Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

Status
Not open for further replies.
JeanTate said:
Part 3.

Again, thanks for this.
(my bold)

If and when you do get to know some research scientists, I think you'll find that few, if any, treat WP as reliable (mathematicians may be an exception; WP is, so I've been told, pretty good for mathematics).

Instead, they will read the journals they - or their department - subscribes to, and arXiv (though that depends on the field). An equally good source is conversations and presentations at conferences, workshops, symposia, colloquia, meetings ... I'd be quite surprised if Mills' ideas had not come up at quite a few of these, and just as surprised to learn that no one ever followed up by reading the actual papers.


(my bold)

The following may seem OT, but indulge me, please.

Halton Arp was an exceptionally good observational astronomer.

In the mid-1960s, he observed some quasars (quasi-stellar radio sources), and wrote some papers on them. When they were discovered, quasars were a real mystery, and Arp's early papers - proposing that the high redshifts observed were due, at least in large part, to "intrinsic" factors - seemed to fit the data as well as any other idea.

However, within a year or three, it became increasingly obvious that Arp's idea was not such a good fit to the data. Nevertheless, he kept observing and publishing papers on "intrinsic redshifts". And a very competent cosmologist (Narlikar) developed a physical model ("variable mass hypothesis") which could explain Arp's (and others') observations.

Time passed. The quantity of high quality data on quasars (later named QSOs, quasi-stellar objects, because most turned out to be not radio sources) grew exponentially (yes, in this case that's a true statement). Models which matched all relevant data far, far better than Arp/Narlikar's models/hypotheses were published. Arp remained unconvinced, and kept publishing papers. Many of which, IMHO, would never have been published but for the fact that they had "Arp, H." as the lead author.

Many years' later, he wrote a book, "Seeing Red" (I think that's its name). It sold quite a few copies, I think, and is widely cited by many with crackpot ideas.

Why am I mentioning this? Especially to you, markie?

Because Arp's book is, by itself, pretty persuasive! :p If you do not have formal training in astronomy (etc), or have not taught yourself, it would be very difficult for you to appreciate just how wrong (inconsistent with all relevant data) Arp's ideas are (as presented in that book).

Perhaps Mills' book is as persuasive, or even more so? But if you do not have formal training in the relevant fields of physics and chemistry, how can you judge the validity of the ideas presented in it?
Click to expand...

Of course I can see your very well laid out point. Arp had a fundamental idea and went full tilt with it, even despite growing evidences against it.

Mill's theory has minimal first principles and yet it is highly predictive of phenomena such as spectra and bond energies. I hate to sound like a salesman, but you really should read the Introduction in GUTCP. Much better than me blathering on.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I don't think I'll find that over there, nor through the looking glass, even with Alice's help :rolleyes:. Is it that a standard reply you all are instructed to give when caught telling stupid things? "Yeah, you'll find the details there ... over there ... it's in the cloud".

Thank you for trying to make me lose my time. I prefer to concentrate in the tomfoolery you're spilling here many times a day.
Click to expand...

You're losing *your* time? Well I'll see if I can find the capacitor model for you.
 
markie said:
Of course I can see your very well laid out point. Arp had a fundamental idea and went full tilt with it, even despite growing evidences against it.

Mill's theory has minimal first principles and yet it is highly predictive of phenomena such as spectra and bond energies. I hate to sound like a salesman, but you really should read the Introduction in GUTCP. Much better than me blathering on.
Click to expand...

er why? Why read something from which nothing has ever come out it but bad science and useless jargon.

Until your hero Mills produces something that does something - something he has failed to do - in what 25 YEARS looking at old gibberish about what he imagines he can do isn't really going to help....
 
aleCcowaN said:
You really don't have the slightest idea of anything you are talking about. Is it another instruction of the set? Being assertive while telling cock and bull tales?

Are you saying that Mills went to CNN with a prop so it could give him an air of "techie guy" when the only certifiable fact is he showing himself with a prop in the news to promote bu$ine$$.

And, pal, don't insist throwing foolish conjectures. Those pipes do nothing, they're just decoration because, you know what? cooling systems take heat to bring it far away from its source. The decorative piping even includes T junctions almost stuck to the core. That was made in Hollywood or Vancouver, not in Palo Alto or Seattle.

Bring back michaelsuede. He's much more articulated than you.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps. I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.
 
markie said:
Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice (written 1999) that sheds some light, pun intended.
Click to expand...

Oh really and do we have 'Mills cell' that we can test this on?

Nope

Again after TWENTY FIVE YEARS - WHERE IS THE PRODUCT?

You see Markie that is elephant in the room. All this unscientific jibberish, lies and make believe all falls apart on one key point.

