Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[AlaskaBushPilot]

A substantive post.

Watching the emotional manipulation at work - little rewards to steer conversation into imaginary twaddle.

Ladle scorn out where you don't.

There are tactics similar to cults, which are frauds at the core anyway. The "insider" language. Made-up jargon. To make targets of the con feel like they have special knowledge.

We need to merge this with Scientology. Use Engrams to balance Hydrinos.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Thanks.

markie, I've moved my intended thorough review of your posts, to understand 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 to the backburner. I started, but then I read this:

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?

Now I'm thinking that the only reason why a hydrino can't absorb an EUV photon, and return to being a normal, ground state, hydrogen atom must be found somewhere in Mills' alternative QM theory.

If so, can you point out where please?

If not, can you please explain - in detail - exactly what it is that prevents a hydrino from absorbing an EUV photon (whether to produce a ground state H atom, or to ionize it)?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Have you any idea how ludicrous this set up is? By your own admission, the thing is an inefficient generator of light, and produces a lot of heat. Yet the idea is to choose to collect the light with a highly inefficient technology* and use that to produce electricity, whilst letting all that nasty waste heat go. You know, that same heat that every other power station on the planet uses to turn turbines to produce electricity. Can you explain this childishly stupid set-up?

They're so embarrassed by this that you never see it stated clearly: they're going to run solar panels off light bulbs. In order to run light bulbs.

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

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

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

Fun stuff.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

The last sentence is a bit convoluted, and not at all what I intended (if you read it straight). Too many negatives.

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

The notion that essentially all research chemists and physicists (and astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists), everywhere, would ignore the potentially fundamental, Nobel Prize winning ideas Mills et al. has published is ... difficult to accept.

 

[Reality Check]

The power release spike from hydrino formation lasts much longer than the input power pulse, and is of considerably greater magnitude.

Hi, markie, blindly accepting the existence of imaginary "hydrino formation" is not good.
There is no evidence of hydrinos existing in that experiment. There is no evidence that this is anything more than a (probably inefficient) electroplating machine.
The scientific papers have been debunked in this thread.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Thanks for this.

For the record, a key part of my post - that you are quoting - is wrong; I just posted a corrected version. It reads like this:

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 all research chemists and physicists (and astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists), everywhere, would ignore the potentially fundamental, Nobel Prize winning ideas Mills et al. has published is ... difficult to accept.

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.

I'd like to take a deep dive into this, and a couple of your other, recent posts. I'll likely need at least two posts to cover it; this is the first.

Let's go back to this:

markie, maybe you missed them, or maybe you're still working on responses ... would you mind replying to posts #1106 and #1107 please? Thank you.

For 1106 check out
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/7/21/accountability

<snip>

Here's a part of what's on that page:

(2.) In fact, contrary to popular opinion, Randell Mills and his team of scientists have published over 100 experimental journal articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last 25 years, claiming evidence for fractional energy levels of hydrogen. If you don't believe me, here is a partial list. Caution, it is really *********** long.

A quite remarkable claim, or set of claims!

The list, as I count it, contains 81 items, not "over 100". OK, so there's "here is a partial list".

The oldest is dated 1991 ("*Mills, R.L.; Kneizys,S. (1991). "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion". Fusion Technology 20 (65)."). So I guess "over the last 25 years" checks out. The second oldest is dated 1994.

However, on "experimental journal articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals" things look a bit, um, dicey.

For example, ~five look like preprints, not what was actually published ("Prepr. Pap.—Am. Chem. Soc. Conf., Div. Fuel Chem.", "Prep. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem.", "Division of Fuel Chemistry, Session: Advances in Hydrogen Energy, Prepr. Pap. — Am. Chem. Soc. Conf", "Division of Fuel Chemistry, Session: Chemistry of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels, Prepr. Pap.—Am. Chem. Soc. Conf.", and "Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Prepr."). And two more are clearly presentations at conferences, not papers published in peer-reviewed journals ("Proceedings of the 17th Annual Battery Conference on Applications and Advances", and "International Conference on Global Warming and Energy Policy").

