Relative to hydrogen gas, hydrino would be 'dark' enough. Heck, cold dark hydrogen clouds are very hard to detect as it is.
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator
- Thread starter michaelsuede
- Start date
- Status
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,197
'Tempered' by the fact no one can detect them and what you are describing isn't what could exist?
....or a deliberate lesson in fraud which is what the majority of the people here with the technical knowledge to follow this subject have concluded.
Nice avoidance I'll take that as a side step but no problem - I'll just keep asking the question as you post more and more contradictory stuff in support of this fraud.
So basically you believe what Mills tells you huh despite the 'doubts' and what he is doing is 'science' and not fraud?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Are you claiming a Hydrino will be lighter than a hydrogen atom by the mass of an election?
If so, I'm calling shenanigans. Based upon the theories about Hydrinos, they will either be heavier than Hydrogen due to an extra electron being forced into the Mills theorized below ground electron orbit, or have the same mass as a hydrogen atom, with increased chemical reactivity due to a higher electron shell having been vacated by the electron forced into the lower state.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope, as already explained that's not what the "dark" in dark matter means.
What is this, hit with a flurry of punched approach? Very scattered. Field units I regard as still in the debugging phase and not ready for commercial sale. And yes BLP has made contracts with power companies. I have no idea what you are doing, going on about hairdryers and electric rangers and refrigerators.Hi Markie!
Pencil that out, please. It's only ten months to 2018. So you already have the prototype working range, the specific market (hair dryers in Fresno, electric ranges in California, or say British Columbia/Mexico or Paraguay electricity supply, lol.)
Really! You can't go to an investment bank without power contracts. This scam has alleged itself to be a power company. There's years of work getting a power contract into place, just lunacy to get people to buy into "field units" that are not designed for this byzantine market for power.
Large scale power, that is. At the household level we are talking generators. Something the Chinese can make for a couple hundred bucks.
It is strangely coincident that this is just outside the statute of limitations on current fraud.
No, you are a participant. Here. Representing this fraud. Not being uncharitably ad hom here. Just clear about your position, your active pursuit here of an argumentative position.
Specifically that despite a "field unit" of dark matter fueled electric power having never been produced... that it is imminent.
But it is clearly contradictory because that is what a field unit does: produce electricity. So it can be sold. Except that it can't be sold. For another four years. You can build the Alaska Highway in one year but one electric generator is going to take four.
Two Mexicans can make a refrigerator in a day for Maytag so I am just a tiny bit skeptical of what you are up to.
To say I'm representing a fraud is the height of presumption. Please.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,197
Yes that it what they say but they have said that before:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768784&postcount=60
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/blacklight-power-has-signed-second.html
I misspoke when I said hydrinos can permeate through just about anything. I had in my mind relatively thin walls or containers. Sorry about that. Just like helium or hydrogen gas will rise up into the upper atmosphere, so will hydrino.
Hydrino does not have an extra electron, just one. For all intents and purposes it has the same mass as hydrogen. However, as you allude, Mills says it can take on an extra electron, and this 'hydrino hydride' can be reactive and form apparently very stable compounds. Frankly this is an area I know very little about. I'll see if I can find information on this and report back.
OK, thanks for the frank admission.
I started with the link in the OP, then followed what was there to what seemed like published scientific papers. I also used ADS to find papers Mills et al. published, then followed them (what papers they cited, what papers cited them, etc).
I assume you read this thread before posting here (didn't you?); but in case you didn't, I suggest that you read at least posts #409, #609, and #774.
OK, thanks for the frank admission.
OK. Thanks for the frank admission.
Thanks. That's good to know.
I don't think so. Dark just means dark. Look at how much speculation abounds on the subject. I read about a year ago that a couple of cosmologists have speculated that CDM is a special form of hydrogen (of all things)! But to be clear, I'm skeptical that dark matter is entirely hydrino.
Really?
May I ask, what investigations did you undertake to check that "cold dark hydrogen clouds are very hard to detect"?
So, hydrinos are most certainly not CDM.
And when it reaches the top of the atmosphere, the hydrinos will absorb far UV - such as from the Sun - and turn into ordinary H, or be ionized.
Which also rules out hydrinos as a significant component of the Sun, or indeed even the universe.
Once again, thanks for being frank.
Actually, it doesn't. Not in the branches of science called astronomy and astrophysics.
Really? May I ask, can you cite some of the key papers containing this "speculation" please?
Can you give us the reference(s) please?
In other words, whatever it is, it cannot be CDM.
I'm somewhat puzzled, markie, why did you post, earlier, that hydrinos are CDM? True, you seemed to be reporting what Mills said, but surely you checked this claim out, before posting here, didn't you?
As much as I sometimes loathe Wiki:
The constituents of "cold" dark matter are unknown. Possibilities range from large objects like MACHOs (such as black holes[82]) or RAMBOs (such as clusters of brown dwarfs), to new particles such as WIMPs and axions.
And that's just the 'cold' stuff. As for the two cosmologists who posited a special form of hydrogen for dark matter, I will try to look that up as time permits. Or you could look yourself.
No, hydrino is not ionized by mere UV. Hydrino does not absorb photons. However a collision with a high energy particle like a cosmic ray would knock the electron out.
Sorry, I'm failing to understand why you say hydrino cannot be CDM.
