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

[markie]

21 November 2018 markie: Delusion that an electronic transition between orbitals produces a"spectral continua".

We have an electron with a given energy in an orbital. The electron gains or loses energy and jumps to another orbital. That change in energy only depends in the difference in orbital energy. The electron emits or absorbs a photon with that energy. This gives a spectral line.

That applies even to Mills delusions. His delusion of an electron jumping from the ground state to a lower energy state still produces a spectral line. His "orbitsphere" insanity still has to produce the spectral lines that we observe.

What this is analogous to is an instant acceleration of an electron from one velocity to another.

Spectral continuum come when electrons escape or join atoms, are accelerated, or when the spectral lines are so close together that they cannot be resolved.

markie is suggesting that Mills is even more deluded than his book and scam tells us! I may have missed Mills insanely denying the fact the hydrogen emits light at discrete energies .

I suspect that this is markie being ignorant about Mills delusions. Mills should know that his fantasy will produce easily detected spectral lines. So Mills probably invokes some magic to hide them. My guess is it is the stupidity of his "catalysts" which in his imagination would carry away a part of the energy turning a line into a blurred peak. Add enough imaginary blur and there is no line or peak.

Part of the energy is indeed carried off by the catalyst, in the form of ionizing it and also making it fast. The other part is released in a continua of radiation as the electron accelerates then decelerates to the appropriate below ground energy state. The difference between this and the discrete lines as per normal hydrogen has to do with the trapped photon that is bound to the electron. If the energy differential between states is fractional there will be a discrete line, as per ordinary excited, metastable hydrogen falling to a lower level. It it is a whole number it's different and a hydrino transition results. Much more detail in the book of course.

 

[markie]

Doesn't seem to show dozens and dozens.

I would call over a hundred 'dozens and dozens'.

 

[Reality Check]

A "fingerprint that could not be explained apart from hydrino" lie

You say that, yet even the 1993 experiment had a university doing an analysis on the nickel tubing and finding a fingerprint that could not be explained apart from hydrino. And that is just the beginning.

21 November 2018 marike: A "fingerprint that could not be explained apart from hydrino" lie.

A signature for hydrinos would be features of a spectrum fitting the predicted spectrum and that cannot be explained in any other way by people who know what they are doing. Those people would not be company employees who are toeing the company line even if it is deluded (Mills and hydrinos) or mistaken (Thermacore and cold fusion thus hydrinos).

Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate (PDF)
In 1993, the Thermacore company fell for Mills hydro delusions as part of cold fusion. The LeHigh university did an ESCA analysis of a virgin tube versus a treated tube and found a peak at 55 eV only in the treated tube. Thermacore basically lied that this was a "characteristic hydrino" peak by not considering the fact that they now have a contaminated tube . Thermacore actually lied because Figure 4 has the center of the peak at about 57 eV, and "cut offs" at ~53 and ~60 eV.

 

[Reality Check]

Adds to his delusion of a continuous spectra from electronic transitions

The other part is released in a continua of radiation as the electron accelerates then decelerates to the appropriate below ground energy state. The difference between this and the discrete lines as per normal hydrogen has to do with the trapped photon that is bound to the electron.

21 November 2018 markie: Adds to his delusion of a continuous spectra from electronic transitions.
Electrons do not continuously move between orbitals. They jump between all states even Mills delusions.
Electrons do not have a "trapped photon". Elections are point particle. Photons are neutral and so cannot be trapped by Mills "orbitsphere" insanity which you know is insane, e.g. nuclear decay particles go through them as if charged, infinitely dense spheres did not exist.
A "trapped photon" delusion applies to all electrons in all states, e.g. the real ones from which we observe spectral lines.

21 November 2018 markie: Delusion that an electronic transition between orbitals produces a "spectral continua".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Like JT, you are making things up. Is this a characteristic of pseudoskeptics?
How exactly is hydrogen embrittlement of metals similar to what is observed in hydrino experiments? Large anomalous heat? Continuum eUV radiation? Fast hydrogen? The necessity of particular catalysts? The detection of dihydrino and hydrino hydride? Get specific.

This was specific, your so called hydrino crystals. Remember this? "something with a binding energy of about 55eV in it, a result predicted by Mills and otherwise having no conventional explanation by Thermacore."