But Brett seems to be on shaky ground for this ", claiming evidence for fractional energy levels of hydrogen." The normal reading of this, in context, is that there are >100 "experimental journal articles" all of which claim "evidence for fractional energy levels of hydrogen". From the titles alone, it's clear that many of the ~74 actual papers do not make such a claim (though many, perhaps most, may well reference other papers which do make that claim and/or present evidence for it).

Nitpicking? Yes. Being overly pedantic? Surely.

So why the **** does it matter? Stay tuned.

 

[Reality Check]

Dihydrino gas H2 is extremely stable and inert, ...

Mills ignorant fantasies about "Dihydrino gas" and "hydrino hydride" are not science, markie.
ETA: I wrote a post back on 25 January 2017 on the Mills idiocy of trying to throw away quantum mechanics for purely classical physics.
Statements of ignorance abut QM. The actual idiocy begins with a classical bound electron which is physically impossible. It is that impossibility that needed QM!

 

[Reality Check]

For 1106 check out
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/7/21/accountability.

Check out real world facts, markie:
When a tiny team of people (Mills R L + a few others) make a claim over a period of decades then it is very unlikely that their claim is correct.
What happens with valid science is that other scientists become interested in the field. There is a steady increase in the frequency of publication on the subject and an ever widening body of researchers.
What happens with valid groundbreaking science is an explosion of researchers and papers!

When an author states "Joseph Conrads, who was possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world" that is an argument from authority (not scientific evidence).

When an author cites a paper that is not about hydrinos then he is lying about that paper supporting the existence of hydrinos. For example
Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate is about the known Balmer series and Lyman series spectral lines.

When a paper is rarely cited, it is likely to be invalid or trivial. The above paper has been cited 12 times I the last 13 years, mostly by the author Mills, R. L..

When a paper is ignored by an author, it is likely to be invalid or trivial. The above paper has not been cited by the author Wrubel, Th. There is no sign that Wrubel, Th has ever published a paper on hydrinos. His 23 papers are on established science.

 

[Hans]

Watching the emotional manipulation at work - little rewards to steer conversation into imaginary twaddle.

Ladle scorn out where you don't.

There are tactics similar to cults, which are frauds at the core anyway. The "insider" language. Made-up jargon. To make targets of the con feel like they have special knowledge.

We need to merge this with Scientology. Use Engrams to balance Hydrinos.

Oh yeah he is trying so hard to take control of the conversation to steer it away from discussions about fraud and scientific impossibility - you can see how he flees from questions about the scammy things the multiply renamed company has done - can he explain these actions? Nope he runs and is continuing to run from those types of questions.

Will that work? Nope. Will he keep trying to ignore questions he doesn't like? yep. Will they cascade and destroy him? We will see won't we?

If his job is to get everyone to think Mills is a real scientist with a real discovery he is failing miserably. As you read his stuff you see how cartoonish it all actually is. Hey Mills your boy ain't doing a good job and given your company's usual reaction to failure.

Why don't you change his name...........lol

 

[JeanTate]

Part 2

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

This is an excellent question!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(to be continued)

 

[JeanTate]

Check out real world facts, markie:
When a tiny team of people (Mills R L + a few others) make a claim over a period of decades then it is very unlikely that their claim is correct.
What happens with valid science is that other scientists become interested in the field. There is a steady increase in the frequency of publication on the subject and an ever widening body of researchers.
What happens with valid groundbreaking science is an explosion of researchers and papers!

When an author states "Joseph Conrads, who was possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world" that is an argument from authority (not scientific evidence).

When an author cites a paper that is not about hydrinos then he is lying about that paper supporting the existence of hydrinos. For example
Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate is about the known Balmer series and Lyman series spectral lines.

