Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

 7th May 2017, 09:33 PM #241 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,524 Originally Posted by markie If I recall, the radius of hydrogen's nth excited state is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen. Thank you, markie, for seeming to confirm the delusional nature of Mills idea with hydrogen's measured spectral lines impossible in his world ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 7th May 2017, 11:11 PM #242 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 Originally Posted by markie 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. Not really. It is more like r proportional to n2. In fact with your 1/q=n , having the same proportionality would make the e- radius (I did not bother to check the crapola mills did for radius, but he must have the same proportionality if he FIND the Bohr/Rydberg radius for integer values of n) be q-2a0 roughly, so for q=16 for example , it would be a0/256 so about 200 fm I leave that as an exercise to the reader how good that compare to the roughly 1 fm of the charge radius of proton. ETA: also what was the maximum q he found ? was it 100 or something ? Because then the radius of charge of proton and the electron orbital are then quasi identical. ETA: and before you contest this is not the formula of mills, then PROPERLY cite the formula of mills for radius which find the same similar Rydberg radius AND his new radius, then we can talk. Until then don't bother answering this post. To be clear : due to the proportionality in E, you could not find the Rydberg formula if the radius was proportional to n. Last edited by Aepervius; 7th May 2017 at 11:17 PM.
 8th May 2017, 05:03 AM #243 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by markie 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. It's worse than all this because we don't just observe lines in transitions from shell to shell, but there is a lot of fine structure associated with transitions from sub-shell to sub-shell etc. So for any given excited state there are multiple transitions with different photon energies. How many different downward transitions do you think an atom say in 6d can make? It's more than five. Superimposed doesn't work. As far as I know there is no other instance where photons are "partition-able" - they have essentially infinite lifetimes. And how come the "partitionable" photons only partition in distinct energies? This looks awfully like quantum mechanics. And isn't having a trapped photon and an excited electron energy state double counting: the energy balance doesn't, well, balance. Last edited by hecd2; 8th May 2017 at 05:05 AM.
 8th May 2017, 05:04 AM #244 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by Aepervius ETA: also what was the maximum q he found ? was it 100 or something ? Because then the radius of charge of proton and the electron orbital are then quasi identical. 137
 8th May 2017, 06:15 AM #245 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by markie 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. So it's like a two photon transition forbidden by the Laporte parity selection rule? Or is it simply like bremsstrahlung? If the former, what is the selection rule that is violated and how is it derived? If the latter, what stops the decay at any given fractional state?And I thought that according to Mills, the bound electrron is an orbitsphere rather than a point particle, so why is it being treated as a point particle here? All these claims seem a tad inconsistent.
 8th May 2017, 06:24 AM #246 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by markie 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" What about claim 25 - it describes one embodiment of claim 5, which describes one embodiment of claim 4, which describes one embodiment of claim 1. But it is a very general claim and doesn't answer the question, which let me remind you again is: 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. So these are your claims. What is 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. I have highlighted the key word. You have made a claim that something has been detected in the lab that doesn't occur naturally in the cosmos. I am looking for specifics to back up that claim. Specific stimulation regimes, leading to specific lifetimes and transitions and specific emission and absorption lines. If you don't know, just say so, and we can then all discount your claims above.
