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

[tlp]

Ok, lets try if this is something new here. Mills answer to a question that I'll send next:

We trap the H2(1/4) gas in crystalline defects and now carbon. H2(1/4) has about 1/64th the volume of H2 which is very diffusive; so, containing the gas over containment gases is difficult. Demonstrating a physical property such as a boiling point is difficult since the gas has to be essentially 100% pure; otherwise, there is no clear boiling point. Moreover, non combustibility is not definitive since N2 is somewhat inert, and argon on the reaction gas does not burn either. The argument shifts to spectroscopic identification.

Hydrino ionizes to H+, the same as H; so, only the ionization potential distinguishes hydrino over contaminate H2 using mass spectroscopy. But, the H+ current from ordinary H increases with ionization potential as well. Moreover, NMR, XPS, inverse Raman effect, Raman, FTIR, Photoluminescent spectroscopy, e-beam spectroscopy, TOF-SIMs, etc. are very difficult or impossible with a gas sample. Since H2(1/4) has uniquely high energy signatures, it can easily be identified in the presence of H2 using the extensive number of techniques that we have published on. These techniques demonstrate properties such as ro-vibrational and ionization energies that are characteristic of and identify hydrino. We have proven hydrino spectroscopically. It amazes me that the scientific community has not engaged.

 

[tlp]

Question for that Mills answer, asked about two years ago:

<name hidden> here! Guilty as charged! That be me in the video asking about the exhaust not the power...

To Brilliant Light Investors: The Cat is out of the Box. And it didn't eat the poison pill. So, get on your sneakers and run like heck because the Chinese and Russians won't be far behind. I hope you make mega-grundels of money. You've earned it!

Randell, I've been focused on understanding H2(1/n) gas for several years. I want to defend you when the oil industry proves that it is cancerous and the Catholic Church declares it un-holy. After the SunCell™ makes its debut, every high school student on the planet is going to want to make some dark matter. Why not let 'em?

Please confirm that this experiment would work:

1. Run Hydrogen gas through Rainey Nickel at 870°K (I forgot, is this the right temperature?) 2. Observe anomalous temperature rise indicating exothermic reaction of some type. 3. Recirculate gas until Rainey-Nickel returns to 870°K. 4. Add the resulting gas to oxygen (from electrolysis). 5. Demonstrate that oxygen and the what-is-supposed-to-be-hydrogen won't burn. 6. Add a small amount of elemental Lithium (or is it sodium -its been a long time since Chem 101) to scavenge the oxygen but not the what-is-supposed-be-hydrogen gas. 7. Add something which is highly reactive to the remaining what-is-supposed-to-be-hydrogen and show that it is not hydrogen but something else, Lord knows what. 8. Take the remaining gas and put it in a balloon. Fill another balloon with hydrogen. Observe whether the gasses diffuse thought the balloon at very different rates even though they are supposed to be exactly the same thing. 9. Ask you high school chemistry teacher to explain the results.

Am I fundamentally misunderstanding H2(1/n)? It's just a classic Avogadro's gas? Would experiment be compelling evidence that the mystery-gas is not hydrogen? This is is the hydrino equivalent of Galileo's dropping the two spheres...

 

[JeanTate]

This is my experience as well. I find that critics of GUTCP are, in general, those who have invested less time in studying the material than proponents. I began as an extreme skeptic when I first encountered GUTCP many years ago. It was only because of the "impossible" calculations Mills produced (and I could replicate), that intellectual honesty demanded that I put in the time to digest and understand the material. Like tlp, the more I learn, the more convinced I become.

So, when will we see concrete, independently verifiable evidence? Like a working prototype hydrino-powered generator, available to at least five truly independent testing facilities?

Since you understand the BBoBB so well, how about answering some of the many questions I've asked you about your understanding of it? I'll happily provide links, if that will help.

BTW, when Mills becomes no longer capable of further BBoBB updates, or development of a hydrino-powered generator, who will take over? Perhaps you? or tip?

 

[Myriad]

Odd that Mills didn't actually answer your question. Would your experiment work or not? If not, why not?

