• Dark matter very likely is a product of the non-thermonuclear but still nuclear reaction of stars. It is not likely hydrinos because it is not likely that ground level energies have been incorrectly predicted by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. In the scenario that dark matter and dark energy are the fuel product of colder fusion, the universe consumes mass/energy in generating an ever larger EBH field. In the end or in the before the beginning of a new big bang, all that a some future time will become mass and energy is in this field of virtual Higgs and virtual particle can could be made from the Higgs if only any particle could get enough mass/ energy to become real. Of course gravity eventual brings it all back around with a bang.


    Just offering a more reasonable opinion than hydrino dark matter

    Tbh I don't think this is more reasonable but we all have more to learn so I can't say it's impossible. Seems confusing contrived and slightly less intuitive to me though.

  • Tbh I don't think this is more reasonable but we all have more to learn so I can't say it's impossible. Seems confusing contrived and slightly less intuitive to me though.


    Is it? We all know matter can be converted to energy and vice-a versa. Many scientist would even go far enough to say that all we divide to matter and energy is really the effects of the fields involved. If we accept the EBH field then we accept virtual particles that interact to cause mass. So, even if the EBH field is just virtual particles, it has energy or it could not interact with itself or any mass. If it has energy it responds to gravity. So, then the EBH field is a good candidate for both dark energy and dark matter.


    Further, to intuit that fields we understand cause dark energy and dark matter it not a big step. Energy is more likely shared between fields that not. What I express as an opinion does push the thought envelope a bit far but I think the pieces of the puzzle likely fit.


    You seem to see no alternative to hydrinos or pico chemicals. I think we could easily find the truth. If we had time, money and could measure all the output chemical composition of BLP type experiments (especially gas products), we could see if there is transmutation or not. Until these measurement are make, I think there are answers to energy from BLP type experiments that are more reasonable, less confusing and certainly more in line with known science than hydrinos.

  • I encourage you all to roll up the sleeves and critique the experimental methods and results of some of these papers.


    Where to start: explain the high energy UV light and perhaps the hydrino halides, as a start? The paper by Conrads was done in Germany - so that's a good starting point.


    http://www.brettholverstott.co…/2016/7/21/accountability


    The danger is that the untrained are stating opinions as a careful professional assessment, when that is obvious not the case.


  • The high energy UV light at the frequencies attributed to formation of hydrinos are the same frequencies which are produced as phat frequencies due to ionization of hydrogen. The equation for these phat frequencies can be see in my pending patent. Also in that pending patent you can find how density hydrogen is made by absorption of these phat frequencies produced by the ionization of hydrogen. So, the prediction is not the production of energy by making denser hydrogen but the absorption of energy. These denser forms of hydrogen are predicted to be able to bond magnetically.


    Using the assumption of magnetic bonding and chemical identification by mass-spectroscopy, I used mass balance and stoichiometry to show that deuterium can fuse to oxygen. Then later to show that if water is present (or can be made) that we can expect the equation of state to change only in that two hydrogen can substitute for each deuterium. That equation of state can be proven in a court of law using tools commonly accepted by the chemical engineering profession. It can also be shown that that fusion reaction produces energy. It is not the opinion of the untrained. Hence, in this case there is no " danger ... that the untrained are stating opinions as a careful professional assessment, when that is obvious not the case."


    The energy production in BLP experiments is not in question. However, it is very obvious that valid challenge exists to the hydrino explanation. Which alternative explanation provides a nuclear equation of state as the source of the energy. A nuclear process should be done responsibly with the public safety in mind.


    Why don't your sleeves, and check the validity of the aforementioned nuclear equation of state. Let the data show you where the truth lies. If you have any influence with BLP, see if you can get them to look at valid alternative explanations. BLP can quiet it's critics. There is no need to invoke the existence of states of hydrogen below the ground state. Once we understand how to get the energy from the nuclear equation of state or safely harvest a greater percentage of it, we will have the solution to the world's energy problem. Further, with that energy we can solve many other pressing world problems.

