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

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

It's admirable that you, markie, try to read astro-preprints on arXiv.

It's rather less admirable that you don't take the time to understand the topic.
I'll take time to explain, in simple terms, what "dark matter" is, to an astrophysicist (etc). So I can quote this post in future when (not if) similar glaring misunderstandings arise. Note: this is quite simplified; if you would like more (technical) detail, please ask.

From a wide range of astronomical observations, the existence of CDM (cold dark matter), and its abundance, is a consistent conclusion. The observations do not say anything about whether CDM is a particle (or particles), or a sign of a need for a different theory of gravity, or ... or some combination thereof.

CDM is "cold" meaning that, wrt local reference frames, it moves slowly (i.e. not at relativistic speeds).

CDM is "dark" meaning that it does not emit (or absorb) electromagnetic radiation. If CDM is a particle (or particles, etc), that means its electromagnetic cross-section is very small, if not zero. Another way of saying the same thing: CDM does not "feel" the electromagnetic (EM) force. There's a lot of speculation on the size of the weak cross-section, or the strong cross-section (assuming it's a particle). Also whether a CDM particle can decay, and whether CDM particle collisions could lead to annihilation. In some speculative models, such decays or annihilations would produce an EM signature. So far, no such signatures have been reliably, independently, reported in the literature.

Neutrinos are one kind of DM - they interact with other matter via the weak force only. However, the neutrinos we know about cannot be an astrophysicist's CDM, because their signature in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) is different (and observation matches theory very well). CDM could be a heavy "sterile" neutrino, one that interacts via gravity only.

Lots of people with "alternative" views have proposed lots of different, baryonic, forms of CDM. A popular one is hydrogen gas, H2 ... but nearly always those proposing it don't know enough astronomy to realise that this is wildly inconsistent with the relevant observations. Similarly, rogue planets, iron cannon balls, and many more are likewise wildly inconsistent with the relevant observations. Perhaps the most interesting alternative is PBHs, primordial black holes; whether these are "baryonic" or not is, well, something for a good discussion! Unfortunately, I think all but perhaps a very narrow mass range of PBHs have been shown to be inconsistent with the relevant observations.

Hydrinos, and dihydrino gas, if they exist, are undoubtedly baryonic!

And, per markie et al.'s previous posts, they are not dark, by any stretch of anyone's imagination (including Mills').

So a very good question is: "have astronomers found any EM signatures of hydrinos or dihydrino gas?" No guesses as to what the answer is (pace markie)!


There are hundreds, if not thousands, of papers reporting possible electromagnetic signatures of CDM. This one is, per the author, "old, before peer review" (never a good sign). It has already many cites, and skimming these, it seems the author's ideas have been challenged. Just like many/most similar papers.

This is a good explanation of the current state of knowledge of CDM. If you simply add in the non-radiation condition as the reason for CDM not feeling the effects of the EM force, then you have exactly the hydrino.

My hilite.

Yet that "non-radiation condition" applies to every atom, molecule, and ion (except those fully ionized), right?

So, by this logic, everything except bare nuclei is CDM!

 

[JeanTate]

Well at least you could have mentioned that it got into Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25791

<snip>

Indeed.

And why is this important?

And what does the conclusion of the paper depend on, critically?

And why cite this paper, rather than the hundreds+ of others which report/discuss CDM-baryonic matter interactions?

 

[JeanTate]

Bumpity bump bump.

Thanks.

My hilite.

And you know that these derivations (etc) are rigorous 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?


<snip>

Do you intend to even attempt to answer my questions, optiongeek?

 

[JeanTate]

Another bump ...

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.

Do you intend to even attempt to answer my questions, markie?

 

[markie]

What independent studies show that dihydrino gas is not a greenhouse gas?

Or any studies...