For 1106 check out
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/7/21/accountability
For 1107 regarding background UV and soft X-ray in the cosmos, I'll leave that to you to uncover.
I read / glossed through much of the thread a couple of weeks ago. I tried to join so I could post, but there is/was a glitch in the membership sign up process.
I read 409, 609 and 774 just now. Yeah there was a time when Mills sent hydrino hydride compounds out for analysis. The National Research Council of Canada was one such place. Don't know what they concluded, if anything. I know one place reported back the results as 'anomalous'. Source? I think it was a picture of a letter, posted on BLP's site. Maybe Brett Holverstott's book goes into this, I don't know. Haven't read it.
Regarding post 609, that was a lame attempt at a rebuttal by that author if there ever was one. More like just a brush off. Extreme UV and soft xrays from the metal sputtering off an electrode? Did he address why the electrodes didn't sputter on the control runs, where no hydrino catalyst was present? I suspect not. And the author makes it seem that the evidence of hydrino hinged on that one specific experiment. No, there are dozens and dozens of different experiments.
So, you have no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals?
Looking forward to reading what you manage to find, when you have time.
Thanks.
May I ask, how many of these did you read? What efforts did you make to see how many of the reported results have been independently validated?
That's it?
May I ask, how many of these did you read? What efforts did you make to see how many of the reported results have been independently validated?
Um, you are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden falls on you to provide evidence to support it.
It's not "mere" UV, but EUV. If hydrinos produce EUV (~10-30 nm?) when formed, they can absorb it, and return to the normal ground state. To ionize a hydrino, perhaps you need to return it to its normal state first, then add 13.6 ev?
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it's something:
https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/316/5828/1166
from the Abstract:
If they - hydrinos - can be ionized by cosmic rays, then they have a very far from zero cross-section, for both EM and the strong force. Ergo, by definition, they cannot be DM, cold or not.
But perhaps the problem lies in your inaccurate understanding of CDM, as the term is used in astronomy and astrophysics? If I'm not mistaken, there's a thread here in ISF which provides a good introduction; I'll see if I can find it when I have time.
Thanks.
Myself, I'd have thought chemists the world over would have rushed to have a chance to study this!
Pity. I wonder why, after 25+ years, there's (apparently) no independent study of hydrino chemistry?
Myself, I'd have thought chemists the world over would have rushed to have a chance to study this!
Are you referring to the the Rathke paper? Or the Phelps&Clementson one?
UV or EUV, I hope you get the point. Hydrinos do not absorb photons. Your assumption that if they can emit photons during formation, they can also absorb them to return to ground state, while understandable, is mistaken.
Thanks.
You realize, I'm sure, that this paper is about baryons, not CDM, right?
Why?
How long do you think that will take? Keeping in mind that according to statements by Mills I linked to upthread, hydrino gas cannot be contained, filtered out, or excluded from any environment. Such a substance would have to be proven safe to an incredible extent over an incredible range of circumstances to be considered safe. We can tolerate the manufacture and use of all kinds of hazardous materials because, barring accidents, we keep them contained. Or if they're too prevalent to keep contained, we can at least exclude them from critical environments. Minuscule amounts of water can cause all kinds of damage to all kinds of things, but it's generally safe to keep around because it can be kept out of places we don't want it.
Hydrino gas cannot.
A contaminant that cannot be kept out or removed is unprecedented. The closest thing we're familiar with that has that characteristic is gravity. And how safe is gravity? Oops.
How long has Mills been doing these hydrino-creation experiments without yet having performed the health and safety and environmental assessments you speak of?
I only had time to read the quote from on the post itself, which was from the Phelps and Clementson article.
Chemists the world over are not attuned to what is going on in the the 'fringe'. Generally, they're just plodding along in their sphere of speciality.
Back in the day it was not so uncommon to have gifted scientists whose work spanned several fields. Today, not so much. Mills is a bit of a throw back to those times; a renaissance man.
They are effectively CDM ; which is my point. Baryons can be dark.
For one, the formation of hydrino does not merely involve the release of a photon(s). It involves a resonant energy transfer to a 'catalyst'.
Messing around with definitions is not, generally, a good idea. Especially in science.
For example, I have formed the opinion - provisionally - that hydrinos are effectively magic.
And just as thinking that certain baryons are effectively CDM will really cause confusion (or worse) if you're trying to do astronomy, I'm sure you'd agree that thinking that hydrinos are effectively magic won't do much to get Mills' ideas widely accepted.
Good points. Don't forget neutrinos. Perhaps one hundred trillion stream through our bodies at any given second.
Sure, there should be reasonable caution. If Mills and his long time coworkers or their children started suffering from a mysterious malady, I'd be concerned. As it is now, i'm not expecting any negative assessments.
Thanks.
I can't think of any (maybe it's too late).
What other substances - forms of matter - do you know of which are similar to hydrinos in this regard?
I can't think of any (maybe it's too late).
Perhaps it's a coincidence that the BLP lab is in central NJ. NJ has a long and troubled history of sites contaminated by industrial pollution. PCBs, for example, were not considered particularly nasty for a long time, and controls on their release weren't particularly strict.
As I said in an earlier post, I wonder what the NJ DEP thinks of a lab in/near a residential neighborhood producing and releasing unknown quantities of a substance which has never had its safety tested (by NJ DEP labs)?
- Status