  • The paper by Conrads was done in Germany

    A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hα and Hβ transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source.


    Only the Conrads... abstract is available.. This does not appear to give direct evidence for a series of hydrino energy transitions. 27 ev .. 54 ev for atomic hydrogen

    However there is evidence for one energy transition for molecular Hydrogen from H2 to a MORE CONDENSED FORM which Mills calls H2 (1/4)

    EG

    "1/07/2009 · The only peak in the spectra that could not be assigned to common species was the broad singlet peak upfield of H 2 at 1.25 ppm that matched the theoretical position of H 2 (1/4). As expected for the hydrino reaction as the source of the H 2 (1/4) peak, the 1.25 ppm peak"

    MORE RECENT evidence suggests about 495 eV for the transition to H2 (1/4)

    Maybe there is some evidence for transitions H2(1/2)..for H2(1/8) etc?

  • I think people need to read through this before commenting on Mills claims.

  • Sound reasoning, the evidence for continued shrinking down to almost proton size is lacking. A deep bond of two or more H atoms down to one particular orbital balancing point seems more validated and reasonable. A shrunken single atom wouldn't be stable and would raise back but a pair plus would hold each other in a more stable state. Probably similar to the metal pico-hydrides claimed in Dufour's work?

  • Sound reasoning, the evidence for continued shrinking down to almost proton size is lacking.


    A colder fusion route to neutron production is possible, as indicated in my pending patent . Santilli has had his neutron detection system go off. Homlid work and other indicate that transformations that include production of neutrons from protons seem to occur. It is not clear which of the many proposed routes for proton to proton fusion are most likely. It is not unreasonable that a catalyst maybe required in a colder route to neutron production.


    The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen.


    I don't have an objection to sodium as a catalyst for colder fusion. Atomic hydrogen and fusion are the sources of the catalyst energy. In my pending patent you will find a catalyst acts by being capable of absorbing energy to giant nuclear resonance and then delivering it back to cause reaction. For example it may deliver the energy necessary to convert a dense hydrogen to a neutron. Hence, the far from equilibrium plasma is due to the catalyst and the catalyst can absorb energy from the nuclear reaction. That extra step allows the reaction to occur even after the power source is turned off as long as atomic hydrogen is present. So, no need to believe in energy production from below ground state of hydrogen as long as there is a route to fusion which could deliver this new energy source (fusion).


  • >> So you have an alternate theory, fine. But where are the papers that test it. How do you explain what a catalyst is, and which ones will generate energy and why? Mills had to spend years working through this chemistry and doing thousands of experiments.


    I am not saying there can't be alternate theoretical explanations, but we need them clearly visible, published, and tested.


    Mills has done the work to tease out this chemistry, and so have others. So that evidence must also now be explained, by the alternate theory.

    Specifically, what type of light do you expect to get from your nuclear reaction equation, and do your experiments match that prediction?

    Does your equation predict the formation of alltropic hydrogen halides, and if so why? Have you created them? Tested them in NMR? Have independent tests been done at university labs?

  • More sound reasoning and thought provoking questions. What's your opinion on and what do you think Mills' standing is on metal "hydrino" hydride formation including plus energy products?


  • Mills has indeed spend much money, done many experiments and published them. If I get your thinking, you believe that body of evidence has been created for Mills theory that justifies discarding a much large body of evidence of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which justifies the position that Mill theory is misinterpreting his results. Notice that I am not saying that Mills work doesn't indicate some form of energy generation is happening.


    It is a free society: you can campaign for Mills all you want to. I have no intention of stopping you. I have followed BLP for years. I hope for their success. But you are not drawing me into help you. Providing a pathway to a safe energy future is not a silly contest subject to electing a winner based on up votes or down votes on the internet. I feel sorry for those who think they do good by turning communication into such a silly contest. Further, I apologize if I seem that I have done just that. Nevertheless, keep sorting out the good parts of Mill work for me. It is does help. BTW, thank to the rest of you for continuing to sift information and provide it here.