One you cannot get past or cover up.

He ain't got nothing now does he. How about you, Mill and all the fraud masters get into a room and think about it a bit.....maybe the light bulb will go on... duh...duh.... maybe we should make something to show we got somethin'....duh.

I mean this is pretty simple isn't it?
 
aleCcowaN said:
Then, according to you the same oxygen atoms from the Misterious Oxyde™ are used once and again with and endless stream of hydrogen atoms soon to become hydrinos one by one. That awfully looks like a stream of investors being brought away into the dark and blown with an truncheon to get their money.

That's the power of Mysterious Oxide™: to be both a catalyst and the only possible source for "quality" oxygen. That's why it has to be carried on a stream of silver: nothing less noble would be suitable. Can you link to any theorization on this wonderful neo-physics? ... yeah, I know, surely it's over there within BLP website, end of corridor, on the right :rolleyes:.

A local quack gets lots of money from his dying victims by giving them pills coated in gold leaf. The silver stream transporting the Mysterious Oxide™ here is exactly the same. Especially because the same oxygen atoms in the Mysterious Oxide™ are used once and again for an endless production of hydrinos, so the oxide should be brought in just once, on a silver cushion, and with a fanfare.
Click to expand...

Well I admit you have a good sense of humour.
 
markie said:
Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps.


[/quoteI presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.
Click to expand...

....that uses domestic house copper piping that would melt from the heat your talking about, THAT 'engineering company'?
 
Reality Check said:
Have you read and understood the GUTCP book, markie?
For anyone who has learned even just the history of science the book is non-science. The reason that classical physics was abandoned as a description of atoms was that classical physics could not describe what we have discovered about atoms in over 2 centuries from 1802.

Spectroscopy started in the 17th century and in 1802, spectral lines in the solar spectrum were discovered. The Rydberg formula was presented on 5 November 1888 - an empirical rule for the spacing of spectral lines. Rutherford's researchers Geiger and Marsden discovered that atoms were electrons around a nucleus in 1908. This raised the problem that electrons in classical orbits lose energy giving atoms lifetimes of picoseconds :eye-poppi! The fix for this started with the Bohr model of 1913 which introduced discrete energy levels.

The idea that electrons could be extended spinning objects was evaluated and abandoned in early 1925 - Spin (History). The idea of an electron with a "fourth degree of freedom" - an intrinsic property of spin - was published by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit: The discovery of the electron spin by S.A. Goudsmit. The experimental confirmation that spin is an intrinsic property of particles was already published in the 1922 Stern–Gerlach experiment. The evidence for the upper limit of the radius of electrons ranges from the classical radius of 10-15 to a Pennng trap suggestion of 10-22 metres. These are smaller than a proton and enormously smaller than an atom.
Click to expand...

Sure, a *rigidly* spinning object was ruled out. But Mills doesn't propose such an object, just so you know.
 
markie said:
Well I admit you have a good sense of humour.
Click to expand...

Again avoiding what he was saying. You are supporting a fraud markie - try to understand your position in relationship to everyone else in the thread.

All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalallala

It's still a fraud.
 
Aepervius said:
Also looking at its orbisphere is funny, and the comparison against the bohr model, one which we know fail at many point and is not used. In fact many of the agreement of the bohr model with QM is considered accidental. As for the photon infinitely trapped in an orbitsphere, apparently mills does not handle well tunneling. Maybe we should make meet Pr Nimtz ;).
Click to expand...

FYI, Mills does handle tunnelling. In a word, it is accomplished because the electron has spatial extent. It is not some point particle one one side of a barrier that magically appears on the other side.
 
markie said:
Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe.......
Click to expand...

With a superfluous "e". Mills would take that "e", coat it in silver, pass the mains current through it, and extract 25 years of "investment". People like you would come along and tell us that domestic plumbing copper pipes are high engineering, and that this will all turn to a huge pot of gold in just a few months. Bingo! Everybody wins. So here, have a few more......


eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEeeeeeeeeee

That should keep you and him going for the next few years.
 
Well the weekend is over, and I've spend way too much time on this computer, with so many other things to do. Time to cut back. I won't be posting so much anymore, so please don't expect much from me.

Hans would like to think I am paid(!) for my blather. Of course not. I have no affiliation with Mills or BLP, except that I am on a public online discussion group where Dr. Mills sometimes contributes. I only know of this site because someone - Peter W - very briefly mentioned he had posted here. I was curious, and curiosity almost killed this cat. I'm half alive, or simply just sleep deprived. Thanks Mr. Schrodinger, I think.

