BLP update

One of the almost interesting things about Mills is that he is very Pennsylvanian - small town farmer. Some may expect the eccentricity of a typical physicist.

Some of you may expect genius to look another way. Don't expect anything to come in any way for outliers. Humans have bad ability to spot outliers and differentiate in unfamiliar groups - its the same reason all chinese people look the same to someone who hasn't seen too many chinese people.

Psychology not physics - is why most of your are thrown off on this -- it is science just in a different form - yes there is a book there someone should write.

I remember Brett telling me he'd be eating hot dogs with Mills and sometimes he'd say something off hand at a pace that only 50 people in the world could even keep up with at his pace. Hot dogs and breakthrough physics, very American!

There should be some time limit to plausibility of claims made by any company. And BLP stands out pretty high in this regard.

Quote from Director

I totally agree that they need to give a full report and that not sharing such information only hurts them. However, I'm sure if they were using a pulsed input that they carefully calculated what the average level was during the time period compared to the output power. They have not confused anything.

I am sure they have done something like this, but not sure that an independent observer would agree with the assumptions that validate their calculation. the devil as always lies in the detail.

What he has is a bad track record of being capable of convincing many people of such.

The fact BLP has been well funded for 20 years with no income, nor product, nor academic credibility, shows on the contrary he is good at convincing people.

Quote from Curbina

...Meanwhile I can’t do anything else with the information available and produced, so far.

I'd just like some people to help me go through his spin calculation and really put it together step by step. If he's right, and it can't be taken on faith, then spin is a classical phenomenon -- exactly calculatable -- then this is Star Wars moment and a simple explanation of that is the firing of that shot into the hole in the Deathstar. Rebel army is classical physics. QM is the dark side of the force.

Let's have some fun man, life is short. docs.google.com/document/d/1ds14CBJzzUiYCzdGMwB6MBiopcg69_rhYjAd0LcSXsY/edit

We do the paper publish it, and then we'll use that to get ten more people looking and ten more people looking....we need more young physicists lookin

Quote from Navid

Rebel army is classical physics. QM is the dark side of the force.

Mills solution for Hydrogen is pretty much identical to the QM solution only the interpretation is much different. Mills solution for the electron is quite different, but also misses the true 4D structure what is the main reason he cannot explain more than QM.

The true dark side of physics is QED/QCD/QFT (CERN, ITER, APSPEcT,..) , where the use of QM-math to model dense matter interaction is absolutely nonsensical. But here Mills has no alternative and no concept as he failed to draw the right conclusions.

In classic QM spin is a binary concept. With SO(4) physics spin has to be split for concrete calculations. Do not expect to gain much without digging deeper than Mills already did.

Finding an exactly fitting model for the free & bound electron & locked in photons would help much more.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In classic QM spin is a binary concept. With SO(4) physics spin has to be split for concrete calculations. Do not expect to gain much without digging deeper than Mills already did.

Finding an exactly fitting model for the free & bound electron & locked in photons would help much more.

Since I don't exactly understand how Mills model works - mechanistically - I can't begin to see the flaws. I'd think if you have a better model, and a set of equations that people can calculate from people would look at it. Think "engineer" not "theoretician."

Quote from Director

External Content m.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

He starts talking about the plasma around the 0:59:00 mark.

So I'm gonna play a video here. I wish I had some sound cause it kinda sounds really cool, but none the less. I'm going to explain. We have here electromagnetic pump on one side and on the other side these are the molten silver reservoirs. We are looking down through the dome, and so we have a view port there. And we have, it's in a vacuum chamber and we have the window that we can look into the cell. So we are looking right down into the cell. And what we are gonna do here is turn the pumping power up and then we are going to gradually turn on the ignition and you will see when these two streams hit they get electrical contact, we will put the ignition on, and nothing should happen. But you will see it will make a bright plasma and through the video at different points we will turn it off and you will see it can persist. By the end, we will turn it off and you can't tell the difference whether it has power into it or not. Because in the auto mode. There's no one whose ever created a plasma that self sustains itself. And you'll see that. And this is at atmospheric pressure which is insane to have a plasma of this type at that high pressure.

The screen behind him states, "IGNITION OFF" at around 1:07:27 yet the plasma ball is still brilliantly bright. Later, it comes back on and goes back off with the plasma ball remaining.

Display More

I stand corrected. Thanks for that info. I have forgotten that series of videos from about two and a half years ago.

In this video

the ignition is turned off at the 4:20 and the 8:25 mark, and for about two minutes in each case the plasma does sustain pretty well until the electric current is turned on again.

It seems to me that since Mills has gone from silver to gallium, no such lengthy sustain has been advertised. Perhaps it is due at least in part because gallium has a notably low vapour pressure at higher temperatures.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills solution for Hydrogen is pretty much identical to the QM solution only the interpretation is much different. Mills solution for the electron is quite different, but also misses the true 4D structure what is the main reason he cannot explain more than QM.

The true dark side of physics is QED/QCD/QFT (CERN, ITER, APSPEcT,..) , where the use of QM-math to model dense matter interaction is absolutely nonsensical. But here Mills has no alternative and no concept as he failed to draw the right conclusions.

In classic QM spin is a binary concept. With SO(4) physics spin has to be split for concrete calculations. Do not expect to gain much without digging deeper than Mills already did.

Finding an exactly fitting model for the free & bound electron & locked in photons would help much more.

Display More

Have you ever contacted Mills about your corrections to his theory? A long time ago I asked him a question on the BLP website and he did respond. I think it is worth a try to tell him about your work.

Quote from Director

Snark all you like, PFD. The fact is that all these technologies work and utilize the same primary mechanisms.

You have an interesting interpretation of the word ‘fact’.

Quote

One of the almost interesting things about Mills is that he is very Pennsylvanian - small town farmer. Some may expect the eccentricity of a typical physicist.

Some of you may expect genius to look another way. Don't expect anything to come in any way for outliers. Humans have bad ability to spot outliers and differentiate in unfamiliar groups - its the same reason all chinese people look the same to someone who hasn't seen too many chinese people.

Psychology not physics - is why most of your are thrown off on this -- it is science just in a different form - yes there is a book there someone should write.

I remember Brett telling me he'd be eating hot dogs with Mills and sometimes he'd say something off hand at a pace that only 50 people in the world could even keep up with at his pace. Hot dogs and breakthrough physics, very American!

Verbose nonsense. Mills hasn't been able to produce anything credible, convincing (outside his usual suspects like Rowan) or marketable and is now approaching 30 years of grandiose claims and bright lights fueled by many kilowatts of line power poured into a tiny space. Those are the facts. Check the internet record.

Here's another (International Skeptic's) view of Mills' work;

Mill's theory does 2 things:
1) Steal the results of QM, and just 'declare' that the electron is a shell at the expectation radius, instead of a wave.
2) Ignore all other QM experiments that would invalidate Mills' idea of the electron.
Sometimes replacement of a quantum system with a classical analog can give you close results, if you limit yourself to a particular type of property. I don't find this is strange at all. One can imagine electrons as a spinning torus to get a property of spin, etc. However, one always finds that the classical approximation is self-contradictory when looking at another property of the system.

Quote from Dr Richard

Here's another (International Skeptic's) view of Mills' work;

Mill's theory does 2 things:
1) Steal the results of QM, and just 'declare' that the electron is a shell at the expectation radius, instead of a wave.
2) Ignore all other QM experiments that would invalidate Mills' idea of the electron.
Sometimes replacement of a quantum system with a classical analog can give you close results, if you limit yourself to a particular type of property. I don't find this is strange at all. One can imagine electrons as a spinning torus to get a property of spin, etc. However, one always finds that the classical approximation is self-contradictory when looking at another property of the system.

The guy who says that is HappySkeptic99 and CSurveyGuy. Same guy. CSurveyGuy says a lot of big things, and hand waves he has answers to things that Brown University Physicists (e.g the Bubble experiment) don't have answers too. I called him out here about that.

A long time ago a mathematician named John Connett said Mills is wrong and that was added to the "Mills is fraud" propaganda.

In 2018, when you ask John Connett about his reviews of the peer reviewed literature --- he references CSurveyGuy on reddit.

We'd all like Mills' work to be true, especially if LENR's are occurring downstream from hydrino (or dense H) formation. Trouble is, given the time that's already elapsed between making the initial promise of revolutionizing energy production to the status quo now, what are the odds of any of this work being successful? (and throwing vast sums of money at the problem has simply not worked so far - which is why I was suggesting helping the guy out by putting our brains together here, kicking the ideas around, and seeing if we could at least theoretically come up with something which worked).

Quote from Navid

A long time ago a mathematician named John Connett said Mills is wrong and that was added to the "Mills is fraud" propaganda.

You should not engage in discussion with simple minded people that only know right & wrong. The question always is the same: Where are the limits of a model. Is a QM/QED derived hamiltonian with 7th order terms with fantasy gauging still QM/QED/QCD or a desperate try to rescue it? You have to understand that 100000 physicists did work for more than 90 years now and they still cannot calculate anything based on a first order measurement as being the mass of e,p,n or an isotope or the electron g-factor or the magnetic moments of e,p (n). All these quantities are known with 10 digits precision and destroy any QM/QED/QFT formula for dense matter that tries to relate them.

Mills biggest achievement is the electron g-factor something impossible to do with QM.

The QED/QFT fraudster tried to derived it from 20000 Feynman loops all handcrafted gauged underlaid with a pseudo infinite sequence to avoid rounding errors...

I need not to mention here that "some" weights they used for their loops are pretty unknown as they are measurement based with less than 3 digit precision...

Bankers that did the same have names like Madoff...

But many things of Mills e.g. hydrogen spectrum are based on the same math as QM uses - of course QM needs to use Maxwell (3D waves) too...Other things like Mills electron model (disk..) are not very helpful (missing 4D) or the 4-He model contains some tiny cheats like the wrong reduced mass. I could give a long list of minor problems that compared to the basic failure of QM not being able to make first order derivations are small.

Nevertheless: If I had to model an "electron gas" in a conductor, transistor etc, then I would use QM because it is a good model for tiny perturbations. It's never a question of right or wrong. The question is: What is adequate?

Mills certainly is brilliant but sometimes brilliant people make brilliant errors and are not able to concede them.