  • Mills has indeed spend much money, done many experiments and published them. If I get your thinking, you believe that body of evidence has been created for Mills theory that justifies discarding a much large body of evidence of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which justifies the position that Mill theory is misinterpreting his results. Notice that I am not saying that Mills work doesn't indicate some form of energy generation is happening.


    It is a free society: you can campaign for Mills all you want to. I have no intention of stopping you. I have followed BLP for years. I hope for their success. But you are not drawing me into help you. Providing a pathway to a safe energy future is not a silly contest subject to electing a winner based on up votes or down votes on the internet. I feel sorry for those who think they do good by turning communication into such a silly contest. Further, I apologize if I seem that I have done just that. Nevertheless, keep sorting out the good parts of Mill work for me. It is does help. BTW, thank to the rest of you for continuing to sift information and provide it here.

    You are right this isn't a contest! Some of us just want real compact energy that eats up common stuff.

  • There are potential things that we all understand as one way due to the limits and latitude of current theories. Faulty theories can also lead us to interprete experiments in a way that prevent us from developing comercial products and running groundbreaking machines. Which is why I love considering Mills' GUT-CP and the pico-chemical approach to many "LENR" experiments. Whether accurate or a little off they give us a glimps of hidden possibilities that probably we gain from open consideration.

  • There are potential things that we all understand as one way due to the limits and latitude of current theories. Faulty theories can also lead us to interprete experiments in a way that prevent us from developing comercial products and running groundbreaking machines. Which is why I love considering Mills' GUT-CP and the pico-chemical approach to many "LENR" experiments. Whether accurate or a little off they give us a glimps of hidden possibilities that probably we gain from open consideration.


    Agree. Another classical, mechanical theory besides the GUTCP of Mills I've been loosely following for some years is from a fellow Canadian, Andre Michaud. He seems to be a polymath. Would be interested if others here are familiar with him and his theoretical work (which is largely beyond me). Too bad he doesn't (as far as I know) get into LENR.


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Michaud2

  • Mills has indeed spend much money, done many experiments and published them. If I get your thinking, you believe that body of evidence has been created for Mills theory that justifies discarding a much large body of evidence of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which justifies the position that Mill theory is misinterpreting his results. Notice that I am not saying that Mills work doesn't indicate some form of energy generation is happening.


    It is a free society: you can campaign for Mills all you want to. I have no intention of stopping you. I have followed BLP for years. I hope for their success. But you are not drawing me into help you. Providing a pathway to a safe energy future is not a silly contest subject to electing a winner based on up votes or down votes on the internet. I feel sorry for those who think they do good by turning communication into such a silly contest. Further, I apologize if I seem that I have done just that. Nevertheless, keep sorting out the good parts of Mill work for me. It is does help. BTW, thank to the rest of you for continuing to sift information and provide it here.


    Science works like this

    a) I make theory

    b) I test theory


    if some evidence for b)

    c) A few others test theory

    if more evidence from c)

    d) Many others test theory


    d) is not happening because we are holding on the basis of theoretical objections. This is a ridiculous position we are in. Your statement here says it all "discarding a much large body of evidence of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics" - I didn't say we need to discard evidence (if you mean experimental), we just need to try out d) - have more serious looks at the theory.

    I know this isn't for you.


    All of the rest about "free society", "campaigning", "stopping you", "silly contest" - this is all irrelevant. The fact is we don't know what the truth is about physics and this idea seems to have legs so perhaps people should run with it (even if ultimately isn't a final solution). It would be a fine thing to have it disproved experimentally as well.


    As some say - 95% of the universe is unexplained - so using the theories of the 5% to explain what is going on in the unknown 95% (and avoiding looking at new ideas) is CRAZY.

  • I'm looking forward to when Mills...


    1) Produces a free floating fireball in a plasma that doesn't touch any part of his reactor.

    2) Optimizes the fuel mixture not just for Hydrino production but also potential LENR reactions.

    3) Adjusts the various parameters of his system to optimize output.


    I expect that when he does that he will have a system that produces a massive amount of output that doesn't destroy itself.