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

[jsfisher]

Huh? Page 6 of the long report says this:

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

Yeah? So? The statement is by Thermacore. It is Thermacore's interpretation of the result returned from the university.

Remember, too, that Thermacore didn't include the graph provided by the Lehigh University lab in the report. Yet another bit of incompetence on the part of Thermacore. Without the chart, Thermacore's conclusion is unsupported, and the credibility of the report is seriously damaged.

The incompetence demonstrated by Thermacore in this and its other report also diminish any credibility it might have had otherwise to near zero levels.

You don't get to pick and choose the parts you like and excuse the parts you don't. Thermacore's work is garbage.

 

[Reality Check]

A delusion that quantum theory "went off the rails" with the Schrodinger equation

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

21 November 2018 markie: A delusion that quantum theory "went off the rails" with the Schrodinger equation.

This is the Schrödinger equation. This gives a successful description of the quantum reality that we have observed, e.g. the spectral lines of hydrogen. Make the equation relativistic and we get spin for free (the Dirac equation)! Add about 90 years of scientific progress and we have the most precisely tested theory in physics, Quantum electrodynamics, and working quantum field theory.

 

[Reality Check]

Moves goalposts to the 1994 report from the 1993 report that he wrote about

Huh? Page 6 of the long report says this:

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

21 November 2018 markie: Moves goalposts to the 1994 report from the 1993 report that he wrote about.

The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak.
The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.

We have authors who have already lied writing "Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak.". An honest paper would have a section listing those "exhaustive evaluations". Now look et the references:
"7. ESCA Report, Lehigh University, Miller, Al, December 8, 1993"
No hint of "exhaustive evaluations" in the title of what looks like a straightforward lab report on results! No inclusion of the actual report in their PDF.

ETA: More evidence that Thermacore is lying about the ESCA Report. The 1994 Figure 2 is the same as the 1993 Figure 4. There is no mention of "exhaustive evaluations" in the 1993 PDF!

 

[markie]

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.

I have already told you the problem with that 55eV 'match'. It is CO on Molybdenum, not Nickel. And most importantly it is not reflective of bond strength. It was merely the photon energy used by the instrument that maximized the bond feature found at (only) 12 eV.

To wit: Using a photon energy of 55 eV, the broad feature at 12 eV was assigned to the 4σ-state of CO

Mills 'refuses' what labs to do what experiments? Be specific.

The labs in the Netherlands were allowed to do critical work on plasmas related to hydrino and publish what they wished.

 

[markie]

21 November 2018 markie: Moves goalposts to the 1994 report from the 1993 report that he wrote about.

The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak.
The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.

We have authors who have already lied writing "Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak.". An honest paper would have a section listing those "exhaustive evaluations". Now look et the references:
"7. ESCA Report, Lehigh University, Miller, Al, December 8, 1993"
No hint of "exhaustive evaluations" in the title of what looks like a straightforward lab report on results! No inclusion of the actual report in their PDF.

ETA: More evidence that Thermacore is lying about the ESCA Report. The 1994 Figure 2 is the same as the 1993 Figure 4. There is no mention of "exhaustive evaluations" in the 1993 PDF!

You're seriously proposing that Thermacore was lying about what Lehigh University reported. How desperate. How about finding the Lehigh report and getting back to us.

 

[jsfisher]

You're seriously proposing that Thermacore was lying about what Lehigh University reported. How desperate. How about finding the Lehigh report and getting back to us.

It was either gross incompetence or fraud. Your choice.

The "how desperate" is more a matter of projection.

 

[markie]

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.

Again with you and Thermacore lying. Is the graph from Lehigh or is it not?
And there is no 'cut off' here. "Cut off" as I have been using it has to do with the maximum photon energy in a continuum of photon energy released in a hydrino transition. The hump on the graph provided by Lehigh relates to the extremely high bond energy of something on the nickel substrate, that happens to correspond to the bond energy of the particular type of dihydrino Mills predicts to have formed.

 

[jsfisher]

Again with you and Thermacore lying. Is the graph from Lehigh or is it not?

Hard to say. Thermacore's demonstrated incompetence makes it difficult to accept anything at face-value from the report.

And there is no 'cut off' here. "Cut off" as I have been using it has to do with the maximum photon energy in a continuum of photon energy released in a hydrino transition. The hump on the graph provided by Lehigh relates to the extremely high bond energy of something on the nickel substrate, that happens to correspond to the bond energy of the particular type of dihydrino Mills predicts to have formed.