Dihydrino won't be a greenhouse gas because it is diatomic, just like O2 and N2 which don't absorb in the infrared during vibration. See https://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE 120/The Greenhouse Effect alpha.htm

I did err however when I presumed linear molecules won't be greenhouse gases. (Didn't realize CO2 was linear!) I didn't think the dipole would change during a vibration but ... it can. Also, unlike a diatomic molecule it has a bend vibration.

 

[markie]

Another bump ...

Do you intend to even attempt to answer my questions, markie?

Why should I, when you think I "seem to be claiming" the hydrogen atom is unstable? Some comments don't deserve a reply in my mind. This is not a new thing.

 

[markie]

Indeed.

And why is this important?

And what does the conclusion of the paper depend on, critically?

And why cite this paper, rather than the hundreds+ of others which report/discuss CDM-baryonic matter interactions?

All questions which I'm sure you could answer for the class.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Why should I, when you think I "seem to be claiming" the hydrogen atom is unstable? Some comments don't deserve a reply in my mind. This is not a new thing.

Glad to see that you are so concerned about not being misunderstood. Especially given your obvious, apparent, poor understanding of physics, astronomy, ...

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Indeed.

And why is this important?

And what does the conclusion of the paper depend on, critically?

All questions which I'm sure you could answer for the class.

Indeed.

However, I wasn't the one who wrote your post, so I have no idea what was in your head as you wrote it.

So you leave readers with impressions such as that you are very ignorant of the relevant literature, that you cherry picked that particular paper, that you like to use the logical fallacy Argument from Authority, that ...

 

[markie]

Thanks.

Indeed.

However, I wasn't the one who wrote your post, so I have no idea what was in your head as you wrote it.

So you leave readers with impressions such as that you are very ignorant of the relevant literature, that you cherry picked that particular paper, that you like to use the logical fallacy Argument from Authority, that ...

Readers are quite capable of determining these things for themselves upon reading the articles. Cherry picked from a letter in Nature in 2018? If you say so. I thought that skeptics here are quite fond of mainstream Authority, so why not appeal to that 'nature'?

 

[LTC8K6]

Dihydrino won't be a greenhouse gas because it is diatomic, just like O2 and N2 which don't absorb in the infrared during vibration. See https://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE 120/The Greenhouse Effect alpha.htm

I did err however when I presumed linear molecules won't be greenhouse gases. (Didn't realize CO2 was linear!) I didn't think the dipole would change during a vibration but ... it can. Also, unlike a diatomic molecule it has a bend vibration.

Since you didn't answer my question, but did say something somewhat responsive...

Do you think the relevant agencies will accept your post?

 

[JeanTate]

Readers are quite capable of determining these things for themselves upon reading the articles.

Of course they are.

And that includes determining that there's not one mention of hydrinos. Nor is any work of Mills cited. Etc.

Cherry picked from a letter in Nature in 2018? If you say so. I thought that skeptics here are quite fond of mainstream Authority, so why not appeal to that 'nature'?

My hilite.

Oh dear, how little you know about "skeptics here"!

 

[JeanTate]

Bumpity bump bump is fun!

Does the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal match that of the hydrino reaction, namely light in the soft X-ray and eUV? I don't think so.

How would you know, markie?

Anyway, the hydrinos will also emit copious EM in the mm and sub-mm part of the electromagnetic spectrum, won't they? So one doesn't need to be inside the BLP lab to test the veracity of your claims, eh? Just sit on the curb of a public road near that lab with your new 5G handset, and wait for it to become useless, due to the intensity of the mm and sub-mm emission from the copious quantities of hydrinos produced!

One more time, how would you know (that "the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal [does not] match that of the hydrino reaction")?

Because:
a) you personally checked them [the spectra] 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?

 

[jsfisher]

Bumpity bump bump is fun!

One more time, how would you know (that "the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal [does not] match that of the hydrino reaction")?

Because:
a) you personally checked them [the spectra] 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?

Didn't we already establish that the light spectrum of the hydrino reaction matched that of unicorn poop? And just like unicorn poop, the light spectrum of the hydrino reaction has yet to be observed? (Rainbows, sure, but because of neither unicorns taking a dump nor Mills' lies coming true.)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I thought that skeptics here are quite fond of mainstream Authority.