Cheers,
Mark
 
markie said:
Well the weekend is over, and I've spend way too much time on this computer, with so many other things to do. Time to cut back. I won't be posting so much anymore, so please don't expect much from me........
Click to expand...

Don't forget to send michaelsuede back here, then.
 
markie said:
For sure, and I am acutely aware of this aspect. But those in academia are people and not immune to herd dynamics. If a couple of prominent scientists endorsed Mill's work, the floodgates would open I think. (One can dream.) Mills already has a number of smart people at universities who are willing to endorse at least certain aspects of his work. But as it is now, it looks like it will take something like a functioning SunCell to turn the tide.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Again , some of academia are not immune but as a whole the youngest scientist are utterly immune, in the hope to stumble onto "something" anything leading to a nobel price.

AGAIN, that is why so many of us snuffed around steorn and lenr and rossi.

The fact that there is so many scientist haunting in those forums before they were deleted, is quite a sign of interest.

But you know what ? All those scheme seems to be immune against the most important factor in science : openness of the result to enable replication. Scam don't like communicating easy to check results : that show the emperor has no cloth waaaay too quick. They always use excuse like patent and protecting ip and stuff, while at the same time asking for investments.

Mills is not an exception, he acts the same as the pack of vermin sucking money out of gullible. And he has been for the last 25 years.

If hydrino was such a thing, he would have had a proper article, experimentally sound and independentely replicable way to produce them.

Guess what ? Good luck to point a proper article which a person of knowledge (physic, chemistry) could use to replicate any of his experiment.

For example, he once cited that his work had been verified by a researcher at Harvard. In fact, he'd had one of his associates rent a piece of equipment at Harvard, and use it for a test. So yes, it was tested by a researcher - if you count his associate as a legitimate researcher. And it was tested at Harvard. But the claim that it was tested by a researcher at Harvard is clearly meant to imply that it was tested by a Harvard professor, when it wasn't.

For something around 20 years, he's been making promises, giving very tightly controlled demos, refusing to give any real details, refusing to actually explain how to reproduce his "results", and promising that it's just one year away from being commercialized!
Click to expand...

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/

www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

No matter what randals rants about the article being wrong, AGAIN, there is no proper experimental data allowing replication. And as such all we are left is our current physic which tells Mills is a crackpot. The shoe fits perfectly, and i would add it has EVERY aspect I would expect of a scam.
 
Last edited:
markie said:
It's interesting that skeptics swoon over Rathke's critique. I remember reading it some years ago and was not impressed. As I recall he tried to describe the hydrino in terms of the Schrodinger equation, and it didn't support the existence of hydrinos. Well of course it didn't! A major point in GUTCP is that Schrodinger's equation is not the way to do it, and reasonable grounds imo for this are given in GUTCP.
Furthermore, how many people realize that Schrodinger himself regretted what his equation became used for? Pardon the bad grammar.
Click to expand...
Rathke only turns to standard QM in section 3 of his paper to see if it supports the existence of states below the accepted ground state (it doesn't) after having demolished the foundation of Mills's theory in Section 2 of his paper. In section 2, he demonstrates that Mills solution to the classical wave equation is mathematically inconsistent and unphysical. Since the foundation of Mills theory is irredeemably rotten, then all the screeds of stuff that Mills builds on it is worthless. That's why it's ignored by everyone in the physics community.
 
Last edited:
markie said:
Sure, a *rigidly* spinning object was ruled out. But Mills doesn't propose such an object, just so you know.
Click to expand...
So why, in Chapter 10 of his book, where he is trying to calculate the orbital radii and ionisation potential of 3 to 20 electron atoms, does he treat the electron as a point particle?
 
markie said:
You're losing *your* time? Well I'll see if I can find the capacitor model for you.
Click to expand...

NO, YOU WON'T AND YOU KNOW IT!

You, like Mills, are in the business of promising what's not there.

You don't realize how much it shows your complete lack of skills and education in the matters you're trying to explain. You talk of unicorns as if you were talking of dogs. That is your capacitor. A unicorn.

I don't know what kind of justification is in your mind. I guess it's something like "I'm not learned in this but I know I'm right so I'm allowed some white lies to compensate for all of this mistreat I get for defending the future".
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
They're so embarrassed by this that you never see it stated clearly: they're going to run solar panels off light bulbs. In order to run light bulbs.

Which immediately points out you need electricity to run the light bulb, there is no power production as he's admitted.

They can blow filaments in light bulbs. An incredible feat.

Yes, it is amazing how childishly stupid it is when stated directly. It isn't just the heat that is "waste" in bizzaro-world here. The light too is "waste". You cannot use the light directly. To light up a room or a building. We need to send it off into orbit with mirrors to set the moon on fire so it warms the earth.