Mills predictions made in this Big Book of Boo-Boos are founded in mathematical errors. The predictions have no basis. Be that as it may, though, the peak in the so-called Lehigh graph does not correspond to Mills' prediction. It was a lie by Thermacore to say it did; it is a lie no matter who says it.

(And, no, I am not forgetting that Thermacore provided the wrong graph for Coil #4.)

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Is there actually a link to a LeHigh source confirming this report that LeHigh supposedly produced? No need to track it down, just want to know if it's worth looking for myself.

 

[jsfisher]

Is there actually a link to a LeHigh source confirming this report that LeHigh supposedly produced? No need to track it down, just want to know if it's worth looking for myself.

Nope. I know of no such link.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I have already told you the problem with that 55eV 'match'. It is CO on Molybdenum, not Nickel. And most importantly it is not reflective of bond strength. It was merely the photon energy used by the instrument that maximized the bond feature found at (only) 12 eV.

To wit: Using a photon energy of 55 eV, the broad feature at 12 eV was assigned to the 4σ-state of CO

Mills 'refuses' what labs to do what experiments? Be specific.

The labs in the Netherlands were allowed to do critical work on plasmas related to hydrino and publish what they wished.

I spelled it out to you very carefully Markie. The source I gave you was regarding the surface properties of stainless steel having undergone hydrogen embrittlement. (stainless steel being high in nickel)

You also point out Molybdenum, which is also possible. And in fact a very large number of metal surfaces having undergone hydrogen embrittlement will show the 55 eV bonding energies.

Which is Mills samples? Who knows? All I stated is that there absolutely was no attempt to rule out mundane hydrogen Embrittlement as the source of those mythical Hydrino crystals. Until you rule out mundane causes for the readings, there is no reason to invoke a whole new theory of physics!

Fact is I have no idea what exactly is in those crystals. Hydrogen embrittlement under those conditions is MESSY. All sorts of contaminants are possible! Mills is not even close to ruling out "ordinary" when he immediately invokes "anomalous". Well maybe Mills thinks that is strange, but it is not "anomalous" to materials surface science which has found a wide variety materials with of bonding strengths @ 55 eV including stainless steel that has hydrogen embrittlement!

Just to be clear.... I am sticking to my conclusion that this is hydrogen embrittlement until it is ruled out! Mills never ruled it out. He appears instead to be doing the exact opposite of all the rest of materials science and attempting to optimized what everyone else is trying to minimize! Almost all the work in materials science regarding hydrogen embrittlement is in trying to find ways to AVOID it as it is so common!

Edit to add: I gave you the perfect way to prove me wrong Markie. Unlike Mills BS, what I am claiming is easily falsified! Just rule out hydrogen embrittlement as the source of those crystals and it is done. But so far you have not presented Mills or anyone else having done that. Occam's Razor Markie. Rule out the ordinary before trying to come up with some convoluted new explanation.

 

[Reality Check]

You're seriously proposing that Thermacore was lying about what Lehigh University reported.

I am seriously proposing that Thermacore fell so bad for Mills delusions that they obviously lied about what a single researcher at Lehigh University reported.

The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak because the peak is at about 57 eV !

The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.

 

[Reality Check]

Cannot understand the LeHigh graph that Thermacore lied about

Again with you and Thermacore lying. Is the graph from Lehigh or is it not? ...

22 November 2018 markie: Cannot understand the LeHigh graph that Thermacore lied about.
They are not lying about the data being from LeHigh. They are lying about the data that came from Lehigh. The steps that anyone can do to understand that there is a 55 eV peak lie:

1. Open the 1993 PDF below.
2. Scroll to the last page.
3. This shows Figure 4: Comparison of ESCA Results.
4. Trace the 55 eV x-axis mark upward.
5. Note that it does not meet the peak of the bump!
   55 eV is about halfway along the slope descending from the peak to the right.

Now select the actual peak and look down to the x-axis to see that the peak is at ~57 eV.
The 1993 Anomalous Heat From Atomic Hydrogen in Contact with Potassium Carbonate PDF lied about a 55 eV peak because the peak is at about 57 eV!
The 1994 Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source PDF repeated that 55 eV peak lie.

 

[JeanTate]

Because dihydrino is a smaller and more inert version of hydrogen gas of course. And yes I noticed that you didn't answer the question about the environmental impact of hydrogen gas.

<snip>

This deserves a longer-than-usual response.

History (key parts only):

JT (18th Nov): "Oh, and he’s oddly silent on the health and environmental impacts of the many kilograms of hydrinos Mills has let escape from his lab in NJ ... it’s almost as if he believes there’s nothing to worry about ... because there are no hydrinos!"

markie (19th Nov): "What is the environmental impact of hydrogen gas? Even less so for dihydrino."

JT (19th Nov): "And this is relevant, how exactly?" "I fully agree, because it's roughly the same as the environmental impact of unicorns.

But neither you nor the Mills crew believe in unicorns.

However, you are both utterly convinced that dihydrinos, and monohydrinos, exist.

Yet apparently no study has been done on their environmental or health impacts."

markie (20th Nov): "Because dihydrino is a smaller and more inert version of hydrogen gas of course. And yes I noticed that you didn't answer the question about the environmental impact of hydrogen gas."

JT (21st Nov): "So you claim.

Without any evidence whatsoever.

One gold star for exemplary use of faulty logic! " "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! "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, the chemistry of hydrogen is pretty well known, and it's an element absolutely essential for life here on Earth as we know it.

The chemistry of hydrinos? Well, it seems that only Mills (and markie) knows that.

However, we do know that hydrinos behave in very different ways from hydrogen; for example, it's very difficult to induce them to "jump" to a higher energy state, such as ground state hydrogen.

So given that we know nothing of the chemistry of hydrinos (assuming they exist), on what basis can markie claim that the environmental and health impacts are even less than hydrogen?

Suppose, for example, that a hydrino will interact with a fluorine atom in a common mineral (even if only once in a million times), to produce some kind of analog of HF only far more reactive and volatile; the health and environmental impacts would be enormous.

And knowing the chemistry of hydrogen provides essentially no clues.

Care to try again, markie?

 

[Reality Check]

Is there actually a link to a LeHigh source confirming this report that LeHigh supposedly produced?

That is another bit of Thermacore incompetence.
They sent samples to a lab at LeHigh University. A researcher (Al Miller) ran Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis on the samples and sent a report back. That report should have been part of their report but was not. That is incompetent and suspicious. ESCA is used to measure the elements on a surface. I would expect an ESCA report to label the results with the elements that were found. But the only element on the Thermacore figure is Ni. But we know that one sample has been in contact with potassium carbonate (and hot hydrogen but ESTA cannot detect H or He). A guess would be that there would be K, C and O contaminants but maybe outside of the Thermacore figure using a 70 - 35 eV binding energy range.

We do not expect Miller to be able to confirm a minor lab run that was done in 1993.

 

[Reality Check]

Emphasizes Thermacore at least incompetence by not making the ESCA report available

How about finding the Lehigh report and getting back to us.

22 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes Thermacore at least incompetence by not making the ESCA report available.

That was a lab at LeHigh running minor tests on supplied samples and sending back a report on the elements that were found. Those elements are ignored and what we get is a Thermacore figure with only Ni and a lie about a 55 eV peak. The ESCA report should have included all of the elements that were detected. There is a possibility that the ESCA gave a physical origin for the 57 eV peak.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That report should have been part of their report but was not.

What report is that?

 

[Reality Check]

What report is that?

There are 2 - the 1993 PDF and 1994 PDF. Note that these are not scientific papers. The 1993 report is a company report. The 1994 report looks like something needed by the government.

 

[jsfisher]

There are 2 - the 1993 PDF and 1994 PDF. Note that these are not scientific papers. The 1993 report is a company report. The 1994 report looks like something needed by the government.

Note, too, that the 1994 report was dated March 24, 1994 for work performed during the time period April 15, 1993 through October 15, 1993.

Bonus Internet points for those who can spot why this date range further undermines Thermacore's credibility.

 

[markie]

(snip)
So given that we know nothing of the chemistry of hydrinos (assuming they exist), on what basis can markie claim that the environmental and health impacts are even less than hydrogen?

Suppose, for example, that a hydrino will interact with a fluorine atom in a common mineral (even if only once in a million times), to produce some kind of analog of HF only far more reactive and volatile; the health and environmental impacts would be enormous.

And knowing the chemistry of hydrogen provides essentially no clues.

Care to try again, markie?

First of all, their wouldn't be a hydrino fluoride. This is because if hydrino is reactive it is in an anion form and will bind with a cation, which is as far as I know has always been a catalyst, such as potassium. But halogens can be involved as a part of the the crystal in which the hydrino hydride occurs. For instance there is potassium chloro hydrino hydride crystal.

See https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cad4/4d13bb5b0d42c017573ce65ca3a6d815ddcb.pdf

"Identification of Compounds Containing Novel Hydride Ions by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy"

Secondly, the hydrino hydride crystal compound will be *less* reactive than the ordinary hydrogen hydride compound counterpart because the binding energy is much higher.