Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[JeanTate]

So the Mills research boils down to an externally powered reactor using liquid silver in a graphite sphere to destroy water and produce Hydrogen.

But Mills insists it's special hydrogen, although he has apparently never produced any hard evidence to support that claim.

It's like he read up on homeopathy and thought, "how can I adapt this to physics?"

The parallels with homeopathy are many.

For example, water's "memory" seems similar to the "resonant nonradiative energy transfer", not least in that neither has been independently verified.

 

[JeanTate]

Since all the spectral lines according to Rydberg's formula to a fractional state below ground are below 30 nm, I wonder how Mills detected them. For that matter, how is Mills shielding for Xray emissions?

Grazing edge spectrometer I presume. Also, EUV and soft X-rays (as produced by hydrino formation) are readily stopped by air if I recall. Hard x-rays are different and are penetrating but are not generated by hydrino formation.

(my bold)

This, from the abstract markie provided a link to earlier, is, um, rather alarming:

"Novel emission lines with energies of q.13.6eV where q=1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11 were previously observed by extreme ultraviolet (EUV) spectroscopy" (I wonder why q=5 and 10 were not previously observed?)

"These lines matched H(1/p), fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen wherein n=1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ..., 1/p (p⩽137 is an integer) replaces the well-known parameter n=integer in the Rydberg equation for hydrogen excited states."

Clearly, using the equipment Mills+ claim to have been using, fractional Rydberg states with p>~12 would have been hard-to-impossible to detect. Yet there's no reason - per Mills (and pace markie) - why H(1/p), fractional Rydberg states of hydrogen with ~12<p<136, should not form. Yet there was, apparently, no shielding for the x-rays these states would have produced. I guess working at 493 Old Trenton Rd, East Windsor, NJ may have been (and be) more hazardous than Mills said ...

 

[JeanTate]

You'll be glad to hear I've taken your advice, and conduced a dihydrino safety study using an animal model.

Method: Due to the unavailability of dihydrino gas samples to test, and the lack of a consensus on whether or not it's even possible to direct a flow of the gas to a test subject, the only feasible test protocol was to induce hydrino creation in situ within the rats themselves. Accordingly, each rat in the test group was directly exposed to several hundred amps of low-voltage current delivered via two streams of molten silver within a paradoxically well-ventilated vacuum chamber. All the rats were in a normally hydrated condition at ignition, thus providing all of the necessary conditions for the production of hydrino from aqueous hydrogen.

Results: Alarmingly, the mortality in the test rats was 100%, an increase by a factor of approximately infinity compared to control rats that were isolated from hydrino particles by an impenetrable barrier of lawyers. Post mortem examination was unable to isolate the specific cause of death (or any identifiable residue) but disruption of the enzymatic conversion of TDP-4-Oxo-6-deoxyglucose into TDP-rhamnos is a possibility.

Conclusion: To reach any final conclusion it's necessary to eliminate the alternative possibility that it was the molten silver and/or the massive arcing current, rather than the hydrino particles themselves, that caused the mortality. This is amply accomplished by noting that five of the test rats emitted, at the moment of ignition, death squeaks that, according to the mathematical models presented in a 978-page unpublished un-peer-reviewed book on mammalian physics written by yours truly, were at frequencies consistent with the effects of lethal hydrino toxicity and inconsistent with any other possible cause of death whatsoever. The evidence that hydrino toxicity killed the rats is therefore every bit as strong as the evidence that hydrino production causes the heat and light in Mills's cells.

I will not be releasing the full confirmatory details or documentation of my study pending the editorial review of the paper I've submitted to Science. Due to the public safety significance of the findings and (if I do say so myself) the quality of the work, I am optimistic about its acceptance. This would only be the second paper of mine to see publication in Science so despite the apparent setback to the nascent hydrino-based energy industry, I'm excited by the results and am grateful to markie for suggesting this course of research.

Congratulations on conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, with the aim of independently verifying the existence of hydrinos!

Although it may be difficult to find an analog for "death squeaks", and it will surely take some time for you to write a 1,234 page book on floral physics, it would a powerful, independent validation if you were to repeat this kind of experiment with ripe pumpkins.

Ditto re bacterial (and archeal, sp?) physics, using an abundant source found in most, um, bathrooms (the quantities of such material found in the rats in your experiment would surely be too small to demonstrate the effect).

 

[JeanTate]

You may be confusing 'Rydberg states" with Rydberg matter.

It is entirely possible that, in the last half century or so, I have come across the term "Rydberg matter". I may even have once remembered what it refers to.

Not today however; I had no idea what it meant, until I found it in WP. Having read (or rather skimmed) the article, I can be 100% certain that I did not confuse the two.

May I ask, why did you think that was a possibility in the first place?

 

[JeanTate]

Of course 'putting a match to it' would entail the introduction of oxygen, which rather defeats the purpose of isolation. And yeah my differential diffusion rate is rather lame, considering that Mills uses a much better approach, as seen in the same abstract:





As you can see it appears that hydrino plasma gas can be liquified by liquid nitrogen of all things, so appears to have a much higher liquid - vapour critical point than ordinary hydrogen gas. Good to know.

Another something interesting (or weird, YMMV):

It seems, if you believe Mills (and markie), that you can get two H(1/2) hydrinos to combine to form a sorta hydrino molecule. And two H(1/3) ones. And two H(1/4) ones (and so on, up to q=7).

But apparently an H(1/2) hydrino will not bond with an ordinary H atom. Nor a H(1/3) hydrino. Nor ...

I wonder what the homeopathy analog of this would be? Water with a memory of one isomer but not another?

 

[halleyscomet]

...there was, apparently, no shielding for the x-rays these states would have produced. I guess working at 493 Old Trenton Rd, East Windsor, NJ may have been (and be) more hazardous than Mills said ...

Congratulations! You've discovered an additional verification vector. If there's ANY validity to Mills and his research he and his staff will be riddled with the cancers typical of high level X-Ray exposure.

 

[Horatius]

Differential diffusion rates between, say, hydrogen gas and dihydrino gas would serve to somewhat isolate the dihydrino gas, and it's properties distinguished from normal H2, such as (lack of) combustion, different conductivity, different boiling point, and so on.

See, this is another problem with people who don't understand science in general trying to play games with science.

You talk about using "Differential diffusion rates" to separate hyrinos from hydrogen gas, which is a hard thing to do (look at what the Manhattan Project had to deal with in separating isotopes of uranium, after all).

But then you casually mention that hydrinos are noted for their lack of combustion, and having a different boiling point - both of which would make it trivially easy to isolate a sample of hydrinos from their surrounding environment of regular hydrogen.

We needed to use things like differential diffusion rates to isolate isotopes of unranium specifically because these isotopes were virtually identical from a chemical standpoint, but you've been arguing consistently that hydrinos are not chemically identical to hydrogen. So why the song and dance about using a complicated, expensive process, when just burning (or some lower-rate oxidation process) or distilling the combined sample will effectively isolate the hydrinos?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Of course 'putting a match to it' would entail the introduction of oxygen, which rather defeats the purpose of isolation. And yeah my differential diffusion rate is rather lame, considering that Mills uses a much better approach, as seen in the same abstract:

Hence why I suggested bubbling it trough dry hexene, which would react hydrogen away.

As you can see it appears that hydrino plasma gas can be liquified by liquid nitrogen of all things, so appears to have a much higher liquid - vapour critical point than ordinary hydrogen gas. Good to know.

Whereas this is just a string of words put together by someone who clearly has NO clue about science.
The defining trait of a plasma is that electrons and protons are unbound. Since by Mill's definitions hydrino's are hydrogen atoms with their electrons MORE tightly bound they can NEVER be plasma. And negative ions in a plasma is beyond even Star-trek technobabble because of the same reason.
If the abstract contains this many errors a high-school science student would not make, why should anyone take his 'science' seriously?

He claims to be systematically generating a non-reactive compound and cannot even think of basic experiments to clean it from the highly reactive hydrogen, oxygen and water contaminations?

 

[markie]

See, this is another problem with people who don't understand science in general trying to play games with science.

You talk about using "Differential diffusion rates" to separate hyrinos from hydrogen gas, which is a hard thing to do (look at what the Manhattan Project had to deal with in separating isotopes of uranium, after all).

But then you casually mention that hydrinos are noted for their lack of combustion, and having a different boiling point - both of which would make it trivially easy to isolate a sample of hydrinos from their surrounding environment of regular hydrogen.

We needed to use things like differential diffusion rates to isolate isotopes of unranium specifically because these isotopes were virtually identical from a chemical standpoint, but you've been arguing consistently that hydrinos are not chemically identical to hydrogen. So why the song and dance about using a complicated, expensive process, when just burning (or some lower-rate oxidation process) or distilling the combined sample will effectively isolate the hydrinos?

Full disclosure, the diffusion idea wasn't my own, I merely borrowed it from an idea someone presented on Mill's discussion list. Anyway, the differential diffusion between H2 and dihydrino would be much simpler to accomplish than the rather difficult diffusion method to separate isotopes of uranium. No special membranes required to differentiate velocities based on isotopic mass differences. The only difference is size. Find a material that dihydrino can readily diffuse through but hydrogen gas cannot. Anyway, the point is moot as Mills has other means of separation. Wait, actually the point is not entirely moot. The SunCell's outer hull will be permeable to dihydrino but not to H2. Can't let H2 fuel escape.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Hey Markie,
Still trying to convince people how beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are?