You clearly need to get out and look at some more threads Markie. In fact I would characterize most the skeptics here as challenging the mainstream, but with a critical and thoughtful eye to the evidence. That's why many of us here have asked over and over for actual evidence Markie. We would absolutely love to tear down those walls built by mainstream energy technology and replace it with feasible alternative energy. Especially if it was environmentally friendly.

I personally have thrown up several threads for debate, and a couple got pretty heated too. So heated I have been asked to please chill a number of occasions. Just about everyone else here has similar experiences. (except most people here are nicer than me)

Absolutely guarantee if Mills actually produced verifiable evidence of 1 single hydrino ever, there are people here that would be all over that *****.

But he hasn't.....ever......

Now that dihydrino can be produced in far greater amounts, it will be further characterized in its bulk properties as are other compounds.

Wait!!! Wait!!! You telling me with all those prototypes running for almost 30 years now and he still doesn't even have any dihydrino gas yet?

Doesn't he have at least a teensy tiny little vial of it chilled down to at least show people?????

Or like we been saying for years here, hydrinos don't exist and Mills has yet to prove any of us wrong, because not once ever has he produced a single hydrino. ever.

 

[markie]

Of course they are.

And that includes determining that there's not one mention of hydrinos. Nor is any work of Mills cited. Etc.

They don't know about hydrino. But for now they are starting to realize that 'dark matter' may well interact with baryonic matter. That's progress.

Oh dear, how little you know about "skeptics here"!

I've seen no evidence that any skeptic on this thread is skeptical of mainstream opinion, only of aberrations from such.

 

[markie]

Bumpity bump bump is fun!

One more time, how would you know (that "the light spectrum from merely oxidizing metal [does not] match that of the hydrino reaction")?

Because:
a) you personally checked them [the spectra] 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?

How about a). Everything I've seen about metal combustion has the spectra intensity rising into the visible and fading into the UV. The spectra of the SunCell reaction is almost entirely invisible, mostly in the eUV. It becomes visible and 'brilliant' only as the eUV is absorbed by the vapour and reemitted as lower energy light.

 

[markie]

You clearly need to get out and look at some more threads Markie. In fact I would characterize most the skeptics here as challenging the mainstream, but with a critical and thoughtful eye to the evidence. That's why many of us here have asked over and over for actual evidence Markie. We would absolutely love to tear down those walls built by mainstream energy technology and replace it with feasible alternative energy. Especially if it was environmentally friendly.

There are loads of published papers and validations giving evidence. You choose to disbelieve the evidence.

I personally have thrown up several threads for debate, and a couple got pretty heated too. So heated I have been asked to please chill a number of occasions. Just about everyone else here has similar experiences. (except most people here are nicer than me)

A debate about farming practices maybe? That's hardly an either or thing about what is true or not. It's more a matter of having the will and money to implement more natural techniques in place of current entrenched practices that are not sustainable and aimed for short term profit.

Absolutely guarantee if Mills actually produced verifiable evidence of 1 single hydrino ever, there are people here that would be all over that *****.

Rather, denial and/or ignoring of years of verifiable evidence says otherwise.

But he hasn't.....ever......
Wait!!! Wait!!! You telling me with all those prototypes running for almost 30 years now and he still doesn't even have any dihydrino gas yet?

Doesn't he have at least a teensy tiny little vial of it chilled down to at least show people?????

And what is one to do with a vial like that. Get the dihydrino gas contents into a liquid and analyze it with various established techniques? Been there, done that.

 

[markie]

Since you didn't answer my question, but did say something somewhat responsive...

Do you think the relevant agencies will accept your post?

They'll accept the premise that a diatomic neutral molecule is not a greenhouse gas.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And what is one to do with a vial like that. Get the dihydrino gas contents into a liquid and analyze it with various established techniques? Been there, done that.

Show me.