Just to clarify, I was addressing Exclusively the reference to “Charlie Brown”, never implied Yul Brown was the original inventor of anything.
After a beans meal I do produce my own brown gas...
BLP update
-
-
One of the problems that I have with following Santilli’s work is that he has been so prolific in writing papers that is hard to be current with his latest train of thought. I stumbled upon this one in particular from April 2019, that called my attention for the use of the expression “pseudo proton” in the title.
http://www.ijapm.org/vol9/419-M060.pdf
From reading it carefully, It seems to me that his experiences with the final, final, and final rejection of his patent applications (I used this repetition for emphasis, he really took it to the last stages in his attempt to get the patents granted), led him to review his language and try to provide a more polite and politically correct narrative, instead of a confrontational one, when presenting his results and models used to explain his results.
He tries to politely and carefully state that the limitations of quantum mechanics to predict or “allow” these results should not be used to dismiss the results but should be grounds to search to a expanded mathematics, which he then says he did (his iso mathematics) and that by applying these mathematics the new particles found become meaningful, predictable, understandable, but much more than that, useful.
I post this here because, as we all have been discussing, Santilli, Mills, Holmlid and many others during all these years have basically stumbled with the same underlying phenomena, and understood it differently, some have made the mistake of trying, and failing to explain these results from the currently accepted models, others (like Mills and Santilli) have came up with their own models (bringing scorn and derision upon themselves), but Santilli, has been able to generate and publish a good deal of results that, IMHO, are very interesting, and have been greatly overlooked, and also dismissed, even by ourselves. Perhaps is time to take a closer look in search for hints and clues on how to get the elusive, so far, repeatable and controlable experiment we so much want. -
Perhaps is time to take a closer look in search for hints and clues on how to get the elusive, so far, repeatable and controlable experiment we so much want.
If one puts an electric arc through hydrogen, the volume of the hydrogen decreases and the average molecular weight increases. If one mixes skrunken hydrogen with fresh hydrogen and put the arc to it, that mixture loses volume faster. If one places the skrunken gas in a balloon permissible to hydrogen, the skrunken gas escape faster than fresh hydrogen. The experiment is easy for any of you to do and is repeatable. The heat balance it hard to do but, it is apparent that a thousand fold heat gain is not present.
What everyone wants is fusion that produces heat like thermonuclear fusion, this does not happen. There are several way to use energy to produce water in a gas form that has the unusual properties of like OHMASA gas. (see "water the key to new energy by Moray King)
-
The issue here is not of a single experiment or an inventor.
It is so far a failure to start, a failure to build the needed systems (of youth, money, education) to continue on this path.
There are more people teaching basket weaving in the universities and more basket weaving experts in the world than LENR sciences and experimental areas. -
The issue here is not of a single experiment or an inventor.
It is so far a failure to start, a failure to build the needed systems (of youth, money, education) to continue on this path.
There are more people teaching basket weaving in the universities and more basket weaving experts in the world than LENR sciences and experimental areas.
I think there are many issues, included those you mention, but one much bigger issue, and that is that any claim that is not supported nor allowed within the fram of currently predominant theories (namely, QM) is simply not accepted. One thing is to starve it from official funds, which would be, to a certain degree, understandable, but denying the possibility of the intellectual protection hast certainly prevented further private investment. -
Mills business meeting presentation: https://brilliantlightpower.co…Overview_Presentation.pdf
He still behaves like a dumb and does not explain what happens with the H*-H* that he produces. Just talking of a clean energy source is not having a clean energy source...Can it be contained? How? Can it be reactivated from H*-H* --> H2? This then would form a complete fuel cycle.
-
never implied Yul Brown was the original inventor of anything.
Because it was Yull Brown (not Yul) that was the inventor of nothing.
-
Mills business meeting presentation: https://brilliantlightpower.co…Overview_Presentation.pdf
He still behaves like a dumb and does not explain what happens with the H*-H* that he produces. Just talking of a clean energy source is not having a clean energy source...Can it be contained? How? Can it be reactivated from H*-H* --> H2? This then would form a complete fuel cycle.
I think he is claiming to produce H(1/4) and it does not need to be reactivated. It can be released. The source is water. I have no idea where "H*-H*" came from. Does Mills use that lingo? I honestly don't know. If not we shouldn't. It is kind of like "Rossions".
-
If one puts an electric arc through hydrogen, the volume of the hydrogen decreases and the average molecular weight increases. If one mixes skrunken hydrogen with fresh hydrogen and put the arc to it, that mixture loses volume faster. If one places the skrunken gas in a balloon permissible to hydrogen, the skrunken gas escape faster than fresh hydrogen.
Link? I never heard of this and I just ran out of hydrogen and balloons and my arc source is with Dr. Frankenstein.
And damn, I forgot to add OHMASA gas to my list! Is there such a thing as Brown's Omasamagnegas?
-
Link? I never heard of this and I just ran out of hydrogen and balloons and my arc source is with Dr. Frankenstein.
And damn, I forgot to add OHMASA gas to my list! Is there such a thing as Brown's Omasamagnegas?
you are in good mood today!
The idea of hydrogen through plasma arc shrinking is basically what Santilli has been publishing for over two decades now. Santilli has been very prolific in paper publishing, you can find his papers easily. He is often called a fringe scientist, but his greatest sin is his attempt to leave QM obsolete with his Hadronic Mechanics.
-
Mills business meeting presentation: https://brilliantlightpower.co…Overview_Presentation.pdf
He still behaves like a dumb and does not explain what happens with the H*-H* that he produces. Just talking of a clean energy source is not having a clean energy source...Can it be contained? How? Can it be reactivated from H*-H* --> H2? This then would form a complete fuel cycle.
I recall Mills saying that the H2(1/4) dihydrino gas escapes through the walls of the SunCell and then rises to the upper atmosphere.
-
is H2(1/4) an indirect greenhouse gas like Hydrogen?
-
Like Wyttenbach indicted earlier in this thread I also suspect that:
H(0) (Holmlid)
H(1/4) (Mills)
H*-H* (Wyttenbach)
Magnegas (Santilli)
is all the same. It's likely clustered and has extraordinary high density and weight. Not in a gas state.
-
Display More
Like Wyttenbach indicted earlier in this thread I also suspect that:
H(0) (Holmlid)
H(1/4) (Mills)
H*-H* (Wyttenbach)
Magnegas (Santilli)
is all the same. It's likely clustered and has extraordinary high density and weight. Not in a gas state.
You are probably correct. This is what's known as 'the conservation of miracles' in action.
-
You are probably correct. This is what's known as 'the conservation of miracles' in action.
Magnegas suposedly burns with a temperature higher than acetylene, correct? I thought Mills hydrinos were at a lower energy state, basically non-reactive. These don't sound the same to me. This assertion that all these are the same sounds more like apophenia than a miracle to me.
-
Magnegas suposedly burns with a temperature higher than acetylene, correct? I thought Mills hydrinos were at a lower energy state, basically non-reactive. These don't sound the same to me. This assertion that all these are the same sounds more like apophenia than a miracle to me.
Well, then you would be guilty of the same, as you are bundling up magnegas, which is a much more complex “fuel” with the more simpler H derivatives. And Santilli talks about “magnegases” in plural because the behavior of a particular magnegas depends on the stock material from which it’s processed.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/532173/files/0112066.pdf
http://www.santilli-foundation…gas-flame-temperature.pdfSantilli, however, did develop his own flavor of HHO which he called “a new form of water”. He worked with Denny Klein’s electrolyzer to produce the water, which is a different apparatus but produces an HHO that allows to do things very similar to those you can do with Brown’s, Ohmasa’s and so many others.
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-138.pdf
When I refer to “it’s all the same” I do about the general underlying phenomena, not the different results you can obtain from that phenomena. When you play with plasma and gases, stuff happens that “shouldn’t”. -
Display More
Like Wyttenbach indicted earlier in this thread I also suspect that:
H(0) (Holmlid)
H(1/4) (Mills)
H*-H* (Wyttenbach)
Magnegas (Santilli)
is all the same. It's likely clustered and has extraordinary high density and weight. Not in a gas state.
I have proposed the nuclear reactions occur as a result of a self-assembled "nano-star", that could be a cluster in a metal (NAE, nuclear reactive site) or a particulate dispersed in gas. As a chemist, I suppose mass transfer into and out off these clusters. If a gas gains the ability to bond magnetically and then exits the cluster, that bonding will increase the average molecular weight of the bulk gas. The magnetic state that causes bonding has a very much higher magnetic field that ground state atoms. At least that is the explanation for why ground state atoms are not observed to bond magnetically.
Magnegas suposedly burns with a temperature higher than acetylene, correct? I thought Mills hydrinos were at a lower energy state, basically non-reactive. These don't sound the same to me. This assertion that all these are the same sounds more like apophenia than a miracle to me.
Given chemical equilibrium between the super magnetic state of atoms with what they bond to, then there are a multitude of new molecules. That was the basis of math I did above to prove fusion/fission by analysis. I propose the gases produced by a nuclear reaction in an arc are above the ground state and therefore release energy when they burn. This would be true of any of the named versions of fuel gas from water and true when no unbonded hydrogen can be detected and when therefore no oxygen is required to burn the fuel. Mills claims no nuclear energy source and therefore a gas like OHMASA is not predicted by Mills. The contention then is Mills is wrong, his process is nuclear and so call hydrinos are nuclear products that are definitely not in a ground state.
The unusual properties of OHMASA gas include a low flame temperature but it be used to cut metal like acetylene does. OHMASA gas is purified by removing hydrogen. That make it stable under higher pressure that a brown's or Aquafuel type gas. As I have show by analysis AquaFuel is a gas with nuclear derived energy.
The simple version of theory to tie it all together goes like this. EVO's cause fusion. EVO's result from the sudden change in resistance to electrical flow in a gas or water that happens due to ionization. EVO exist by binding gravitons (Simple but too far out). Bound gravitons cause all the weird stuff above.
-
is H2(1/4) an indirect greenhouse gas like Hydrogen?
It wouldn't be, because it is hardly reactive. Also, the lighter the gas, the more likely it will escape the atmosphere altogether.
That said, any increase in the density of a transparent atmosphere will increase atmospheric temperature. Temperatures are higher at lower elevations, where the atmosphere is more dense.
-
the upper atmosphere is hot
and hydrogen escape is poorly understood...
H2(1/4) behaviour there is pure speculation
-
Quote
The unusual properties of OHMASA gas include a low flame temperature but it be used to cut metal like acetylene does.
It does cut like acetylene. Enough heat and lots of extra oxygen to burn the metal away.