Fun stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm going to put solar panels in front of the headlights on my Jeep...
 
markie said:
Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery. Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps. I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.
Click to expand...

Let's analyse the three parts of your post:

«Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a plebe who is evidently into bearing the brunt of derision and mockery.»

What you believe here to be irony by self-deprecation is, in fact, strictly true. You're Mills' cannon fodder.

«Really, the pipes are for keeping the base cool, specifically the electromagnetic pumps.»

No. That is their scripted function. They have no technical function and that's evident. You don't only are not knowledgeable but you refuse to reason: heat dissipation is performed by dissipators, not by 'hood hardware store copper plumbing in an, admittedly, low quality prop to be paraded in news channels. Besides, the piping comes out of the base and returns to it, so heat could only be dissipated in the visible part, which makes no sense. If heat dissipation is necessary, the heat would be forced out with air. If heat is necessary for operation, like the wrapping "design" suggests, then insulation is needed. The more you think of it technically (and not only to make excuses like you do) the more ridiculous it looks.

«I presume you are aware that BLP is using the services of an real engineering company.»

You tried to pull up an induced inference, the kind michealsuede masters, but you got a non-sequitur, so you're also doing wrong in the deception department :rolleyes:. Contractors are known to do what they are paid to do*. They're not auditors. Besides, let me know the names of all the engineering companies retained and I'll run an inquiry about who claims authorship for any design in the prop shown in CNN. Let's see if they want their names linked to Mills'.

What? It's listed in the wonderful BLP website? Left of the capacitor specification and right of the unicorn pen?

*I can't find in youtube the segment from Funny People (1976) where two workers are hired to wrap four filled balloon sets in kraft paper.
 
markie said:
But as it is now, it looks like it will take something like a functioning SunCell to turn the tide.
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculous idea, that the only convincing evidence would be a commercially viable energy source. There is a huge gap between the unconvincing anomalous results that he has presented so far and something like that.

Any reproducible experiment that generated hydrinos in sufficient quantity for them to be detected would be convincing. So far nothing like that has ever been shown. Just science-y sounding explanations and promises of a bright future from something that he still cannot convincingly demonstrate to actually exist after decades of work.

Why not a simple experiment to generate hydrinos using just pure hydrogen and the required catalyst (apparently water molecules)? Instead there are all kinds of chemicals in a demonstration that immediately burns out with no easy way to account for the brief energy production among all of the reactions that occur.

Looks like a fraud, smells like a fraud...
 
jrhowell said:
Any reproducible experiment that generated hydrinos in sufficient quantity for them to be detected would be convincing.
Click to expand...



And let's note that "in sufficient quantity for them to be detected" doesn't have to be all that much. Consider the history of research into plutonium:

After a series of purification steps Chicago chemists Burris Cunningham and Lewis Werner could then extract small amounts of plutonium salt from the original material. These salts, however, trapped a little water within their crystal structure. By burning thesalts in air—and therefore reacting them with oxygen—the scientists created a water-free plutonium oxide. For the first time they were able to put their pure compound onto a specially made scale and record that they had isolated 2.77 micrograms worth. “They could actually see it,” says U.C. Berkeley nuclear engineer Eric Norman, who performed some of the new tests to identify the sample’s origins. “No one had ever seen plutonium before.”
Click to expand...


That's micrograms, not milligrams. Millionths of a gram. And that's all it took to set us on the road to a plutonium-based atomic bomb.
 
Couldn't find the particular post I wanted to quote - it was somewhere in the discussion of either the CNN "device", or ms' "no commercial power source could melt W rods in 0.00001ns!" (I'm paraphrasing) - but this will do.

jaydeehess said:
You melt the snow,,,, hey I might try that. Only need to figure out where to buy wire that can supply 2KAmps at 120Vac
Might have an issue with my 400 Amp panel too.
Click to expand...

If you plug in 493 Old Trenton Rd, East Windsor NJ (the official location of BLP) into Google Maps, you'll get an idea of what sort of building it is, and what sort of commercial/industrial power supply it likely gets from its local utility (PSE&G?).
 
marplots said:
JeanTate mentions the Rathke paper which is highly critical of Mills and his theory. Here is a link to it without a paywall:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127
Click to expand...
Thanks marplots.

JeanTate said:
Part 2


There comes a time, in the life of many threads here in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF, where someone points out an important feature of at least the Science part: ISF members really do like to read primary sources. Which means papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

You, markie, have been asked for primary sources, and in post #1142 you provided a link to a source which appears to contain some such primary sources.

However, it now seems that you yourself have not read them (or at least not read some of the key ones). Instead, you seem to be relying upon a book. And relying upon what is said in that book to be a sufficiently accurate summary of what's in at least some of the published papers.

