DR Hagen.
BLP officially announces their new independent Hydrino verification:
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Proof for the Existence of Molecular Hydrino | Brilliant Light Power
The comments are getting a workout on Reddit.
BLP officially announces their new independent Hydrino verification:
Endless scam of fake news. Why don't they correctly write di-hydrino??? There is no Hydrino state point end.
Good news from BLP with the existence of hydrinos confirmed by Wilfred Hagen-probably the same hydrogen species as Leif Holmlid's ultra-dense hydrogen.
A rose by any other name is still a rose 🌹
BLP officially announces their new independent Hydrino verification:
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Proof for the Existence of Molecular Hydrino | Brilliant Light Power
Happy to see that this got publicized. I tried to find any scientific comments and not much to find yet. Not taking this result serious is a crime against humanity and I really hope that that we spend a lot of money on this focusing to understand what is behind the results. But I suspect that it will fly under the radar and and we will continue to try the impossible wasting money on stupidities like quantum computers. Anyhow I have been focusing on my computer projects for some time now taking up all my energy and resources. I started a new blog at a new address, Functional vs mutable and the new content is mostly related to computers and some soft stuff from my latest creativity period. Anyhow I would again point out this post, Some maths as a try to bridge what we see in the cited paper and current QM theory. My stance is that GUTCP and QM is much closer related than basically everybody else think and that contemplating plurality leads to some aha's for you and also gives a warning to trust QM too much. It's kind of funny how Nobel winners bash GUTCP and calls it pseudo science and fail to see that Mills is at least right when it comes to non radiation conditions and simply ignore such an interesting phenomena that just screams for nature to take advantage of. Perhaps this fact was hushed because the military would like to own the science, I do not know. What I know that declassified articles form 70's had traces that indicates that (Mills) non radiation setup with oscillating spherical harmonic solutions was well known is some classified research circuits. Mills proof of this is so convoluted that almost nobody can follow it and contains errors, although very simple and elegant methods can show how they satisfy non radiation conditions. A shout out and hello to all Lenerists!
My stance is that GUTCP and QM is much closer related than basically everybody else think and that contemplating plurality leads to some aha's for you and also gives a warning to trust QM too much.
There is no difference between GUT_CP and QM except the explanations and the basic methods used.
Both models suffer from the same wrong explanation- crossing current loops .. and finally can only deliver approximate solutions.
But Mills treatment of magnetic mass/energy can help to find very good explanations for basic physics. In fact if you use some additional steps you can find an exact equation for the fine structure frequency. Of course Mills formula fails for Deuterium without deeper modelling...
But his idea of Hydrinos is one of the most dumb ideas in physics history as he invents ad hoc charge generation (photon becomes charge or charge like force - what ever this means..)...to solve a logical problem...
Of course there is no serious math behind hydrinos either as even the most simple thing - the relativistic effects - are not treated.
Display MoreThere is no difference between GUT_CP and QM except the explanations and the basic methods used.
Both models suffer from the same wrong explanation- crossing current loops .. and finally can only deliver approximate solutions.
But Mills treatment of magnetic mass/energy can help to find very good explanations for basic physics. In fact if you use some additional steps you can find an exact equation for the fine structure frequency. Of course Mills formula fails for Deuterium without deeper modelling...
But his idea of Hydrinos is one of the most dumb ideas in physics history as he invents ad hoc charge generation (photon becomes charge or charge like force - what ever this means..)...to solve a logical problem...
Of course there is no serious math behind hydrinos either as even the most simple thing - the relativistic effects - are not treated.
Hmm, what do you think about the importance of non radiating charge distributions?
Hmm, what do you think about the importance of non radiating charge distributions?
SO(4) physics shows that charge is a topological effect of nested EM flux. So what Mills shows is just a mathematical conclusion for the equivalence radius. At certain radii there are no radial forces hence no radiation = "flux is on a stable - harmonic - orbit".
