Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[JeanTate]

Yeah, well we can ignore such tiny perturbations can't we, smarty pants.

Um ... OK.

So I guess thousands of radio astronomers (to pick just one example) have been wasting their time, for several decades now (hint: look up "21 cm", it's about your fave element, hydrogen).

 

[JeanTate]

Tell your friend to watch his tongue. And no, he won't be able to give a method to directly detect cold H2 gas in outer space. Looking for 'tracers' like CO that could be correlated to such clouds doesn't count.

Less than 10 seconds was all it took for me to find Richter (2000), "ORFEUS II echelle spectra: H_2 measurements in the Magellanic Clouds". The first sentence of the abstract reads:

More than 20 years after the Copernicus satellite, ORFEUS allows the investigation of molecular hydrogen (H_2) in the diffuse interstellar medium by way of FUV absorption spectroscopy once again.

Among the papers Richter cites is Savage+ (1977), "A survey of interstellar molecular hydrogen. I", cited 721 times (according to ADS). I guess, ~40 years' or so ago, no one knew how to detect molecular hydrogen in the interstellar medium. Or perhaps Mills was too young then to have been able to tell them it that it was an impossibility.

Maybe you should stick to UV spectroscopy, using "Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRAM Aramis Raman spectrometer with a HeCd 325 nm laser in microscope mode with a magnification of 40X." Or not.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm pretty sure this has been covered already, so I'll just repeat it. Physics has been upended a couple of times in the past: Newton (gravitation, motion, and light), Bohr (quantum theory) and Einstein (relativity.) If Mills' work was just as groundbreaking, physicists the world over would be performing strange and wonderful experiments using the GUTCP as their base. After thirty years we'd be seeing a host of cool new devices, many in the lab, and some already in the marketplace. The LHC might even be working on figuring out properties of the hydrino.

What's happened instead is only one person has been working on this, and to date has produced only vapourware. That tells me any actual physicist who has looked at the GUTCP has dismissed it as meaningless and carried on with the well-proven results of quantum theory and relativity.

Instead of dropping a bombshell into the field of physics, Mills' theory has merely bombed.

I'm trying to think of any other "hard" science theory--the type that can be demonstrated to multiple decimal places with experimentation--that has failed to bear fruit thirty years after it was introduced. I concede this may be the case in softer sciences such as psychology and economics.

 

[Reality Check]

An ignorant question does not excuse the ignorance that a particle is not a sphere

RC, how about you tell the class the answer to this question:..

4 July 2018 markie: An ignorant question does not excuse the ignorance that a particle is not a sphere

You are ignorant about or lied about the Mills model of the hydrogen atom and molecule. Your question should be
The equation of motion of the Moon, and the equation of motion of the Moon formed into a infinitely thin sphere around the Earth: Are they the same?

The answer is obviously no. The first case can be reduced to a point particle the mass of the Earth and so we have the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in a central gravitational field. The result is that the Moon has a stable orbit around the Earth.

The second case has to be treated as a continuous sphere.
The result is that this imaginary Moon has an unstable position around the Earth. That is not an actual orbit. It may rotate if we add rotation. Any force on the imaginary object, e.g. a photon hitting it, will make it drift and eventually hit the Earth.
See the well known Dyson shell

Such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with its englobed star (see shell theorem), and could drift in relation to the central star. If such movements went uncorrected, they could eventually result in a collision between the sphere and the star—most likely with disastrous results. Such structures would need either some form of propulsion to counteract any drift, or some way to repel the surface of the sphere away from the star.[13]

 

[Reality Check]

No ....

3 July 2018 markie: Does not understand how Mills abused Haus's work!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

RBF, how about you get a really smart friend who knows his spectroscopy in and out and ask him to examine the paper at

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

The catalysis reaction product H2(1/4) was identified by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and MAS 1H NMR.

Let us know what he thinks about the specifics of that aspect of the paper from pages 12, 13, 23,24 and 25.

As you can see my really smart friends have looked at it and you have their scornful responses.

Care to offer any more so called evidence we are all too stupid to see and only Mills is smart enough to recognize?

 

[Reality Check]

Mills is using the 325 nm laser but with a 1200 grating ....

There is only 1 mention of a 1200 grating and that is in the caption for Fig 60. However let us make the reasonable assumption that the "observed Raman peaks" in Table 4 are the peaks in Fig 60.

We now have a Mills paper abstract lying with "The catalysis reaction product was identified by Raman spectroscopy, ...". Look at the numbers. They are quoted to 1 cm^-1 and for the lowest number that is a error of 0.01%. The table lists differences from 0.08% to 1.15%.

There is the usual idiocy of assuming that any results that they get can only be explained by Mills deluded theory.

