Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[The Man]

Did you know hydrino water cures 158 of the 310 known types of cancer? And it only causes the one.

Yeah, but it's a really frik'n nasty one (like getting the other 309 thrice).

ETA:

On a more serious note, I look forward to the new television commercials:

"Have you been exposed to hydrinos? Do you suffer from crackles, kankles or a generally morose and despondent disposition? Are your stools embarrassingly foul and off-putting to pets? Have your genital warts developed warts of their own? You may be entitled to compensation! Contact our law offices today!"

The esteemed law office of Leanback & Wackit, no doubt.

 

[markie]

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

<snip>

How concerned, or similar, are you about this?

Personally I'm not concerned. Business is business, and it happens to not be my business.

 

[markie]

Great, but that is not what I asked.

This is also not responsive to what I asked. Moreover, white hot is considerably below the temperatures under consideration here.

In addition, how is the glowing (well above) white-hot graphite prevented from sublimating? (or silver from boiling or ....)

This should be a major concern, no?

Sorry, I had the SunCell graphite dome on the brain. You're referring to something previous, the extremely high plasma temperature in a small area between tungsten electrodes, with silver injected between the electrodes. It turns out they had a problem with at least one of the tungsten electrodes getting destroyed in that kind of environment. Also destroyed was the thick titanium cylinder which surrounded the electrodes and contained the reaction. Now that they have the molten silver effetely serving as liquid electrodes, things are different. But with that setup, as far as I'm aware, they have not demonstrated the high power density of that they had with the tungsten electrodes. They are running it at low pressure. But even at relatively low temps yes the silver vaporizes within the graphite dome environment. Compared to what was going on with the tungsten electrodes it's quite serene. But again, that is at lower temperatures and power density.

 

[markie]

Let me see if I follow this....Joseph Conrads, who published under the pseudonym Hannah Conrads, is really Johannes Conrads? Which one is possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world?

The latter.

 

[markie]

Losing 27.2 eV isn't destabilizing "the ground state hydrogen" it is already a lower energy state itself.

Actually, the Haus non radiation condition explicitly treats the electron as a point charge.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986AmJPh..54.1126H

Also it is the Haus non radiation condition not the 'Haus non absorption condition'. So while intend to account for the non-radiation of consistent bound charge orbital sates (as experimentally observed) it can not in and of itself preclude that bound state being as your put it "disturbed by photons" (absorption) as that is also experimentally observed.

That is a good point about the reverse not being necessarily true. But it would make sense, to me. What would be interesting to know is how Haus responded to his student Mills taking his idea and applying it to a single, extended electron comprised of current loops of charge. I don't know what happened there. I did hear however that Haus described Mill's math as 'competent'. Damned by faint praise? Hard to interpret that one.

 

[markie]

And they are also pretty good at quickly deciding what is crackpot and what is not.

Likewise at reading the papers which report null results when trying to replicate Mills et al.'s reported results (Phelps&Clementson (2012) is far from the only one), and which conclusively show CQM to have no legs (e.g. Rathke (2005)).


I think you have it backwards ... the floodgates would open if "a couple of prominent scientists" were able to replicate Mills' reported results, or if someone could re-write CQM in such a form that it was internally consistent and consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results.


Yes, you can dream.

Another thing which might turn the tide is an explosion at BLP, followed by a few thousand deaths in East Windsor, due to toxic exposure to hydrino compounds.

If you think Phelps&Clementson and Rathke's responses show 'conclusively' that CQM has 'no legs', I can conclude your skepticism is rather selective.

 

[Aepervius]

If you have a link to the rebuttal, I'd like to read it.

It was linked upthread. basically hand waving.

 

[Aepervius]

If you think Phelps&Clementson and Rathke's responses show 'conclusively' that CQM has 'no legs', I can conclude your skepticism is rather selective.

Not really. Mills provided no evidence of anything which cannot be interpreted in a different *classical* way. And his response to Rathke was lackluster. As for the so called evidence, again, you have only Mills' word and that's about it. That is why reproduction is very important in physic. Mills does not give any way to reproduce his results. Sooooo. *Poof*. Away they goes.

And it quite put your claim that Mills was ignored by the way. That's at least two article where he was not ignored.

 

[markie]

What is the electron in CQM?

Hey, you tell me! A probability cloud? A point?

 

[halleyscomet]

Did you know hydrino water cures 158 of the 310 known types of cancer? And it only causes the one.

On a more serious note, I look forward to the new television commercials:

"Have you been exposed to hydrinos? Do you suffer from crackles, kankles or a generally morose and despondent disposition? Are your stools embarrassingly foul and off-putting to pets? Have your genital warts developed warts of their own? You may be entitled to compensation! Contact our law offices today!"

The most likely medical problems from Hydrino exposure are going to be a bit more dramatic.

According to the Mills theories, a hydrino has an electron that's been forced into a theoretical below-ground electron orbit. What happens to the outer electron shell and the chemical reactivity of the hydrino varies depending upon which iteration of the Mills theories you're working from. That said, the reactivity levels predicted by the theories are different than the non-reactive "It's dark matter" claims Mills is currently making. According to the theories, they're at least as reactive as regular hydrogen, probably much more so.

Each atom is also a ticking time bomb. Just as it released a vast amount of energy when the electron was pushed into a lower state, so will it absorb energy until the electron pops back out again. There's no real indication that this is a non-reversible change as Mills is currently claiming in his publicity materials.

This means any molecules, such as water, that contain a hydrino, are tiny time bombs that will shed an electron after absorbing enough energy. This may blast apart whatever molecule that contains it.

1. At the very least, we're looking at cellular damage comparable to radiation exposure or excessive oxidation. Enjoy your increased cancer rates!
   
2. You also have atoms in the body steadily absorbing energy. The body will have to work harder to maintain a constant temperature as a bunch of heat is being absorbed by those ticking time bombs. Congratulations on your molecular parasite!
   
3. Some of the reactions that occur when the molecules decompose will be exothermic. Not only will you have chills, but you'll have random spots of internal burn damage! Oh, joy!
   
4. The byproducts of some of this spontaneous and uncontrolled molecular decomposition will be toxic to some degree. While our bodies can handle a certain level of toxicity, some of these compounds will be ones we normally encounter in the form of industrial pollution, not biology. Some of them will have other negative biological side effects. Mangle a protein and you could have a prion disease! Rip apart some DNA and you could get cancer!
   
5. Finally, we have the risk of anther large energy discharge when the electron leaves the below ground state. I'm still working out the likelihood of this one, but you could see things like a tooth being blasted out of someone's cheek by a hydrino contaminated water molecule decomposing in the root of the tooth. I can see a lot of these internal detonations being misdiagnosed as a stroke or heart attack.

The list goes on.

 

[halleyscomet]

If you think Phelps&Clementson and Rathke's responses show 'conclusively' that CQM has 'no legs', I can conclude your skepticism is rather selective.

Care to elaborate?

Can you elaborate?

 

[jsfisher]

Sorry, I had the SunCell graphite dome on the brain....

You are still not responding to what I wrote. What happens when the cooling system fails?

Just guessing mind you, but I would imagine containment vessels shattering and some extremely hot fluids having their way with any nearby materials.

(There would also be concerns about accident survival for motor vehicle use.)

 

[markie]

"skeptics"? "swoon"? "critique"?

markie, I hate to break it to you, but you should be really happy that Rathke took the time and trouble to a) read Mills' work, and b) write a paper on his CQM.

Once again, you seem to be rather ignorant of what science is, and how it works. For example, fundamentally, all scientists are "skeptics", and a high percentage of published papers are "critiques".

The usual (scientific) response to Rathke's paper would be one - by Mills, or someone else - pointing out the flaws in his (Rathke's) paper (e.g. misapplication of techniques, misrepresentation of key elements of CQM), or presenting a revised version of CQM which was demonstrably internally consistent.

As you well know, Mills himself did not write such a paper. That dealt a huge blow to both his credibility as a serious physicist, and to the perceived validity of CQM.


Perhaps you could re-read it?


I think the kindest thing I can say here is that your memory is fallible ...

Oh, and what hecd2 said.

As I well know, Mills did write a rebuttal to Rathke's paper, so I don't know why you are saying he didn't.

Abstract
Rathke has made at least nine fundamental mathematical and physics mistakes that dispatch his argument against hydrinos (A. Rathke, "A critical analysis of the hydrino model," New Journal of Physics, Vol. 7, (2005), pp. 127-134).

 

[halleyscomet]

You are still not responding to what I wrote. What happens when the cooling system fails?

Just guessing mind you, but I would imagine containment vessels shattering and some extremely hot fluids having their way with any nearby materials.

(There would also be concerns about accident survival for motor vehicle use.)

I've seen no indication of a backup cooling system. I've also never heard any mention of safeguards should the cooling system fail.

 

[markie]

So you say.

That's rather an underwhelming statement.

Given that "Mill's theory" [sic] is internally inconsistent, a flaw that's likely not fixable.

I'd've been far more impressed if you'd said something like "and Mills has shown (paper1, paper2, paper3, ... paper45) that it is fully consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results, within its domain of applicability".

But we already know that Mills seems far more interested in developing a free energy generator than overthrowing one of the two foundations of contemporary physics, winning global acclaim (and fortune) as the best physicist since Einstein, oh and bagging a Nobel Prize or two.

Try as I might, I simply cannot understand why he has chosen to not focus on the physics.


And I hate to sound like a broken record, but you really should read the relevant Mills et al. papers, and those which cite them. Much better than me blathering on.

I wish there weren't paywalls. I find the whole idea quite backwards.

Mills has certainly focused on the physics. He has written a huge tome that he has been regularly updating and improving over the course of over two decades.

 

[halleyscomet]

As I well know, Mills did write a rebuttal to Rathke's paper, so I don't know why you are saying he didn't.

Got a link to the text of the response paper?

 

[The Man]

That is a good point about the reverse not being necessarily true.

The reverse is not true as stated in what you quoted. That electrons in a consistent orbit around a nucleus do not radiate is experimentally observed. That such electrons in a consistent orbit around a nucleus are also "disturbed by photons" (absorption) is likewise experimentally observed. As such the reverse being necessarily false for the Haus non radiation condition to be consistent with experimentation.

But it would make sense, to me.

Hence your problem.

What would be interesting to know is how Haus responded to his student Mills taking his idea and applying it to a single, extended electron comprised of current loops of charge. I don't know what happened there. I did hear however that Haus described Mill's math as 'competent'. Damned by faint praise? Hard to interpret that one.

If that interests you you investigate it. However, the Haus non radiation condition doesn't support your claims about the electron not being a point particle (it explicitly treats the electron as such) or the non radiation condition precluding absorption, as it would be trivially and demonstrably experimentally false.

 

[halleyscomet]

Mills has certainly focused on the physics. He has written a huge tome that he has been regularly updating and improving over the course of over two decades.

The same can be said of David Icke and his research into reptoids who secretly rule the Earth. Without replication and peer-review that tome of his can't be considered evidence of anything other than the amount of free time Mills has.

 

[hecd2]

As I well know, Mills did write a rebuttal to Rathke's paper, so I don't know why you are saying he didn't.

Can you give us a link or a reference to that rebuttal please?

 

[abaddon]

Yep. Ball bearings extra.

I will allow that balls are a requirement.