Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[Aepervius]

You know what's funny ?

The first link to GUTCP is...... on e-catworld.

Yes another scam : the rossi one.

 

[Aepervius]

Also looking at its orbisphere is funny, and the comparison against the bohr model, one which we know fail at many point and is not used. In fact many of the agreement of the bohr model with QM is considered accidental. As for the photon infinitely trapped in an orbitsphere, apparently mills does not handle well tunneling. Maybe we should make meet Pr Nimtz .

 

[markie]

Well I think its time for 'another post'?

You seem to be running from my questions, tsk tsk, well I'll just keep asking them until you run back to your employer and tell them you've failed trying to stop people talking about their scam.

You aren't doing very well in trying to shield Mills' fraud from people who can see it for what it is. Shouldn't you be trying harder? You know like with evidence that his stuff works? lol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that it what they say but they have said that before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4&postcount=60

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2009/01...ed-second.html

Markie what happened to this contract?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/7HmbD7x.jpg[/qimg]

3rd repeat of question - the questions will be repeated until answered properly....oh and just for fun could you explain why they keep changing the company name?
HydroCatalysis was okay for the 1990's so why keep changing it every few years, lol.

I don't know what happened to the contract with that power company. I'm not an insider in the loop.

Why do they change the name of the company? It seems to reflect the changing nature of the power generating process they were/are focussing on. I think you are implying something nefarious is going on with the name changes? Oh well.

 

[Reality Check]

Have you read and understood the GUTCP book, markie?

An easily understood lie in the introduction of Mills book is his lie by omission of decades of science !
QM did not stop at the Schrödinger equation. Everyone understood that it was non-relativistic, especially Schrödinger who was actually trying to produce a relativistic equation but decided to publish what he had.

There is a lie of "Quantum mechanics failed to predict the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment" when the 1928 Dirac equation is that prediction. Smacks of a delusion that QM should predict the result of a 1922 experiment when the Schrödinger equation did not exist until 1926 and was not relativistic until 1928.

Dirac did not propose the modern Quantum electrodynamics (QED). He contributed work that lead to the formulation of QED by many scientists. Followed by a couple of lies:

• that bound electrons have to emit energy in quanta explains their "nonradiation"
• a Lorentz invariant theory has no "internal inconsistency" with special relativity.

 

[markie]

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?

The temperature of the first working SunCells is supposed to reach 3000 C.
Mills has said that when the reaction is quenched the graphite dome (about one foot in diameter) will almost immediate go from glowing white hot to not glowing at all. How he plans to shut down the reaction relatively quickly, I'm not sure, especially since the reaction can apparently self sustain to some extent. Will starving it of hydrogen shut down the reaction quickly enough? I suppose they will find out in due time.

 

[markie]

You say this:
And you also say this:
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?

Yes you have it essentially right. The photon (from the hydrogen to hydrino transition) is said to have a sharp 'cutoff' at a maximum energy. If only one photon is released in the process it will be that maximum energy, ie, a photon of a particular wavelength. But there can also be a continuum of photons of lesser energies released as well, which will sum up to the maximum energy, which will be a multiple of 13.6 eV.

To be clear, the resonant transfer of the 27.2 eV to the third body occurs first ; this destabilizes the ground state hydrogen which then falls to a lower energy hydrino state, emitting a photon or a continuum of photons in the process.

Also of note, the catalyst can be a number of different compounds, as long as they have an ionization energy of 27.2 eV. Mills only relatively recently found that water itself, free of bonding to other water molecules, has the correct ionization energy to be used as a catalyst.

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

Right. Why exactly is the electron of the hydrino impervious to photons (of any energy)? It has to do with what is called the Haus non radiation condition, wherein certain configurations of surface charge (which define the electron) do not radiate photons, nor are they disturbed by photons. Why is this? The currents of surface charge are apparently 'not synchronous with the speed of light'. That's about as deep as I can go. Mills goes more deeply into this and the findings of Haus. BTW Haus was Mills' teacher at MIT.

 

[JeanTate]

The temperature of the first working SunCells is supposed to reach 3000 C.
Mills has said that when the reaction is quenched the graphite dome (about one foot in diameter) will almost immediate go from glowing white hot to not glowing at all. How he plans to shut down the reaction relatively quickly, I'm not sure, especially since the reaction can apparently self sustain to some extent. Will starving it of hydrogen shut down the reaction quickly enough? I suppose they will find out in due time.

Will the graphite dome catch fire?

What hydrino-carbon catalyzed reactions are known to occur? How exothermic are these?

What information about the facility has been given to the local fire department? EMS?

What are the plans to inform the locals about an uncontrolled release of hydrinos?

Can you confirm that BLP is currently located at 493 Old Trenton Rd, East Windsor, NJ? And that it is only 100 m or so from Healthy Kids Pediatric Group, and Knowledge Beginnings?

 

[markie]

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.

I appreciate the experience you have had re accessing the feasibility of particular energy generating schemes. Good. I also see you are totally ignoring even the possibility that vast energy can be generated by hydrino formation. Oh well.

 

[markie]

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.

Jaded much? I would have thought that time in the Alaskan wilderness would be good for the soul.

 

[markie]

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:



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)?

Yes you are right, the answer is found in Mill's alternative theory. That theory started forming when he was working with his professor Haus at MIT.
Anyway, a post or two ago I gave a superficial description of why the hydrino does not absorb a photon, nor release one (unless it is destabilized by yet another resonant - energy transfer collision with a catalyst).

 

[SezMe]

Actually, come to think of it, forget Jupiter.
According to Mill's 'theory' Earth should not have water.

Sub-oceanic ridges provide both molten silver as a catalyst and abundant water and energy.
So all oceans should have been transformed to hydrino gas long ago.

You outta see my hydrino surfboard.

 

[markie]

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.

For sure, and I am acutely aware of this aspect. But those in academia are people and not immune to herd dynamics. If a couple of prominent scientists endorsed Mill's work, the floodgates would open I think. (One can dream.) Mills already has a number of smart people at universities who are willing to endorse at least certain aspects of his work. But as it is now, it looks like it will take something like a functioning SunCell to turn the tide.

 

[markie]

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.

Blindly accepting the existence of hydrino? "No evidence"? Ha!

 

[Hans]

Jaded much? I would have thought that time in the Alaskan wilderness would be good for the soul.

...and the exact type of useless comment he was talking about that you use to avoid what was said. tsk tsk

 

[Hans]

I appreciate the experience you have had re accessing the feasibility of particular energy generating schemes. Good. I also see you are totally ignoring even the possibility that vast energy can be generated by hydrino formation. Oh well.

.....and you are ignoring all the evidence that no such 'generation' will ever occur like it didn't in that last 25 years of fraud from Mills - oh are you still unable to speak about the intellectual horrors of those early years?

Sad

 

[markie]

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!

From what you said in your post 754 (which I just read) it looks like you read the Introduction to Mill's GUTCP. Well I'm impressed.

Of course I can't agree with some of your assessments.

As a prime example, you said

The hundreds of pages in the rest of the book can be ignored since page 17 starts with a classic bound electron. This is denying the basic physics that a bound electron is accelerating and that an accelerating charge emits radiation. Thus a classic bound electron spirals into the nucleus in a short time. Mills states the Haus condition (nonradiation condition) correctly - it is the condition for an ensemble of charges not to emit radiation. But this section is "ONE-ELECTRON ATOMS".

This shows that you do not understand what Mills is saying about the electron. You are depicting the electron as a point particle orbiting the nucleus. But according to GUTCP the electron is a 2 dimensional spherical surface comprised of current loops of charge, which essentially comprises an 'ensemble of charges'.

 

[Hans]

I don't know what happened to the contract with that power company. I'm not an insider in the loop.

Yet you are their apologist here and saying everything is peachy keen but you seem unusually uninterested in all the failed attempts/fraud they did over the last 25 years - why is that?

Why do they change the name of the company?

Fraud comes to mind doesn't it?

I posted that when you proudly told us how they were signing contracts

They did so in every other they ran the same fraud - what happened to all those failed contracts? Let me guess you feel it would be disrespectful of Mill to see why he is doing nefarious things...why is that?

It seems to reflect the changing nature of the power generating process they were/are focussing on.

The changing nature? Still all from Mills fantasy mill, pun intended.

I think you are implying something nefarious is going on with the name changes? Oh well.

Oh well and you think what they are doing is something other than fraud, oh well - I hope they are paying you well.

 

[markie]

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.

You are mischaracterizing the results of that experiment by Mills and Conrads. You are implying that the only spectrum they saw was the Balmer and Lyman series. No. Rather, they used those series to measure certain characteristics like duration of afterglow, but for you to imply that is all they saw is misleading. Also, you ignore a crucial aspect of this experiment, namely why K2CO3 produced the plasma and Na2CO3 did not.

Here's the abstract for anyone interested:

A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hα and Hβ transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source.

 

[markie]

Part 2


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)

It's interesting that skeptics swoon over Rathke's critique. I remember reading it some years ago and was not impressed. As I recall he tried to describe the hydrino in terms of the Schrodinger equation, and it didn't support the existence of hydrinos. Well of course it didn't! A major point in GUTCP is that Schrodinger's equation is not the way to do it, and reasonable grounds imo for this are given in GUTCP.
Furthermore, how many people realize that Schrodinger himself regretted what his equation became used for? Pardon the bad grammar.

 

[markie]

But wait! There's more!

(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?

Here is a portion of an article from the Village Voice (written 1999) that sheds some light, pun intended.

Dr. Johannes Conrads, former director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics at Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany, told a gathering of the American Chemical Society in October that he was able to produce "remarkably high energy" from a Mills cell. But Conrads said he thought the energy could be coming from an effect within dense regions of plasma produced through the BlackLight Power process.