Several ISF members have asked, even challenged, you on some of the physics and chemistry aspects of the claims you have made (or repeated) re the work of Mills et al. and the BLP Free Energy Generator (ditto re engineering, financial, and other aspects; I'm going to concentrate on the physics, and some of the chemistry). Myself, I have formed the - provisional - opinion that you do not seem to understand the physics of hydrinos very well, nor are you particularly familiar with what's in Mills et al.'s published papers. I do hope, as this thread continues, to have solid evidence that my provisional opinion is wrong.

"How do you know it's not very good?"

This is an excellent question! :)

I'm going to take my time to answer it. First, I'll describe a context, or background; one which I think quite a few ISF members can vouch for, from their own, personal experience.

At least in the west, your average physics department of your average university gets, on average, at least one unsolicited document a month. Some such are brief, some run to hundreds of pages. A great many make claims about Einstein being wrong, or otherwise seeking to overthrow some well established part of physics. Some end up being published in viXra, a few on arXiv, and a tiny minority appear in a journal. Unbeknownst to the general public, many of those journals are "pay to publish"; whilst they may have the appearance of being peer-reviewed, almost everything submitted ends up being published (the only thing which counts is the $$ paid by the author(s) to the journal).

(Aside: I do not know how many, if any, of the ~25 journals in Brett's "over 100" list are of the "pay to publish" kind.)

The ones which end up in arXiv, or a non-"pay to publish" journal, we might call "fringe"; the rest, "crackpot". In this scheme, Mills' stuff is fringe, as you have already noted.

A common feature of fringe ideas is that the idea leader's papers (Mills, in this case) are cited by the idea leader or her colleagues ... and essentially no one else. This certainly seems to be the case here! I've been checking the ~50 papers in Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy with R.L. Mills as an author, and so far I've found almost none which are cited by anyone else.

Which brings me to A. Rathke (2005), "A critical analysis of the hydrino model", New Journal of Physics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 127 (2005) (see post #609 for links). This does, indeed, cite a Mills paper; three in fact (all links are to the respective ADS entries): Mills+ (2002) "Comparison of excessive Balmer α line broadening of glow discharge and microwave hydrogen plasmas with certain catalysts", Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 92, Issue 12, pp. 7008-7021 (2002); Mills&Ray (2002) "Substantial changes in the characteristics of a microwave plasma due to combining argon and hydrogen", New Journal of Physics, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 22 (2002); and Mills&Ray (2003) "Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium hydrogen plasma", Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Volume 36, Issue 13, pp. 1535-1542 (2003)*.

I have no idea what led Rathke to decide to take the time and trouble to write his 2005 paper, but I can well imagine that it went something like this: likely hundreds of physicists - including those who do little or no research - have read at least one of the three papers Rathke cites; likely almost all quickly found what they considered to be fatal flaws; likely very few thought there would be a way to "save" this idea. But Rathke was different; perhaps he had some spare time, perhaps he was curious, perhaps a superior suggested it'd be an interesting project, ...

Anyway, he did take a look, decided there was really nothing in the idea, wrote his paper, and got it published. It has nine cites ... none of them by Mills et al.

Does that answer your question, markie? Do you now have a better idea of why your suggestion - "Perhaps it's time for you to download the GUTCP book and read, at least the introduction" - is not one I'll be taking up any time soon?

* all three are in Brett's ">100" list. BTW, I just noticed that his list - of 81, as I count it - contains duplicates. :eek:

(to be continued)
Click to expand...
(my bold)

Rathke (2005) has 29 references, of which 23 have Mills as author (all but one as lead author, and five as sole author). So how come I missed this?

Well, it seems that ADS doesn't cover Int. J. Hydrogen Energy at all (perhaps it recognizes it as not meeting its standards? or not being sufficiently related to astrophysics?), and 17 of the 23 Mills references are from that journal. One reference is Mills' own book (no surprise that ADS doesn't include that!). And I missed the one reference in which Mills is not the lead author (Phillips+ (2004) "Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in ``resonant transfer'' plasmas", Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 96, Issue 6, pp. 3095-3102 (2004)).

Which leaves two. One is also in New J. Phys. 4, but on p70 (not p22). The other is Mills+ (2002) "Comparison of excessive Balmer alpha line broadening of glow discharge and microwave hydrogen plasmas with certain catalysts", J. Appl. Phys. 92 7008; I have no idea why ADS missed this.

Take away: it takes time - but pays - to be extra careful on things like this, especially when it's in a field you are not particularly familiar with.
 
markie said:
The temperature of the first working SunCells is supposed to reach 3000 C.
Click to expand...