 8th May 2017, 06:41 AM #247 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by Aepervius Not really. It is more like r proportional to n2. In fact with your 1/q=n , having the same proportionality would make the e- radius (I did not bother to check the crapola mills did for radius, but he must have the same proportionality if he FIND the Bohr/Rydberg radius for integer values of n) be q-2a0 roughly, so for q=16 for example , it would be a0/256 so about 200 fm I leave that as an exercise to the reader how good that compare to the roughly 1 fm of the charge radius of proton. ETA: also what was the maximum q he found ? was it 100 or something ? Because then the radius of charge of proton and the electron orbital are then quasi identical. ETA: and before you contest this is not the formula of mills, then PROPERLY cite the formula of mills for radius which find the same similar Rydberg radius AND his new radius, then we can talk. Until then don't bother answering this post. To be clear : due to the proportionality in E, you could not find the Rydberg formula if the radius was proportional to n. No. The radius of the nth excited state of hydrogen (where n = 1 is ground) is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See equation 2.5 on page 126 of 2016 GUTCP. You must be confusing it with the conclusions of Bohr, Dirac and others. And then you get into the radii of hydrino, applying the same mistake. Again, the radius of the pth hydrino state is 1/p times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See table 5.1 on page 211 of 2016 GUTCP
 8th May 2017, 06:59 AM #248 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by hecd2 It's worse than all this because we don't just observe lines in transitions from shell to shell, but there is a lot of fine structure associated with transitions from sub-shell to sub-shell etc. So for any given excited state there are multiple transitions with different photon energies. How many different downward transitions do you think an atom say in 6d can make? It's more than five. Superimposed doesn't work. As far as I know there is no other instance where photons are "partition-able" - they have essentially infinite lifetimes. And how come the "partitionable" photons only partition in distinct energies? This looks awfully like quantum mechanics. And isn't having a trapped photon and an excited electron energy state double counting: the energy balance doesn't, well, balance. Yes there is the fine structure small corrections to make. Mills does this, all in closed form solutions. You're probably right, the superimposed interpretation is not the way to go. Until I hear differently, I can only surmise that the released photon from the excited state to a less excited state is extracted from the trapped photon, lessening it's energy. Why distinct energies? Only some are permitted due to resonances with the size of the electron orbitsphere resonator cavity. It should be pointed out that with Mills' theory the trapped photon also serves to reduce the effective nuclear charge force. If I recall there is also an 'energy hole' idea in the hydrino state, which could be considered a type of 'inverse photon' (not anti photon though), which serves to not reduce but rather amplify the effective nuclear charge. Mills theory is all about energy and force balance, it is critical to his theory.
 8th May 2017, 07:16 AM #249 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by hecd2 What about claim 25 - it describes one embodiment of claim 5, which describes one embodiment of claim 4, which describes one embodiment of claim 1. But it is a very general claim and doesn't answer the question, which let me remind you again is: 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. So these are your claims. What is 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. I have highlighted the key word. You have made a claim that something has been detected in the lab that doesn't occur naturally in the cosmos. I am looking for specifics to back up that claim. Specific stimulation regimes, leading to specific lifetimes and transitions and specific emission and absorption lines. If you don't know, just say so, and we can then all discount your claims above. I can only assume that it is the fast hydrogen generated from the hydrino creating process that collides with and excites the activator molecules, which in turn induces ro-vibrational excitation of molecular hydrino. I also suppose the appropriate activator molecules are not present in monatomic hydrogen clouds. That's enough from me on a subject I know next to nothing about.
 8th May 2017, 07:27 AM #250 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by markie Yes there is the fine structure small corrections to make. Mills does this, all in closed form solutions. But that fails to address my point which is that there are many transitions with different energies from any given excited state, so how can these result from the emission of a trapped photon. Quote: Until I hear differently, I can only surmise that the released photon from the excited state to a less excited state is extracted from the trapped photon, lessening it's energy. Can you give any other example of a photon of one energy being "extracted" from a photon of another higher energy? Please don't say parametric down conversiom, because in that case both energy and momentum are conserved, the resulting photons are of equal wavelength and the process is a non-linear one. Quote: It should be pointed out that with Mills' theory the trapped photon also serves to reduce the effective nuclear charge force . Really? How does it do that? I suppose it does so just enough to offset the energy of the trapped photon so that the purely electronic energy state of the ground and excited atoms are identical? Or you could just say the energy of the photon is absorbed exciting the atom to a higher electronic state. Oh, wait - that QM. Quote: Mills theory is all about energy and force balance, it is critical to his theory. Riiiiight.
 8th May 2017, 07:44 AM #251 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 Originally Posted by markie No. The radius of the nth excited state of hydrogen (where n = 1 is ground) is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See equation 2.5 on page 126 of 2016 GUTCP. You must be confusing it with the conclusions of Bohr, Dirac and others. And then you get into the radii of hydrino, applying the same mistake. Again, the radius of the pth hydrino state is 1/p times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See table 5.1 on page 211 of 2016 GUTCP Again you cite without putting the equation here. I don't care to check another time GUTCP. As for the radial probability, they peak at about a0 for 1s and 4a0 for 2s. At 2a0 IIRC there is actually a minima. This is not a Bohr model by the way.
 8th May 2017, 08:01 AM #252 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 Radial density is (1/(2*21/2*a03/2))*(2-r/a0)*exp(-r/2a0). Squaring, multiplying by 4pir2 and solving for d/dr=0 I find 4a0. Now I have not done that for a long time so I may have an error 2 somewhere I do not exclude it.
 8th May 2017, 08:06 AM #253 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by markie I can only assume that it is the fast hydrogen generated from the hydrino creating process that collides with and excites the activator molecules, which in turn induces ro-vibrational excitation of molecular hydrino. I also suppose the appropriate activator molecules are not present in monatomic hydrogen clouds. That's enough from me on a subject I know next to nothing about. Good heavens! I think you still don't understand how patent specifications are written. That method of excitation is one claimed embodiment of excitation. It is by no means the only method claimed in the specification. Are you suggesting that this claim exactly describes how the ro-vibrational states were excited in the lab in that famous experiment where they were detected, and that that is the only means of stimulating those transitions? You know, that patent is so broadly written, that it does not identify a single excited meta-stable ro-vibrational state or the wavelength of emission that will lase. It's impossible for you to support your assertions using the patent specification because a patent isn't a scientific paper. It might look like one in places, but the object of a specification is different from that a scientific paper. It's the job of the patent lawyer to write the patent as broadly with as few constraining details as the examiner will allow. It's the job of a scientific paper to tell us something about the world that we don't already know. You have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your assertion that ro-vibrational transitions of molecular hydrino have been measured in the lab but cannot occur naturally, and it looks like you won't be able to do so. You haven't even given us a reference to a paper measuring these transitions. So my objection stands that, according to Mills, the universe is full of hydrinos, more hydrinos than anything else by a factor 6 -7, which he expects to lase at wavelengths which we do not detect from the sky.
 8th May 2017, 08:25 AM #254 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 By the way, it's worth reminding peole that it's the 8th May and crow and hats are off the menu and likely to remain so indefinitely.
 8th May 2017, 08:40 AM #255 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 OK just for fun: (2s is purely radial so we can go for the radial equation) psi=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)-1(2-r/a0)e-r/2a0 C=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)2*4*pi P=4*pi*r^2*psi2=C*r2(2-r/a0)2e-r/a0 derivating P and solving for dP/dr=0 => we can ignore C d(r2[2-r/a0)2*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(r2*(4-2r/a0+r2/a02*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(4r2-2r3/a0+r4/a02)*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(f.g)/dr is f dg/dr+ g.df/dr so =>(8r-6r2/a0+4r3/a02)e-r/a0 - (4r2/a0-2r3/a02+r4/a03) =0 simplifying by r/a0.e-r/a0 (8a0-6r+4r2/a0) - (4r-2r2/a0+r3/a02) =0 so (8a0-10r+6r2/a0-r3/a02)=0 Setting r=4a0 8a0-40a0+96a02/a0-64a03/a02 => 104a0-104a0 4a0 is an obvious solution. Sorry , what was that about doubling of r ? I see it as quadrupling. QED. Again, I could have done an error, yada yada. Last edited by Aepervius; 8th May 2017 at 08:43 AM.
 8th May 2017, 08:42 AM #256 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 Oh and if GUTCP find 2 and QM find 4 .... It should be easy to show who is right As far as I can tell there were cross section capture experiment on hydrogen atom (excited or not), and they are not contradicting QM. Last edited by Aepervius; 8th May 2017 at 08:52 AM.
 8th May 2017, 09:01 AM #257 ViewsofMars Scholar   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 63 Originally Posted by markie Finally took a look at the (granted) patent. Not pleasant reading. Here's a quote from section 49: 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 As noted in the above pdf: United States Patent US007773656B1 (12) (10) Patent No.: US 7,773,656 B1 Mills (45) Date of Patent: Aug. 10, 2010 Markie shame on you!!! Markie you are not an honest person. United States Patent: 9,563,746 Mills February 7, 2017 pages ( 1 of 8 ) Here is an excerpt from the document: DETAILED DESCRIPTION--ADDITIONAL EMBODIMENT (AIR BLOWN PROCESS WITH HYDRINO STEAM GENERATION OR HYDROGEN EXPORT) An additional embodiment of this invention is shown in FIG. 4. This embodiment is similar to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, except that a substantially pure hydrogen stream is removed from the clean synfuel in the Fuel Gas Supply Line I through a Hydrogen Removal Unit 201. In this particular embodiment, hydrogen is removed through a Pressure-Swing Adsorption (PSA) Unit. Hydrogen passes through the bed, leaving behind the other components of the fuel that are adsorbed on the surface of the bed material. When the vessel containing the bed is depressurized, these components are desorbed and leave the vessel. They then are pressurized by the Tail Gas Compressor 203. The stream of hydrogen leaves the Hydrogen Removal Unit through a Hydrogen Feed Line 202 which can supply hydrogen to refineries, fuel cells, industrial processes or other uses. In this embodiment, hydrogen is supplied to a Hydrino Boiler 204. In this description the term "Hydrino Boiler" refers to a device which produces heat by moving electrons orbiting hydrogen atoms in ground state orbits to lower orbits, converting the hydrogen atom to a hydrino atom. This process is described in Mills U.S. Pat. No. 6,024,935 Lower Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures. In this device, heat released by the production of hydrinos is recovered by boiling water. Demineralized water is supplied to the boiler through a Feedwater Supply Line 206, and is heated by crude syngas in the Syngas Economizer 206 before entering the Hydrino Boiler 204. Steam leaving the Hyrino Boiler is further heated by crude syngas in the Syngas Superheater 207 before leaving the process in the Steam Supply Line 208. This steam can then be used for a variety of uses, including power generation in steam turbines. One particular advantage of this particular arrangement is that the syngas, a sensible heating source (temperature reduced as heat is removed) is used to heat feedwater and steam--both sensible cooling fluids. The hydrinos supply heat to evaporate water, which is a latent cooling source. Because sensible heat is matched to sensible cooling, the temperature of the syngas can closely approach the temperature of the water and steam, resulting in high heat exchanger efficiencies http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ino&RS=hydrino //http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=hydrino&O S=hydrino&RS=hydrino// Last edited by ViewsofMars; 8th May 2017 at 09:09 AM.
 8th May 2017, 01:27 PM #258 Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,581 PS: I forgot the a03/2 above in the psi function, but who cares, it disappear in the constant C and the derivation.
 8th May 2017, 01:36 PM #259 Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!     Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 30,439 I'm curious how Mills plans to bring balance to the Force, is he a Jedi or a Sith? I'm leaning towards Sith myself, I'd have to think Jedi are just more honest by nature, and that seems to go against everything we've seen from Mills over the last 30 years. __________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes." Last edited by Mike!; 8th May 2017 at 01:39 PM.
 8th May 2017, 02:03 PM #260 Matthew Cline Muse   Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 886 Originally Posted by markie Largely correct, except that excited states of the hydrogen atom have larger radii, as seen diagrammatically on page 31. Wait, is this according to Mills' theory? Because if it is, and if Mills' theory also disallows quantum (non-classical) leaps of electrons from one radius to another, then when a electron enters an excited state by trapping a photon the electron would have to classically move from the smaller radius to the larger radius, which would require the electron to accelerate, which would cause it to emit photons. __________________ The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
 8th May 2017, 02:46 PM #261 Myriad Hyperthetical     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad Posts: 14,370 Originally Posted by markie No. The radius of the nth excited state of hydrogen (where n = 1 is ground) is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See equation 2.5 on page 126 of 2016 GUTCP. You must be confusing it with the conclusions of Bohr, Dirac and others real physics. Fixed that for you. __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 8th May 2017, 02:58 PM #262 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,524 That is what Mills has in Figure 1.5, page 31. "Quantized sizes of hydrogen atoms...". There is what seems to be a "quantized" lie because that belongs to quantum mechanics, not the classical physics he is supposed to be using. But then he probably does not mean quantized by using the word "quantized" ! Mills has the electron as a physically impossible shell the size of an atomic radius that expands classically (continuously) when a photon is absorbed. Energy quantization magically happens. Then he declares that the sphere cannot emit any radiation except through his imagination (catalysts). We actually end up with a hydrogen atom without any absorption spectrum and an emission spectrum only in the presence of imaginary catalysts. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 8th May 2017, 03:19 PM #263 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,524 Page 126 - an ignorant radius of the excited state n is proportional to n equation Originally Posted by markie The radius of the nth excited state of hydrogen (where n = 1 is ground) is n times the radius of ground state hydrogen. See equation 2.5 on page 126 of 2016 GUTCP. Part IV: More items of ignorance, delusion and lies from Mills book as mentioned by markie. 9 May 2017: Page 126 - an ignorant radius of the excited state n of hydrogen is proportional to n equation 2.5. We can use the classical viral theorem to show that the mean value of the radius of any system withA potential energy proportional to 1/r ( a coulomb potential) A total energy proportional to 1/n2 (as measured for hydrogen atoms) must be proportional to n[sup]2[/SUP]. That is why the Bohr model has a radius proportional to n2. The Schrodinger equation gives the expectation value of the radius proportional to n2. 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 __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 8th May 2017, 03:25 PM #264 Matthew Cline Muse   Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 886 Originally Posted by Reality Check Mills has the electron as a physically impossible shell the size of an atomic radius that expands classically (continuously) when a photon is absorbed. Energy quantization magically happens. Then he declares that the sphere cannot emit any radiation except through his imagination (catalysts). So, when an electron is free it's a point, and a point charge accelerating emits photons. But when a free electron is captured it transforms into a shell, and when the surface of charged shell accelerates it doesn't emit photons because of [reasons]. If, for the purpose of discussion, we set the radius of the usual ground state as 1.0 and the radius of a hydrino at 0.5, then the electron shell can exist at radii of >= 1.0, and can exist at the radius of 0.5, but can't exist at radii between 0.5 and 1.0 (exclusive). When the catalyst interacts with a hydrogen atom it simultaneous turns the electron shell back into a point electron and bumps the point electron a tiny bit closer to the proton. Since while at radius 0.9999999 the point electron can't turn into a shell electron it accelerates towards the proton, emitting photons, but once it reaches radius 0.5 it turns back into a shell electron and stops moving, becoming a stable hydrino. Is that about right, Markie? __________________ The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
 8th May 2017, 03:32 PM #265 SezMe post-pre-born     Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 22,878 Originally Posted by markie Until I hear differently, I can only surmise that the released photon from the excited state to a less excited state is extracted from the trapped photon, lessening it's energy. I find this discussion of "trapped" photons to be quite misleading. Photons are not captured, bounce around for a while then released. What is captured is energy and what is released is a new photon, not some cousin of an incoming one.
 8th May 2017, 03:50 PM #266 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by hecd2 So it's like a two photon transition forbidden by the Laporte parity selection rule? Or is it simply like bremsstrahlung? If the former, what is the selection rule that is violated and how is it derived? If the latter, what stops the decay at any given fractional state?And I thought that according to Mills, the bound electrron is an orbitsphere rather than a point particle, so why is it being treated as a point particle here? All these claims seem a tad inconsistent. More like bremsstrahlung, but it involves both acceleration and deceleration of the electron. The inward collapse of the electron orbitsphere bubble stops when force balance is achieved, i.e., when the outward centrifugal force of the spinning electron mass equals the inward coulombic force. The electron is not treated as a point ...
 8th May 2017, 04:01 PM #267 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by hecd2 But that fails to address my point which is that there are many transitions with different energies from any given excited state, so how can these result from the emission of a trapped photon. How nature sums up these different energies into one photon, I don't know. But Mills seems to get the calculations right. Quote: Can you give any other example of a photon of one energy being "extracted" from a photon of another higher energy? Please don't say parametric down conversiom, because in that case both energy and momentum are conserved, the resulting photons are of equal wavelength and the process is a non-linear one. The very notion of a trapped photon more or less stuck to the bottom of the electron membrane implies it is no ordinary photon. It can be a considered a standing em wave relative to the moving electron surface. Does it have what may be considered nodes, and it breaks off at one of them? Don't know, it's beyond me.
 8th May 2017, 04:09 PM #268 Matthew Cline Muse   Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 886 Originally Posted by markie The inward collapse of the electron orbitsphere bubble stops when force balance is achieved, i.e., when the outward centrifugal force of the spinning electron mass equals the inward coulombic force. So this "bubble" is simultaneously completely rigid (maintains a spherical shape despite forces applied, a force applied to any spot on it affects the whole shape simultaneously) yet also elastic (can shrink and grow)? __________________ The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
 8th May 2017, 04:19 PM #269 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by hecd2 Good heavens! I think you still don't understand how patent specifications are written. That method of excitation is one claimed embodiment of excitation. It is by no means the only method claimed in the specification. Are you suggesting that this claim exactly describes how the ro-vibrational states were excited in the lab in that famous experiment where they were detected, and that that is the only means of stimulating those transitions? You know, that patent is so broadly written, that it does not identify a single excited meta-stable ro-vibrational state or the wavelength of emission that will lase. It's impossible for you to support your assertions using the patent specification because a patent isn't a scientific paper. It might look like one in places, but the object of a specification is different from that a scientific paper. It's the job of the patent lawyer to write the patent as broadly with as few constraining details as the examiner will allow. It's the job of a scientific paper to tell us something about the world that we don't already know. You have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your assertion that ro-vibrational transitions of molecular hydrino have been measured in the lab but cannot occur naturally, and it looks like you won't be able to do so. You haven't even given us a reference to a paper measuring these transitions. So my objection stands that, according to Mills, the universe is full of hydrinos, more hydrinos than anything else by a factor 6 -7, which he expects to lase at wavelengths which we do not detect from the sky. I haven't said they can't occur naturally, but as a laser like mechanism, I doubt it. As far as giving you a reference to a paper measuring these specific transition energies (and hence detecting dihydrino), here's one: https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/160118..._2011+copy.pdf
 8th May 2017, 04:21 PM #270 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by Aepervius OK just for fun: (2s is purely radial so we can go for the radial equation) psi=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)-1(2-r/a0)e-r/2a0 C=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)2*4*pi P=4*pi*r^2*psi2=C*r2(2-r/a0)2e-r/a0 derivating P and solving for dP/dr=0 => we can ignore C d(r2[2-r/a0)2*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(r2*(4-2r/a0+r2/a02*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(4r2-2r3/a0+r4/a02)*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(f.g)/dr is f dg/dr+ g.df/dr so =>(8r-6r2/a0+4r3/a02)e-r/a0 - (4r2/a0-2r3/a02+r4/a03) =0 simplifying by r/a0.e-r/a0 (8a0-6r+4r2/a0) - (4r-2r2/a0+r3/a02) =0 so (8a0-10r+6r2/a0-r3/a02)=0 Setting r=4a0 8a0-40a0+96a02/a0-64a03/a02 => 104a0-104a0 4a0 is an obvious solution. Sorry , what was that about doubling of r ? I see it as quadrupling. QED. Again, I could have done an error, yada yada. You seem algebraically nimble enough, you would probably enjoy digesting Mills' GUTCP.
 8th May 2017, 04:26 PM #271 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by ViewsofMars As noted in the above pdf: United States Patent US007773656B1 (12) (10) Patent No.: US 7,773,656 B1 Mills (45) Date of Patent: Aug. 10, 2010 Markie shame on you!!! Markie you are not an honest person. United States Patent: 9,563,746 Mills February 7, 2017 pages ( 1 of 8 ) Here is an excerpt from the document: DETAILED DESCRIPTION--ADDITIONAL EMBODIMENT (AIR BLOWN PROCESS WITH HYDRINO STEAM GENERATION OR HYDROGEN EXPORT) snip http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ino&RS=hydrino //http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=hydrino&O S=hydrino&RS=hydrino// You have reddened the dates, presumably to show a point. I don't get your point.
 8th May 2017, 04:38 PM #272 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by Mike! I'm curious how Mills plans to bring balance to the Force, is he a Jedi or a Sith? I'm leaning towards Sith myself, I'd have to think Jedi are just more honest by nature, and that seems to go against everything we've seen from Mills over the last 30 years. Anakin was supposed to bring balance to the Force a long time ago and in a galaxy far far away. In this galaxy, it's Mills. The Jedi and Sith are long gone. There must be hundreds of uses of the phrase 'force balance' in Mills' 2016 GUTCP. Balance this, balance that. Makes one want to join the dark side.
 8th May 2017, 04:46 PM #273 halleyscomet Philosopher     Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 9,140 Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 2 Originally Posted by markie Anakin was supposed to bring balance to the Force a long time ago and in a galaxy far far away. In this galaxy, it's Mills. The Jedi and Sith are long gone. There must be hundreds of uses of the phrase 'force balance' in Mills' 2016 GUTCP. Balance this, balance that. Makes one want to join the dark side. I can't take Vader seriously after the prequels. He's a whinny, gullible, easily manipulated jackass. Yoda shouldn't have focused on seeing "much anger" in Anakin. He should have said, "I sense much stupidity in this one. Take him serially no one will unless a mask he wears to hide the stupid oozing from every poor. Weak minded and stupid is he, easily lead like a Nerf with a ring in its Groglack." After everyone stopped snickering about Yoda mentioning a Groglack, they'd have sent Anakin to a school for special needs kids who are strong in the force. Anakin is gullible enough to invest in BLP. __________________ Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
 8th May 2017, 04:46 PM #274 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by Matthew Cline Wait, is this according to Mills' theory? Because if it is, and if Mills' theory also disallows quantum (non-classical) leaps of electrons from one radius to another, then when a electron enters an excited state by trapping a photon the electron would have to classically move from the smaller radius to the larger radius, which would require the electron to accelerate, which would cause it to emit photons. Yes it's according to Mills theory. And yes the electron gets bigger or smaller, classically. In some circumstances such extended charges radiate and in others they don't. It has to do with the electron surface containing 'Fourier components synchronous to the speed of light' or not. If it does, it radiates, otherwise not.
 8th May 2017, 04:54 PM #275 Matthew Cline Muse   Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 886 Originally Posted by markie It has to do with the electron surface containing 'Fourier components synchronous to the speed of light' or not. If it does, it radiates, otherwise not. So do point electrons always have 'Fourier components synchronous to the speed of light'? EDIT: Oh, wait, you're talking about the nonradiation condition. __________________ The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today! Last edited by Matthew Cline; 8th May 2017 at 05:14 PM.
 8th May 2017, 04:56 PM #276 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by Matthew Cline So, when an electron is free it's a point, and a point charge accelerating emits photons. But when a free electron is captured it transforms into a shell, and when the surface of charged shell accelerates it doesn't emit photons because of [reasons]. If, for the purpose of discussion, we set the radius of the usual ground state as 1.0 and the radius of a hydrino at 0.5, then the electron shell can exist at radii of >= 1.0, and can exist at the radius of 0.5, but can't exist at radii between 0.5 and 1.0 (exclusive). When the catalyst interacts with a hydrogen atom it simultaneous turns the electron shell back into a point electron and bumps the point electron a tiny bit closer to the proton. Since while at radius 0.9999999 the point electron can't turn into a shell electron it accelerates towards the proton, emitting photons, but once it reaches radius 0.5 it turns back into a shell electron and stops moving, becoming a stable hydrino. Is that about right, Markie? The electron is never a point ; a free electron is a 2D flattened disk of spinning charge with radius conforming to the deBroglie relation. When the free electron disk approaches an atom it can be captured, in which case it wraps itself around the atom to achieve minimum energy. Why only certain sizes of orbitsphere are allowed is a topic for another day.
 8th May 2017, 05:05 PM #277 markie Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 1,501 Originally Posted by SezMe I find this discussion of "trapped" photons to be quite misleading. Photons are not captured, bounce around for a while then released. What is captured is energy and what is released is a new photon, not some cousin of an incoming one. I wouldn't argue with you on that. The photon may be absorbed into 'field' as potential energy and subsequently released as photon.
 8th May 2017, 05:40 PM #278 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 694 Originally Posted by Aepervius OK just for fun: (2s is purely radial so we can go for the radial equation) psi=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)-1(2-r/a0)e-r/2a0 C=(2*sqrt(2)*a0)2*4*pi P=4*pi*r^2*psi2=C*r2(2-r/a0)2e-r/a0 derivating P and solving for dP/dr=0 => we can ignore C d(r2[2-r/a0)2*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(r2*(4-2r/a0+r2/a02*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(4r2-2r3/a0+r4/a02)*e-r/a0)/dr=0 d(f.g)/dr is f dg/dr+ g.df/dr so =>(8r-6r2/a0+4r3/a02)e-r/a0 - (4r2/a0-2r3/a02+r4/a03) =0 simplifying by r/a0.e-r/a0 (8a0-6r+4r2/a0) - (4r-2r2/a0+r3/a02) =0 so (8a0-10r+6r2/a0-r3/a02)=0 Setting r=4a0 8a0-40a0+96a02/a0-64a03/a02 => 104a0-104a0 4a0 is an obvious solution. Sorry , what was that about doubling of r ? I see it as quadrupling. QED. Again, I could have done an error, yada yada. Need to determine whether we are talking about most probable radial distance or expectation value (average radius). If I remember right the most probable radial distance for the 2p electron is 4a0and for the 2s electron it's about 5.3a0 based on differentiating the probability density and looking for r at which the differential goes to zero. The expectation values are different from these and greater, eg 5a0 for a 2p electron. 1s, 2p, 3d folows Bohr radii exactly (the polynomial in r has only one term). In any case, the radius in nth shell is not na0 Maybe I'm remembering this wrong.
 8th May 2017, 05:53 PM #279 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,524 Originally Posted by Matthew Cline So, when an electron is free it's a point, ... Mills really hates point particles and so in Mills world, a free electron seems to be a disk (a flattened "orbitshpere") . __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 8th May 2017, 05:55 PM #280 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,524 Originally Posted by Matthew Cline EDIT: Oh, wait, you're talking about the nonradiation condition. Which applies to collections of point particles, not charged shells which is one of Mills lies. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 8th May 2017 at 05:56 PM.

International Skeptics Forum

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Welcome to ISF     Welcome!     International Skeptics     Other Skeptical Organizations         JREF     Skeptical Events         TAM Scholarship Auction Reference     The Repository         Forum Newsletters     Book Reviews     Forum Spotlight General Topics     General Skepticism and The Paranormal     Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology     Education     Economics, Business and Finance     History, Literature, and the Arts     Religion and Philosophy     Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories         9/11 Conspiracy Theories     USA Politics     Non-USA & General Politics     Social Issues & Current Events     Trials and Errors     Computers and the Internet     Conjuror's Corner Members Only     Forum Community         In memoriam...     Humor     Hobbies, DIY and Interests     Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment     Puzzles     Sports     Archive         Old TAM Auction Threads

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 PM.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.
 -- ISF Blue ---- Aqua ---- Drab Olive ---- Dull Day ---- Eco ---- Purple Haze ---- Nobby's classy style ---- The Red One ---- The Blues ---- Vimto ---- Mobile Contact Us - International Skeptics - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top