New journal article from Brilliant Light Power


  • "Mechanism of soft X-ray continuum radiation from low-energy pinch discharges of

    hydrogen and ultra-low field ignition of solid fuels"

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

    ABSTRACT
    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). 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. The identity of the catalyst that accepts 3⋅ 27.2 eV from the H to cause the H to H(1/4) transition was determined to HOH versus 3H. The mechanism was elucidated using different oxide-coated electrodes that were selective in forming HOH versus plasma forming metal atoms as well as from the intensity profile that was a mismatch for the multi-body reaction required during 3H 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. No high field existed to form highly ionized ions that could give radiation in this EUV region that persisted even without power input. 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 and a corresponding new power source wherein initial extraordinarily brilliant light-emitting prototypes are already producing photovoltaic generated electrical power. The hydrino product of a catalyst reaction of atomic hydrogen was analyzed by multiple spectroscopic techniques. Moreover, m H catalyst was identified to be active in astronomical sources such as the Sun, stars, and interstellar medium wherein the characteristics of hydrino match those of the dark matter of the universe.






  • "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" :-)

  • 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.

  • 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:

  • 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:[email protected]/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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Quote

    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.


    Misleading indeed and classical Mills who has been misleading, deceiving and stating as facts things which are patently untrue about his theories and devices. For example, as long as 20 years ago, power stations based on BLP's discoveries were within 2 years of being sold and Mills named the specific utilities which would buy them. Of course, none of it ever happened. And people keep falling for it. Classic.


    LENR advocates did the same thing when MIT allowed Hagelstein, Swartz and others to hold summer not-for-credit, not-university-approved classes. Immediately, enthusiasts began to say that work on LENR was being done by MIT. It's not. Those classes were not an example of MIT work-- they were an example of classes given within MIT facilities and completely unconnected to any official university activity.


    See for example of misleading, this moronic article: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2…blicly-running-for-6.html


    Under the completely phony headline: "MIT LENR device publicly running for 6 months but Mainstream Researchers Still Able Block Funding"


    Finally, Rossi used exactly the same ploy when he claimed that his high efficiency thermoelectric devices had been tested by the University of New Hampshire. But there was nothing in print anywhere to suggest that anyone at U of NH had ever been involved with Rossi and his tests and a very thorough search including my personal FOIA requests did not yield any such evidence. Had it existed, it would have been so revolutionary, someone would have acknowledged doing it. It was just another part of Rossi's constant scamming.


    Similar deception was used by Rossi when he claimed that he worked closely with National Instruments and Philips. Not a word of it was true as evidenced by public statements from the companies. And while Elforsk showed some transient interest in Rossi, it currently does not support him or work with him. Very odd if he really did have the discovery of the millennium.


    In twenty more years, if Mills can continue to find people with more money than brains, he will be making the identical or very similar claims.



  • 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

  • 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.

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

    Why should Helium not do bremsstrahlung when Hydrogen does?


    I'm not really sure. Perhaps the helium is more effective at thermalizing the accelerating electrons in transit? At any rate, absence of knowledge for why hydrogen would be a factor versus helium is not a sufficient basis for going along with a conclusion that hydrinos were the source of the broadband spectrum.


    My assumption is that the hydrogen ions are not what cause the bremsstrahlung, but the electrons themselves, after they've crossed the gap. There is an argument against this:


    Quote

    The influence of electrons triggering the discharge (electron gun) was also eliminated as the source of the continuum radiation. The applied pulsed voltage to drive the plasma was increased from -10 kV to -15 kV in sequential runs to determine any high-energy electron effect on the spectral profile. No effect was observed; thus, high-energy electrons were eliminated as a possible cause of continuum radiation.


    I don't think this reasoning is good. The electrons in this case will have had significantly more energy than in live runs, and hence would not necessarily yield the same spectrum.


    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


    I don't think it would cost a researcher with adequate facilities this much. There would just need to be interest on the part of someone with access to comparable equipment. Admittedly, such interest might not be easy to come by.

  • No. I've never read anything by Mills which made sense to me and I have no idea how this could. I am not looking for theory! The guy has been making huge claims for decades and far as I can see, NONE of his predictions has come true. That's quite enough for me. Whether he's a fraud, deluded, or some combination is unknown. If he has something, he has certainly oversold it and thus grossly undermined his own credibility. If it walks like a duck... etc.

  • Mary wrote

    " I've never read anything by Mills..." This is probably true.


    "!, OversoldX(, fraud:cursing:,deluded:rolleyes:, grossly:evil:..." is cathartic stuff<X.


    I empathise with you, Mary, not about Randell Mills, but about President Erdogan.


    http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/vid…n-watching-embassy-melee/


    But on a less emotional LENR level, my question remains


    "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

  • Sherlock Holmes

    This is like telling Heinrich Hertz: "Enough of theories and academic experiments, give me teh wireless communication systems!". Mills theorie is groundbreaking and covers a wide area and it needs time to build useful machines with it. Especially with this few people working on it.