There is the dubious act of an American business man publishing his delusions in the Chinese Journal of Physics rather than a specialist, high impact, American journal. N.B it is not the journal that is dubious (low impact but established since 1963).

We have what may be Mills abusing his equipment again (thanks markie!).
Operating Procedure for Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRam Aramis Raman/PL System
Grating selection for the desired measurement range.
785 nm laser line, 1200 grating 0-4900
633 nm laser line, 1200 grating 0-7900
442 nm laser line, 1200 grating ... no entry!
325 nm laser line, 1200 grating ... no entry!

 

[Reality Check]

Moves the goalposts to "directly detect cold H2 gas" from "detect vast clouds"

And no, he won't be able to give a method to directly detect cold H2 gas in outer space. Looking for 'tracers' like CO that could be correlated to such clouds doesn't count.

4 July 2018 markie: Moves the goalposts to "directly detect cold H2 gas" from "how easy it is to detect vast clouds of cold H2 gas"
Detecting proxies such as CO that exist with H2 is valid detection of H2.

 

[jonesdave116]

As you can see my really smart friends have looked at it and you have their scornful responses.

Care to offer any more so called evidence we are all too stupid to see and only Mills is smart enough to recognize?

I'm considering emailing either the manufacturer of the Raman device, or Prof. Hans-Joachim Kunze (who I mentioned as criticising Mills previous interpretations of spectroscopy). The obvious question would be: 'what effect would using a 1200 grating have on the results at 325nm? And how would that impact any conclusions drawn from such observations?'
If anyone can think of anything to add to the email, let me know.

 

[halleyscomet]

The oversimplification and misrepresentation is breathtaking.
How about you ask a chemist how easy it is to detect and identify H2 in the lab. Then ask an astrophysicist how easy it is to detect vast clouds of cold H2 gas in outer space. Short version: You'll get different answers.

Your comparison is irrelevant.

Regardless of the relative difficulty levels, detecting Hydrogen gas in both circumstance is possible. It CAN be detected. Hydrinos however have never been detected. Besides, my initial point remains. If Hydrinos can be detected through spectral analysis in the lab, it would be possible, though more difficult, to detect them in space. This means they cannot be dark matter.

By the way, I notice you didn't address my point about the complete lack of Hydrino detection by any laboratory not affiliated with Mills in some way. Even if we set aside the fact Hydrinos can't be dark matter, the complete lack of evidence for them in other laboratories is a major issue for Mills and his mythology. If Hydrinos were real we would be seeing them in nature and in a wide array of experiments involving hydrogen. What's your excuse for the lack of experimental verification for Hydrinos by other researchers not having their hand held by Mills or BLP?

 

[halleyscomet]

RBF, how about you get a really smart friend who knows his spectroscopy in and out and ask him to examine the paper at

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

The catalysis reaction product H2(1/4) was identified by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and MAS 1H NMR.

Let us know what he thinks about the specifics of that aspect of the paper from pages 12, 13, 23,24 and 25.

You can stop flogging that piece of garbage paper. We've already addressed it. There are now a fresh round of posts explaining why the paper is trash. He cooked the books on that test. His readings are garbage, plain and simple.

It's yet another way BLP and Theranos are similar. I recommend reading or listening to the audio book of "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup" by John Carreyrou. There is a frighting number of parallels between the way Theroanis faked lab results and the way BLP fakes their data.

I notice that you're not paying close enough attention.

Please explain your rationalization for Mills getting results from a device not capable of producing those results. Was magic involved? Let me guess, he waved a wand made from an elder tree and call out, "Expandio Capabilius!" or "Engorgio Dattum!" didn't he?

Please answer. I quiver with antici---

 

[SOdhner]

What's your excuse for the lack of experimental verification for Hydrinos by other researchers not having their hand held by Mills or BLP?

Oh wait I know this one! If I remember right, Markie says the answer is that scientists detect them all the time, but ignore them because we all know that scientists are never curious about anomalous results. And they won't actively look for them, because they hate progress.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm considering emailing either the manufacturer of the Raman device, or Prof. Hans-Joachim Kunze (who I mentioned as criticising Mills previous interpretations of spectroscopy). The obvious question would be: 'what effect would using a 1200 grating have on the results at 325nm? And how would that impact any conclusions drawn from such observations?'

I'd be interested in the answers to those questions.

If anyone can think of anything to add to the email, let me know.

I can't think of anything to add to your email.

In the meantime, a couple of examples may help to explain why certain combinations of laser frequencies and diffraction gratings are problematic.

Raman spectroscopy works by detecting Raman scattering that occurs when molecules of interest are illuminated by a laser. The photons whose frequency has been shifted by Raman scattering create a much weaker signal than the photons scattered by Rayleigh scattering. To detect that weak signal in the presence of a much stronger signal at a nearby frequency requires a narrow band filter or detector.

In the Horiba instrument, as in many similar instruments, the diffraction grating and charge-coupled device (CCD) are designed to detect the weak Raman signal over a range of shifted frequencies. The usable range depends on the laser frequency, the grating, the CCD, the instrument's geometry, and probably a good many other details of which I am ignorant.

But certain general principles apply:

The amount of dispersion is determined by the amount of grooves per mm ruled into the grating. This is commonly referred to as groove density, or groove frequency. The groove frequency of the grating determines the spectrometer’s wavelength coverage and is also a major factor in the spectral resolution....

When the required wavelength coverage is broad, i.e. λ_max > 2λ_min, optical signals in wavelengths from different diffraction orders may end up at the same spatial position on the detector plane, which will become evident once we take a look at the grating equation.

That form of aliasing is illustrated by the third spoiler below.

The grating equation can be written as

sin α + sin β = N m λ​

where α and β are the incident and diffraction angles, respectively, N is the density of the diffraction grating (in lines per unit length), m is the integral order of diffraction, and λ is the wavelength of the light.

Using that equation, it's easy to explain why the 2400 lines/mm grating is incompatible with the 785nm laser:

A typical value for α is 30 degrees, so sin α = 1/2.

We'll need to express everything in compatible units. 2400 lines/mm is 24000 lines/cm. 785nm is .0000785 cm. m=0 corresponds to reflection, which is useless for this application because it doesn't separate shifted photons from unshifted. With m=1, the grating equation implies

sin β = 24000 * 1 * .0000785 - 1/2 = 1.384​

which has no solution. Increasing the absolute value of m only makes things worse.

That means photons whose shifted frequency is still realistically close to the laser frequency won't be diffracted, which means they can't be detected using this configuration.

That's why the operating instructions cited by markie don't recommend that configuration: It doesn't work at all.

Let's repeat the calculation with the recommended configuration that combines the 325nm laser with a 2400 lines/mm diffraction grating:

sin β = 24000 * 1 * .0000325 - 1/2 = 0.28​

That equation has a solution.

But it doesn't have a solution for larger values of m:

sin β = 24000 * 2 * .0000325 - 1/2 = 1.06​

That means refracted light in the vicinity of 325nm is unlikely to be an artifact of aliasing. That's good.

But look what happens if we try to combine the 325nm laser with a 1200 lines/mm diffraction grating:

sin β = 12000 * 1 * .0000325 - 1/2 = -0.11​

That equation has a solution, although the negative sign might cause those photons to miss the CCD, depending on the instrument's geometry.

But there also exist solutions for m=2 and m=3:

sin β = 12000 * 2 * .0000325 - 1/2 = 0.28​

sin β = 12000 * 3 * .0000325 - 1/2 = 0.67​

That means the signals we're trying to detect could show up at as many as 3 different angles. That phenomenon increases the likelihood that two distinct signals might show up at the same angle, which is to say we might get into trouble with aliasing, and think we've detected a signal with m=3 when it's really a signal at m=1.

Those are not the only things that limit the usable range of a Raman spectroscope. For example:

Gratings can be blazed to provide high diffraction efficiency (>85%) at a specific wavelength, i.e. a blaze wavelength (λ_B). As a rule of thumb, the grating efficiency will decrease by 50% at 0.6×λ_B and 1.8×λ_B. This sets a limit on the spectral coverage of the spectrometer. Generally, the blaze wavelength of the diffraction grating is biased toward the weak side of the spectral range to improve the overall signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the spectrometer.

By using a diffraction grating that's too coarse for the laser frequency, Mills degraded the signal to noise ratio of his instrument.

 

[jonesdave116]

I'd be interested in the answers to those questions.


I can't think of anything to add to your email.

In the meantime, a couple of examples may help to explain why certain combinations of laser frequencies and diffraction gratings are problematic.

<snipped for brevity, and to keep the post on the current last page>

Excellent! Thanks for that. It has certainly advanced my understanding of the process, and the reasons for the optimal grating recommendations. I will likely reference the post as and when I send off the email/s.
Cheers.

 

[Mike!]

I don't think there's any way to objectively look at this and come to any other conclusion than, Mills is a dick.

 

[davefoc]

I'm considering emailing either the manufacturer of the Raman device, or Prof. Hans-Joachim Kunze (who I mentioned as criticizing Mills previous interpretations of spectroscopy). The obvious question would be: 'what effect would using a 1200 grating have on the results at 325nm? And how would that impact any conclusions drawn from such observations?'
If anyone can think of anything to add to the email, let me know.

It's been awhile since I was actively researching BLP but I believe there was a paper that came out after the one in discussion that described experiments that used a different spectrometer. I don't remember much about it but assuming I'm right that paper should be found as well before contacting anybody. I believe Mills claimed (as I recall) the procedures described in the new paper dealt with the objections to the first paper put forth by Kunze.

As to writing to anybody about this: The scientific community has ignored BLP for quite awhile now and I doubt they have any interest in this subject. I think you might just be annoying them without much purpose. ETA: But if you write them and they respond it would be interesting.

The fact is that whether Mills has something or not the scientific community has moved on and the only way for Mills to even get back on the radar of the mainstream scientific community would be to produce results that don't fit the mold of the last 30 years: Lots of noise, lots of claims, lots of promises and no results that can't be explained by either fraud or gross misinterpretations by Mills of the significance of his experiments.

Markie thinks this time will be different. I think there will always be Markies and there will never be any useful inventions or results produced by Mills.

An aside: I was an electrical engineer for 30 years and we occasionally noticed anomalies, if they were significant to what we were doing we were obsessed with running them down. As Markie suggests sometimes anomalies are noticed and they are ignored because they aren't significant to the work at hand and resources are limited. However, when your central claim is excess energy above that which is explained by mainstream science running down anomalies even if it means getting other people involved with the relevant skills would be of the highest priority. No reasonably skeptical person sits around claiming proof of previously unknown energy generation techniques for 30 years without being driven to have his theories validated or disproved. The fact that Mills hasn't done this is extremely strong evidence that he is not a reasonably skeptical individual or he is a fraud.

NASA tested one of Mills's devices as a possible propulsion source. The device produced substantially less energy than Mills claimed and the thrust was so low that it was undetectable with the instruments available for the test. Why didn't Mills step in and explain what NASA needed to do to produce the results he claimed? I think the answer is obvious and so did NASA and they didn't do a second round of experiments on the device.

Mills's spectrometry claims have the same issues. Why didn't he use some of BLP's money years ago to hire people with relevant skills to test his theories and to investigate possible non-hydrino theories for the results?

FWIW, I wrote Robert Parks years ago about BLP's newer patent claims. The patent office had rejected some of BLP's patent claims after Parks had written critically of the patents. Parks didn't respond to my email. My sense of it was that he had moved on as well, although one of the things that has gone on here is that BLP sues people, IMO, at times just for the purpose of scaring people without a legal basis for the suits. I can testify to this personally and it is a bit scary. This might also prevent people in the scientific community from responding candidly as well.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Just thinking I knew markie when he was talking of a Maxell battery providing the initial boost in a process that implied hydrogen to be transported in a cushion of melted gold -or silver, maybe- into a chamber of dreams.

And now he's talking of spectrography and whatnot, what shows how an advocacy, even a wrong one, can foster an incremental, disjointed, patch-in-sweater learning of assorted elements and knowledge shards that don't work together as a body but can keep the advocacy alive.

It's like watching Santa Claus today, with all the press and shows and fanfarre around him and being reminded I met him when he just worked at Gath & Chávez.

 

[markie]

I just wanted to remind everyone that the deadline for my bet with michaelsuede is less than a week away.

So, markie, any comments on how every prediction that Mills and his supporters were making at that time have failed to come true, while my single prediction has been (almost now!) proven true?

Well it will show that your predictive ability was better that michaelsued's, and possibly mine. But if mine is off, it won't be by much.

 

[markie]

Um ... OK.

So I guess thousands of radio astronomers (to pick just one example) have been wasting their time, for several decades now (hint: look up "21 cm", it's about your fave element, hydrogen).

Well the 21cm line has to do with atomic hydrogen not molecular hydrogen.

 

[markie]

Less than 10 seconds was all it took for me to find Richter (2000), "ORFEUS II echelle spectra: H_2 measurements in the Magellanic Clouds". The first sentence of the abstract reads:

More than 20 years after the Copernicus satellite, ORFEUS allows the investigation of molecular hydrogen (H_2) in the diffuse interstellar medium by way of FUV absorption spectroscopy once again.

Among the papers Richter cites is Savage+ (1977), "A survey of interstellar molecular hydrogen. I", cited 721 times (according to ADS). I guess, ~40 years' or so ago, no one knew how to detect molecular hydrogen in the interstellar medium. Or perhaps Mills was too young then to have been able to tell them it that it was an impossibility.

Maybe you should stick to UV spectroscopy, using "Horiba Jobin Yvon LabRAM Aramis Raman spectrometer with a HeCd 325 nm laser in microscope mode with a magnification of 40X." Or not.

Good find. Frankly I am surprised they described that H2 gas as 'cold' when it was being bombarded by a strong source of radiation which would reveal H2's absorption in the high UV. But I guess that the term 'cold' can be abit relative. It was cold enough to be H2 (and not H), but not the 'cold' I was was envisioning.

Point remains: H2 detection in the lab is easy. In outer space, not so much.