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Ok, lets try if this is something new here. Mills answer to a question that I'll send next:

We trap the H2(1/4) gas in crystalline defects and now carbon. H2(1/4) has about 1/64th the volume of H2 which is very diffusive; so, containing the gas over containment gases is difficult. Demonstrating a physical property such as a boiling point is difficult since the gas has to be essentially 100% pure; otherwise, there is no clear boiling point. Moreover, non combustibility is not definitive since N2 is somewhat inert, and argon on the reaction gas does not burn either. The argument shifts to spectroscopic identification.

Hydrino ionizes to H+, the same as H; so, only the ionization potential distinguishes hydrino over contaminate H2 using mass spectroscopy. But, the H+ current from ordinary H increases with ionization potential as well. Moreover, NMR, XPS, inverse Raman effect, Raman, FTIR, Photoluminescent spectroscopy, e-beam spectroscopy, TOF-SIMs, etc. are very difficult or impossible with a gas sample. Since H2(1/4) has uniquely high energy signatures, it can easily be identified in the presence of H2 using the extensive number of techniques that we have published on. These techniques demonstrate properties such as ro-vibrational and ionization energies that are characteristic of and identify hydrino. We have proven hydrino spectroscopically. It amazes me that the scientific community has not engaged.

My hilite.

To pick just one thing from this amazing string of nonsense ... that proves that the hydrino cannot be dark matter!

 

[The Man]

SunCell is invented after that patent. In SunCell the catalyst is (nascent) water. Nothing to form other combounds than dihydrinos.

Great so the "SunCell" is made only of water, with no "arc current" passing through metal electrodes producing a plasma? You might want to bone up on how that invention purportedly operates. Say how exactly does one form "(nascent) water" without the separate and potentially ionized components to do so? Please stop being ridiculous, if you want to say it would primarily or mostly produce "dihydrinos" than say that but simply claiming that there is "Nothing to form other combounds" is directly contradictory to your own citation of what is required for such production and the stated construction and operation of the "SunCell".

 

[JeanTate]

Amazing!

Question for that Mills answer, asked about two years ago:

<name hidden> here! Guilty as charged! That be me in the video asking about the exhaust not the power...

To Brilliant Light Investors: The Cat is out of the Box. And it didn't eat the poison pill. So, get on your sneakers and run like heck because the Chinese and Russians won't be far behind. I hope you make mega-grundels of money. You've earned it!

Randell, I've been focused on understanding H2(1/n) gas for several years. I want to defend you when the oil industry proves that it is cancerous and the Catholic Church declares it un-holy. After the SunCell™ makes its debut, every high school student on the planet is going to want to make some dark matter. Why not let 'em?
Please confirm that this experiment would work:

1. Run Hydrogen gas through Rainey Nickel at 870°K (I forgot, is this the right temperature?) 2. Observe anomalous temperature rise indicating exothermic reaction of some type. 3. Recirculate gas until Rainey-Nickel returns to 870°K. 4. Add the resulting gas to oxygen (from electrolysis). 5. Demonstrate that oxygen and the what-is-supposed-to-be-hydrogen won't burn. 6. Add a small amount of elemental Lithium (or is it sodium -its been a long time since Chem 101) to scavenge the oxygen but not the what-is-supposed-be-hydrogen gas. 7. Add something which is highly reactive to the remaining what-is-supposed-to-be-hydrogen and show that it is not hydrogen but something else, Lord knows what. 8. Take the remaining gas and put it in a balloon. Fill another balloon with hydrogen. Observe whether the gasses diffuse thought the balloon at very different rates even though they are supposed to be exactly the same thing. 9. Ask you high school chemistry teacher to explain the results.

Am I fundamentally misunderstanding H2(1/n)? It's just a classic Avogadro's gas? Would experiment be compelling evidence that the mystery-gas is not hydrogen? This is is the hydrino equivalent of Galileo's dropping the two spheres...

My hilite.

Of course, the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and many more read "<name hidden>"s post. And they also read all of Mills' publications. Apart from the Russians (and many Iranians), they have a huge incentive to replicate Mills' work, and build their own hydrino-powered generators. They have thousands of highly skilled and clever physicists, engineers, etc.

Yet China is still a huge importer of oil, and North Korea too (though sanctions repress what it can obtain). ISIS - maybe they have fewer clever, experienced, and knowledgeable people - would surely have long since developed hydrino-based weapons too.

If it's as easy as "<name hidden>" says, have you made your own SunCell yet? How about you, optiongeek? markie? If not, why not?

Unless, of course, hydrinos don't actually exist.

 

[tlp]

My hilite.