    But unlike string theorie GUTCP already produces great practical results in form of analytical equations for atomic and molecular properties that could be of huge benefit in the pharmaceutical industrie.


    It is always hard to compare inventions but when the americans decided to invent the atomic bomb most fundamental experiments and theoretical work was done. You can google how long it took from there to the first nuclear explosion. Calculate an estimate for the needed man hours, the needed money (scaled to the value of todays dollar) and the availability of smart engineers.

  • Sherlock Holmes wrote " has been telling us for decades."

    Randell Mills isn't doing too badly compared to nuclear power. He hasn't been lounging on a beach somewhere for 31 years


    1905 Einstein E= mc2 ------> first commercial nuclear reactor Calder Hall:1956: duration 51 years

    1986 Mills: Hydrino theory ------> first commercial hydrino reactor Cranbury: 2018 duration 32 years

  • If anyone here who believes that GUT-CP has useful insights is interested, I would love to reprise the earlier electron-neutron mass ratio thread that ended prematurely when Stefan lost interest in fully spelling out the steps needed to derive it.

  • 1905 Einstein E= mc2 ------> first commercial nuclear reactor Calder Hall:1956: duration 51 years


    bocijn : This formula is older than Einstein, but he was the first one who could explain it...


    If anyone here who believes that GUT-CP has useful insights is interested, I would love to reprise the earlier electron-neutron mass ratio thread that ended prematurely when Stefan lost interest in fully spelling out the steps needed to derive it.


    Eric : I've studied enough of GUT-CP now and could make a new thread explaining it for dummies and one for professionals.


    It is obvious that a huge part of current physics is outdated because their model is just to simple.


    One bad thing about such a task would be, that we have to overcome the old maths of general relativity, which partially is wrong. I attended the Einstein forum (100 years ART) and doing such a task is like fighting against a religion!

  • Ok, Wyttenbach , please do help out if you're interested. Statements of general principal will not advance the discussion, so we'll need specific, concrete steps in a derivation, and lots of them (because there are lots of equations with the connecting steps omitted). You're fine introducing new relativistic math provided you can get the equations to work formally, as in a mathematical proof. Here is the earlier thread for ease of reference: Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow. Actually, we can even start a new thread to continue that discussion, and I'll move the relevant parts from the earlier discussion into the new thread if that makes more sense.


    ETA: I'll create a new thread for that discussion. I looked at the earlier thread, and the neutron-electron mass ratio discussion is too intertwined with the surrounding discussion to be able to pull out cleanly, so I'll leave it there.

  • bocijn wrote:


    Quote

    Randell Mills isn't doing too badly compared to nuclear power. He hasn't been lounging on a beach somewhere for 31 years


    1905 Einstein E= mc2 ------> first commercial nuclear reactor Calder Hall:1956: duration 51 years

    1986 Mills: Hydrino theory ------> first commercial hydrino reactor Cranbury: 2018 duration 32 years



    No, you are mistaken. Mills is doing abysmally compared to nuclear (fission) power. Not only is E=mc2 not analogous to Mills' hydrino claim, but Einstein was famously *skeptical* of nuclear power, until uranium fission was discovered.


    The only difference in the role of E=mc2 in chemical energy from its role in nuclear energy is one of degree. In both cases potential energy (appearing as mass) is converted into kinetic energy or photons by rearrangement of bonds (whether chemical or nuclear).


    Therefore the time from Einstein's equation to useful energy based on mass-energy equivalence is *negative*.


    For that matter, unless Mills rejects E=mc2, you could as well say hydrino energy stems from the 1905 theory, making it more than a century old.


    But the breakthrough insight (analogous to Mills' hydrino claim) that made fission power possible was the observation of fission of large nuclei, increasing the binding energy per nucleon, and importantly, the possibility to induce such fission with the neutrons the fission itself produced. Fission of large nuclei was discovered in the late 1930's, and the possibility of a chain reaction with neutrons was realized in 1939, and the first nuclear reactor with unequivocal evidence ran in 1941, 2 years later. The first explosive based on the principle was demonstrated 3 years later, and left no room for skepticism.


    In 30 years, nothing Mills has done has brought acceptance (outside a small band of eccentrics) to the idea of hydrinos, let alone to the possibility of a practical device. Furthermore, unlike the situation with fission power, Mills has been claiming imminent products for decades. Really, the two situations are worlds apart.


    You would have a better case by comparing to hot nuclear fusion, but even there, widely accepted evidence for the basic principle -- still lacking for hydrinos -- has never been in doubt from the time of the earliest claims, since it rises every morning in the east, and of course fusion weapons have been demonstrated, and controlled fusion is well-established, if not yet energetically profitable.