Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 27th 2016, 12:44 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Just dropping a bomb here

I'll probably be banned right away
How long are we going to ignore the physical evidence?



harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 01:58 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
It's been here for over an hour, maybe this will set some alarms off:
Brilliant Light Power, Randell Mills, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics
harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 04:54 AM   #3
Physics Team
 
ChipB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,299
We don't ban people unless you become a troll or otherwise violate this site's policies.

I hadn't heard of this before. For others who may be interested, background info is here:

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

Apparently the BLP company has been around for 25 years, has obtained $50M in funding, but has not as yet been able to produce a commercial product, despite claims ten years ago that they would have energy cells available within 18 months. This would seem to confirm the skeptics' views, but are you aware of any plans to commercialize this? What's the hold up? Any progress sin the past ten years?

Last edited by ChipB; Oct 27th 2016 at 05:53 AM.
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 05:38 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
The article on Wikipedia is seriously outdated and lacks any reference to recent demonstrations and developments because it's become undeniable that Mills has lived up to his claims. Just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's unbiased. I love Wikipedia but try adapting an article just by setting the facts straight. If you're the author of the work they're writing about and you try to contribute: it gets reverted. I know, I tried for my own software where the info was wrong and outdated.
Mills undermines the complete quantum mechanics theory and replaces it within the spectrum of classical physics. For sure this is gonna set off some QM boffin egos.
This can become a deep discussion into theories and science, but eventually it will end up in science-religious arguing.
I'd rather look at what he's accomplished so far: the demonstration setups work, you can read validation reports from independent professors using standardized methods and equipment. If Mills claims were a hoax, he damn well kept it up for a long time by now.
Believe me, there will be quite a few scientists who are going to be embarrassed. I understand the scepticism, they're have been many claims in the past that turned out to be flukes.
harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 06:03 AM   #5
Physics Team
 
ChipB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,299
I understand that main stream physicists will of course be highly skeptical, as it flies in the face of accepted quantum mechanics theory. But the proof is in the pudding, as they say. I know BLP have done a lot of demos of the technology. but if they want to win over the skeptics they need to let others evaluate the technology independently. They should loan the equipment to a reputable test lab and see what they find. And I still see no hints of releasing a commercial product any time soon - even after 25 years of development. All they need to do is announce a system for sale and get a happy customer to sing its praises.
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 06:21 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
It has been validated by multiple independent sources using standardized techniques. Reports can be found here Validation Reports | Brilliant Light Power, the validatin professors are real people, I looked it up ;-)
Final devices should be available early 2017, commercial product mid 2017. They've set many targets in the past, never living up to them. But this time it looks different. an actual working prototype is new since this year. So it looks promissing.
harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27th 2016, 06:27 PM   #7
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,437
Okay, I'll buy into this for a bit. Where can I get my hands on the papers so I can review them myself? (Please take into account that I currently have no access to printed articles.) Is there anything online, such as the arxiv site?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28th 2016, 04:36 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Everything is online on their website: Brilliant Light Power
You can download free of charge his book The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics: The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics | Brilliant Light Power

It just so happened that yesterday they updated their site with a video of a field ready system that delivers constant power and doesn't melt through anymore. You can also find it on Youtube:
There 's also a report of a visitor who was at the latest demo. Unfortunately the site of e-catworld world is experiencing problems, but here 's the link to the article when it comes back online: Report from Brilliant Light Power Industry Day Event (Tom Whipple) |
Or you can read it in google cache: Report from Brilliant Light Power Industry Day Event (Tom Whipple) |
harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28th 2016, 07:00 PM   #9
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,437
I'm afraid you aren't going to like my response, though you seem to expect some arguments anyway.

I skimmed through the introduction chapter of the Atomic Theory piece. I have to say I'm impressed with the amount of effort that this represents. However there are some grave difficulties here:
1) Most of the introductory chapter seems to be devoted to saying how bad the Schrodinger equation is to model a one electron atom, and that it (the S-equation) doesn't treat photons. First, much of the material here is negated when discussing the Dirac Wave equation solution to the hydrogen atom, which predicts such things as electron spin and the correct value for the electron magnetic moment. The S-equation does not predict spin (which is a relativistic property) but the D-equation does. Second, the S-equation was never intended to represent a photon. For that we use the massless Proca equation: A relativistic wave equation for particles with a helicity number of 1.

2) Here's one that you probably get a lot, so you'll probably have a ready answer for it. But I'll state it anyway: If we allow the principle quantum number to take on rational numbers, where are the spectral lines for such transitions?

