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

[markie]

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.

LHC is for really high energy, whereas hydrino is more on the chemical scale of energy. But soon labs WILL be falling over themselves to explore hydrino chemistry. By soon I mean the next 5 years. There is a crack in the damn and when the water starts coming out in increasing amounts the quantum village in the valley better brace themselves for impact.

 

[markie]

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

I was hoping you would extrapolate. Moon - > Flattened Moon -> Atomized Moon fully incompassing the earth in one extremely thin layer.

In the latter case we of course ignore the effects of friction and turbulence etc that would break up such a layer. Given this, every single atom of the atomized moon material must be moving at the same angular velocity and the same distance from the earth as the moon's centre of gravity when intact. The summed net force of gravity exerted by the earth on such an atomized moon would be the same as on the intact moon.

Mills' equation of motion for the orbitsphere is fine.

 

[markie]

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.


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---

On the contrary, the paper in question is not trashed at all. We've been discussing merely one part - the Raman spectroscopy - when there are all kinds of other confirmations in that paper of specifically predicted hydrino chemistry occurring.

Consider this one particular Raman result: If the result was an artifact, the artifact occurred at the 8 predicted branches. What are the odds?

And don't forget that was just one of two Raman results. The other was with the Indium foil. (No one has countered that one.) Mills describes the particular Raman experiment we were discussing as as just "another successful cross-confirmatory technique".

 

[Kid Eager]

On the contrary, the paper in question is not trashed at all. We've been discussing merely one part - the Raman spectroscopy - when there are all kinds of other confirmations in that paper of specifically predicted hydrino chemistry occurring.

Consider this one particular Raman result: If the result was an artifact, the artifact occurred at the 8 predicted branches. What are the odds?

And don't forget that was just one of two Raman results. The other was with the Indium foil. (No one has countered that one.) Mills describes the particular Raman experiment we were discussing as as just "another successful cross-confirmatory technique".

What are the odds indeed? About the same as if the machine were not switched on at all...

 

[markie]

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.

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:


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:


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

This is good, thanks for some info. This now makes you the resident most qualified to critique this particular Raman spectroscopy setup.

In a nutshell, I highly dispute your more absolutist statements like "It doesn't work at all."

On the contrary, it clearly works. Particular signals that weren't in the control getter were picked up when hydrino H2 was in the getter, and very close to the 8 predicted relative intensities and wavecounts as per page 24, 34 and 115.

 

[markie]

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.

The NASA funded study was led by Rowan's Machese in 2002, and the paper has been cited before here
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf


The conclusion in part:

As described in this report, experiments were performed to characterize the BlackLight process, two separate proof-of-concept thrusters were designed and built, an apparatus was developed to measure exhaust velocity using a Doppler shift technique and both thruster systems were successfully test-fired. However, due to time and cost constraints of the 6-month study, successful measurements of the exhaust velocity have not been completed to date. While experiments are ongoing, the Doppler shift technique may ultimately not be feasible for these experiments as originally hoped due to the low pressure, weakly emitting exhaust plumes inherent in these systems....
Phase II funding is justified to continue this work...


NASA may not have funded Part 2, but scientists at Rowan appear to believe that something very significant was going on as witnessed by the fact they have continued doing hydrino work since that time to the present.

 

[markie]

... 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.

If I didn't know better I would think you were describing quantum theory.
As someone on an old Hydrino forum used to describe the progress of quantum theory: "patch, patch, patch"

 

[aleCcowaN]

If I didn't know better I would think you were describing quantum theory.
As someone on an old Hydrino forum used to describe the progress of quantum theory: "patch, patch, patch"

Oh, yes! Because QT has no capabilities used nowadays in real life while Mills' do .


But you knew better ... that I was referring to your discovery of schollar.google.com and your bravery in using it together with Wiki to build and ability to develop pseudo-scientific sophisms over a unspecific run-of-the-mill education, all in support of your passionate advocacy.

 

[jrhowell]

But soon labs WILL be falling over themselves to explore hydrino chemistry. By soon I mean the next 5 years.

The goalposts appear to be shifting. I thought you believed BLP will have something that unambiguously demonstrates hydrino technology by early next year. Do you expect scientists to not be immediately curious about how it works?

 

[jonesdave116]

This is good, thanks for some info. This now makes you the resident most qualified to critique this particular Raman spectroscopy setup.

In a nutshell, I highly dispute your more absolutist statements like "It doesn't work at all."

On the contrary, it clearly works. Particular signals that weren't in the control getter were picked up when hydrino H2 was in the getter, and very close to the 8 predicted relative intensities and wavecounts as per page 24, 34 and 115.