When a paper is rarely cited, it is likely to be invalid or trivial. The above paper has been cited 12 times I the last 13 years, mostly by the author Mills, R. L..

When a paper is ignored by an author, it is likely to be invalid or trivial. The above paper has not been cited by the author Wrubel, Th. There is no sign that Wrubel, Th has ever published a paper on hydrinos. His 23 papers are on established science.

But wait! There's more!

I wanted to add a few more by outside primary authors including Jonathan Phillips (from UNM and LANL), and Joseph Conrads, who was possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world, before his passing a few years ago.

Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.

(my bold)

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

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

Perhaps markie can tell us what's going on?

 

[JeanTate]

Part 3.

Again, thanks for this.

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?

<snip>

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.

(my bold)

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

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

<snip> Perhaps it's time for you to download the GUTCP book and read, at least the introduction.

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.

(my bold)

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

Halton Arp was an exceptionally good observational astronomer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[marplots]

JeanTate mentions the Rathke paper which is highly critical of Mills and his theory. Here is a link to it without a paywall:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

 

[Mike!]

Mills ignorant fantasies about "Dihydrino gas" and "hydrino hydride" are not science, markie.
ETA: I wrote a post back on 25 January 2017 on the Mills idiocy of trying to throw away quantum mechanics for purely classical physics.
Statements of ignorance abut QM. The actual idiocy begins with a classical bound electron which is physically impossible. It is that impossibility that needed QM!

Every time I see this highlited phrase, my brain reads: "Hydrino Hayride", which somehow seems more fitting this long term investor cash syphon.
I think it'd be a great band name as well.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Glad you're having a good time. Now take those giggles to the BLP website and have a look for yourself on the specifics of the capacitors.

I don't think I'll find that over there, nor through the looking glass, even with Alice's help . Is it that a standard reply you all are instructed to give when caught telling stupid things? "Yeah, you'll find the details there ... over there ... it's in the cloud".

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

 

[aleCcowaN]

That is not a working machine. Mills doesn't have one yet. So apart from the graphite dome and base, I expect the first working product will look very different. The piping I presume leads into and out of the base, to keep it water cooled.

You really don't have the slightest idea of anything you are talking about. Is it another instruction of the set? Being assertive while telling cock and bull tales?

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

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

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

 

[halleyscomet]

Every time I see this highlited phrase, my brain reads: "Hydrino Hayride", which somehow seems more fitting this long term investor cash syphon.
I think it'd be a great band name as well.

Can I borrow that phrase for the Hydrino disaster story I'm working on? I'm thinking it'll be the name of that corporate band put together by the company who finally commercialized Hydrino tech as part of their advertising.

 

[aleCcowaN]

A substantive post. To keep it very short, the spectrum of light emitted and the excess energy produced go far beyond what a redox reaction would accomplish. About the water thermolysis, it wouldn't have time to thermalize. In the very brief time the Mysterious Oxide loses it's grip on it's oxgyen and the oxygen combines with hydrogen to form water, another hydrogen has already encountered that water molecule and is catalyzed to hydrino. The water then ionizes from that process and the oxygen is quickly recovered by the thermally stable oxide.

Then, according to you the same oxygen atoms from the Misterious Oxyde™ are used once and again with and endless stream of hydrogen atoms soon to become hydrinos one by one. That awfully looks like a stream of investors being brought away into the dark and blown with an truncheon to get their money.

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

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

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps it's time for you to download the GUTCP book and read, at least the introduction.

Have you read and understood the GUTCP book, markie?
For anyone who has learned even just the history of science the book is non-science. The reason that classical physics was abandoned as a description of atoms was that classical physics could not describe what we have discovered about atoms in over 2 centuries from 1802.

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

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

 

[Mike!]

Can I borrow that phrase for the Hydrino disaster story I'm working on? I'm thinking it'll be the name of that corporate band put together by the company who finally commercialized Hydrino tech as part of their advertising.

Oh please, be my guest.