3) QED is a Quantum Field Theory that describes how charged matter and energy interact. It is one of the best tested and accurate theories in existence. Replacing it is going to take a heck of a lot of fine tuned experiments.

4) Why should the Classical electron radius be predictable from QM? The electron radius has no real meaning even in Classical Physics. It's just a handy number used to simplify some equations.

5) The electron "shell" model is rather intriguing but has a flaw. It is used to show where the spin of an electron comes from. All well and good. But what about neutrinos? They have spin but no charge structure and thus would have to get the spin from some other process. Has this been addressed?

6) The Classical GUT theory, again, has its points. But the theory seems to fail spectacularly as I don't see any way to incorporate the two nuclear forces. A GUT is defined to unite the EM, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces. Or are you using the term GUT to only describe the union of Classical EM and your concepts? Either way both nuclear forces are going to be very difficult to deal with without invoking QM. Not to mention electroweak theory which unifies the EM and weak nuclear forces. (Speaking of the weak nuclear force: Classical Physics incorporates conservation of parity but the weak nuclear force violates it. How can a Classical theory deal with this?)

That's enough for one post. There are other problems I see and, I suspect, there will be more if I dig into it further.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29th 2016, 01:16 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
I'm afraid that you're not going to like my response either, but here goes.

I'm not a scientist, just an IT guy from Belgium with an interest in breakthrough developments because I'm concerned about my kids' future. It is my belief that science is the only answer to save mankind from disaster. My knowledge of physics is only a slight bit higher than what Average Joe knows about it, so I'm nowhere near capable of arguing at your level.
So instead of a scientific approach to counter your arguments, I'm going to have to go for a logical one.
Logic tells me doctor Mills has been a reputable scientist with serious degrees even outside the physics discipline (he has several medical degrees as well). In contrast to people like for instance Andrea Rossi, he has never been officially exposed as a fraud and has always been very open about their developments, exposing almost every detail of the design apart from the right mixtures.
But especially, logical me also witnesses the recent developments at BrLP following the successful demonstrations that the technology is real, works and is very near to commercialization. The latest demo from October 26 has proven that the last boundary of melting tungsten ignition electrodes has been overcome, simply by replacing them with liquid silver which is already in there as part of the catalyst. The device is now capable of continuous operation, limited for now to running during office hours.
Maybe the GUTCP is flawed, I'm for sure am not able to tell. Mills has been rewriting the book for the last 25 years. Yet I say maybe it's time for the rest of the scientific world to open their minds and try to contribute to Mills' theories because reality is catching up on them.
Now, this is emotional me talking: I've been following BrLP (formerly Blacklight Power) for the last 10 years now, ever since I found out about them, ever since my wife was pregnant of my first son. Over the years there were periods where you would get updates from them that made me hopeful. Than it would again become quiet. But I would never forget about them. My only worry was that something would happen to Mills and all of his work would end up in the trash.
But now we're 2016 and look what's ahead of us. This technology could end global warming. With such an abundance of power and other technologies we could even revert it. Drones could be sent out into the oceans for iron fertilization to stimulate phytoplankton bloom. There are new technologies that can convert co2 back into fuel if you put enough power into it. The Ocean Cleanup Project could clean our oceans of plastic. We have enough plastic waste that we can sift and recycle forever. Google's Radarcat technology can be used to separate complete landfills and bring it back to raw materials.
Also imagine what political shift BrLP would cause: wars over oil and gas: gone. Demand for this would become marginal and that market will cave in.
Of course it's not going to go as smooth as that, but in whole, (and you may call me a dreamer) I say the future looks bright. My only regret is that I've not been able to contribute to all of this. The only thing I can do is try and create awareness as it seems people here hadn't even heard about it yet.
harakiri406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Tags
bomb, dropping



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
surface tension and dropping (NEED HELP İN PROBLEM) koytos Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 6 Feb 26th 2016 03:35 AM
Bird dropping fish question HexyRexySmexy Energy and Work 5 Sep 14th 2014 05:30 AM
Helicopter dropping a package mbruin Kinematics and Dynamics 2 Jun 26th 2014 09:34 PM
Lifting/dropping something at constant velocity FistLength Energy and Work 28 Jan 28th 2014 06:44 PM
[SOLVED] Dropping problem xtheunknown0 Kinematics and Dynamics 2 Sep 16th 2010 12:38 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed