Sorry, I'm failing to understand why you say hydrino cannot be CDM.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator
- Thread starter michaelsuede
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I'm failing to understand why you say hydrino cannot be CDM.
For 1106 check out
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/7/21/accountability
For 1107 regarding background UV and soft X-ray in the cosmos, I'll leave that to you to uncover.
I read / glossed through much of the thread a couple of weeks ago. I tried to join so I could post, but there is/was a glitch in the membership sign up process.
I read 409, 609 and 774 just now. Yeah there was a time when Mills sent hydrino hydride compounds out for analysis. The National Research Council of Canada was one such place. Don't know what they concluded, if anything. I know one place reported back the results as 'anomalous'. Source? I think it was a picture of a letter, posted on BLP's site. Maybe Brett Holverstott's book goes into this, I don't know. Haven't read it.
Regarding post 609, that was a lame attempt at a rebuttal by that author if there ever was one. More like just a brush off. Extreme UV and soft xrays from the metal sputtering off an electrode? Did he address why the electrodes didn't sputter on the control runs, where no hydrino catalyst was present? I suspect not. And the author makes it seem that the evidence of hydrino hinged on that one specific experiment. No, there are dozens and dozens of different experiments.
So, you have no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals?
Looking forward to reading what you manage to find, when you have time.
Thanks.
May I ask, how many of these did you read? What efforts did you make to see how many of the reported results have been independently validated?
That's it?
May I ask, how many of these did you read? What efforts did you make to see how many of the reported results have been independently validated?
Um, you are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden falls on you to provide evidence to support it.
It's not "mere" UV, but EUV. If hydrinos produce EUV (~10-30 nm?) when formed, they can absorb it, and return to the normal ground state. To ionize a hydrino, perhaps you need to return it to its normal state first, then add 13.6 ev?
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it's something:
https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/316/5828/1166
from the Abstract:
If they - hydrinos - can be ionized by cosmic rays, then they have a very far from zero cross-section, for both EM and the strong force. Ergo, by definition, they cannot be DM, cold or not.
But perhaps the problem lies in your inaccurate understanding of CDM, as the term is used in astronomy and astrophysics? If I'm not mistaken, there's a thread here in ISF which provides a good introduction; I'll see if I can find it when I have time.
Thanks.
Myself, I'd have thought chemists the world over would have rushed to have a chance to study this!
Pity. I wonder why, after 25+ years, there's (apparently) no independent study of hydrino chemistry?
Myself, I'd have thought chemists the world over would have rushed to have a chance to study this!
Are you referring to the the Rathke paper? Or the Phelps&Clementson one?
UV or EUV, I hope you get the point. Hydrinos do not absorb photons. Your assumption that if they can emit photons during formation, they can also absorb them to return to ground state, while understandable, is mistaken.
Thanks.
You realize, I'm sure, that this paper is about baryons, not CDM, right?
Why?
How long do you think that will take? Keeping in mind that according to statements by Mills I linked to upthread, hydrino gas cannot be contained, filtered out, or excluded from any environment. Such a substance would have to be proven safe to an incredible extent over an incredible range of circumstances to be considered safe. We can tolerate the manufacture and use of all kinds of hazardous materials because, barring accidents, we keep them contained. Or if they're too prevalent to keep contained, we can at least exclude them from critical environments. Minuscule amounts of water can cause all kinds of damage to all kinds of things, but it's generally safe to keep around because it can be kept out of places we don't want it.
Hydrino gas cannot.
A contaminant that cannot be kept out or removed is unprecedented. The closest thing we're familiar with that has that characteristic is gravity. And how safe is gravity? Oops.
How long has Mills been doing these hydrino-creation experiments without yet having performed the health and safety and environmental assessments you speak of?
I only had time to read the quote from on the post itself, which was from the Phelps and Clementson article.
Chemists the world over are not attuned to what is going on in the the 'fringe'. Generally, they're just plodding along in their sphere of speciality.
Back in the day it was not so uncommon to have gifted scientists whose work spanned several fields. Today, not so much. Mills is a bit of a throw back to those times; a renaissance man.
They are effectively CDM ; which is my point. Baryons can be dark.
For one, the formation of hydrino does not merely involve the release of a photon(s). It involves a resonant energy transfer to a 'catalyst'.
Messing around with definitions is not, generally, a good idea. Especially in science.
For example, I have formed the opinion - provisionally - that hydrinos are effectively magic.
And just as thinking that certain baryons are effectively CDM will really cause confusion (or worse) if you're trying to do astronomy, I'm sure you'd agree that thinking that hydrinos are effectively magic won't do much to get Mills' ideas widely accepted.
Good points. Don't forget neutrinos. Perhaps one hundred trillion stream through our bodies at any given second.
Sure, there should be reasonable caution. If Mills and his long time coworkers or their children started suffering from a mysterious malady, I'd be concerned. As it is now, i'm not expecting any negative assessments.
Thanks.
I can't think of any (maybe it's too late).
What other substances - forms of matter - do you know of which are similar to hydrinos in this regard?
I can't think of any (maybe it's too late).
Perhaps it's a coincidence that the BLP lab is in central NJ. NJ has a long and troubled history of sites contaminated by industrial pollution. PCBs, for example, were not considered particularly nasty for a long time, and controls on their release weren't particularly strict.
As I said in an earlier post, I wonder what the NJ DEP thinks of a lab in/near a residential neighborhood producing and releasing unknown quantities of a substance which has never had its safety tested (by NJ DEP labs)?
- Status