BLP update

Quote

BLP has approx 14-15 engineers/scientists on payroll. They probably consider their interactions with each other, all the science discussion they need.

Sort of like the scientists at Theranos?

Well I guess this is why he's keeping his head down - but times have moved on like SOT says.

Quote:

Steven Chu

In 1999, Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1997, said “it’s extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this”.[7]

Phillip Anderson

In 1999, Princeton University’s physics Nobel laureate Phillip Anderson said of it, “If you could **** around with the hydrogen atom, you could **** around with the energy process in the sun. You could **** around with life itself.” “Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That’s why I’m so sure that it’s a fraud.”[6]

Wolfgang Ketterle

Wolfgang Ketterle, a professor of physics at MIT, said BLP’s claims are “nonsense” and that “there is no state of hydrogen lower than the ground state”.[8]

Michio Kaku

Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist based at City University of New York, adds that “the only law that this business with Mills is proving is that a fool and his money are easily parted.”[6] and that “There’s a sucker born every minute.”[7]

Peter Zimmerman

While Peter Zimmerman was chief arms-control scientist at the State Department, he stated that his department and the Patent Office “have fought back with success” against “pseudoscientists” and he railed against, among other things, the inventors of “hydrinos.”[37]

But more recently:

I don't know the specific instrument, but with a lower line size, aliasing is a possibility. There is also the possibility that the response of the 1200 l/mm grating is poor, as gratings have cut angles that maximize a certain wavelength range. Of course, we have to assume that the user was competent enough to know how to read the wavelengths of the smaller grating.
At this point, I find there is no use in debating particular graphs. I consider them all fraudulent.
Here is what a real scientist would do. They would carefully construct a simple and reproducible experiment that would point to hydrinos. They would not include the word hydrino in the paper, but would instead show the anomalous results that point to a smaller bond-length of diatomic hydrogen.
The community would say "wow, that's weird, and I can actually do that experiment in my lab, given a week or so". It would then be reproduced, and a Nobel prize is forthcoming.
Or, the community would say "that is a flawed experiment, and I know this because it is so well written that I can spot the flaw", and science goes on as it should.
Instead, we have all sorts of pro-hydrino propoganda that doesn't even bother to create solid reproducible science. If this was real, why isn't a principle researcher at BLP screaming at the rafters and presenting the results in every scientific conference he can find? Why isn't he calling up his colleagues and asking them to do a replication?
If you answer "commercial reasons", I might agree -- those reasons being "hydrinos do not exist".

https://www.quantamagazine.org…e-and-hope-dies-20190911/

Quote

In 2010, physicists in Germany reported that they had made an exceptionally precise measurement of the size of the proton, the positively charged building block of atomic nuclei. The result was very puzzling.

Randolf Pohl of the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics and collaborators had measured the proton using special hydrogen atoms in which the electron that normally orbits the proton was replaced by a muon, a particle that’s identical to the electron but 207 times heavier. Pohl’s team found the muon-orbited protons to be 0.84 femtometers in radius — 4% smaller than those in regular hydrogen, according to the average of more than two dozen earlier measurements.

If the discrepancy was real, meaning protons really shrink in the presence of muons, this would imply unknown physical interactions between protons and muons — a fundamental discovery. Hundreds of papers speculating about the possibility have been written in the near-decade since.

But hopes that the “proton radius puzzle” would upend particle physics and reveal new laws of nature have now been dashed by a new measurement reported on Sept. 6 in Science.

Display More

https://www.quantamagazine.org…e-and-hope-dies-20190911/

Hope may have died but humor is alive.

"But because muons are heavier, they huddle around protons more tightly in the 2S state than electrons do.

This means they spend more time inside the proton"

This reminds me of froglets in frogs The muons of course are not protonlets

Sometimes the simplifications of theoretical physics are funny,

I happen to think, if they all are getting results, that Holmid, Mills and

Quote from Dr Richard

We are genuinely interested in R.Mills work - do you have 2017-2019 references (to assess what progress has been made recently)?

Wyttenbach, Mills, and Holmid seem to be on the same path with varying levels of flexibility or investment in aspects of their theories. All of them can be right and quite wrong in other areas at the same time. just starting to see how a lot of experimental data can be true observations with a similar exotic dense matter reaction underneath. Just be flexible to the possibilities, could be both chemical, neutrino based and nuclear! Whatever it is... E=mc^2!