Great, but that is not what I asked.

Mills has said that when the reaction is quenched the graphite dome (about one foot in diameter) will almost immediate go from glowing white hot to not glowing at all.
Click to expand...

This is also not responsive to what I asked. Moreover, white hot is considerably below the temperatures under consideration here.

In addition, how is the glowing (well above) white-hot graphite prevented from sublimating? (or silver from boiling or ....)

How he plans to shut down the reaction relatively quickly, I'm not sure, especially since the reaction can apparently self sustain to some extent.
Click to expand...

This should be a major concern, no?
 
markie said:
Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice (written 1999) that sheds some light, pun intended.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I follow this....Joseph Conrads, who published under the pseudonym Hannah Conrads, is really Johannes Conrads? Which one is possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world?
 
markie said:
Yes you have it essentially right. The photon (from the hydrogen to hydrino transition) is said to have a sharp 'cutoff' at a maximum energy. If only one photon is released in the process it will be that maximum energy, ie, a photon of a particular wavelength. But there can also be a continuum of photons of lesser energies released as well, which will sum up to the maximum energy, which will be a multiple of 13.6 eV.

To be clear, the resonant transfer of the 27.2 eV to the third body occurs first ; this destabilizes the ground state hydrogen which then falls to a lower energy hydrino state, emitting a photon or a continuum of photons in the process.
Click to expand...

Losing 27.2 eV isn't destabilizing "the ground state hydrogen" it is already a lower energy state itself.



markie said:
Also of note, the catalyst can be a number of different compounds, as long as they have an ionization energy of 27.2 eV. Mills only relatively recently found that water itself, free of bonding to other water molecules, has the correct ionization energy to be used as a catalyst.



Right. Why exactly is the electron of the hydrino impervious to photons (of any energy)? It has to do with what is called the Haus non radiation condition, wherein certain configurations of surface charge (which define the electron) do not radiate photons, nor are they disturbed by photons. Why is this? The currents of surface charge are apparently 'not synchronous with the speed of light'. That's about as deep as I can go. Mills goes more deeply into this and the findings of Haus. BTW Haus was Mills' teacher at MIT.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Haus non radiation condition explicitly treats the electron as a point charge.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986AmJPh..54.1126H


Abstract

An alternative derivation of the radiation field of a point charge is presented. It starts with the Fourier components of the current produced by the moving charge. The electric field is found from the vector wave equation. Each step in the integration permits physical interpretation. The retarded time appears very naturally in this derivation. The interpretation of the present derivation is that a charge at constant velocity v¯(‖v¯‖<c) does not radiate, not because it is unaccelerated, but because it has no Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light. Of course, Cherenkov radiation in a medium, in which the velocity of electromagnetic propagation is less than c, is the classic example of radiation by a charge moving at constant velocity.
Click to expand...

Also it is the Haus non radiation condition not the 'Haus non absorption condition'. So while intend to account for the non-radiation of consistent bound charge orbital sates (as experimentally observed) it can not in and of itself preclude that bound state being as your put it "disturbed by photons" (absorption) as that is also experimentally observed.
 
markie said:
hecd2 said:
You say this:
And you also say this:
So are we right in thinking that the formation of a hydrino causes the emission of a detectable photon at a characteristic energy and the "resonant" transfer of 27.2eV to a third body (which you call a catalyst), which is, apparently, a water molecule? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Yes you have it essentially right. The photon (from the hydrogen to hydrino transition) is said to have a sharp 'cutoff' at a maximum energy. If only one photon is released in the process it will be that maximum energy, ie, a photon of a particular wavelength. But there can also be a continuum of photons of lesser energies released as well, which will sum up to the maximum energy, which will be a multiple of 13.6 eV.

To be clear, the resonant transfer of the 27.2 eV to the third body occurs first ; this destabilizes the ground state hydrogen which then falls to a lower energy hydrino state, emitting a photon or a continuum of photons in the process.

Also of note, the catalyst can be a number of different compounds, as long as they have an ionization energy of 27.2 eV. Mills only relatively recently found that water itself, free of bonding to other water molecules, has the correct ionization energy to be used as a catalyst.

