New journal article from Brilliant Light Power

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

"The source was determined to be due to the transition of H to the lower-energy hydrogen or hydrino state H(1/4) whose emissionmatches that observed wherein alternative sources were eliminated."

I wonder if Mills has ever checked on transmutations, fusion products Iike deuterium, tritium and helium, to exclude that this may be the cause of EUV and gamma radiation.

Mills et. al have done extensive spectral studies for more than 17 years (probably more). Known plasma physicists being involved are Jonathan Philipps, Johannes Conrads and Gerrit Kroesen. The good thing about these spectral analysis is that you have a good indication of the type of atoms in your plasma. Many of these experiments were conducted in an argon or helium atmosphere so it would probably be quite hard to tell if additional helium has formed (assuming commercial argon gas is contaminated with helium).

He has proven that the EUV and gamma radiation is due to hydrino formation (not only in the laboratory but also celestial observations show hydrino formation (e.g. corona temperature puzzle)). But he is totally ignoring transmutations. I can imagine two scenarios:

1. He has evidence for transmutation but does not tell to not slip deeper into the "crazy guy" drawer.

2. He has no evidence for transmutation so far because it either is not taking place or not in a stron noticable manner.

It took him more than 13 years to not be associated with the "LENR pseudoscience" any more. Now he has his own "pseudoscience"

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

EUV continuum radiation (10–30 nm) arising only from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen was first observed at BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)

N.B.: After doing a little research a few years ago, I realized that the phrase "reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)" refers to a replication that was done at a facility of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. In this case the work was done by a contractor who was just making use of the facility and who had no connection to Harvard. Quite misleading.

Quote

EUV continuum radiation (10–30 nm) arising only from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen was first observed at BlackLight Power

This doesn't look like the Suncell™ reactor....

Quote from Eric Walker

N.B.: After doing a little research a few years ago, I realized that the phrase "reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)" refers to a replication that was done at a facility of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. In this case the work was done by a contractor who was just making use of the facility and who had no connection to Harvard. Quite misleading.

Eric Walker : This is just a little bit face-lifted old paper known since years (2015)

reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA) by P. Cheimets and P. Daigneau [2-6].

Alexander Bykanov, PhD

Spectroscopy was performed at the Harvard Smithsonian

Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Cambridge, MA,

USA by CfA spectroscopists under contract to GEN3 Partners

Here the Harvard paper:

Wyttenbach, your details reinforce my point. The phrase "reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)" is misleading; intentionally so, I assume.

Eric Walker wrote

“In this case the work was done by a contractor who was just making use of the facility and who had no connection to Harvard. Quite misleading.”

I don’t think it is misleading at all.

The 61 page Mills et al article gives the reference and accessing it online shows that author is

Alexander Bykanov . see Reference 6. Bykanov appears to be a competent plasma physicist with over 16 plasma research publications. Bykanov’ eliminates 3 conventional classical explanations for the continuum XUV radiation

1. Bremsstrahlung, 2. Ion recombinations 3. H2 molecular band transitions

I find Bykanov’s explanation is illuminating rather than misleading.(Pgs 7 to 8 of Reference 6.

Lou Pagnucco postulated a fourth Q-M explanation based on compressive collisions of electron proton pairs (2013).

http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg87048.html

However I am not sure that the e-p pair idea explains

why a XUV hump is PRESENT for tantalum, molybdenum and tungsten but is ABSENT for aluminum and magnesium.

As reported in the new article… . any comments Lou?

Note : the XUV hump for tungsten is huge!, based on the six times smaller vertical scale for tungsten compared to magnesium( see below) .

Mill's explanation for the XUV hump as due to hydrinos appears to be valid.

Quote from bocijn

I don’t think it is misleading at all.

Not to overemphasize the point and detract from Lou's thread, but just to be clear:

• A person obtains a degree at a tertiary institution in the city of Cambridge (not the University of Cambridge), and says he got the degree in Cambridge.
• A person collaborates with a faculty member of the University of Bologna and talks about a collaboration with the University of Bologna.
• A company hires a contractor to carry out a test, the test is done using equipment at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics, and the abstract says that there was a replication at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics.

All three misleading descriptions, in which our first interpretation leads us naturally to the incorrect conclusion that Cambridge University, the University of Bologna and Harvard University were somehow involved, when they were not. Hopefully you will understand why these statements are misleading.

Eric wrote:

"Not to emphasise the point"

I can't say that 'Harvard' lept out at me from the paper as a first impression

I'm not really bothered about , Bologna, Cambridge Harvard etc, even though I am an alumni of one of them.

So for me IMHO, it is not misleading at all

I am not part of 'our' or 'us' .... just plain me... maybe my radar is too high?

Thanks for being so scrupulous Eric, maybe I should tune to your level.

I have no problem with Bykanov's work

whether done in Ulan Bator or Prada Marfa

as long as the right equipment was used.

And I am more interested in the guts of the work and the logic of the discussions.

For me of piquant interest was the observation that Ammonium Nitrate in the exptal setup

yielded 34 times the expected chemical energy.(Pg48)

Perhaps there are applications for this in Afghanistan?

(oops .. for the scrupulous ... alumnus is better.)

Quote

why a XUV hump is PRESENT for tantalum, molybdenum and tungsten but is ABSENT for aluminum and magnesium?

Many heavy elements exhibit XUL spectral lines at high temperatures, but these lines result from Auger effect. The problem of Mills is, the hydrino is new phase of hydrogen and soon or later he must prove its existence by its isolation in free state - not just with spectra. The 2nd problem of BrilliantLight power technology isn't that I cannot imagine hydrino formation but from fact I know about many other plasma generation processes, which apparently don't involve any hydrogen. The third problem is, the direct evidence of overunity in energy production is still missing here: the Suncell™ reactor still requires more net energy than it produces.

Zephir_AWT  .. thanks for responding about the guts of Mills work

I don't know much about this stuff but I'm learning all the time

This stuff may change our lives soon.

These are my thoughts

1. Auger has peaks.. not continuous. Al and Mg exhibit Auger

2. Helium gives no or little XUV, hydrogen does..

Please refer to the He dashed line running under the H continuous profile on the Tungsten graph

Mills/Bykanov are saying that the XUV hump is unexplainable by other plasma processes.

3. "Suncell requires more energy than it produces." You have data on that?

Bremsstrahlung from stopping beta particles is also continuous.

Bremsstrahlung (BS) is unlikely to be functional here according to Bykanov

I paraphase what Bykanov writes. Pg 7-8

1. The bellshaped wavelength profile of the XUV hump is not expected from BS

2. The BS effect scales as Z squared Helium (Z=2) should have far more XUV than H(Z=1), but doesn't.

Wyttenbach's link

Here the Harvard paper:

The reasons given by Bykanov for excluding bremsstrahlung:

• "The first two [possibilities, incl. bremsstrahlung] can be excluded because the intensity of the emission caused by both ion recombination and Bremsstrahlung radiation decreases exponentially to shorter wavelengths; whereas, we observe a bellshaped continuum band. " (p. 5.)
• "Recombination and Bremsstrahlung radiation mechanisms were excluded because the intensities of these types of continuum spectra scale with Z as Z² or Z⁴, respectively." (p. 11.)

When Bykanov talks about "Z", he's talking about the Z of either hydrogen or helium, and not of the electrode material (p. 8). I'm doubtful that these are strong reasons to exclude bremsstrahlung as the source of the continuum radiation, absent additional experimental checks. I also note that "the intensity of the emission from Mo electrodes was weaker than that of Ta and W at the short wavelengths" (p. 4), which suggests a dependence on some function of Z of the electrode material for the appearance of the radiation, which is something you see with bremsstrahlung.

Since 10–15 kV were used for the discharges, you would have electrons accelerated up to 15 keV, well above the energy range of the continuum radiation observed. As electrons are stopped, they typically give up only a fraction of their full energy as bremsstrahlung photons.

Here is one of the graphs, which is not a bell curve:

BLP (now BrLP) have motivation, of course, to exclude bremsstrahlung in favor of hydrinos, due to the whole GUT-CP thing, and they may have put pressure on Bykanov to rule out bremsstrahlung on the basis of weak evidence.

I'd be interested in a replication done by a lab not being paid by BrLP and in seeing further experimental checks to exclude bremsstrahlung due to energetic electrons.

Quote from Eric Walker

Since 10–15 kV were used for the discharges, you would have electrons accelerated up to 15 keV, well above the energy range of the continuum radiation observed. As electrons are stopped, they typically give up only a fraction of their full energy as bremsstrahlung photons.

Eric Walker : To my understanding 10-15keV was used in the control experiments. BLP uses at most 15Volts in a high current arc. But if you understand plasma-physics, then it is clear that with 15'000 Amperes! (not Volt) and 10 Volt (average) between the electrodes you get secondary effects that are equivalent to much higher voltages.

I can give only one hint: They all overlook the effects caused by H₃⁺ that is always the primary product in Hydrogen plasmas...

Eric Walker wrote

1."I'm doubtful that these are strong reasons"

The virtual absence of XUV with Helium appears to be a strong reason for me

Why should Helium not do bremsstrahlung when Hydrogen does?

A short search of google yields very similar bremsstrahlung profiles for hydrogen, helium, neon gases under electron bombardment.

"ATOMIC-FIELD BREMSSTRAHLUNG FROM HYDROGEN, HELIUM, NITROGEN

AND NEON FROM 5 TO 15 keV " Estep and Quarles. 1987

(Admittedly this is 5keV bombardment compared to the Bykanov's 1-3 keV)

2."I'd be interested in a replication done by a lab not being paid by BrLP and in seeing further experimental checks to exclude bremsstrahlung due to energetic electrons"

How much does replication , bremsstrahlung checks cost?

I'd estimate $50,000-$100,000 throwing in the hire of facilities/technicians

I think the cost might be out of the range of crowd funding for a few years

Maybe feedback to Mills/Bykanov could elicit a quicker and more useful response? or a revealing response.

Mary Yugo wrote

"deceiving, phony,Rossi, ploy ,scamming, falling for it, deception"

However little of this pertains to the Mills paper in question.

Rather than uploading another general emotional catharsis..

Mary, could you read at least some of the 61 pages in the paper and come up with specific points?

Mary, do you have any idea why helium does not produce EUV and hydrogen does, on pages 18,19,20?

http://www.brilliantlightpower…/EUV-Mechanism-051817.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

To my understanding 10-15keV was used in the control experiments. BLP uses at most 15Volts in a high current arc.

Here is the description of the electric discharge for the experiment (not just control):

Quote

A high voltage DC power supply was used to charge a bank of ten pairs 5200 pF capacitors connected in parallel to the electrodes. The cathode was maintained at a voltage of –10 kV before the triggering, while the anode was grounded. In some experiments, the voltage was increased up to -15 kV to determine the influence of this parameter on the observed spectra. An electron gun (Clinton Displays, Part # 2-001), driven by a high voltage pulse generator (DEI, PVX 4140), provided a pulsed electron beam with electron energy of 1-3 kV and pulse duration of 0.5 ms. The electron beam triggered a high voltage pulsed discharge at a repetition rate of 5 Hz.

Here we're talking about electrons accelerated in live runs with energies in the keV, and far above 15 eV that would come from a 15 V discharge.