great, you finally found the paper I mentioned, which reports the summary findings of adding about 20000 1,2,and 3 loop Feynman diagrams. This has nothing to do with QM and the base gauge of most Feynman diagrams are experimentally measured energies!!!
The work done is great and shows that with recursive fitting QED/QCD can be made consistent. But: some crucial parameters are not yet defined as the charge radius of the muon/proton, which still can be off more than 2 sigma!! > refitting work must be done...
Any nature constant with more than 8 digit precision is great, with more than 10 digits is close to suspect. Recently Klitzing said, that with a new method for measuring the quantum hall effect they might bring down the accuracy of alpha by two more digits. Then also Mills value will slightly change...
The discussion is whether the gfactor is defined by basic physic laws and mathematics or by a sum of 20000 iterated, manually tuned terms... Both assumptions could be wrong...
CLICK HERE to contact us.