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

[jsfisher]

I find it rather amusing that people here are turning somersaults in an effort to not believe this kind of simple history.

And, yet, there is no evidence to support Mills' MIT claim, evidence that should exist as documented in this very thread had Mills been a student at MIT for a year.

I find it rather amusing that people here are turning somersaults in an effort to believe every lie Mills utters.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

I am a bit confused. I'm just a regular guy with an interest in but no formal training in physics, quantum mechanics or advanced math so my understanding is pretty basic. I think the basis of all this the idea that a hydrogen atom (and apparently only a hydrogen atom) can go below the ground state - the electron can somehow "get closer" to the nucleus than the K shell? And when that occurs it releases more energy than is required to restore the atom back to the ground state. Somehow this involves two dimensional particles and some type of mysterious shell around something.

Is that the essence of it?

 

[hgus]

Mills is no liar. You assume too much.

We have been through this before. When Mills claims to have done something he have not done he is lying and becomes a liar. To trust a known liar is rather daft if you ask me. And yes, I assume Mills is a scammer until he produce anything but hot air.

 

[optiongeek]

I am a bit confused. I'm just a regular guy with an interest in but no formal training in physics, quantum mechanics or advanced math so my understanding is pretty basic. I think the basis of all this the idea that a hydrogen atom (and apparently only a hydrogen atom) can go below the ground state - the electron can somehow "get closer" to the nucleus than the K shell? And when that occurs it releases more energy than is required to restore the atom back to the ground state. Somehow this involves two dimensional particles and some type of mysterious shell around something.

Is that the essence of it?

Mostly, with the exception of the highlighted part. There's no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you release 204eV to go from H -> H[1/4], then the return trip from H[1/4] -> H requires 204eV. And since the fractional states are considered dark matter, one would expect this reaction is quite common since most of the universe is dark matter.

 

[Myriad]

And since the fractional states are considered dark matter...

By whom, exactly?

 

[Darat]

I am a bit confused. I'm just a regular guy with an interest in but no formal training in physics, quantum mechanics or advanced math so my understanding is pretty basic. I think the basis of all this the idea that a hydrogen atom (and apparently only a hydrogen atom) can go below the ground state - the electron can somehow "get closer" to the nucleus than the K shell? And when that occurs it releases more energy than is required to restore the atom back to the ground state. Somehow this involves two dimensional particles and some type of mysterious shell around something.

Is that the essence of it?

It's really a case of trying to work out the aerodynamics of how fairies fly, one could try to create a model but personally I'd wait until we had some fairies to observe.

 

[jadebox]

It's really a case of trying to work out the aerodynamics of how fairies fly, one could try to create a model but personally I'd wait until we had some fairies to observe.

Pooping unicorns are now flying fairies?

Unicorns are more likely to exist than hydrinos. [Maybe] not magical unicorns with rainbow poop, but a pony-like animal with a horn. The existence of such an animal wouldn't contradict pretty much everything we understand about how the universe works.

 

[jadebox]

By whom, exactly?

The only reference to dark matter and fractional states that I could find when searching the internet just now was in a PDF authored by some guy named RL Mills.

 

[JeanTate]

Bump.

And you know these equations are correct (i.e. are consistent with the relevant experimental results) because:
a) you personally checked them out,
b) you asked someone you know is unaffiliated with Mills et al. and who you independently know has deep knowledge and experience,
c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant),
d) something else?

Looking forward to your answer, optiongeek!

 

[JeanTate]

Mostly, with the exception of the highlighted part. There's no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you release 204eV to go from H -> H[1/4], then the return trip from H[1/4] -> H requires 204eV. And since the fractional states are considered dark matter, one would expect this reaction is quite common since most of the universe is dark matter.

My hilite.

And you know this reaction is quite common (and consistent with the relevant experimental results) because:
a) you personally checked it out,
b) you asked someone you know is unaffiliated with Mills et al. and who you independently know has deep knowledge and experience,
c) you trust Mills implicitly (i.e. you never consider independent checking to be relevant),
d) something else?

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 36 (66) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie.

The most recent iteration of discussion of BLP and its claims began on 8th January 2017, 10:46 PM, in a post by michaelsuede

He writes (My hilites): "I'm here to let you know that free energy generators will be hitting the market within a year, with mass production ramping up rapidly within two years."

and

"BrLP already has the “light bulb” portion of this generator fully prototyped and working. Obviously that’s the hard part since the rest of the parts for the generator already exist from off-the-shelf suppliers. Mills is projecting production units to be ready for delivery by the second half of 2017, with a fully prototyped working generator ready for field testing by the first half of 2017. Once Mills rolls out that first generator, be prepared for a monumental media **** storm to hit the public."

(there's a LOT more; jolly good read)

Needless to say, history records rather different outcomes.

And it took only ~one day before links to discussions of earlier versions of Mills' claims were posted.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 35 (65) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

As I noted, in the "michaelsuede" thread on BLP etc a post noting two previous (pre-2017) threads appeared within ~a day.

The most recent posted is a thread from 2010; I'll cover that another day.

That thread was bumped in 2014 (15th January 2014, 11:03 AM), with a post by Wolfman. Which reads, in part:

"I'm gonna' resuscitate this thread, as BlackLight Power have just put out a press release that they're going to do a live demonstration of their technology on Jan. 28."

(to be clear, Wolfman, in that post, was no markie or optiongeek: "I'm pretty much convinced that, like many such claims before, it's a scam")

The thread did not last until 28 January, 2014, and attracted no Mills fans.

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 35 (65) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

As I noted, in the "michaelsuede" thread on BLP etc a post noting two previous (pre-2017) threads appeared within ~a day.

The most recent posted is a thread from 2010; I'll cover that another day.

That thread was bumped in 2014 (15th January 2014, 11:03 AM), with a post by Wolfman. Which reads, in part:

"I'm gonna' resuscitate this thread, as BlackLight Power have just put out a press release that they're going to do a live demonstration of their technology on Jan. 28."

(to be clear, Wolfman, in that post, was no markie or optiongeek: "I'm pretty much convinced that, like many such claims before, it's a scam")

The thread did not last until 28 January, 2014, and attracted no Mills fans.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 34 (64) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

About that "most recent posted is a thread from 2010": it was started on 15th December 2010, 12:06 AM by Astrodude; link. It's a fairly short thread, only 48 posts (not counting the 2014 bump), and much of it is taken up with discussion of a report by GEN3, particularly whether it was endorsed by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), or whether the CfA was an equal partner; the report claims to have "confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation". tl;dr it's a total crock and the CfA most certainly did not endorse, support, etc the report. I'm not sure if markie et al. lists this report as one of the so-called independent verifications. There's only one Mills fan - Bishadi - posting in that thread, and it's not entirely clear just how much of fan she is.

There are many good snippets, but I'll choose just one, by sol invictus: "If there were a lower energy state, no matter how high the barrier, ground state hydrogen could tunnel to it (without a catalyst). But huge collections of hydrogen atoms (10²³ and more) never exhibit such tunneling - not one atom tunnels." Given optiongeek's interest in tunneling, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see what response there is.

 

[markie]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 34 (64) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

About that "most recent posted is a thread from 2010": it was started on 15th December 2010, 12:06 AM by Astrodude; link. It's a fairly short thread, only 48 posts (not counting the 2014 bump), and much of it is taken up with discussion of a report by GEN3, particularly whether it was endorsed by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), or whether the CfA was an equal partner; the report claims to have "confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation". tl;dr it's a total crock and the CfA most certainly did not endorse, support, etc the report. I'm not sure if markie et al. lists this report as one of the so-called independent verifications. There's only one Mills fan - Bishadi - posting in that thread, and it's not entirely clear just how much of fan she is.

There are many good snippets, but I'll choose just one, by sol invictus: "If there were a lower energy state, no matter how high the barrier, ground state hydrogen could tunnel to it (without a catalyst). But huge collections of hydrogen atoms (10²³ and more) never exhibit such tunneling - not one atom tunnels." Given optiongeek's interest in tunneling, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see what response there is.

Why invoke tunnelling when according to the Schrodinger equation the point electron of the ground state hydrogen atom could be found just about anywhere, from right in the nucleus to metres away.

 

[JeanTate]

Why invoke tunnelling when according to the Schrodinger equation the point electron of the ground state hydrogen atom could be found just about anywhere, from right in the nucleus to metres away.

Really? Can you provide some more details please?

You seem to be claiming that hydrogen (or any element) is unstable, because the electron (or any electron) could tunnel into the nucleus; have I got it right?

sol invictus' point concerns the stability of the (hydrogen) ground state, when there exists (per Mills) ~100 states with lower energy.

 

[optiongeek]

There are many good snippets, but I'll choose just one, by sol invictus: "If there were a lower energy state, no matter how high the barrier, ground state hydrogen could tunnel to it (without a catalyst). But huge collections of hydrogen atoms (10²³ and more) never exhibit such tunneling - not one atom tunnels." Given optiongeek's interest in tunneling, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see what response there is.

The physical law that governs the hydrino reaction is the non-radiation condition, and is not subject to energetic "tunneling". The non-radiation condition says that an ensemble of current density (an electron) may not radiate unless it possess space-time Fourier components synchronous with light. Mills shows that the bound electron in the ground state does not possess these components, and therefore may not radiate. Not seeing "tunneling" to below ground state in 10²³ atoms is exactly what GUTCP predicts.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

The physical law that governs the hydrino reaction is the non-radiation condition, and is not subject to energetic "tunneling". The non-radiation condition says that an ensemble of current density (an electron) may not radiate unless it possess space-time Fourier components synchronous with light. Mills shows that the bound electron in the ground state does not possess these components, and therefore may not radiate. Not seeing "tunneling" to below ground state in 10²³ atoms is exactly what GUTCP predicts.

So, let me see if I understand correctly ...

The ground state of the hydrogen atom has the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the ~100 "below ground state hydrino" hydrogen atoms also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the (uncountably?) infinite number of excited states of hydrogen also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And in a neutral atom that undergoes either an M-shell or L-shell capture form of beta decay also has all its electrons in "the non-radiation condition", right?

 

[optiongeek]

Thanks.

So, let me see if I understand correctly ...

The ground state of the hydrogen atom has the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the ~100 "below ground state hydrino" hydrogen atoms also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the (uncountably?) infinite number of excited states of hydrogen also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right? And in a neutral atom that undergoes either an M-shell or L-shell capture form of beta decay also has all its electrons in "the non-radiation condition", right?

Almost. The highlighted expression is incorrect. The excited electron possesses a trapped photon which acts to partially shield the central electric force of the proton. The electron experiences a fractional charge, which as Mills shows in Appendix A, creates a sinc(x) factor in the radial component of the spacetime Fourier. This sinc(x) component doesn't disappear and results in radiation. Every state above the ground state is unstable to photonic radiation, while the ground and below are stable.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Thanks.

So, let me see if I understand correctly ...

The ground state of the hydrogen atom has the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the ~100 "below ground state hydrino" hydrogen atoms also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?

And the (uncountably?) infinite number of excited states of hydrogen also all have the electron in "the non-radiation condition", right?
And in a neutral atom that undergoes either an M-shell or L-shell capture form of beta decay also has all its electrons in "the non-radiation condition", right?

Almost. The highlighted expression is incorrect. The excited electron possesses a trapped photon which acts to partially shield the central electric force of the proton. The electron experiences a fractional charge, which as Mills shows in Appendix A, creates a sinc(x) factor in the radial component of the spacetime Fourier. This sinc(x) component doesn't disappear and results in radiation. Every state above the ground state is unstable to photonic radiation, while the ground and below are stable.

My hilite.

How - in detail - does the "sinc(x) component" "result in radiation"?

Specifically, using Maxwell's equations, what is the time evolution of the shape of the electron in an excited state transitioning to a spherical ("orbitsphere") shape that gives rise to a photon (radiation) of a very specific and narrow frequency (or wavelength)?

 

[optiongeek]

Thanks.

My hilite.

How - in detail - does the "sinc(x) component" "result in radiation"?

Specifically, using Maxwell's equations, what is the time evolution of the shape of the electron in an excited state transitioning to a spherical ("orbitsphere") shape that gives rise to a photon (radiation) of a very specific and narrow frequency (or wavelength)?

Please see Appendix I of the GUTCP. Per Haus's derivation, the electric field E perpendicular to the current field J is found from analysis of the space time Fourier components in (k, omega) space. Haus shows that radiation in the perpendicular requires components of J(omega/c * n, omega). Mills extends this analysis to the bound electron and the orbitsphere and shows the condition under which radiation is not allowed.

In case of the excited state, a simplified explanation is provided starting on page 28 of the GUTCP of how the internal electric field leads to instability. In equation I.113, the (1 + 1/n) factor multiplying the spherical harmonic term arises from the trapped photon in the excited electron. With n = 2, 3, 4 . . . of the excited states, a fractional charge is felt by the electron. This creates a radial doublet function, which as a result (see the discussion starting around equation 2.30) creates components in the Fourier transform that lead to radiation.

 

[JeanTate]

As of today, we have to wait a mere 34 (64) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

About that "most recent posted is a thread from 2010": it was started on 15th December 2010, 12:06 AM by Astrodude; link. It's a fairly short thread, only 48 posts (not counting the 2014 bump), and much of it is taken up with discussion of a report by GEN3, particularly whether it was endorsed by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), or whether the CfA was an equal partner; the report claims to have "confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation". tl;dr it's a total crock and the CfA most certainly did not endorse, support, etc the report. I'm not sure if markie et al. lists this report as one of the so-called independent verifications. There's only one Mills fan - Bishadi - posting in that thread, and it's not entirely clear just how much of fan she is.

There are many good snippets, but I'll choose just one, by sol invictus: "If there were a lower energy state, no matter how high the barrier, ground state hydrogen could tunnel to it (without a catalyst). But huge collections of hydrogen atoms (10²³ and more) never exhibit such tunneling - not one atom tunnels." Given optiongeek's interest in tunneling, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see what response there is.

As of today, we have to wait a mere 33 (63) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. According to markie (though he may be having some doubts).

On 1st February 2003, 12:26 PM, davefoc (who also posted in the 2010 thread) started a thread hydrinos for you and me; this thread is cited on page 1 of the 2017 thread michaelsuede started. It is a very short thread, just 8 posts. But it contains some excellent links and advice, on where to find skeptical material on Mills' con ideas.

Has Mills etc been discussed in other threads (other than the three started in 2017, the one - with a 2014 bump - started in 2010, and the 2003 one)? I do not know.