Where?

What are the production rates?

Dark matter/dihydrino gas is generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun.

 

[tlp]

Great so the "SunCell" is made only of water, with no "arc current" passing through metal electrodes producing a plasma? You might want to bone up on how that invention purportedly operates. Say how exactly does one form "(nascent) water" without the separate and potentially ionized components to do so? Please stop being ridiculous, if you want to say it would primarily or mostly produce "dihydrinos" than say that but simply claiming that there is "Nothing to form other combounds" is directly contradictory to your own citation of what is required for such production and the stated construction and operation of the "SunCell".

Metal electrodes are either molten silver or gallium. Those are not suitable for hydino combounds. Nascent water is formed from gallium oxide (that gives oxygen atom) and hydrogen gas.

 

[The Man]

This is my experience as well. I find that critics of GUTCP are, in general, those who have invested less time in studying the material than proponents. I began as an extreme skeptic when I first encountered GUTCP many years ago. It was only because of the "impossible" calculations Mills produced (and I could replicate), that intellectual honesty demanded that I put in the time to digest and understand the material. Like tlp, the more I learn, the more convinced I become.

Funny, my experience has been that proponents don't even spend "time in studying the material" they just cite here. Otherwise the claims and citations wouldn't be so directly and demonstrably self-contradictory.

 

[The Man]

Metal electrodes are either molten silver or gallium. Those are not suitable for hydino combounds. Nascent water is formed from gallium oxide (that gives oxygen atom) and hydrogen gas.

See, so not just water. Why aren't "silver or gallium" "suitable for hydino combounds"? How about the "gallium oxide"? How about the rest of the cell components? Also technically molten silver or gallium wouldn't be the "electrodes" unless you have two oppositely charged streams meeting. Otherwise it would just be an electrode or a conductive path between electrodes.

 

[JeanTate]

Dark matter/dihydrino gas is generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun.

Really?

What evidence - objective, independently verifiable evidence - can you provide for this, um, amazing claim?

FWIW, markie and, to some extent, optiongeek, has tried to provide such, and has failed. I strongly recommend that you read the entirety of this thread and its predecessors. Why? Because it would be very tiresome to go over the same grounds again (and again, and again). As we have been doing, in regard to your posts since you joined ISF.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is wrong.

They will orbit the center of the Earth. Such orbits will not be straight-forward to estimate (lots of variables), but likely most dark matter hydrinos (dihydrino cannot exist, if the hydrino is dark matter) will spend the majority of their time below but close to the surface of the Earth.

Depending on how violently they were created, some hydrinos may be born with velocities with a vertical component that's greater than escape velocity (misnomer; it's actually a speed); these will go into orbit around the Sun, and only occasionally, if ever, pass through the Earth (again).

Really? I figured because it was a lower energy state and didn't react, it would just spiral downward towards the center of this gravity well. I defer to your expertise.

But as is often stated by plenty of us here, it's all arguing about unicorn poop because hydrinos don't exist anyway.

 

[tlp]

See, so not just water. Why aren't "silver or gallium" "suitable for hydino combounds"? How about the "gallium oxide"? How about the rest of the cell components? Also technically molten silver or gallium wouldn't be the "electrodes" unless you have two oppositely charged streams meeting. Otherwise it would just be an electrode or a conductive path between electrodes.

Just have look at the patent application. Though Mills have invented better method since then, but anyway he wants to avoid those combounds in SunCell because those would need to removed and some material replaced in long running reactor. And he can avoid, as he knows what he is doing and what is the theory behind.
It would be separate system where these combounds are genrated, but that might have to wait after SunCell is ready.

 

[tlp]

Really?

What evidence - objective, independently verifiable evidence - can you provide for this, um, amazing claim?

FWIW, markie and, to some extent, optiongeek, has tried to provide such, and has failed. I strongly recommend that you read the entirety of this thread and its predecessors. Why? Because it would be very tiresome to go over the same grounds again (and again, and again). As we have been doing, in regard to your posts since you joined ISF.

Currently the evidence is in a form that there is something mysterious going on, for example with dark matter, but GUTCP has an explanation for it. It just takes some time and maybe a working SunCell before that explanation is accepted.

 

[LTC8K6]

Of course not. But similar as hydrogen wants to be together, hydrino also.

Yet Mills and his partners are the only ones who know about dihydrinos?

We have both the hydrino and the dihydrino as dark matter?

 

[JeanTate]

Really? I figured because it was a lower energy state and didn't react, it would just spiral downward towards the center of this gravity well. I defer to your expertise.

I'd rather you didn't (defer to my expertise).

You're familiar with the thought experiment - originally due to Newton IIRC - firing a cannon horizontally from a tower on the surface of an airless world? To a first approximation, the trajectory of the cannon ball is a parabola; in more detail, it's part of an ellipse, with the center of the Earth as a focus.

Up the speed and the cannon ball will go into orbit, returning to strike the cannon after one orbit (so you need to lower it!).

A DM particle is like the cannon ball. If launched at a different angle, the (partial) ellipse will be different. And unless it's launched either "straight up" or "straight down", it won't go through the center of the Earth.

On a planet that's not rotating (or the cannon not at either pole of a rotating one).

The (or rather a) complication comes from the shell theorem (remarkable, eh?).

As a DM particle falls through the Earth, the mass it's "feeling" is that within a sphere at its location (to first order; there are many second, third, ... order effects I'm ignoring). Which, obviously, decreases as it gets closer to the center of the Earth. This means its orbit will not be elliptical (special cases aside).

Rotation matters: even if a DM particle is created with zero velocity, wrt the device which created it, fixed firmly on the surface of the Earth, its velocity is not zero wrt the center of the Earth (special cases aside). How come? Well, think of why sites which launch satellites tend to be closer to the equator than the poles, and why the launch direction is almost always east-ish (Israel's success came with a heavy cost in terms of satellite mass and rocket fuel expended; Russia would love to have a launch site closer to the equator).

But as is often stated by plenty of us here, it's all arguing about unicorn poop because hydrinos don't exist anyway.

Indeed.

But, come February - per markie's promise hint whatever - we will know for sure that hydrinos exist ... when the five (or more) working prototype hydrino-based generators are delivered to truly independent testing facilities.

 

[tlp]

Yet Mills and his partners are the only ones who know about dihydrinos?

We have both the hydrino and the dihydrino as dark matter?

We all know now, you and me and a few others who have read these messages.

Dihydrino is just what H2 is to H, the most common form.

 

[JeanTate]

Really?

What evidence - objective, independently verifiable evidence - can you provide for this, um, amazing claim?

FWIW, markie and, to some extent, optiongeek, has tried to provide such, and has failed. I strongly recommend that you read the entirety of this thread and its predecessors. Why? Because it would be very tiresome to go over the same grounds again (and again, and again). As we have been doing, in regard to your posts since you joined ISF.

Currently the evidence is in a form that there is something mysterious going on, for example with dark matter,

You might want to try again.

Here's your claim, which my post concerns:

"Dark matter/dihydrino gas is generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun."

but GUTCP has an explanation for it. It just takes some time and maybe a working SunCell before that explanation is accepted.

So, time to ask you the same questions I ask optiongeek:

And you know "GUTCP has an explanation for it [dark matter/dihydrino gas being generated all the time all over the universe. For example here in the Earth and in the Sun]" (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?

 

[markie]

Ok Markie, since you appear to have abandoned the whole "it's dark matter" completely and now consider dihydrino gas to be baryonic matter instead,

Huh? When have I considered dihydrino gas to not be baryonic? Of course it's baryonic, as baryonic as hydrogen gas.

what is it's measured density at STP?

One mole of dihydrino gas will occupy the same volume as any other gas at STP, about 22 litres. The mass density of dihydrino gas willl be the same as hydrogen gas at STP.

At what temp does it turn to liquid at 1 atmosphere? Or what temp is it solid?

Not sure, but the boiling point for dihydrino gas would be different than it is for hydrogen gas. As I recall perhaps two years ago here I posted a link to an experiment where dihydrino gas was separated from hydrogen gas via boiling point differential. Can't recall the details now.

No guesses. I need actual measurements.

or will you find that since you cant measure it, it really is dark matter again and use that for a reason you have no observational data to show?

Just pick one Markie. dark matter? Yes or no? and if yes, then it has no buoyancy and cant possibly float on anything. And if no, then explain why no one has any observations?

Your error is assuming that dark matter is ghost like and can pass through matter unimpeded. Check out the latest paper I linked to regarding baryonic matter and so called dark matter scattering.