Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 2

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by hecd2

They claim that hydrinos are produced naturally. In fact they claim that hydrinos are Dark Matter and so constitute 6 - 7 times as much mass in the Universe as does hydrogen. They also insist that the hydrogen to hydrino transition produces a characteristic spectrum including X-rays and that hydrinos, once produced, emit photons of a wide range of wavelengths from rotational and vibrational transitions. Trouble is, we don't see any of these characteristic lines in astronomical spectra. Markie originally argued that the hydrino emissions were in the various cosmic backgrounds. When it was explained to him that the backgrounds were largely accounted for, he fell back on a popular article he read a long time ago that suggested that the cosmic X-ray background was unexplained. But in the years since then there has been a huge amount learned about the X-ray band from telescopes such as Chandra, Swift and XMM-Newton. This paper shows that the cosmic X-ray background is largely accounted for and leaves no place for X-rays from hydrino production to hide. So, either there are no hydrinos in the cosmos, or they don't behave the way the Mills theory says they should. I know where I'd lay my money.

Thank you again!

It sounds like it was a great place for the god-of-the-gaps argument twenty years ago, but true to the fallacy, it has now fallen apart because we've gained knowledge enough to disprove the Hydrino™ theory in toto.

[markie]

Originally Posted by hecd2

They claim that hydrinos are produced naturally. In fact they claim that hydrinos are Dark Matter and so constitute 6 - 7 times as much mass in the Universe as does hydrogen. They also insist that the hydrogen to hydrino transition produces a characteristic spectrum including X-rays and that hydrinos, once produced, emit photons of a wide range of wavelengths from rotational and vibrational transitions. Trouble is, we don't see any of these characteristic lines in astronomical spectra. Markie originally argued that the hydrino emissions were in the various cosmic backgrounds. When it was explained to him that the backgrounds were largely accounted for, he fell back on a popular article he read a long time ago that suggested that the cosmic X-ray background was unexplained. But in the years since then there has been a huge amount learned about the X-ray band from telescopes such as Chandra, Swift and XMM-Newton. This paper shows that the cosmic X-ray background is largely accounted for and leaves no place for X-rays from hydrino production to hide. So, either there are no hydrinos in the cosmos, or they don't behave the way the Mills theory says they should. I know where I'd lay my money.

Thanks for the update on x-rays. I'll admit I was not up to date on my info. So it appears that over nine tenths of the harder x-ray background have distinct sources, although some are unresolved. The other tenth may come from very early black holes. Good to know.

Hydrino formation produces more in the soft x-ray and UV.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

"The Mystery of the Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation"

And more generally,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffus...ound_radiation

"The diffuse extragalactic background radiation (DEBRA) refers to the diffuse photon field from extragalactic origin that fill our Universe. It contains photons over ∼ 20 decades of energy from ~10−7 eV to ~100 GeV. The origin and the physical processes involved are different within every wavelength range. ... The nature and history of the universe is coded in this radiation field and any realistic cosmological model must be able to describe it. Understanding the DEBRA is a major challenge of modern cosmology with huge consequences in other fields of astrophysics, therefore extraordinary efforts are being put by theoreticians, observers, and instrumentalists to do so."

[markie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Thank you again!

It sounds like it was a great place for the god-of-the-gaps argument twenty years ago, but true to the fallacy, it has now fallen apart because we've gained knowledge enough to disprove the Hydrino™ theory in toto.

If you think that was enough to "disprove the Hydrino™ theory in toto" you've got another thing coming. Stay tuned.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by markie

If you think that was enough to "disprove the Hydrino™ theory in toto" you've got another thing coming. Stay tuned.

Oh dear, you appear to have it back to front. The needs is for Mills to prove his hydrino hypothesis.

The current discussions are more around "why Mills' assertions cannot be true".

Cart before horse, old chap. Cart before horse....

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by markie

Thanks for the update on x-rays. I'll admit I was not up to date on my info. So it appears that over nine tenths of the harder x-ray background have distinct sources, although some are unresolved. The other tenth may come from very early black holes. Good to know.

Since you're back, don't forget that you have stated that ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos can be stimulated in the lab (if you know how to do it) and can be detected in the lab. In fact you claim that not only can they be stimulated in the lab but they can be stimulated to the extent that the transitions can lase. You also said that the specific stimulations are unlikely to occur in nature and so we are unlikely to see those ro-vibrational transition lines when we look to the sky. I asked you several times to tell us what the specific stimulation regime is that pumps these ro-vibrational transitions so that we can check a) whether they can be used in a laser and b) whether they are indeed unlikely in the cosmos. So far, crickets. It would be very good of you to answer the question - how, specifically, do you stimulate ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos?