Is that how they change the proton's radius? LOL,

Quote from Dr Richard

Even more similarities of hydrinos to UDH -from a 2017 publication - both are being claimed to constitute dark matter. Both are catalysed by dehydrogenating metal oxides.

EUV radiation in the 10-30 nm region observed only arising from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen first at Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BrLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA) was determined to be due to the transition of H to the lower-energy hydrogen or hydrino state H(1/4) whose emission matches that observed wherein alternative sources were eliminated. The identity of the catalyst that accepts 3 × 27.2 eV from the H to cause the H to H(1/4) transition was investigated by recording the EUV continuum emission from electrodes having metal oxides that are thermodynamically favorable to undergo H reduction to form HOH catalyst; whereas, those that are unfavorable did not show any continuum even though the low-melting point metals tested are very favorable to forming metal ion plasmas with strong short-wavelength continua in more powerful plasma sources. Of the two possible catalysts, 3 H and HOH, the latter catalyst is more likely to be active in the H pinch plasma based on the behavior with oxide-coated electrodes and the consideration of the intensity profile of the multi-body reaction required during 3 H catalysis. The HOH catalyst was further shown to give EUV radiation of the same nature by igniting a solid fuel comprising a source of H and HOH catalyst by passing a low voltage, high current through the fuel to produce explosive plasma. No chemical reaction can release such high-energy light, and the field corresponded to a voltage that was less than 15 V for the atmospheric pressure collisional plasma. No high field existed to form highly ionized ions that could give radiation in this EUV region. This plasma source serves as strong evidence for the existence of the transition of H to hydrino H(1/4) by HOH as the catalyst. The hydrino reaction is a powerful new energy source released primarily as blackbody radiation equivalent to the Sun spectrum. Initial prototypes to generate extraordinary optical power by the formation of hydrinos are already producing photovoltaic generated electrical power. Moreover, m H catalyst was identified to be active in the laboratory and astronomical sources such as the Sun, stars, and interstellar medium wherein the characteristics of hydrino product match those of the dark matter of the universe.

So if its not a chemical reaction what is it? You got it - must be nuclear. If Holmlid/Norront Energy applied the same protocol to UDH surely he would obtain the same results? A massive release of -muons and an explosive release of energy & radiation, neutrons etc from fusion reactions.

He did say no known chemical reactions, so it could be a new one or nuclear. IMO all three including Wyttenbach can be right with different hole or mistakes in their theories. At the end of the day the theories could be merged or fit together. A little bit of quantum and nuclear with a little bit of classical electron stuff as well.

Quote from Dr Richard

But more recently:

I don't know the specific instrument, but with a lower line size, aliasing is a possibility. There is also the possibility that the response of the 1200 l/mm grating is poor, as gratings have cut angles that maximize a certain wavelength range. Of course, we have to assume that the user was competent enough to know how to read the wavelengths of the smaller grating.
At this point, I find there is no use in debating particular graphs. I consider them all fraudulent.
Here is what a real scientist would do. They would carefully construct a simple and reproducible experiment that would point to hydrinos. They would not include the word hydrino in the paper, but would instead show the anomalous results that point to a smaller bond-length of diatomic hydrogen.
The community would say "wow, that's weird, and I can actually do that experiment in my lab, given a week or so". It would then be reproduced, and a Nobel prize is forthcoming.
Or, the community would say "that is a flawed experiment, and I know this because it is so well written that I can spot the flaw", and science goes on as it should.
Instead, we have all sorts of pro-hydrino propoganda that doesn't even bother to create solid reproducible science. If this was real, why isn't a principle researcher at BLP screaming at the rafters and presenting the results in every scientific conference he can find? Why isn't he calling up his colleagues and asking them to do a replication?
If you answer "commercial reasons", I might agree -- those reasons being "hydrinos do not exist".

Display More

If you consider all the graphs 'fraudulent', then your mind is closed and made up. I'm surprised and frankly disappointed. I suppose then you think that the coauthors of Mills' various papers over two decades just roll over and go along with the fraud. That the validators who have observed the experiments and the measurements over the years have been bamboozled. That people like Dr. Ramanujachary of Rowan University, who independently creates hydrino and performs his own measurement on them is lying or incompetent. Have a look at Ramanujachary briefly describe his results, and the reaction he gets from fellow scientists:

This is representative of the response Mills gets from our public institutions of learning : silence. The inertia of tradition and certain influential people have dictated what is acceptable to seriously talk about in science, if you want a pay cheque. That is the reality.