Hauss (Mills Mentor) found the the non radiation condition under a military contract for the X-ray laser. For external quantities you can always find classical explanation that in some respect agree with SO(4) physics.
E.g. the photon equation is basically violating Maxwell equations as E/B are not symmetric generators. But as a projection from SO(4) it works for some aspects of photon behavior.
Mathematicians chronically forget that the induction law does not work point wise...and flux charge never stay at the same place...
Endless scam of fake news. Why don't they correctly write di-hydrino??? There is no Hydrino state point end.
I don't think you understand any of the observational lab-testing they have made, and present, in detail. To that end, can you be trusted for ANY observational lab-testing, even your own at this point? The evidence for my last point seems overwhelming ... no wonder LANR/LENR is turning into 'the never ending story'. Mills has devices - where is yours, demonstrating *your* 'effect' and theory?
I don't think you understand any of the observational lab-testing they have made, and present, in detail. To that end, can you be trusted for ANY observational lab-testing, even your own at this point? The evidence for my last point seems overwhelming ... no wonder LANR/LENR is turning into 'the never ending story'. Mills has devices - where is yours, demonstrating *your* 'effect' and theory?
Don't expect that to ever happen. Since his theory gets rid of charge and the electric field it can never adequately describe lenr. Consider the situation with two alpha particles. Both are positively charged and one would expect them to be strongly repelled. Yet it takes very little energy to bring them together. How is this possible? well, close up the charge is not monolithic. The electric field varies around the particles. I call this granularity. His theory can not describe this behavior because the electric fields don't exist.
Consider the situation with two alpha particles. ..close up the charge is not monolithic.
Can you give a more detailed explanation. of how the charge is not monolithic?..
this sounds like hot fusion
is there proof that LENR occurs between alpha partices viz a viz deuterium molecules.
What is the role of helper heavy atoms such as palladium?
I don't think you understand any of the observational lab-testing they have made,
If you have no physics background you should no discuss about things you don't understand.
Mills isolation of H*-H* is a great achievement but has nothing to do with his Hydrino fake model.
This is a very important notice. Hagen did use Mills theory to derive the spectra he found, If Mills formulas was derived berfore Hagens
experiment we have pretty good proof of that Mills has the stuff.
"The early peak is invisible in helium carrier". I’m afraid it is consistent with the hypothesis that this peak is just helium contamination.
If the hydrino actually exist, it is difficult to explain why we don’t see it in the behaviour of the stars, including our sun. But who knows? I want to believe.
Display More"The early peak is invisible in helium carrier". I’m afraid it is consistent with the hypothesis that this peak is just helium contamination.
If the hydrino actually exist, it is difficult to explain why we don’t see it in the behaviour of the stars, including our sun. But who knows? I want to believe.
Actually there are some facts about stars that is hard to explain and may be a consequence of the existence of hydrinos. To read up about this I recommend Bret Holverstott's book.
Display More"The early peak is invisible in helium carrier". I’m afraid it is consistent with the hypothesis that this peak is just helium contamination.
If the hydrino actually exist, it is difficult to explain why we don’t see it in the behaviour of the stars, including our sun. But who knows? I want to believe.
So this statements is wrong:
"The collected gas contained no helium by mass spectroscopy."
"No known gas has a faster migration rate and higher thermal conductivity than H2 or He,"
"The early peak was negative with a helium carrier gas "
But I'm a noob when it comes to this but your statements does not line up with the above and this confuses me.
If the hydrino actually exist,
Please use the proper word: Dihydrino . There is no Hydrino!! Or use H*-H* as the rest of the world...
Of course H*-H* is lighter than H2 and thus travels faster.
It is awfully exciting to see discussions like this, and they make me feel like a dog pondering evolution.
That aside, I seem to recall that BLP was going to boil its water for a utility. Has that resulted in savings for the utility?
I seem to recall that BLP was going to boil its water for a utility. Has that resulted in savings for the utility?
I do not think they ever got around to doing that. They are boiling a lot of water in the lab though.