Given W.D.C's excellent appraisal of the spectroscopy set up, I was going to pass on firing off any emails, as it appeared to be a settled matter. However, given the above, I think they need to be sent. Let's see what some experts in the field think, eh? Happy with that Markie?

 

[wollery]

I was hoping you would extrapolate. Moon - > Flattened Moon -> Atomized Moon fully incompassing the earth in one extremely thin layer.



In the latter case we of course ignore the effects of friction and turbulence etc that would break up such a layer. Given this, every single atom of the atomized moon material must be moving at the same angular velocity and the same distance from the earth as the moon's centre of gravity when intact. The summed net force of gravity exerted by the earth on such an atomized moon would be the same as on the intact moon.



Mills' equation of motion for the orbitsphere is fine.

Apart from the part where the orbitsphere isn't a collection of individual particles, but a single solid sphere.

As a solid sphere it is inherently unstable.

As a collection of individual particles they would be unable to orbit in tandem, but would inevitably cross paths, crashing into each other and causing a catastrophic collapse of the system.

Just because the net gravitational force is the same doesn't make it a stable system.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Are you willing to bet real money on a timeline, then?

 

[jonesdave116]

Are you willing to bet real money on a timeline, then?

He would need to know in which year you were born, to figure out a date for when you are unlikely to be around to collect on said bet.

 

[Worm]

There is a crack in the damn and when the water starts coming out in increasing amounts the quantum village in the valley better brace themselves for impact.

The 'crack' happened 30 years ago. That is one slow moving impact.....

 

[W.D.Clinger]

One of the many entertaining aspects of crackpot behavior is its tendency to reject broad areas of mainstream science, even as its few technical arguments appeal to that very same rejected science:

There is a crack in the damn and when the water starts coming out in increasing amounts the quantum village in the valley better brace themselves for impact.

Raman spectroscopy is based upon a quantum effect. If the quantum village were doomed, all results of Raman spectroscopy would be considered suspect.

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.

In a nutshell, I highly dispute your more absolutist statements like "It doesn't work at all."

To dispute that particular statement effectively, you'll have to come up with an angle β for which

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

On the contrary, it clearly works. Particular signals that weren't in the control getter were picked up when hydrino H2 was in the getter, and very close to the 8 predicted relative intensities and wavecounts as per page 24, 34 and 115.

The aliasing I described won't occur when there are no signals at other modes that can alias to the signals you and Mills are interpreting as evidence for hydrinos. The fact that those signals appear only when a particular substance is analyzed is therefore irrelevant to the question of whether they are aliases of Raman shifts long known to mainstream science.

 

[LTC8K6]

Rowan's Hydrino work is being done with and for Mills, though.

Rowan has essentially contracted out to Mills, as far as I can tell.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Ahh, a classic "quack science" gambit. Lie about fundamental aspects of what scientists do and how they get grants approved.

On the contrary, the paper in question is not trashed at all. We've been discussing merely one part - the Raman spectroscopy

Then we can agree that the spectroscopy "evidence" for Hydrinos are debunked garbage. Thank you for your concession.

there are all kinds of other confirmations in that paper of specifically predicted hydrino chemistry occurring.

Consider this one particular Raman result: If the result was an artifact, the artifact occurred at the 8 predicted branches. What are the odds?

And don't forget that was just one of two Raman results. The other was with the Indium foil. (No one has countered that one.) Mills describes the particular Raman experiment we were discussing as as just "another successful cross-confirmatory technique".

Given the fact that they obviously and flagrantly cooked the books on the spectroscopy data in that paper, I have no reason to consider any of the other claims made by the paper to be of any value until they are replicated by independent researchers. The paper is tainted by faked data. If someone takes a dump in your casserole you don't strain out the poo and serve the rest. I am perplexed why you are asking us to do the same with a feces contaminated "paper."

 

[halleyscomet]

LHC is for really high energy, whereas hydrino is more on the chemical scale of energy. But soon labs WILL be falling over themselves to explore hydrino chemistry. By soon I mean the next 5 years. There is a crack in the damn and when the water starts coming out in increasing amounts the quantum village in the valley better brace themselves for impact.

You're confusing Hydrino with hyperbole again Markie.

Puffed up boasting about a physics themed fantasy novel more plodding than the material left out of The Similarion doesn't support the Hydrino fantasy, especially in the face of people asking for hard proof, of which you have failed to produce any.

 

[LTC8K6]

There simply aren't any independent validations of anything.

 

[Hans]

There simply aren't any independent validations of anything.

......ah and then THAT means the real data and results are being suppressed since in markie's world Mills cannot be wrong.