Quote from Dr Richard

Is that how they change the proton's radius? LOL,

There are at least two radii in the proton,,

the charge radius and the 'mass' radius

They respond differently to different measurement techniques...

so I hear or misinterpret from a dense matter specialist,

LeBob Agreed - there's such a vast amount of exotic research work from Mills & Holmlid that needs to, I think, be re-assessed to find what is exactly true and verifiable - basically what can be salvaged from this enormous ship-wreck of seemingly random experimentation and ideas? The same is true of all LENR so as cold fusionists we are probably well-qualified to sort this mess out. Maybe - with a little theoretical multi-dimensional inspiration from Wyttenbach. Personally I like Holmlid's work whose recent muon study from laser stimulaton of UDD/H could possibly explain all LENR phenomena and a lot of Mills excess power data (but I always have to add if true). Just one little problem with the muon theory - it usually requires GeV or TeV proton energy collisions (as with cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere or LHC data) to release Kaons>Pions>muons from fragmentation and we only obtain about 0.02 muons per proton-proton collision. And then they only last 2.2 uSec before decaying further into electrons/positrons and neutrinos. Then one negative muon can only catalyse the fusion of about 12 protons or 100 deuterons before sticking to alpha particles terminates their catalytic fusion activity. Energetically this is not too bad at room temperature this generates about 10 GeV so several kW of excess heat is feasible as in the case of Mizuno's reactor IF the energy required to generate the muons is only in the keV range (which Holmlid.s data suggests to be the case - (if you don't believe this then lookup his papers and recent reactor patent). So yes, there is hope yet if we avoid the pitfalls studying this in detail.

Quote from Dr Richard

Just one little problem with the muon theory - it usually requires GeV or TeV proton energy collisions (as with cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere or LHC data) to release Kaons>Pions>muons from fragmentation and we only obtain about 0.02 muons per proton-proton collision.

This "usually" is SM slang. You need about 53MeV in the correct format to split a proton and may be in a cluster of 4 dense D it's already a part of an exothermic reaction!

Mark U Not me - i was just re-iterating what other skeptics have posted recently. I'm keeping an open mind because I respect R.Mills theoretical work greatly,

Wyttenbach That's good news, then it puts Holmlid's work firmly in the realm of probability - Where does the 53 Mev figure come from, theoretical calculation or experimentally verifiable? LHC or other particle collision data?

If it's Holmlid's idea (53 MeV) is there any other experimental or theoretical way of establishing this - its really critical to any muon based theory.

Quote from Dr Richard

I respect R.Mills theoretical work greatly,

Some of it is useful... a whole lot more than QED/QCD for the nucleus.

The experimental verification of the hydrino??

The strongest evidence is for what Mills calls 'hydrino H2(1/4)'

which is a shrunken H2 or D2 molecule.

which releases?.. 495 eV on formation.

"predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).

This is a huge amount of energy compared to say, 3 eV for combustion of D2

The evidence for any other hydrino is much weaker.

Holmlid has exptal evidence for similar energy to 495 eV ,for his shrunken dense hydrogen.

Wyttenbach has an NPP2 calculation of dense H2 D2 energy of almost exactly 495 eV.

This huge released energy may be useful in LENR reactions.

It is conceivable that some of those 3mg of D2 in Mizuno's R20 reactor while being shrunk

" I shrunk the D2,, honey"

are releasing that 495eV energy into the nickel/palladiumdeuteride mesh.

Quote

Sometimes the simplifications of theoretical physics are funny,

Hilarious- just as oversimplification of any technical discussion for lay consumption often is. Medicine has some of the funniest or least apt.

Quote

I suppose then you think that the coauthors of Mills' various papers over two decades just roll over and go along with the fraud. That the validators who have observed the experiments and the measurements over the years have been bamboozled. That people like Dr. Ramanujachary of Rowan University, who independently creates hydrino and performs his own measurement on them is lying or incompetent. Have a look at Ramanujachary briefly describe his results, and the reaction he gets from fellow scientists

In a word, perhaps. I haven't followed Mills over the years except to document very extravagant and always unfulfilled claims and projections of proven excess power and just around the corner energy power plants based on his processes. But I remember many years ago reading a report from Rowan University (funded by Mills for this work) which purported to find lots of heat from a fuel supplied by Mills. I wrote, in whatever forum I read this, that the problem was that the investigators never asked how much energy it required to make the fuel or regenerate it. I never saw a reply. I sort of lost interest.

And yes, people do get bamboozled and/or go along with frauds. You only have to look at Steorn (magnetic motor) and Rossi (e-cats) to see obvious examples.