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by markie

Thanks for the update on x-rays. I'll admit I was not up to date on my info. So it appears that over nine tenths of the harder x-ray background have distinct sources, although some are unresolved. The other tenth may come from very early black holes. Good to know.

Hydrino formation produces more in the soft x-ray and UV.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

"The Mystery of the Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation"

And more generally,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffus...ound_radiation

"The diffuse extragalactic background radiation (DEBRA) refers to the diffuse photon field from extragalactic origin that fill our Universe. It contains photons over ∼ 20 decades of energy from ~10−7 eV to ~100 GeV. The origin and the physical processes involved are different within every wavelength range. ... The nature and history of the universe is coded in this radiation field and any realistic cosmological model must be able to describe it. Understanding the DEBRA is a major challenge of modern cosmology with huge consequences in other fields of astrophysics, therefore extraordinary efforts are being put by theoreticians, observers, and instrumentalists to do so."

"Oh, so that's not a gap ny more? Well, how about this one then?"

[JeanTate]

Is there a June/July 2017 prediction re BLP in this thread? Either by a Mills booster or from BLP/promo source?

I know the OP (ms) had a Feb/Mar 2017 one, and we all know how that panned out ...

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

"Oh, so that's not a gap ny more? Well, how about this one then?"

Exactly! A literal 'god-in-the-gaps' argument, bold as you please!

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by markie

Hydrino formation produces more in the soft x-ray and UV.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

"The Mystery of the Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation"

As others pointed out this is a God of the gaps argument, and like a creationist, you don't seem to read or understand the papers you cite. Quite apart from the fact that this paper acknowledges that the bulk of the FUV background is recognised as being caused by stellar light scattered by ISM dust and grains, the mysterious portion that they report has a flat spectrum from 130nm to 170nm (the spectral range of GALEX) and its origin is galactic. But according to Mills, hydrino formation emits EM radiation in multiples of 27.2eV, so 27.2eV, 54.4eV, 81.6eV and so on. So the spectrum of hydrino formation from a galactic source should show distinct lines at those energies and not a flat spectrum. But what is worse for you is 27.2eV is 45.6nm, 54.4eV is 22.8nm and 81.6eV is 15.2nm and the higher multiples of 27.2eV are obviously at shorter and shorter wavelengths. Therefore the longest wavelength produced by hydrino formation is 45.6nm which is far shorter than the FUV waveband (130nm - 170nm) considered in this paper. This paper is therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion. So where will your next God of the gaps argument come from?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Thank you again!

It sounds like it was a great place for the god-of-the-gaps argument twenty years ago, but true to the fallacy, it has now fallen apart because we've gained knowledge enough to disprove the Hydrino™ theory in toto.

Don't worry we can find another gap! See:

Originally Posted by markie

Thanks for the update on x-rays. I'll admit I was not up to date on my info. So it appears that over nine tenths of the harder x-ray background have distinct sources, although some are unresolved. The other tenth may come from very early black holes. Good to know.

Hydrino formation produces more in the soft x-ray and UV.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714

"The Mystery of the Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation"

And more generally,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffus...ound_radiation

"The diffuse extragalactic background radiation (DEBRA) refers to the diffuse photon field from extragalactic origin that fill our Universe. It contains photons over ∼ 20 decades of energy from ~10−7 eV to ~100 GeV. The origin and the physical processes involved are different within every wavelength range. ... The nature and history of the universe is coded in this radiation field and any realistic cosmological model must be able to describe it. Understanding the DEBRA is a major challenge of modern cosmology with huge consequences in other fields of astrophysics, therefore extraordinary efforts are being put by theoreticians, observers, and instrumentalists to do so."

[halleyscomet]

Given the current state of Hydrino "science" presented here, and the endless failed incidents of Mills "enthusiasm" about an imminent commercial product over the last 30 years or so, I now present the current state of the Mills defense of his claims in pictorial form:

[markie]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Since you're back, don't forget that you have stated that ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos can be stimulated in the lab (if you know how to do it) and can be detected in the lab. In fact you claim that not only can they be stimulated in the lab but they can be stimulated to the extent that the transitions can lase. You also said that the specific stimulations are unlikely to occur in nature and so we are unlikely to see those ro-vibrational transition lines when we look to the sky. I asked you several times to tell us what the specific stimulation regime is that pumps these ro-vibrational transitions so that we can check a) whether they can be used in a laser and b) whether they are indeed unlikely in the cosmos. So far, crickets. It would be very good of you to answer the question - how, specifically, do you stimulate ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos?