 

[The Man]

Full disclosure, the diffusion idea wasn't my own, I merely borrowed it from an idea someone presented on Mill's discussion list. Anyway, the differential diffusion between H2 and dihydrino would be much simpler to accomplish than the rather difficult diffusion method to separate isotopes of uranium. No special membranes required to differentiate velocities based on isotopic mass differences. The only difference is size. Find a material that dihydrino can readily diffuse through but hydrogen gas cannot. Anyway, the point is moot as Mills has other means of separation. Wait, actually the point is not entirely moot. The SunCell's outer hull will be permeable to dihydrino but not to H2. Can't let H2 fuel escape.

Bolding added.

By your own assertions, Mills' and as indicated by Horatius, size isn't "The only difference". So why in purportedly "Full disclosure" simply pretend and assert otherwise?

 

[markie]

Hence why I suggested bubbling it trough dry hexene, which would react hydrogen away.





Whereas this is just a string of words put together by someone who clearly has NO clue about science.
The defining trait of a plasma is that electrons and protons are unbound. Since by Mill's definitions hydrino's are hydrogen atoms with their electrons MORE tightly bound they can NEVER be plasma. And negative ions in a plasma is beyond even Star-trek technobabble because of the same reason.
If the abstract contains this many errors a high-school science student would not make, why should anyone take his 'science' seriously?

He claims to be systematically generating a non-reactive compound and cannot even think of basic experiments to clean it from the highly reactive hydrogen, oxygen and water contaminations?

While it is true that dihydrino gas itself would not be ionized, there are other substances there that are ionized, such as the catalyst. There will be free electrons, and some free protons as well. But technically for a plasma, there only needs to be charged species, not necessarily unbound protons and electrons.

 

[markie]

Bolding added.

By your own assertions, Mills' and as indicated by Horatius, size isn't "The only difference". So why in purportedly "Full disclosure" simply pretend and assert otherwise?

Oh aren't we a nitpicker. I was meaning in the context of separation by diffusion, where only size (not velocity) needs to matter for hydrino diffusion. Of course there are other differences between dihydrino and hydrogen gas outside the context of diffusion.

 

[markie]

Another something interesting (or weird, YMMV):

It seems, if you believe Mills (and markie), that you can get two H(1/2) hydrinos to combine to form a sorta hydrino molecule. And two H(1/3) ones. And two H(1/4) ones (and so on, up to q=7).

But apparently an H(1/2) hydrino will not bond with an ordinary H atom. Nor a H(1/3) hydrino. Nor ...

I wonder what the homeopathy analog of this would be? Water with a memory of one isomer but not another?

Good observation, that H(1/p) will only bond with H(1/p). Mills has a reason for this. Mills also has a reason why, say, there is no such thing as a Heliumino. That's what you get when you have a predictive theory.

 

[JeanTate]

Congratulations! You've discovered an additional verification vector. If there's ANY validity to Mills and his research he and his staff will be riddled with the cancers typical of high level X-Ray exposure.

Yeah.

And it's also one possible reason excuse why SunCell won't work, "the photovoltaic cells suffered unexpectedly high rates of failure, possibly due to prolonged exposure to hard x-rays hydrino radiation."

Or, "sadly, with the passing of X, Y, and Z - due to aggressive, undiagnosed cancers - further testing of SunCell has been postponed. Commercial production now not expected until ~2021."

 

[markie]

Hey Markie,
Still trying to convince people how beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are?

Promise us you won't use SunCell technology to power your home in the future. You wouldn't want your home powered by nothing at all would we. It would violate the conservation of energy.

 

[JeanTate]

While it is true that dihydrino gas itself would not be ionized, there are other substances there that are ionized, such as the catalyst. There will be free electrons, and some free protons as well. But technically for a plasma, there only needs to be charged species, not necessarily unbound protons and electrons.

markie, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[JeanTate]

Oh aren't we a nitpicker. I was meaning in the context of separation by diffusion, where only size (not velocity) needs to matter for hydrino diffusion. Of course there are other differences between dihydrino and hydrogen gas outside the context of diffusion.

markie, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

I think that's the third time I've made this recommendation; perhaps I should start formally counting?

 

[JeanTate]

Good observation, that H(1/p) will only bond with H(1/p).

But has no difficulty bonding with, say, sodium. Or oxygen.

Weird.

Mills has a reason for this. Mills also has a reason why, say, there is no such thing as a Heliumino. That's what you get when you have a predictive theory. magic!

Fixed that for you.

 

[JeanTate]

Promise us you won't use SunCell technology to power your home in the future. You wouldn't want your home powered by nothing at all would we. It would violate the conservation of energy.

Myself, I'd prefer to use the unit that Toshiba is working on.

You see, ~a decade ago, they downloaded all the Mills+ papers, and set up a secret skunkworks to understand what's going on, from a scientific perspective (i.e. dispensing with the magic). They recently cracked the code, and now have prototype free energy generators that they're testing, particularly ones which they can use in the nuclear power plants they've contracted for but which are now $billions over budget and years late (swap out the nuclear reactor, put in the compact "hydrino" generators).

I am very confident that they'll beat Mills to market, not least because they have decades of experience with all the various regulations (not to mention teams of competent physicists, chemists, engineers, ...).