New journal article from Brilliant Light Power

Quote from bocijn

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.

Quote from bocijn

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.

Mary wrote

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

"!, Oversold, fraud,deluded, grossly..." is cathartic stuff.

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.

Quote from bocijn

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

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

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Louis Reed

ROFL.

"Fission of large nuclei was discovered in the late 1930's"

That was when there was consensus on mainstream physics that it is possible. But when was the time the first scientist THOUGHT it could be possible?

And from there it was just 25 billion $ (so says wiki) and a national effort to have a working device...

There is a 1994 (?) paper of NASA replicating Mills. They had not enough funds to get rid of all alternative explanations for the observed energy gain. Is this Mills fault or the fault of society?

There are a thousand threads here on this forum explaining why the term "widely accepted" is not necessary a measure of reality.

Epimetheus wrote:

Quote

"Fission of large nuclei was discovered in the late 1930's"

That was when there was consensus on mainstream physics that it is possible.

That was when it was observed experimentally and explained theoretically. As Wikipedia puts it: "Nuclear fission of heavy elements was discovered on December 17, 1938 by German Otto Hahn and his assistant Fritz Strassmann, and explained theoretically in January 1939 by Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Robert Frisch." The possibility of a chain reaction based on neutrons was realized by Szilard in that same year and communicated to Roosevelt by Einstein.

Quote

But when was the time the first scientist THOUGHT it could be possible?

Probably about the same time, but if you know of significantly earlier suggestions, I'd be interested to see them.

It's not the possibility of nuclear fission that's relevant here, but the possibility that such fission could be exothermic and self-sustaining. The neutron was not discovered until 1932, and no understanding of the nucleus to predict such exothermic fission is possible without understanding the role of neutrons. The strong force was not understood to any degree until 1935, so the idea that the binding energy per nucleon peaks and then decreases really wasn't understood until then.

Of course, the idea of exploiting nuclear energy occurred to scientists from the time of Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus in 1906, or even from the discovery of radioactivity a decade earlier. It's just that a mechanism to exploit it was not known. Most of the ideas were related to fusion or to concentrating naturally radioactive elements, and scientists were famously skeptical that these were feasible. This is in marked contrast to the case of Mills, where he has claimed for 30 years that he could exploit hydrinos to make useful energy. The parallel to this situation is the discovery of fission of heavy elements and the realization of a chain reaction based on neutrons. The subsequent development of the two sciences are completely different.

Quote

And from there it was just 25 billion $ (so says wiki) and a national effort to have a working device...

Yes, I was correcting bocijn's attempt to compare time lines, not costs.

So, let's look at costs. The Manhattan project cost around 25B in 2007 dollars, but a very small fraction of that was needed to create the first working reactor in 1941 (Chicago Pile-1), which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory was correct. (Mills has not reached that point yet.)

To make weapons was another kettle of fish. There was little doubt it was possible, but the scale of the effort was enormous. Highly enriched uranium required isotope separation on a truly massive scale, and production of Pu-239 required reactors on a huge scale. It was big and it was expensive, but conceptually, scientists were confident it would work.

Mills' proposals (like LENR proposals) have no such large scale needs. If his theory were valid, it could be exploited, by his own claims, on a rather small scale, with rather small investments. Indeed that is the appeal of it.

It's a bit like comparing a trip to Winnie the Pooh's Hundred-Acre Wood with a trip to moon. The first, if it were possible, would be cheap and easy. The second was obviously possible, but required massive investment. We've gone to the moon. I predict we'll never find the Hundred Acre Wood.

Quote

There is a 1994 (?) paper of NASA replicating Mills. They had not enough funds to get rid of all alternative explanations for the observed energy gain.

Or, the energy gain was too minuscule to exclude alternative explanations. Therefore the experiment failed to convince those who might fund further investigation.

Quote

Is this Mills fault or the fault of society?

There are many claims of free energy that do not get the funding requested to exclude alternative explanations. It is the onus of the claimant to convince society to give him money.

Quote

There are a thousand threads here on this forum explaining why the term "widely accepted" is not necessary a measure of reality.

Yes, of course. One doesn't need even one thread to reach that conclusion. A simple look at history is enough.

I did not use the term to prove Mills was wrong, but to indicate the significant difference between the development of nuclear energy and hydrino energy, and that no useful insight favorable to Mills can be gained by examining the history of nuclear power.

Quote from Louis Reed

...

I did not use the term to prove Mills was wrong, but to indicate the significant difference between the development of nuclear energy and hydrino energy, and that no useful insight favorable to Mills can be gained by examining the history of nuclear power.

I beleive that both Mills and Rossi have stumbled upon the same mechanism, and Mills is trying to shoehorn the Hydrino theory into the explanation of what he has uncovered. Hydrinos might exist but they might not be suitable for use in the explanation of every overunity mechanism.

The power density that Mills has uncovered in a self sustaining plasma is well beyond anything that can be explained by electron based mechanisms. 5 megawatts of power generated in a few cubic centimeters is beyond what chemistry can possibly produce. That much power density must come from the nucleus.

Furthermore, Mills cannot produce the ash from this reaction saying that it is dark matter that cannot be contained. This is malarky.

Louis Reed wrote:

"explained theoretically in January 1939 by Lise Meitner.."

Lise used 1905 Einstein E=mc2 to explain nuclear fission

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012…ion/#sthash.m5rYoiH6.dpbs

Louis wrote:

"no you are mistaken.."

Perhaps I am mistaken

Lise Meiner "No-one really thought of fission before its discovery"

But then others cleverer than me have been mistaken too

Rutherford :1933 "Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine"

Einstein: 1934"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.

But in common with these sometimes mistaken people I like to ask questions

Louis, 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 bocijn

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

I've suggested a possibility:

In the case of the Gen3 replication, electrons were accelerated across the gap under potentials in the thousands of volts. When there is hydrogen (Z=1) in the gap, the electrons encounter fewer obstacles than when there is helium (Z=2 and two bound electrons) in the gap. With fewer obstacles to stop the electrons in transit, they will reach the high-Z cathode with on average a higher kinetic energy, creating higher energy bremsstrahlung photons with a broadband spectrum.

Eric said: "the electrons encounter fewer obstacles"

Thanks for the response, but it didn't grab me as I didn't know what was meant by obstacles

(Gen3 Conditions Pressure: 0.1 Torr to 1.3 Torr H2 versus He)

The number of obstacles? electrons or protons atom/molecules?

If the hydrogen remains as a molecule,H2:

Atoms: the number of hydrogen atoms would be twice as high as helium

Protons: the number would be the same since hydrogen molecule has the same as one helium atom

Electrons :the number would be the same since hydrogen molecule has same as one helium atom.

But the mass of the helium atom is twice the mass of hydrogen

If the hydrogen dissociates local to the discharge it could be more complicated.

Perhaps some consideration of the ionisation state of the hydrogen/helium in the gap might be needed

H+1, He+1, He+2 as well.

Complicated.

But definitely the helium is much lower in EUV .... Perhaps deuterium gas would show some difference

from H2 if mass is important.

Anyone got any other explanations??

We could run them by Randy Mills on yahoo in a peer review manner?

Quote from bocijn

The number of obstacles? electrons or protons atom/molecules?

Elastic/inelastic collision cross sections. The suggestion is that electrons are more likely to collide with helium atoms (bound electrons and nuclei) than with hydrogen atoms/molecules, for whatever reason.

I suggest the question of the electron stopping power of hydrogen versus that of helium at various pressures is better handled empirically than trying to reason from first principles. Also, the only relevant value I recall being provided was pressure, and we are not given moles, so I do not think we can draw strong conclusions about the relative number of molecules, atoms, protons, etc. Ultimately it falls upon the experimenter to rule out this explanation through suitable controls.

Quote from bocijn

If the hydrogen dissociates local to the discharge it could be more complicated.

I assume the hydrogen will dissociate and even ionize under such discharges.

bocijn wrote:

Quote

Louis Reed wrote:

"explained theoretically in January 1939 by Lise Meitner.."

Lise used 1905 Einstein E=mc2 to explain nuclear fission

Yes, I know, but not *just* by E=mc2. The explanation involved knowledge of nuclear structure, and the reason the average binding energy per nucleon is larger for fission fragments than for the fissile nuclide. The fact that in nuclear reactions the mass change is measurable, and fit E=mc2, made the explanation especially compelling.

But E=mc2 by itself could not predict such exothermic fission without knowledge of nuclear structure. As I said, E=mc2 is similarly satisfied in chemical reactions and would be in hydrino reactions, were they real. That doesn't mean it can predict either.

Quote

Louis wrote:

"no you are mistaken.."

Perhaps I am mistaken

Lise Meiner "No-one really thought of fission before its discovery"

But then others cleverer than me have been mistaken too

Rutherford :1933 "Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine"

Einstein: 1934"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.

Display More

Those quotations are what I was referring to when I said scientists were famously skeptical of harnessing nuclear energy, even though they accepted E=mc2.

And they effectively illustrate the difference I was talking about between E=mc2 being the predictor of nuclear power and Mills' hydrinos being predictors of hydrino power. Mills claimed from the beginning that his hydrino theory represented the possibility of a practical energy source.

Moreover, there is a difference between being proven wrong by subsequent evidence and being demonstrably wrong in the moment, as you were.

Not that being wrong (even in the moment) is so egregious, but it does weaken the defense of Mills considerably.

Finally, I would argue that Rutherford and especially Einstein were *not* wrong in those statements.

In 1934 there *was* not the slightest indication that nuclear power would ever be obtainable. The indication that it would be obtainable came in 1939, and was recognized as such by all scientists in the field, including Einstein.

Rutherford made his statement in a lecture about his experiments with fission of lithium by proton bombardment, and while fission of lithium to alphas is exothermic, the input energy required made it impractical as a source of energy. To this day, no source of power from transformation of *these* atoms exists.

The key to nuclear power is that the reaction sustains itself, and fission of large elements provided a (conceptually) simple mechanism for this because neutrons from one fission induced more fission, and this was not understood until 1939. The problem with fusion energy is that the only self-sustaining process conceived of so far involves using the heat from fusion to induce more fusion (like chemical combustion), and this involves extremely high temperatures.

Quote from bocijn

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

Hydrogen is a boson, Helium is a fermion.

See

The unrecognized laws of LENR

Eric wrote

“The suggestion is that electrons are more likely to collide with helium atoms (bound electrons and nuclei) than with hydrogen atoms/molecules, for whatever reason.”

Looking at the NIST data base for electron-impact cross-sections I was surprised to find that

HELIUM atoms have a lot SMALLER cross-section (Ų )than HYDROGEN atoms!

Because the two protons ‘pull’ the outside electrons in in closer than the single proton in hydrogen?

Maybe I have used/interpreted the tables wrong? Wrong tables? First time I’ve seen them.

Because of the smaller crosssection, to get equivalent bremsstrahlung the helium concentration might have to bigger by a factor of 3.3exp(2/3) and 5.6 exp (2/3) fro 100eV and 1000eV respectively.

“Electron-Impact Cross Sections for Ionization and Excitation Database” NIST

https://www.nist.gov/pml/elect…n-and-excitation-database