Finally took a look at the (granted) patent. Not pleasant reading.

Here's a quote from section 49:

Quote:

In a further embodiment, the laser comprises an increased binding-energy-hydrogen species reactor wherein the catalysis reaction product H(1/p) reacts with a proton to form a new molecular ion H2(1/p)+. Emission may occur due to the reaction H(1/p)+H+ ->H2(1/p)+ with vibronic coupling with the resonant state H2(1/p')+. Transitions between levels in the transition state is stimulated to form lase light output. The energies of the levels are given by ... (formula).

So the transition from monotonic hydrino to charged molecular dihydino is what provides the energy to raise the vibration energy. There's more to it of course but that seems it in a nutshell.

Patent can be viewed at

https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US7773656.pdf

[markie]

Originally Posted by hecd2

As others pointed out this is a God of the gaps argument, and like a creationist, you don't seem to read or understand the papers you cite. Quite apart from the fact that this paper acknowledges that the bulk of the FUV background is recognised as being caused by stellar light scattered by ISM dust and grains, the mysterious portion that they report has a flat spectrum from 130nm to 170nm (the spectral range of GALEX) and its origin is galactic. But according to Mills, hydrino formation emits EM radiation in multiples of 27.2eV, so 27.2eV, 54.4eV, 81.6eV and so on. So the spectrum of hydrino formation from a galactic source should show distinct lines at those energies and not a flat spectrum. But what is worse for you is 27.2eV is 45.6nm, 54.4eV is 22.8nm and 81.6eV is 15.2nm and the higher multiples of 27.2eV are obviously at shorter and shorter wavelengths. Therefore the longest wavelength produced by hydrino formation is 45.6nm which is far shorter than the FUV waveband (130nm - 170nm) considered in this paper. This paper is therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion. So where will your next God of the gaps argument come from?

I didn't read the paper, just the abstract. Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV. Rather, those energies serve as cutoffs. The light is emitted as continuum radiation down to that cutoff. If I knew more about Mill's theory I would know the distribution of that continuum radiation up to the cutoffs. To the best of my knowledge it varies with the experimental conditions. Furthermore, rather than continuum photon emission, sometimes it is fast hydrino that carries off the energy from hydrino formation.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by markie

I didn't read the paper, just the abstract. Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV. Rather, those energies serve as cutoffs. The light is emitted as continuum radiation down to that cutoff. If I knew more about Mill's theory I would know the distribution of that continuum radiation up to the cutoffs. To the best of my knowledge it varies with the experimental conditions. Furthermore, rather than continuum photon emission, sometimes it is fast hydrino that carries off the energy from hydrino formation.

You've claimed an awful lot of x-ray generation in your description of Hydrino information. The problem is, the generators being displayed don't have sufficient shielding to protect people from the x-ray generation.

Are you wrong about the x-ray generation, or is Mills trying to promote a generator that will slowly kill the people using it with radiation poisoning?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by markie

Originally Posted by hecd2

As others pointed out this is a God of the gaps argument, and like a creationist, you don't seem to read or understand the papers you cite. Quite apart from the fact that this paper acknowledges that the bulk of the FUV background is recognised as being caused by stellar light scattered by ISM dust and grains, the mysterious portion that they report has a flat spectrum from 130nm to 170nm (the spectral range of GALEX) and its origin is galactic. But according to Mills, hydrino formation emits EM radiation in multiples of 27.2eV, so 27.2eV, 54.4eV, 81.6eV and so on. So the spectrum of hydrino formation from a galactic source should show distinct lines at those energies and not a flat spectrum. But what is worse for you is 27.2eV is 45.6nm, 54.4eV is 22.8nm and 81.6eV is 15.2nm and the higher multiples of 27.2eV are obviously at shorter and shorter wavelengths. Therefore the longest wavelength produced by hydrino formation is 45.6nm which is far shorter than the FUV waveband (130nm - 170nm) considered in this paper. This paper is therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion. So where will your next God of the gaps argument come from?

I didn't read the paper, just the abstract. Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV. Rather, those energies serve as cutoffs. The light is emitted as continuum radiation down to that cutoff. If I knew more about Mill's theory I would know the distribution of that continuum radiation up to the cutoffs. To the best of my knowledge it varies with the experimental conditions. Furthermore, rather than continuum photon emission, sometimes it is fast hydrino that carries off the energy from hydrino formation.

If I were going to pursue this, to see if there was a "gap" which "hydrinos" might fill, I'd be interested in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) between the UV (i.e. blue-ward of the 130nm blue limit of GALEX), and the x-ray region (where the "gap" pretty much vanished in the last decade or two).

As all the other parts of the EM spectrum have names, perhaps this one does too? A bit of googling quickly turns up "extreme ultraviolet", or EUV^WP. In the "See also" section, the first item is Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer, a link to a different WP entry. At the bottom are four External links, well worth checking them out, eh?

One has a nice set of bullet points, under Science Highlights, near the bottom:

• All-sky survey catalog (801 objects)
• EUV first detection of extragalactic objects (e.g. PKS 2155-304)
• Detection of the photospheric emission from stars (e.g. epsilon CMa)
• Quasi Periodic Oscillation detection in the Dwarf Nova SS Cygni

Hmm, something seems odd ... the EUVE spent years scanning the sky, it's a telescope, how come it found only 801 objects? There are vastly more UV sources (per GALEX) and x-ray ones (per XMM-Newton, Chandra, Swift, ...). Of course, EUVE is considerably older than any of those, so maybe it just wasn't sensitive enough?

This MAST EUVE page, clickable from a link in the EUVE WP, has links to rather a lot of NASA, and some non-NASA, missions, many of which seem to cover the x-ray, EUV, and/or UV parts of the EM spectrum. There aren't many which seem to cover the EUV, but those which do/did also seem to report very few sources (compared with those observing in the UV and x-ray regions). Sure, there are lots of observations of the Sun, and a few of other solar system bodies.

Maybe hydrinos, filling space fairly uniformly, actually absorb EUV rather than emit it? Maybe there's continuum absorption up to "the cutoffs"? Hydrinos as an explanation for another astronomical gap puzzle?

What do you think, my fellow ISF members; is markie onto something?

Oh, and arXiv isn't much help this time; most of the EUVE papers would have been published before it became a place to find just about any astronomy preprint ...

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by hecd2

As others pointed out this is a God of the gaps argument, and like a creationist, you don't seem to read or understand the papers you cite. Quite apart from the fact that this paper acknowledges that the bulk of the FUV background is recognised as being caused by stellar light scattered by ISM dust and grains, the mysterious portion that they report has a flat spectrum from 130nm to 170nm (the spectral range of GALEX) and its origin is galactic. But according to Mills, hydrino formation emits EM radiation in multiples of 27.2eV, so 27.2eV, 54.4eV, 81.6eV and so on. So the spectrum of hydrino formation from a galactic source should show distinct lines at those energies and not a flat spectrum. But what is worse for you is 27.2eV is 45.6nm, 54.4eV is 22.8nm and 81.6eV is 15.2nm and the higher multiples of 27.2eV are obviously at shorter and shorter wavelengths. Therefore the longest wavelength produced by hydrino formation is 45.6nm which is far shorter than the FUV waveband (130nm - 170nm) considered in this paper. This paper is therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion. So where will your next God of the gaps argument come from?

Let me see if I'm following this: apparently Mills claimed that the Hydrinos™ had x properties that, fifteen-ish years ago weren't actually known, but in the mean time, those properties have been explored and explained and now markie is here saying that Mills didn't really mean x properties, but really y properties and that currently y properties are as of yet unknown?

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Let me see if I'm following this: apparently Mills claimed that the Hydrinos™ had x properties that, fifteen-ish years ago weren't actually known, but in the mean time, those properties have been explored and explained and now markie is here saying that Mills didn't really mean x properties, but really y properties and that currently y properties are as of yet unknown?

Yep. You're basically playing whack-a-mole on post-hoc rationalizations.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Yep. You're basically playing whack-a-mole on post-hoc rationalizations.

Okay, thanks.

[Matthew Cline]

Originally Posted by markie

Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV. Rather, those energies serve as cutoffs. The light is emitted as continuum radiation down to that cutoff.

Wait. If hydrino formation emitted energy due to a hydrogen atom going from an "ordinary" orbital state to the special hydrino ground state, then that would be emitted as a very specific bands. So does hydrino formation supposedly involve a bare proton (H+) capturing a free electron, with the free electron going directly to the special hydrino ground state?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by markie

I didn't read the paper, just the abstract.

