Louis said
" being demonstrably wrong in the moment, as you were."
So you proved me wrong. Congratulations.
and welcome to the forum but 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?
Interesting find, bocijn.
HELIUM atoms have a lot SMALLER cross-section (Å2 )than HYDROGEN atoms!
Ok, then let's set aside the scattering cross section for a moment (we'll come back to it in a second!). Next possibility: the discharge is able to ionize and accelerate the less massive hydrogen ions within the path of the discharge more than the more massive helium ions. One possibility (perhaps there are more in addition): the hydrogen ions are accelerated towards the cathode and impinge upon it with some amount of energy. This process happens less for helium because of its greater mass and greater affinity for at least one bound electron. When the hydrogen (or deuterium) ions strike the cathode, perhaps there is (1) recombination to H2 in the case of hydrogen, or (2) electron emission under ion bombardment or (3) some measurement artifact from the impact.
The point of this is that one or more a suitable empirical hydrogen-only controls are needed. Helium and heavier elements are fine as one kind of control, but yet more are needed, in this case ones involving hydrogen. Since there's something special that Mills is doing to conjure up the alleged hydrinos, e.g., using a Mills catalyst, finding some controls involving hydrogen should be possible. If it is not possible to devise a suitable hydrogen control, that is a mark against and not for hydrinos in this specific experimental setup, as it suggests instead that there's some simple explanation that plasma physicists figured out 60 years ago which we're simply unaware of.
With regard to the electron scattering cross section,
HELIUM atoms have a lot SMALLER cross-section (Å2 )than HYDROGEN atoms!
It's possible you've understood the table, and that this table covers all possible nontrivial electron-hydrogen and electron-helium scatterings. Or there may be ones that are missing (in the case of helium: transitions to higher n, and ionization) whose cross sections are much larger than the H2 molecule cross section. So once again we're on shaky ground trying to reason things from first principles. We need some control experiments involving hydrogen.
bocijn wrote:
QuoteLouis said
" being demonstrably wrong in the moment, as you were."
So you proved me wrong. Congratulations.
To be clear, it was not about proving you wrong. I don't know you from Adam. It was about showing that a defense of Mills based on the history of nuclear power has no merit. To me, Mills resembles a charlatan much more closely than the scientists involved in the development of nuclear power. His story is similar to that of Rossi, Brillouin, Steorn, Papp, etc.
QuoteLouis, do you have any idea why helium does not produce EUV and hydrogen does, on pages 18,19,20?
First, it does. There are peaks in the EUV. Mills is trying to argue the He spectra do not show a *continuum* in the EUV, but even that is wrong. There is a continuum. It's just smaller. He hasn't explained where it comes from. Are there also heliuminos, maybe?
Second, I can't explain how David Blaine can keep live frogs in his stomach and bring them up at will, or how he does his card tricks, but I'm reasonably sure magic is not involved.
Third, unexplained continua are utterly common in spectroscopy, and each one is not an occasion to throw out quantum mechanics -- which actually has specific, robust, and reproduced evidence.
Fourth, don't you find it unbelievably lame to have to fall back on an unexplained background to support Mills' crazy ideas, when the theory predicts straightforward implementation of new energy sources that would be as indisputable as superconductivity or nuclear power, and Mills has not only been promising them in the next year for 30 years, but claimed to have sold practical power devices to large companies?
Finally, why should we even believe his results, considering his public demonstrations that demonstrate nothing, and the lack of evidence for his claimed reactor sales?
Louis : " There is a continuum. It's just smaller"
Could be. I'll ask Mills about upping He pressure 2-5x
to counter for the lower electron impact xsection, inter alia.
Energetic prose, Louis.
I save mine for #Erdogan, #ISIS on "@bocijn"
140 letter limit teaches economy plus use of props.
"140 letter limit teaches economy plus use of props."
pity it doesn't teach accuracy or good judgement...
@bocjin. Classical music clips are fine, but no politics. In this environment it does not lead to a good outcome.
This process happens less for helium because of its greater mass and greater affinity for at least one bound electron. When the hydrogen (or deuterium) ions strike the cathode, perhaps there is (1) recombination to H2 in the case of hydrogen, or (2) electron emission under ion bombardment or (3) some measurement artifact from the impact.
Eric Walker : I make it short again: Mills completely ignores the build up of H3+ ions, that always occur in H-plasmas. These ions are highly stable and react (form mulecules) with Helium/Argon etc.!!
Anybody who wants to understand (at least the ARC based) LENR has to dig in H3+.
Wyttenbach , can you elaborate on how your sphynx-like suggestion relates to the rest of this discussion, and in particular the need for a hydrogen-only control?
Wyttenbach, can you elaborate on how your sphynx-like suggestion relates to the rest of this discussion, and in particular the need for a hydrogen-only control?