And no..you and Mills are the ones who just makes stuff up as you go. I see this often on the internet actually. Even from the occasional Phd. If there is something unknown to you personally, you make the logical fallacy in your own mind to jump to the idea it is simply not known to humanity at all. Just because those anomalous readings and properties cant be explained by Mills, or you, or a few others, doesn't mean they can't be explained at all. Desorption of CO+ inducted by electronic transitions is exactly 55eV. [1] Buy the book learn it and suddenly know why Mills is full of BS. Or if you simply want an explanation without actually making the effort to learn anything, just skip forward to the chapters starting with hydrogen embrittlement.

I figured this out about Jref and now ISF long ago. It is actually pretty likely you will indeed find someone who has competent knowledge in damn near every scientific field, and a pretty wide range of other knowledge like history politics or business too.

This is why you must open up all your research to others and painful as it may be, let them take a stab at falsifying it. Mills refuses to do this. That makes Mills a scam artist and not a scientist. It's also why that ancient old retired man from Nebraska will accomplish 1000 times more for humanity than mills ever will, in spite of Mills potential. It's a waste of a human life.

 

[Dancing David]

FYI, no it does not. Hydrogen transitioning to the hydrino state does not create a spectral line. It creates a spectral continua, analogous to what one gets when one accelerates an electrical charge. This continua appears as a hump with a certain energy cutoff which is a multiple of 27.2 eV. Also, hydrino does not revert directly to hydrogen.

Point of order, isn't that a violation of the quantum theory?

 

[Dancing David]

The energy difference is discrete ; however the transitioning electron does not release this energy as one photon but as a collection of photons of distributed energy.

So in other words it violates QM?

 

[jsfisher]

You say that, yet even the 1993 experiment had a university doing an analysis on the nickel tubing and finding a fingerprint that could not be explained apart from hydrino. And that is just the beginning.

Lehigh University was not asked to explain it. Lehigh University made no attempt to explain it. It was the folks at Thermacore, the very same folks you accused of incompetence, that tried to pass off something that was not a spike and not at 55 eV as a spike at 55 eV and not explainable as other then due to the presence of hydrinos.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So in other words it violates QM?

Yes. It's a foundation of Mill's "Grand Unified Theory" that quantum mechanics is wrong.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes. It's a foundation of Mill's "Grand Unified Theory" that quantum mechanics is wrong.

That would be Mills 1,000 page tome, often referred to as his Big Book of Boo-Boos. It is sufficiently laced with blunders from the very beginning that his theoretic foundation for hydrinos is more akin to Swiss cheese than Mathematics.

 

[markie]

Yes. It's a foundation of Mill's "Grand Unified Theory" that quantum mechanics is wrong.

Quantum theory was fine before the Schrodinger equation. That's when it went off the rails.

 

[JeanTate]

Now you're making things up. Or maybe you're referring to the Dutch experiments on plasmas and misremembering that the results were mixed.

First, you omitted this: "And yes, we've been over this before ..."

But hey, maybe I did misremember!

So, instead of searching through old ISF posts and threads, I went to the source, a website dedicated to keeping track of physics (and more) papers, and what they reference and what cites them (it's ADS' physics section).

And, wonder of wonders, within a few minutes, I found five papers which fit my bill ("Several - truly independent - teams tried to replicate Mills' reported results, and failed. And yes, they published their results, in relevant peer-reviewed journals.")

There are surely many more; my search was brief and I did not look very deeply.

So no, markie, I was not making things up.

And yes, we've been over this before ... And I'm not interested in your game of wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[markie]

Lehigh University was not asked to explain it. Lehigh University made no attempt to explain it. It was the folks at Thermacore, the very same folks you accused of incompetence, that tried to pass off something that was not a spike and not at 55 eV as a spike at 55 eV and not explainable as other then due to the presence of hydrinos.

Huh? Page 6 of the long report says this:

Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak.

 

[markie]

First, you omitted this: "And yes, we've been over this before ..."

But hey, maybe I did misremember!

So, instead of searching through old ISF posts and threads, I went to the source, a website dedicated to keeping track of physics (and more) papers, and what they reference and what cites them (it's ADS' physics section).

And, wonder of wonders, within a few minutes, I found five papers which fit my bill ("Several - truly independent - teams tried to replicate Mills' reported results, and failed. And yes, they published their results, in relevant peer-reviewed journals.")

There are surely many more; my search was brief and I did not look very deeply.

So no, markie, I was not making things up.

And yes, we've been over this before ... And I'm not interested in your game of wash, rinse, repeat.

Give me a link to even just one where a reputable lab tried to replicate and found nothing anomalous.

 

[JeanTate]

Because dihydrino is a smaller and more inert version of hydrogen gas of course.

So you claim.

Without any evidence whatsoever.

One gold star for exemplary use of faulty logic!

And yes I noticed that you didn't answer the question about the environmental impact of hydrogen gas.

Huh?

I'm looking at the lack of any evidence that Mills et al. (or markie) has ever done any work on the health or environmental impacts of hydrinos (and their compounds).

Two gold stars for exemplary use of faulty logic!

If you have not penetrated how Mills can successfully calculate the ionization energies of the outer from 1 to 20 electrons in any atomic element, you are not equipped to properly judge Mills' theory. Quite relevant.

You're not serious, are you?

This is the Science (etc) section of ISF.

Three gold stars for exemplary use of faulty logic!

 

[JeanTate]

Like JT, you are making things up. Is this a characteristic of pseudoskeptics?
<snip>

I see you like this stale trope, markie; part of your "wash, rinse, repeat" schtick, eh?

For some people who are new to this thread, it might have some legs; for those of us who've been around the block a few times, it's stale and makes me (if no one else) realize just how desperate you are.

 

[Myriad]

One does of course have to remember Myriad's over-unity wood burning wood stove.

Remember what? You seem to be referring to the CelluloseCell™ pioneered by the now abandoned research company YesWeWereConnectedToMyriad Inc., which was not in any way connected to me.

However, there's good news. My present enterprise Heap Plenty Power is currently getting excellent over-unity results by introducing volatile organic catalysts and low-voltage high-current electrical arcs into carefully configured "piles" of solid-phase fossil mineral carbon. These results have been confirmed by a major university physics department, which was so impressed by our most recent experiment they issued a statement declaring, "Put that burning **** pile out and clear it off our parking lot or we're calling the cops!"

 

[JeanTate]

That would be Mills 1,000 page tome, often referred to as his Big Book of Boo-Boos. It is sufficiently laced with blunders from the very beginning that his theoretic foundation for hydrinos is more akin to Swiss cheese than Mathematics.

(my bold)

For me, the most telling of such "blunders" are the rather obvious internal inconsistencies. Close second is the (deliberate?) omission of highly relevant results from a century or more of careful physics experiments (i.e. Mills doesn't mention them to he doesn't need so try to explain them).

If one reads RC's many posts on Mills' Tome of Magic, going back quite a long time, you'll find much of the nonsense carefully highlighted and ripped to shreds (not only RC of course, but he's written rather more such posts than anyone else, I think).

 

[JeanTate]

Give me a link to even just one where a reputable lab tried to replicate and found nothing anomalous.

Sorry markie, been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I am not your unpaid research assistant, what I described is a simple method anyone can follow to find such papers.

Oh, and here's what I said: "Several - truly independent - teams tried to replicate Mills' reported results, and failed. And yes, they published their results, in relevant peer-reviewed journals."

And here's how you characterized that: "Give me a link to even just one where a reputable lab tried to replicate and found nothing anomalous"

Nice touch.

Four gold stars for exemplary use of faulty logic! (or, in this case, careful mis-statement).

 

[Mike!]

Remember what? You seem to be referring to the CelluloseCell™ pioneered by the now abandoned research company YesWeWereConnectedToMyriad Inc., which was not in any way connected to me.

However, there's good news. My present enterprise Heap Plenty Power is currently getting excellent over-unity results by introducing volatile organic catalysts and low-voltage high-current electrical arcs into carefully configured "piles" of solid-phase fossil mineral carbon. These results have been confirmed by a major university physics department, which was so impressed by our most recent experiment they issued a statement declaring, "Put that burning **** pile out and clear it off our parking lot or we're calling the cops!"

Where do I sign up?