Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[markie]

What makes Mills fantasy of hydrinos into a delusion is the simple observation that excited states of atom spontaneously decay. This is spontaneous emission which cannot be explained by classical physics. For example Transitions in Hydrogen: 2p -> 1s emits 10.2 eV photons at a rate of 6.27 * 10⁸ per second.

What Mills really does is turn the ground state of hydrogen into one of an infinite number of excited states ! He has an incoherent fantasy (see page 32) that that the ground and lower states are stable.

And here I thought that Mills predicted even the lifetimes of excited states...

 

[halleyscomet]

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

Mills: "I wrote a crushing rebuttal!"

Critics: "Great! Can we read it?"

Mills: "NO! But it's CRUSHING and proves me right so stuff your criticism up your bungholes!!!!!!"

Mills: Jumps into a pit of investor money, laughing maniacally.

 

[markie]

More blind faith in the hydrino delusion is not you showing that you know why the idea is delusional, markie.

No researcher not even Mills has published the measurement of the spectrum that Mills predicts for his hydrinos, [B thus there is no evidence that hydrinos exist - Duh![/B]

And here I thought that Mills had indeed published experiments that showed such spectra...

 

[markie]

I am stating what they stated in the abstract, markie - not one mention of hydrinos !

It is a lie that this paper has evidence for "fractional energy levels of hydrogen" when all it reports are the known spectrums of hydrogen. There is an irrelevant puzzle of why one plasma formed while another did not but the authors suggest a valid answer - chemical reactions.

Thus Accountability lies when it cites Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) as evidence for hydrinos.

That is probably one lie of several in that section - the next 5 papers have no mention of hydrinos on their titles.

Conrads was not a believer in hydrinos - he was a QM guy - but he respected Mill's experimental work and rightly showed there were anomalous effects going on. It doesn't surprise me that hydrinos are not mentioned.

 

[Reality Check]

If the foundation is so rotten, one wonders how he correctly predicts so many things like ionization energies. BTW, Mills wrote a rebuttal to Rathke's paper and as far as I know Rathke did not respond.

Because Mills lies about using only classical physics by hardwiring quantum physics, e.g. the allowed energy levels from the Bohr model that produce ionization energies !
In case you are ignorant about this read Rathke (2005):

For the well-known electronic states of the hydrogen atom, the radius of the orbit sphere equals the radius of the corresponding state in Bohr’s model.

But Mills did not get the correct ionization energies. Real hydrogen atoms have a more complex spectrum than what Mills thinks. There is fine structure which was the first experimental evidence for electron spin. See Hydrogen Fine Structure. There is the Lamb shift.

What looks like a lie about a rebuttal to Rathke's paper - cite the journal where it was published, markie.
My guess - a web page floating around the Internet that no scientist, especially Rathke, knows about.

 

[markie]

It is even more interesting that you go on about Mills publishing some papers but dismiss a published paper from what looks like a stance of ignorance of science, markie.
The Schrodinger equation works. Mills ignorance and delusions about the Schrodinger equation do not make it not work or "inappropriate".

Schrodinger did not "regret what his equation became used for". He regarded it as a appropriate non-relativistic equation, useful for many cases. He did want the wavefunction to be more physical, e.g. a charge identity, and disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation.

This is A. Rathke (2005), "A critical analysis of the hydrino model", New Journal of Physics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 127 (2005)

So of course the Schrodinger equation ("quantum mechanics "!) should be mentioned in the paper.

I was going from the well know quote of Schrodinger:

I don’t like it and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Schrödinger)

He developed his equation rather on a lark, (if I recall the history) in part because it could be parameterized to solve the hydrogen atom. But just look what it became. The very excuse for "shut up and calculate."

 

[Reality Check]

The latter.

Who is Hannah Conrads? When did she get a Nobel Prize for her work in plasma physics ? How many plasma physics textbooks has she published? How many papers has she published? Other than an ignorant and lying Mills supporter, who regards her as "possibly the most respected plasma physicist in the world"?

P.S. SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 30 abstracts for the author Conrads, Hannah. They start with a 1963 conference presentation. It looks like she was one of many scientists working for or with TEXTOR : Tokamak Experiment for Technology Oriented Research that operated from 1963 to 2013 which is the period of her papers. If these are here only papers then less than 1 per year is not good. She looks like an typical specialist plasma physicist.

 

[markie]

This is a lie by quote mining an uncited news story, markie, since the actual story back in 1999 includes

If you recall, the quote it was simply to establish the proper name of Dr. Conrads! The article is old news to anybody who has followed BLP for a reasonable amount of time. Most of the juicy bad stuff from that article or from the sources of that article has predictably already found it's way to Wiki. Nothing new here.

And you make it into a 'lie'. So negative, so nasty. Oh well.

 

[markie]

Wrong - an extended charged spinning object was ruled out back in the 1920's, markie.

Mills delusions include that the electron is an extended charged object the size of an atom. Later he has a fantasy of currents on that surface producing "intrinsic angular momentum". Those imaginary currents are that "spinning surface" and will have to be moving faster than the speed of light to produce the measured spin.

"Extended" in the sense that it has space extension, ie is not a point particle. And yes, it was for a rigid extended charged spinning object. Mill's orbitsphere is not rigid.

 

[markie]

Wow - then why is Mills so ignorant about Haus's work, markie?
The Haus condition for nonradiation

1. Is derived using point charges.
2. Applies to a collection of charges, not a single charge as in a 1-electron atom, e.g. hydrogen.

The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2]

No need to restrict "a distribution of accelerated charges" to be a distribution of point electrons. Generalize. Mill's application of Haus' condition to the individual electron consisting of a distribution of charge on a closed surface was quite the brilliant stroke.

 

[markie]

I note that markie appears to have departed just in time to avoid addressing this point:

Is it unreasonable to inquire whether a substance with properties unknown to science, that happens to be a variant form of one of the fundamental elements of organic compounds, and that cannot be contained or excluded, might affect human central nervous system development in subtle but destructive ways, causing cumulative detectable consequences concurrently with the first known releases of the substance? You'll have to explain why that's so unreasonable.

Inquire away. Do all the studies you need. Just because I happen to believe that dihydrino gas is entirely inert and not harmful doesn't mean I think assessments shouldn't be done. They certainly should.

 

[jsfisher]

I was going from the well know quote of Schrodinger:

I don’t like it and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Schrödinger)

He developed his equation rather on a lark, (if I recall the history) in part because it could be parameterized to solve the hydrogen atom. But just look what it became. The very excuse for "shut up and calculate."

Whoa!! Is this an intentional misrepresentation of Schrödinger's statement, or are you ignorant of its context?

Hint: He wasn't referring to the equation that bears his name.

 

[markie]

The word for Mills and tunneling is delusional and we could add the words ignorant and fantasy, markie.
Mills book has a section on alpha decay starting on page 1621. This is alpha decay

Mills starts with a ignorant fantasy about free electron tunneling. That includes treating it as a plane wave when that is not his electron model and referring equation 3.1 - an equation for light. He repeats the fantasy on page 1623 and makes this a delusion by applying it to the 2 protons and neutrons of an alpha particle bound in a nucleus.

An electron is not light.
An electron in a potential is bound, not free.
A proton is not an electron.
A neutron is not an electron.

Mills has some lies and fantasies below equation 3.1 in Chapter 3 "Electron in Free Space", page 169.
The de Brogie hypothesis is quantum physics, not classical physics, and so cannot be part of his fantasy of only using classical physics.

A de Brogie wavelength says nothing about the nature of the wave . It can be a plane wave, spherical wave or a wave package.

If an 1 electron atom loses its electron by ionization, its atomic radius becomes undefined (no "surrounding cloud of electrons").

That free electron has a finite momentum - not his "hypothesis" of zero momentum.

So many strawmen, so little time.

Just so you know, Mill's book used to have the word "quantum" in the title. But he ultimately removed it for various reasons. Lots of so called quantum findings before the Schrodinger equation he is quite fine with.

 

[Reality Check]

I was going from the well know quote of Schrodinger:

You were going with someone's lie by quote mining. The context is not his equation. It is the Copenhagen interpretation that is the "it" in that quote, markie.
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." Erwin Schrödinger about the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics

Stating ignorance about the history of Schrödinger equation and the Schrödinger equation is bad.
Erwin Schrödinger spent 5 years looking for a relativistic extension of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model. He published his first paper on the subject in 1921. His paper with what we now call the Schrödinger equation was published in January 1926. Five years of work is not a "lark" !

The Schrödinger equation is not "parameterized" to explain the hydrogen or other atoms.

 

[marplots]

Inquire away. Do all the studies you need. Just because I happen to believe that dihydrino gas is entirely inert and not harmful doesn't mean I think assessments shouldn't be done. They certainly should.

Dihydrino gas seems optimistic. I don't see why hydrinos would form molecules if they are in this sub-ground state. Where would the bonding energy come from? Your noble gases are all monatomic.

ETA: Then again, why bother even guessing when quantum mechanics has it all wrong anyhow? If Mills reports dihydrino gas, that's good enough for me. The guy is a Renaissance man, after all. Don't question genius.

 

[halleyscomet]

So many strawmen, so little time.

Just so you know, Mill's book used to have the word "quantum" in the title. But he ultimately removed it for various reasons. Lots of so called quantum findings before the Schrodinger equation he is quite fine with.

What is YOUR relationship to Mills and his "work?"

 

[Reality Check]

Is a free electron a bound alpha particle

So many strawmen, so little time.

So much lying about strawmen, so much implication of ignorance leading to blind faith in the ignorance and delusions of Mills, markie.

markie: Is a free electron, a bound alpha particle?
markie: Is a free electron, a photon?
markie: How big is an atom measured from the nucleus to the surrounding electrons (even Mills "orbitsphere" delusion) when there are no electrons attached to the atom?

 

[Reality Check]

And here I thought that Mills predicted even the lifetimes of excited states...

I thought that you could read - my post is about the fact that excited states spontaneously decay eventually to the ground state in the real world. This also happens in the Mills delusion for n > 0 where he hardcodes those excited states borrowing from the quantum model of Bohr
Mills has an incoherent fantasy (see page 32) that that the ground and lower states are stable.

 

[Reality Check]

List Mills papers showng specral lines unique to hydrions

And here I thought that Mills had indeed published experiments that showed such spectra...

That would be a fantasy since you have not cited any papers detecting the hydrino spectrum.
markie: List the paper(s) where Mills runs experiments and announces that he has detected a number of the spectral lines that can only come from hydrinos.
Independent replication is a important part of science so also list the paper(s) by other authors replicating his results.

 

[LongFuzzy]

Just to be clear, the power source is a couple (?) of common, commercial capacitors. They deliver very short bursts or pulses of power, in magnitude comparable to a hair drier. Most of that is current. Voltage is only 3V or thereabouts. The power release spike from hydrino formation lasts much longer than the input power pulse, and is of considerably greater magnitude.

Mark

Well I found the picture of the capacitor, along with other parts used in the prototype SunCell. It's a Maxwell 2.85 volt electrolytic capacitor.

Any decent electronic engineer (or even a tech) would know to use caps at least twice the working voltage. I wonder how often he has to replace blown caps?