Eric Walker : Not yet: It's part of my ongoing work! Just said it for the ones that really want to catch up.
Louis Reed is right on. It's basically what I've said about BLP and Mills for more than 6 years. However "Louis" is clearly expert in nuclear physics which I am not, and though I hate to admit it, he writes much more clearly than I do. But the message is the same. That Mills has anything of value is vanishingly improbable and has always been that way. The entire progress of BLP, when you examine the details of the claims to experimental validation and independent verification are classical free energy hoaxing.
"pity it doesn't teach accuracy or good judgement"
Bless you Louis
Matthew 7.2
EUV continuum for H2 gas found by Mills.versus that found for He.
Corroborated here.
"EUV spectroscopy of hydrogen plasmas" 2008
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/46930964/756929-1.pdf
No mention of EUV continuum found for Helium.
Interesting Discussion . Excellent Master's work van Gessel. Eindhoven 93 pages.
Too long to read through in today's sermon
.
.
alan re: boc-i-j-n classical music
being a lapsed technophiliac from the Mills generation
I was wondering if this music might background the suncell videos
I'm not sure about using it as background music, but it might be enough to trigger Bob Higgins new reactor. My own tastes run to Bach, Opera and Thelonius Monk and co. I suspect Rossi uses Leoncavallo's Pagliacci. "Vesti la Giubba" to trigger his.
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?
This is an unsound argument. Suppose (as appears true from all I have seen) that all of the experimental evidence for Mills's ideas has similar alternative explanations. Suppose also that in each case given more money the result could be tied down as either Nobel prize worthy new physics, or an alternative explanation.
How is that in any way an argument for Mills's hypotheses holding?
It is not even an argument for society incorrectly distributing research funds.
"EUV spectroscopy of hydrogen plasmas" 2008
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/46930964/756929-1.pdf
No mention of EUV continuum found for Helium.Interesting Discussion . Excellent Master's work van Gessel. Eindhoven 93 pages.
RobertBryant: This is exactly what we need! A clean reproduction with a broad discussion of all involved effects, including measurement problems.
The authors confirm two findings of R.Mills: There is a XUV continuum for H/He mixtures at low (mbar) pressure and mixtures ratios preferably in the range of 2-3% Hydrogen added to Helium. The continuum starts at around 20nm.
Citation: Two previously unknown features remain: a line at 63.3 nm in a He/H2 microwave plasma, and a continuum between 23 and 30 nm in a pulsed H2 plasma. Both these experimental results we were able to reproduce under the same conditions.
They believe that the 63.3 nm line is due to a hybridization resonance of to He(1s1 2p1) with an energy of 21.22 eV.
I mentioned in a former post, that they all ignore H3+, which indeed has a hybridization resonance H2/H3+ at 19.7eV which is much closer to 63.3nm.
bocijn wrote:
QuoteEUV continuum for H2 gas found by Mills.versus that found for He.
Corroborated here. "EUV spectroscopy of hydrogen plasmas" 2008
No mention of EUV continuum found for Helium.
If you're trying to make a lame defense of Mills, lamer still, you've succeeded.
I don't know your expertise or experience in this particular spectroscopy, but it's a safe bet that most of the audience in this forum has very little, and that includes me.
So, when someone with no particular scientific credibility (Mills) claims some elevated background represents evidence for a revolutionary theory, it doesn't impress me, and neither does my inability to provide an alternative explanation for the elevated background. I'm just not qualified to make a judgement based on this rather subtle evidence.
But,
(1) I am aware that unexplained elevated background is common in spectroscopy, and that it is rarely an indication that a revolution in science should be contemplated. For that, much more specific, quantitative, consistent and discriminating evidence is needed.
(2) The theory also predicts a source of energy with an energy density some 2 orders of magnitude above ordinary chemical sources, and that is something I do understand, and for which evidence can be conceived that requires minimal expertise to understand. In the 30 years Mills has been claiming this, he has not been able to provide any convincing evidence of such an energy density, in spite of assurances that he has had working products, and so his far less compelling claims ring hollow.
(3) There are scientists who do have expertise in this spectroscopy, and if the results really did represent support for a revolutionary theory, and for the fallibility of quantum mechanics, I have confidence they would not hesitate to jump aboard the hydrino train to get their name up there with the fathers of modern physics. After all, when Davisson and Thompson found evidence for wave-like behavior of electrons, they were not ignored for decades, but given a Nobel prize. The man in the street would not be impressed by their diffraction patterns, but they would be impressed by the recognition they received. When Bednorz and Mueller discovered high temperature superconductivity, contrary to theory, they were not ignored, but given the Nobel prize the following year.
---
So, in response to my skepticism you went looking for independent "corroboration", and what did you find? It's more than a decade since Mills' first claims of spectroscopic evidence for hydrinos, and you come up with an MSc thesis, and one that basically says Mills is probably full of it, albeit in polite academic language. Let's break it down:
(1) The "most remarkable" results that Mills originally claimed in 2003 were not reproducible. So some of what he used to claim hydrinos had other origins, even if it took years to show that. That makes it much easier to believe that the other (less remarkable) evidence may similarly have other causes.
(2) There are features in the spectra that are still unexplained, even after invoking hydrinos, emphasizing that a lot can happen in this kind of experiment that is not understood.
(3) Some predictions of Mills' theory are not present in the spectra.
(4) The author considers it plausible (or at least not "unthinkable") that contaminants or unknown reactions can account for the results. A claim like hydrinos will not be taken seriously until alternative mundane (even vague) explanations are truly rendered unthinkable. Especially when far more manifest predictions of the theory are not observed.
But what else is in the literature? If the results have been ignored to the extent that no other group has even addressed it in the refereed literature, it's a good indication that scientists who have experience in this field are not impressed by this background, thinking it highly likely to have mundane origins, and that the absence of quantitative and unequivocal evidence (esp after 30 years) pretty much rules out hydrinos.
And lastly, to come back to the helium continuum: It's not mentioned, but it's there, both in Mills' paper and this thesis. It's just smaller by a factor of 10 or so. So, it's the difference that needs to be explained, but until the small helium continuum is explained without heliuminos, why should I be impressed with the absence of an explanation for the larger hydrogen continuum.
(As a casual lay observer, it looks to me like a simple case of unresolved peaks. The "continuum" correlates pretty well with the peak concentration, and the thesis emphasizes the presence of a large number of small peaks in the hydrogen spectrum, not part of Mills' explanation. If there are more such peaks in the hydrogen spectrum (as seems to be the case) and they are only partially resolved, that would cause an elevated baseline, as observed. But this is only idle pondering. Notwithstanding the above, I'm not really interested in hashing over the minutiae of the claims of an almost certain Shyster.)
I don't know your expertise or experience in this particular spectroscopy, but it's a safe bet that most of the audience in this forum has very little, and that includes me.
Occasionally Peter Ekstrom has made an appearance, but so far he has not been impressed.
And lastly, to come back to the helium continuum: It's not mentioned, but it's there, both in Mills' paper and this thesis. It's just smaller by a factor of 10 or so. So, it's the difference that needs to be explained, but until the small helium continuum is explained without heliuminos, why should I be impressed with the absence of an explanation for the larger hydrogen continuum.
Louis Reed : Hydrinos are the weakest element in Mills theory. But, as usual, if somebody seems to see something mystical, new, he gets a huge push to rush foreward and will find new paths to explain the world.
Hydrinos - or something behaving like hydrinos, can only be explained, if you start with a new 4D nuclear model. But also then, I would at most talk about resonances / intermediate states.
The main problem of current physical modeling is, that in all known (QM) formulas the magnetic energy is not correctly counted in. In the Hydrogen model (e.g. nr. Schrödinger,Pauli Eq.) the (missing) total stored magnetic energy is of order 0.1eV an is nothing more than a "rounding error", but for higher Z and deeper orbits it suddenly reaches >1000eV...
At the potential (E max <=> 10nm)) level the Mills experiments are run, the magnetic energy is already high enough to play it's own role. Such a system can only be modeled, if you count in pinch effects and Alfven-waves, that lead to long lasting stable B-fields, what finally explains the seen after-glow.
According to my model, the Mills SUN-CELL is a desktop fusion device, that produces Helium or less likely Deuterium. There is also a slight chance, that he only produces toroidal Hydrogen, that has been found by Santilli.
The main problem of current physical modeling is, that in all known (QM) formulas the magnetic energy is not correctly counted in. In the Hydrogen model (e.g. nr. Schrödinger,Pauli Eq.) the (missing) total stored magnetic energy is of order 0.1eV an is nothing more than a "rounding error", but for higher Z and deeper orbits it suddenly reaches >1000eV...
The QM is applicable only to a closed systems, not to the hydrino where energy is transferred under the influence of a catalyst. The Hydrino reaction if it is real occurs within an open system. QM is limited in describing real world processes involving open systems where energy flows across system boundaries.
Louis:
heliumino
: Good neologism .
You should copyright it.
Louis:helium continuum ,,smaller by a factor of 10
Actually Van Gessel's data does not show such a huge difference btw He/H2
A hydrinoesque continuum does not leap out of his data (see Paint jpg below)
Wyttenbach: QM does not account for magnetic energy
I agree with that from the little QM I know.
Randell Mills accounting for magnetic energy may explain some of the accuracy of his Millsian software.
Wyttenbach: desktop fusion device
Without 'hydrinos', nuclear fusion appears the likely explanation for the high energy Mills reports coming out of his Suncell precursors.
But nuclear is a more dangerous word than hydrino. Briiliant Nuclear Power is less marketable than BLP.