And then the hydrino apparently has zero cross section for interaction with photons of the emitted photon plus 27.2eV? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Right. Why exactly is the electron of the hydrino impervious to photons (of any energy)? It has to do with what is called the Haus non radiation condition, wherein certain configurations of surface charge (which define the electron) do not radiate photons, nor are they disturbed by photons. Why is this? The currents of surface charge are apparently 'not synchronous with the speed of light'. That's about as deep as I can go. Mills goes more deeply into this and the findings of Haus. BTW Haus was Mills' teacher at MIT.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

Here's Rathke's summary, from the Introduction section of his paper:

Rathke said:
These [new hydrino states] are assumed to be reachable in the collision of hydrogen atoms with a catalyst, which can make an electronic transition of the same energy. In the collision the energy is transferred from the hydrogen to the catalyst, which absorbs it by an electronic transition to a more energetic state. Eventually, the catalyst will release the acquired energy by the emission of a photon and return to its ground state. The lowest-energy hydrino state, the real ground state of the hydrogen atom, is then determined by the requirement that the orbital velocity of the sheath electron must not exceed the speed of light. The use of the alleged hydrino states for power systems relies on inducing the decay of hydrogen to a hydrino state and using the energy released in this process.
Click to expand...
YMMV, but I find Rathke's summary far more readable and understandable than the multiple versions markie has posted here.

So, what's this "Haus non radiation condition"?

I'm not going to provide links (stuff on this is easy enough to find), but there's a decent-looking WP article on it, and in its Talk page, you can read attempts by Mills boosters to have them edit the text to include Mills', um, work. Suffice it to say that it's a curious, but quite esoteric, corner of classical electromagnetism, which Mills tried to bolt onto his CQM ("a new deterministic theory of quantum mechanics called the 'grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics' ", as Rathke puts it). You can also quickly find some old (~13 years!) internet discussions of this.

Or, to repeat what's been said, the reasons for the apparent odd behavior of hydrinos, re absorption and emission of photons, are entirely dependent on the validity of CQM.

ETA: The Man beat me to it, re "Haus non radiation condition"
 
Last edited:
markie said:
Yes you are right, the answer is found in Mill's alternative theory. That theory started forming when he was working with his professor Haus at MIT.
Anyway, a post or two ago I gave a superficial description of why the hydrino does not absorb a photon, nor release one (unless it is destabilized by yet another resonant - energy transfer collision with a catalyst).
Click to expand...

Great, collision of all kinds of different energy transfers happen all the time in gases and plasmas. So we should find those transitions to hydrinos and back again all over the place.

"superficial" is an understatement, entirely inadequate would be as polite and more accurately descriptive.
 
markie said:
me said:
The last sentence is a bit convoluted, and not at all what I intended (if you read it straight). Too many negatives.

Here's a better version (changes in bold):

The notion that essentially all research chemists and physicists (and astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists), everywhere, would ignore the potentially fundamental, Nobel Prize winning ideas Mills et al. has published is ... difficult to accept.
Click to expand...
For sure, and I am acutely aware of this aspect. But those in academia are people and not immune to herd dynamics.
Click to expand...
And they are also pretty good at quickly deciding what is crackpot and what is not.

Likewise at reading the papers which report null results when trying to replicate Mills et al.'s reported results (Phelps&Clementson (2012) is far from the only one), and which conclusively show CQM to have no legs (e.g. Rathke (2005)).

If a couple of prominent scientists endorsed Mill's work, the floodgates would open I think.
Click to expand...
I think you have it backwards ... the floodgates would open if "a couple of prominent scientists" were able to replicate Mills' reported results, or if someone could re-write CQM in such a form that it was internally consistent and consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results.

(One can dream.) Mills already has a number of smart people at universities who are willing to endorse at least certain aspects of his work. But as it is now, it looks like it will take something like a functioning SunCell to turn the tide.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can dream.

Another thing which might turn the tide is an explosion at BLP, followed by a few thousand deaths in East Windsor, due to toxic exposure to hydrino compounds.
 
markie said:
Reality Check said:
Hi, markie, blindly accepting the existence of imaginary "hydrino formation" is not good.
There is no evidence of hydrinos existing in that experiment. There is no evidence that this is anything more than a (probably inefficient) electroplating machine.
The scientific papers have been debunked in this thread.
Click to expand...
Blindly accepting the existence of hydrino? "No evidence"? Ha!
Click to expand...
RC is correct, as he usually is.

From my reading of the published papers, I have found none - zero, zilch - which independently report the existence of (or formation of) hydrinos (independent of Mills et al.)

Can you, markie, cite any such paper?
 
markie said:
This shows that you do not understand what Mills is saying about the electron. You are depicting the electron as a point particle orbiting the nucleus. But according to GUTCP the electron is a 2 dimensional spherical surface comprised of current loops of charge, which essentially comprises an 'ensemble of charges'.
Click to expand...


Well, there goes Haus non radiation condition which also is explicitly about "the radiation field of a point charge".

Also I should point out that "an 'ensemble of charges'" would not constitute a surface. a surface would be continuous where such charges would be discrete. So your assertion appears to be that Mills doesn't consider the orbiting electron to be a point charge but a collection of, well, "current loops of charge" which would actually mean 'charges traveling in loops of charge', as a current is unit charge passing a point or surface per unit time.
 
markie said:
It's interesting that skeptics swoon over Rathke's critique.
Click to expand...
"skeptics"? "swoon"? "critique"?

markie, I hate to break it to you, but you should be really happy that Rathke took the time and trouble to a) read Mills' work, and b) write a paper on his CQM.

Once again, you seem to be rather ignorant of what science is, and how it works. For example, fundamentally, all scientists are "skeptics", and a high percentage of published papers are "critiques".

The usual (scientific) response to Rathke's paper would be one - by Mills, or someone else - pointing out the flaws in his (Rathke's) paper (e.g. misapplication of techniques, misrepresentation of key elements of CQM), or presenting a revised version of CQM which was demonstrably internally consistent.

As you well know, Mills himself did not write such a paper. That dealt a huge blow to both his credibility as a serious physicist, and to the perceived validity of CQM.

I remember reading it some years ago and was not impressed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could re-read it?

As I recall he tried to describe the hydrino in terms of the Schrodinger equation, and it didn't support the existence of hydrinos. Well of course it didn't! A major point in GUTCP is that Schrodinger's equation is not the way to do it, and reasonable grounds imo for this are given in GUTCP.
Furthermore, how many people realize that Schrodinger himself regretted what his equation became used for? Pardon the bad grammar.
Click to expand...
I think the kindest thing I can say here is that your memory is fallible ...

Oh, and what hecd2 said.
 
markie said:
me said:
But wait! There's more!

(my bold)

Who is this "possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world" Joseph Conrads? Google comes up blank for me.

The paper's lead author is not Joseph Conrads, but Hannah Conrads; Google tells me there are lots of people with this name ... but none (apparently) who are (or were) plasma physicists. ADS has 30 entries, all but three before 2000, and the earliest 1963.

Perhaps markie can tell us what's going on?
Click to expand...
Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice (written 1999) that sheds some light, pun intended.

Dr. Johannes Conrads, former director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics at Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany, told a gathering of the American Chemical Society in October that he was able to produce "remarkably high energy" from a Mills cell. But Conrads said he thought the energy could be coming from an effect within dense regions of plasma produced through the BlackLight Power process.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks.

So now we have Joseph Conrads (per your source), Hannah Conrads (lead author of the paper your source cited), and Dr. Johannes Conrads.

Here is a link to what I think is the source ("an article from the Village Voice (written 1999)"). It's an interesting read, especially considering the date. For some reason I can't quite put my finger on, I was particularly struck by this: "Times are tough on Robert Mills Sr.'s 91-acre grain farm in Chester County, Pennsylvania." :D

I guess Mills boosters are not especially known for the consistency, accuracy, and reliability, wouldn't you say?

ETA: Worm had already posted a link to the VV source markie cited. As they say in CosmoQuest (formerly BAUT), I was ToSeeked (can't remember what the ISF term is, ninjad?)
 
Last edited:
jrhowell said:
Why not a simple experiment to generate hydrinos using just pure hydrogen and the required catalyst (apparently water molecules)? Instead there are all kinds of chemicals in a demonstration that immediately burns out with no easy way to account for the brief energy production among all of the reactions that occur.

Looks like a fraud, smells like a fraud...
Click to expand...

Well, they need water molecules that aren't bound to each other (dipole-dipole attraction and other Van der Waals forces). If only there was a state of water where the molecules weren't dominated by such forces. No need to get steamed up about their inability to find such a state of water though.
 
markie said:
Of course I can see your very well laid out point. Arp had a fundamental idea and went full tilt with it, even despite growing evidences against it.

Mill's theory has minimal first principles and yet it is highly predictive of phenomena such as spectra and bond energies.
Click to expand...
So you say.

That's rather an underwhelming statement.

Given that "Mill's theory" [sic] is internally inconsistent, a flaw that's likely not fixable.

I'd've been far more impressed if you'd said something like "and Mills has shown (paper1, paper2, paper3, ... paper45) that it is fully consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results, within its domain of applicability".

But we already know that Mills seems far more interested in developing a free energy generator than overthrowing one of the two foundations of contemporary physics, winning global acclaim (and fortune) as the best physicist since Einstein, oh and bagging a Nobel Prize or two.

Try as I might, I simply cannot understand why he has chosen to not focus on the physics.

I hate to sound like a salesman, but you really should read the Introduction in GUTCP. Much better than me blathering on.
Click to expand...
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but you really should read the relevant Mills et al. papers, and those which cite them. Much better than me blathering on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom