Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.Is that what is going on here?
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 04/29/2009 08:31 pm In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect. That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect. That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.
I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog. People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 02:51 pmThe reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct?
Go back and reread the article. Barth DID NOT provide the data. He provided a reference.
Look, this is shmoe journalism. Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.
Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence? The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory. Screw what Barth said back in 2001. He's not half dopey enough to say it today.
Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition. They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right. The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933. With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question. Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills. When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model. However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work. Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 04/29/2009 04:12 pmIt's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition. They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right. The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933. With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question. Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills. When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model. However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work. Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
Quote from: mlorrey on 05/04/2009 02:56 amWell if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon. It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus. Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system. In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process. It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity. Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient. And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.
Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it.