Well, you should really read papers that you cite, or at least scan the body to make sure that they actually support your argument, since obviously this one does not.

Quote:

Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV. Rather, those energies serve as cutoffs. The light is emitted as continuum radiation down to that cutoff.

Now here is a puzzle - you have an atom at a distinct energy level, and after some process it ends up at another lower distinct energy level, and the radiation emitted is a continuum rather than a line? Could you explain why that is, especially since Mills's section in GUTCP Vol 1 dealing the formation of hydrinos from hydrogen starting on p33 - Catalyst Reaction Mechanism and Products - contains reaction expressions I.129 to I.132 and I.147 to I.149 which contain only fixed energy values (27.2eV and 13.6eV) and integers. Wherever I look, in Mills's tome or in his papers, this business of the characteristic radiation of hydrino production being a continuum with a cutoff rather than a line is stated as a fact without explanation or justification.

Could it be that Mills has invented the idea of a continuum out of whole cloth to mask the conspicuous absence of lines at multiples of 13.6eV in any of his experiments? Surely not. As you know more about Mills's theory than I do, perhaps you'll point us at an explanation or justification for a continuum spectrum for radiation arising from the decay of a hydrogen atom from its fixed energy ground state to some lower fixed energy state?

Quote:

If I knew more about Mill's theory I would know the distribution of that continuum radiation up to the cutoffs. To the best of my knowledge it varies with the experimental conditions.

Well, all of the published spectra that I can find in his papers and presentations cover the band from 50nm down to 2nm, in the EUV and soft X-ray, far away from the subject of the paper you quoted. Furthermore the spectrum claimed has a thermal shape unlike the flat spectrum of the "mysterious" part of cosmic FUV background as reported in the paper you cited. So that paper is still irrelevant to the discussion. Where will you find the next god of the gaps argument?

[Hans]

Originally Posted by hecd2

So that paper is still irrelevant to the discussion. Where will you find the next god of the gaps argument?

In the fringe world when the evidence won't support what the believers wants to believe then obviously they, the believer cannot be wrong, so instead the science must be flawed - that or - the scientist is part of a conspiracy to suppress the real nature of the world!

[markie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Let me see if I'm following this: apparently Mills claimed that the Hydrinos™ had x properties that, fifteen-ish years ago weren't actually known, but in the mean time, those properties have been explored and explained and now markie is here saying that Mills didn't really mean x properties, but really y properties and that currently y properties are as of yet unknown?

No. Mills isn't changing his tune. I had been talking about diffuse cosmic em radiation that was anomalously high, and as an off-the-cuff example I mentioned diffuse x-rays because (in the past) it was well known they were anomalously high. Turns out they have now mostly been accounted for. Don't pin that on Mills, pin it on me for not being up to speed.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

Wait. If hydrino formation emitted energy due to a hydrogen atom going from an "ordinary" orbital state to the special hydrino ground state, then that would be emitted as a very specific bands. So does hydrino formation supposedly involve a bare proton (H+) capturing a free electron, with the free electron going directly to the special hydrino ground state?

Hydrino formation involves a ground state neutral hydrogen atom losing some energy to a catalyst by a resonant coupling process, becoming destabilized, then losing more energy to become a hydrino. While the electron's radius is decreasing to a smaller size, it constitutes an accelerating charge, and like an accelerating charge it radiates in continuum fashion.

The specific bands that normal excited hydrogen emits is from a different mechanism according to Mills. Long story short, the electron bubble constitutes a resonator cavity and as such has the ability to trap photons as long as the photon energy is resonantly compatible with the electron size. In a word, an excited hydrogen electron is coupled with a trapped photon(s), and upon relaxation the trapped photon is released as a single discrete energy packet.

[markie]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Well, you should really read papers that you cite, or at least scan the body to make sure that they actually support your argument, since obviously this one does not. Now here is a puzzle - you have an atom at a distinct energy level, and after some process it ends up at another lower distinct energy level, and the radiation emitted is a continuum rather than a line? Could you explain why that is, especially since Mills's section in GUTCP Vol 1 dealing the formation of hydrinos from hydrogen starting on p33 - Catalyst Reaction Mechanism and Products - contains reaction expressions I.129 to I.132 and I.147 to I.149 which contain only fixed energy values (27.2eV and 13.6eV) and integers. Wherever I look, in Mills's tome or in his papers, this business of the characteristic radiation of hydrino production being a continuum with a cutoff rather than a line is stated as a fact without explanation or justification.

Could it be that Mills has invented the idea of a continuum out of whole cloth to mask the conspicuous absence of lines at multiples of 13.6eV in any of his experiments? Surely not. As you know more about Mills's theory than I do, perhaps you'll point us at an explanation or justification for a continuum spectrum for radiation arising from the decay of a hydrogen atom from its fixed energy ground state to some lower fixed energy state?

Well, all of the published spectra that I can find in his papers and presentations cover the band from 50nm down to 2nm, in the EUV and soft X-ray, far away from the subject of the paper you quoted. Furthermore the spectrum claimed has a thermal shape unlike the flat spectrum of the "mysterious" part of cosmic FUV background as reported in the paper you cited. So that paper is still irrelevant to the discussion. Where will you find the next god of the gaps argument?

For sure a fixed thin line would be easy to detect, and I suppose the absence of such lines is why the hydrino has not been suspected in the past. But a continuum cutoff at multiples of 13.6eV is still detectable. Perhaps if there are multiple cutoffs at multiples of 13.6eV it masks each cutoff except for the highest energy (lowest wavelength) cutoff.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by markie

Finally took a look at the (granted) patent. Not pleasant reading.

Yeah, this sort of deliberately obscure disclosure to throw people, including the examiner, off the scent is not uncommon.

Quote:

Here's a quote from section 49:

Quote:

In a further embodiment, the laser comprises an increased binding-energy-hydrogen species reactor wherein the catalysis reaction product H(1/p) reacts with a proton to form a new molecular ion H2(1/p)+. Emission may occur due to the reaction H(1/p)+H+ ->H2(1/p)+ with vibronic coupling with the resonant state H2(1/p')+. Transitions between levels in the transition state is stimulated to form lase light output. The energies of the levels are given by ... (formula).

So the transition from monotonic hydrino to charged molecular dihydino is what provides the energy to raise the vibration energy. There's more to it of course but that seems it in a nutshell.

Patent can be viewed at

https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US7773656.pdf

You think a section that starts "In a further embodiment" summarises a patent disclosure "in a nutshell"? How many patent specifications have you ever read?

This embodiment is not even included in the claims, which of course is the most important part of the patent, and the only aspects that are actually protected.

Nothing in this patent answers my question. Let me ask it again: you have stated that ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos can be stimulated in the lab (if you know how to do it) and can be detected in the lab. In fact you claim that not only can they be stimulated in the lab but they can be stimulated to the extent that the transitions can lase. You also said that the specific stimulations are unlikely to occur in nature and so we are unlikely to see those ro-vibrational transition lines when we look to the sky. I asked you several times to tell us what the specific stimulation regime is that pumps these ro-vibrational transitions so that we can check a) whether they can be used in a laser and b) whether they are indeed unlikely in the cosmos.

All the patent says is the stimulation is via a particle beam, microwave, glow or RF discharge (claim 6). The particle beam energy ranges from 0.1 to 100MeV. The current ranges from 0.1 microamps to 1,000 amps and the power is from 0.01W/cm³ to 100W/cm³. (Claims 8, 9 and 21). Doesn't answer the question.

[Matthew Cline]

If when an electron drops from a higher to lower orbital it isn't creating a new photon, but rather releasing a trapped photon, wouldn't that imply that an electron can't drop from a higher orbital to a lower-but-not-ground orbital? If it could, then it the excited atom could release two different photons with different wavelengths than the trapped photon.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Yep. You're basically playing whack-a-mole on post-hoc rationalizations.

This game will continue for a long time. Mills and Co. will always have a new script ready to placate, and money will keep coming in, and no working device will ever appear. Supporters will keep making excuses for Mils.

No believer will ever try to produce a working device, despite it's constant "off the shelf" description.

Many years from now, Mills will be remembered by a few believers as a persecuted scientist with a suppressed device that the gov't and the oil companies stifled.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Yeah, this sort of deliberately obscure disclosure to throw people, including the examiner, off the scent is not uncommon.

You think a section that starts "In a further embodiment" summarises a patent disclosure "in a nutshell"? How many patent specifications have you ever read?

This embodiment is not even included in the claims, which of course is the most important part of the patent, and the only aspects that are actually protected.

