Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[JeanTate]

You are not distinguishing between the formation of hydrino, which has a spectral emission, and already existing hydrino, which does not.

Do you have a copy of the Mills&Ray paper Aepervius cites? If so, could you please post a link (one that does not have a paywall)?

I'm still looking, but so far I've been able to read only the abstract, and some (all?) Figures and Tables, and those only as squished small images. However, that limited window seems to be more consistent with what Aepervius wrote than what you did.

 

[JeanTate]

Oh, I think that most chemists do plod along. There are exceptions of course from the more brilliant minds, who are more often in places where they have the opportunity to make more revolutionary advances.
You make a good point about collaborations.

<snip>

May I ask, are you a research chemist? Were you? How about your close friends and relatives? Expand this to a research scientist in any branch of science; what close familiarity do you have?

FWIW, paiute's and Aepervius' descriptions seem to me, based on my own familiarity with research science and scientists, far more accurate than yours. The notion that essentially no research chemist or physicist (or astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist), anywhere, would ignore the potentially fundamental, Nobel Prize winning ideas Mills et al. has published is ... difficult to accept.

 

[JeanTate]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter




Hydrios fit none of those categories.

True.

WP is a bit dated here; MACHOs - except possibly black hole ones - cannot be CDM as they're baryonic. And the second peak in the CMB angular power spectrum rules out baryons as a significant component of CDM. markie cited a paper which seems to refer to "missing baryonic mass". I think this is now pretty much resolved ... such baryonic mass is in the form of diffuse, high temperature plasma in cosmic web filaments ...

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Quite the contrary is true.

<snip>

Evidence, please.

 

[markie]

Do you have a copy of the Mills&Ray paper Aepervius cites? If so, could you please post a link (one that does not have a paywall)?

I'm still looking, but so far I've been able to read only the abstract, and some (all?) Figures and Tables, and those only as squished small images. However, that limited window seems to be more consistent with what Aepervius wrote than what you did.

Sorry, I don't have a copy, nor do I have access to papers behind a paywall.
At least you are trying to look.

 

[JeanTate]

That means the claims about Hydrinos being inert are a flat out lie.

What happens to a hydrino when it absorbs enough energy to pop that electron out of the lower electron shell back to its regular orbit?

Does it displace the extra electron in the regular electron shell or eject the electron completely?

If it displaces the extra electron then it will blast apart any molecule the hydrino has been incorporated into.

The Mills fans are spreading a lot of ******** about Hydrinos and dressing up their misunderstanding of chemistry and the Mills theories in wobbly-wibbly vague nonsense about it being "unexplored" or "too new."

The Mills theories are quite simple, but people inject a lot of wishful thinking and fantasy land nonsense into it so they can project wishful thinking about physics onto it.

I think it's far worse than what you describe.

Mills has published at least one attempt at a theory to describe hydrinos etc. Leave aside that it's, um, not very good; if it were to replace the QM you find in textbooks, it would require a revolution in chemistry, the like of which we have not seen in centuries. One implication: there is no way at all to predict how hydrinos behave, as they interact with other forms of matter, or even with photons; to find out, you'd have to start from scratch and re-do pretty much all of chemistry (and a lot of physics too), as lab experiments.

AFAICS, Mills et al. seem blithely indifferent to the obvious risks ...

 

[markie]

May I ask, are you a research chemist? Were you? How about your close friends and relatives? Expand this to a research scientist in any branch of science; what close familiarity do you have?

FWIW, paiute's and Aepervius' descriptions seem to me, based on my own familiarity with research science and scientists, far more accurate than yours. The notion that essentially no research chemist or physicist (or astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist), anywhere, would ignore the potentially fundamental, Nobel Prize winning ideas Mills et al. has published is ... difficult to accept.

No, not a chemist. I have a BSc in microbiology from way back.

I have friends who are chemists. I would hardly call them 'research' scientists however.

People have only so much time in the day. And even if they are curious enough to see what is happening on the fringe, the vast majority are quite content to let Wiki do the vetting for them. And to say that Wiki has not been kind to Mills is an understatement.

 

[JeanTate]

Sorry, I don't have a copy, nor do I have access to papers behind a paywall.
At least you are trying to look.

Thank you for your frank admission.

If you have not read the actual paper, what is the basis for your statement that "already existing hydrino, which does not [have a spectral emission]" (post #1188)?

 

[The Man]

Reasonable points. In fairness, Mills would much rather harvest high energy EUV and soft x-ray photons directly. But the technology is not there yet. So, he has to settle with heating a dome up to glowing temperatures, throwing off huge amounts of waste heat in order to capture a relatively small portion of visible light. I too, cringe. Personally I would like to see coal and gas plants retrofitted, harvesting the heat of SunCells.

Nope, he and you have simply chosen to claim that "he has to settle with heating a dome up to glowing temperatures, throwing off huge amounts of waste heat in order to capture a relatively small portion of visible light." and that claim remains preposterous.

 

[markie]

I think it's far worse than what you describe.

Mills has published at least one attempt at a theory to describe hydrinos etc. Leave aside that it's, um, not very good; if it were to replace the QM you find in textbooks, it would require a revolution in chemistry, the like of which we have not seen in centuries. One implication: there is no way at all to predict how hydrinos behave, as they interact with other forms of matter, or even with photons; to find out, you'd have to start from scratch and re-do pretty much all of chemistry (and a lot of physics too), as lab experiments.

AFAICS, Mills et al. seem blithely indifferent to the obvious risks ...

How do you know it's not very good? I assume you know that Mills correctly predicts the ionization energies of the first twenty (?) elements. That is the ionization energies of every electron in each of the first twenty elements. Now, what can QM accomplish in this regard? It gets the ionization energy of hydrogen, and that's about it. Perhaps it's time for you to download the GUTCP book and read, at least the introduction.

 

[Mike!]

Nope, he and you have simply chosen to claim that "he has to settle with heating a dome up to glowing temperatures, throwing off huge amounts of waste heat in order to capture a relatively small portion of visible light." and that claim remains preposterous.

Why does this suddenly come to mind?

 

[JeanTate]

Wait, so the hydrogen and the "thermally stable" "Mysterious Oxide" ain't already, well, thermalized? What are the temperature differences then?

Indeed.

AFAIK, thermalization in the environments described would take place in timescales of the order of ns. Anyone more familiar with this than I am care to comment?

 

[The Man]

I was referring to an aqueous cell they had in the early 1990s, not to the SunCell they are developing now.

So obviously it was clear to you what I was referring to, so again...

From linked article...

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/clean-tech/not-snake-oil-anymore/article9543129.ece



What do you "guess" is "Low grade" about "heat like that"?

 

[markie]

Thank you for your frank admission.

If you have not read the actual paper, what is the basis for your statement that "already existing hydrino, which does not [have a spectral emission]" (post #1188)?

I don't have to read a research paper to know. It's all in Mill's GUTCP book, which includes in part findings from his research.

 

[jsfisher]

What happens when the cooling system fails? For that matter, how does one cool the immediate surroundings of a tea-cup sized object at 11,000^oF?

 

[marplots]

What happens when the cooling system fails? For that matter, how does one cool the immediate surroundings of a tea-cup sized object at 11,000^oF?

You'd probably need a massive heat sink. Like a steel I-beam or something. You know, like the kind of structural steel used in skyscrapers.

OMG, no wonder it's been kept secret; Mills invented thermite.




ETA: Maybe slightly off-topic, but I recall firefighters commenting from the scene of the collapse about "rivers of molten hydrinos."

 

[The Man]

Thanks!

That's cool!

At the moment, I can't see how this is similar to what you described re how hydrinos are formed, other than "resonant/resonance energy transfer". I'll go back through your posts, including links, to see if I can understand better how - in detail - hydrinos form, and why - in detail - it is impossible for a hydrino to be converted to a normal H atom by absorption of an EUV photon. In the meantime, if you have a source which provides these details in a concise form ...

The linked article supports no such assertions. Near field interaction (dipole-dipole coupling described in the link) doesn't prevent far field (radiative) interaction. Quite the contrary the article asserts both the donor and acceptor molecules must be chromophores, that is molecules capable of achieving excited states through radiant absorption (far field interaction). Further, the donor must already be in such an excited state just for the near field transfer to take place.

 

[The Man]

True.

WP is a bit dated here; MACHOs - except possibly black hole ones - cannot be CDM as they're baryonic. And the second peak in the CMB angular power spectrum rules out baryons as a significant component of CDM. markie cited a paper which seems to refer to "missing baryonic mass". I think this is now pretty much resolved ... such baryonic mass is in the form of diffuse, high temperature plasma in cosmic web filaments ...

Yep, non-baryonic seems to be something markie keeps missing.

 

[hecd2]

You say this:

You are not distinguishing between the formation of hydrino, which has a spectral emission, and already existing hydrino, which does not.

And you also say this:

Catalysts of course can be very broadly defined. Even net exothermic reactions can require a 'catalyst' to happen at all. For instance, if I recall correctly even the simple exothermic reaction H + H -> H2 requires a third body to occur. And note that there is no photon given off; rather there is energy transfer to the third body. Somewhat analogous to the hydrino formation process; but in the case of the hydrino process the third body has to be able to receive only a distinct amount of energy, namely multiples of 27.2 eV.

So are we right in thinking that the formation of a hydrino causes the emission of a detectable photon at a characteristic energy and the "resonant" transfer of 27.2eV to a third body (which you call a catalyst), which is, apparently, a water molecule? If so, why?

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

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

What is this, hit with a flurry of punched approach? Very scattered. Field units I regard as still in the debugging phase and not ready for commercial sale. And yes BLP has made contracts with power companies. I have no idea what you are doing, going on about hairdryers and electric rangers and refrigerators.
To say I'm representing a fraud is the height of presumption. Please.

I spent years evaluating applications for alternative energy grants for the State. Everything from remote solar or wind to large scale hydro. I seemed to have ended up in a lot of ground source heat pump stuff I didn't really like. I liked hydro because the numbers were generally off the charts.

After the analysts were done, the politicians would then divide the money up by region or trade an energy project for a road project or something in the legislative logrolling process.

You have no idea what I am doing because I ask the questions a financial analyst asks when people come with proposals for real technology they want funded.

OF COURSE you have never thought about what power market this fraud is intended to serve. Because it isn't intended to serve any market. It will never power flashlights or AC power outlets in homes or electric cars or anything else. So it is an absurd question from your point of view.

Why would someone ask what you are going to power with it? All the questions need to be about the imaginary substance, which diverts from the laughably stupid principle:

running solar panels off light bulbs.

Con artists love Duper's Delight. Here is this asinine waste of energy - why not run solar off an open fire pit?

Stand 20 feet from the fire, and try to stay warm off the electric heater plugged into solar panels you surround the fire with, which block the heat.

It's amazing, thank you again.