Another point is that this patent issued on Aug. 10, 2010. After so many years of trying to get so many patents, spamming offices world-wide with increasing lengthy patent applications, and arguing over and over again that his technology not only works, but has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to work, has he actually done anything with this patent? He's had almost 7 years now, not counting the time when the application was merely pending.

Has he built and sold any such laser?

Has he designed any such laser, and subcontracted out the manufacture and sales?

Has he licensed anyone else to design, build or sell any such laser?

Applying for patents is not cheap, and with the size and complexity of his applications, they're likely on the higher end of the cost scale. He's probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars just on his US applications alone. So what is he doing to monetize this patent?

If the answer is "nothing", then we have to wonder what the point of it all was.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by hecd2

So far, crickets. It would be very good of you to answer the question - how, specifically, do you stimulate ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos?

...ah does it involve crayons, wishful thinking and a stuffed unicorn?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

Anyway, if you knew more about Mills' theory and experimental findings you would know that hydrino formation is not about "distinct lines" at multiples of 27.2 eV.

8 May 2017 markie: A lie of no distinct spectral lines at multiples of 27.2 eV in Mills' theory.
The imaginary fractional quantum states in Mills theory gives distinct spectral lines just as the integer quantum states do ! A electron falling from n=0 to n = 1/2 will emit a photon at a distinct energy. This produces a distinct spectral line. Those spectral lines can be broadened by other processes but only ignorant fantasies have been presented to hide the lines.

ETA: The ignorant fantasies are the later posts with gibberish about catalysts, etc. which lead to the stupidity that hydrogen does not have any spectral lines. Mills delusions apply to n > 0 as well has his imaginary fractional states. If we have electrons as "orbitspheres" then catalysts are needed for all electron states.

[Mike!]

I'd like to hope we'd one day, reasonably soon, see the end of this obvious charade, but it seems they will continue to discover new and unique methods of flogging a deceased equine.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Mike!

I'd like to hope we'd one day, reasonably soon, see the end of this obvious charade, but it seems they will continue to discover new and unique methods of flogging a deceased equine.

I suspect it will continue until Mills dies then others will take over the scam machine and keep it running - while making Mills a new age Tesla like figure.

'the great genius hated by establishment science' etc.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Hans

I suspect it will continue until Mills dies then others will take over the scam machine and keep it running - while making Mills a new age Tesla like figure.



'the great genius hated by establishment science' etc.

Do you think BLP will launch a Kickstarter?

It would be fascinating to see fragmentation where a Mills fan brakes off and decides they're sick and tired of the serial failures and starts their OWN business to commercialize Hydrino tech. As we've already seen, the BLP "patents" are largely unenforceable. Anyone could easily do what they like without facing any real legal threat from Mills.

Mills could sue, but the condition of the patents would make it the shortest patent lawsuit in history.

[Matthew Cline]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The imaginary fractional quantum states in Mills theory gives distinct spectral lines just as the integer quantum states do ! A electron falling from n=0 to n = 1/2 will emit a photon at a distinct energy. This produces a distinct spectral line.

If I understand correctly, Mills' idea gets rid of quantum leaps of electrons between higher/lower orbitals by claiming that normally the electron in a hydrogen atom always stays in the same orbit, and instead the hydrogen atom traps/releases photons of frequencies that the hydrogen atom "resonates" with, with these resonances being hydrogen's spectral lines. Further (according to Mills) the change from normal hydrogen to hydrino is the only change in orbital that the hydrogen's electron is capable of making, but it's a non-quantum change, with the electron classically passing through all of the space between the ordinary ground state orbit and the hydrino orbit, with the acceleration involved in classically changing orbits being the cause of hydrino formation emitting photons, and also the acceleration causing photons is why the photons are a continuum rather than spectral lines.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

If when an electron drops from a higher to lower orbital it isn't creating a new photon, but rather releasing a trapped photon, wouldn't that imply that an electron can't drop from a higher orbital to a lower-but-not-ground orbital? If it could, then it the excited atom could release two different photons with different wavelengths than the trapped photon.

This is a good point, and one I don't recall being addressed. Clearly, Mills knows about electron transitions from excited hydrogen states to lower, but still excited states. (In Chapter 2 he predicts the mean lifetimes and line intensities for those transitions -Balmer, Paschen, and more.) I'm 'guessing' that the trapped photon, which is variously interpreted as a "standing electromagnetic wave" along the inside surface of the orbitsphere, is partition-able. Either that, or the trapped photon can also be regarded as composed of superimposed photons of lesser energy. Will try to get back to you with a more definitive reply on that.

[markie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

8 May 2017 markie: A lie of no distinct spectral lines at multiples of 27.2 eV in Mills' theory.
The imaginary fractional quantum states in Mills theory gives distinct spectral lines just as the integer quantum states do ! A electron falling from n=0 to n = 1/2 will emit a photon at a distinct energy. This produces a distinct spectral line. Those spectral lines can be broadened by other processes but only ignorant fantasies have been presented to hide the lines.

ETA: The ignorant fantasies are the later posts with gibberish about catalysts, etc. which lead to the stupidity that hydrogen does not have any spectral lines. Mills delusions apply to n > 0 as well has his imaginary fractional states. If we have electrons as "orbitspheres" then catalysts are needed for all electron states.

Mills knows the difference between doppler broadening of known hydrogen lines, and continuum radiation from hydrino formation.

As a point of correction to a previous post: I had said that the energy release from hydrino formation can be in the form of fast hydrino, not just continuum radiation. I meant fast hydrogen, not fast hydrino. This fast hydrogen is responsible for selective doppler broadening of hydrogen lines, which Mills et al have described in multiple experiments.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by markie

Mills knows ....

Mills is an ignorant and deluded crank:
Part I: 37 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part II: 24 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part III: 18 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
My comment was about a lie about his delusions,
8 May 2017 markie: A lie of no distinct spectral lines at multiples of 27.2 eV in Mills' theory.


12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
12 April 2017 markie: A 2012 paper showing a Mills lie about spectra and conventional explanations for them (no hydrinos need apply!)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

If I understand correctly, Mills' idea gets rid of quantum leaps of electrons between higher/lower orbitals ....

That might be what Mills writes in his crank book, etc. but then we have the stupidity in my ETA:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

ETA: The ignorant fantasies are the later posts with gibberish about catalysts, etc. which lead to the stupidity that hydrogen does not have any spectral lines. Mills delusions apply to n > 0 as well has his imaginary fractional states. If we have electrons as "orbitspheres" then catalysts are needed for all electron states.

[markie]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Yeah, this sort of deliberately obscure disclosure to throw people, including the examiner, off the scent is not uncommon.

You think a section that starts "In a further embodiment" summarises a patent disclosure "in a nutshell"? How many patent specifications have you ever read?

This embodiment is not even included in the claims, which of course is the most important part of the patent, and the only aspects that are actually protected.

Nothing in this patent answers my question. Let me ask it again: you have stated that ro-vibrational transitions of hydrinos can be stimulated in the lab (if you know how to do it) and can be detected in the lab. In fact you claim that not only can they be stimulated in the lab but they can be stimulated to the extent that the transitions can lase. You also said that the specific stimulations are unlikely to occur in nature and so we are unlikely to see those ro-vibrational transition lines when we look to the sky. I asked you several times to tell us what the specific stimulation regime is that pumps these ro-vibrational transitions so that we can check a) whether they can be used in a laser and b) whether they are indeed unlikely in the cosmos.

All the patent says is the stimulation is via a particle beam, microwave, glow or RF discharge (claim 6). The particle beam energy ranges from 0.1 to 100MeV. The current ranges from 0.1 microamps to 1,000 amps and the power is from 0.01W/cm³ to 100W/cm³. (Claims 8, 9 and 21). Doesn't answer the question.

How about Claim 25 then? "... the pumping excitation for the formation of the inverted population or the excitation of the activator is due to collisions with energetic particles formed by the catalysis of atomic hydrogen"

[markie]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

If I understand correctly, Mills' idea gets rid of quantum leaps of electrons between higher/lower orbitals by claiming that normally the electron in a hydrogen atom always stays in the same orbit, and instead the hydrogen atom traps/releases photons of frequencies that the hydrogen atom "resonates" with, with these resonances being hydrogen's spectral lines. Further (according to Mills) the change from normal hydrogen to hydrino is the only change in orbital that the hydrogen's electron is capable of making, but it's a non-quantum change, with the electron classically passing through all of the space between the ordinary ground state orbit and the hydrino orbit, with the acceleration involved in classically changing orbits being the cause of hydrino formation emitting photons, and also the acceleration causing photons is why the photons are a continuum rather than spectral lines.

Largely correct, except that excited states of the hydrogen atom have larger radii, as seen diagrammatically on page 31. If I recall, the radius of hydrogen's nth excited state is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen.