-
#200
by
ChrisWilson68
on 12 Jun, 2017 20:07
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
-
#201
by
Bob012345
on 12 Jun, 2017 23:32
-
Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.
Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP.
BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.
That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.
Strangely, all those old press releases have gone down the memory hole, and their robots.txt is apparently configured to disallow archive.org from archiving. 
Why anyone would presume good faith at this point is a mystery to me.
Why? Because I follow it closely and don't make judgements based on silly things like it being a story for '25 years' as if there is some scientific rule that says things always go smoothly.
-
#202
by
Bob012345
on 12 Jun, 2017 23:34
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
-
#203
by
meberbs
on 13 Jun, 2017 00:07
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.
-
#204
by
ChrisWilson68
on 13 Jun, 2017 07:29
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
You literally just said that if I was going to bring up the possibility of fraud, you would refuse to discuss it, then simply asserted there was no fraud. That is not being open to reasonable arguments. That is saying you are going to refuse to listen to all arguments, reasonable or not.
-
#205
by
Bob012345
on 13 Jun, 2017 16:05
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
You literally just said that if I was going to bring up the possibility of fraud, you would refuse to discuss it, then simply asserted there was no fraud. That is not being open to reasonable arguments. That is saying you are going to refuse to listen to all arguments, reasonable or not.
I'm just saying that in my mind, I've long ago established that there is no intentional fraud, I believe he believes what he claims about hydrino's. For one thing, it seems he spends most of his money on facilities, research and staff, not foreign banks accounts and big houses. I'm happy to discuss alternative views or entertain skepticism to that idea but I'm offended by claims of fraud. Fraud means he knows it's not true but claims it anyway unless you have a different definition. If that's primarily where you want to focus on that I'm not very interested. I'm open to a discussion of why you think hydrino's cannot exist and why all of Mills' experiments 'must' be wrong.are you open to the possibility that Mills' may be right?
-
#206
by
Bob012345
on 13 Jun, 2017 16:15
-
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.
I highlighted an interesting part of your quote. Experiments that confirm existing physics do confirm the physics they confirm but are not proofs that additional physics does not exist beyond the range of those experiments. To support your statement it would have to be proved that each of those experiments would show the existence of the hydrino even though they were not designed to. There are assumptions that hydrino's would necessarily show on in all simple common experiments. For example, why would hydrino's necessarily show up in simple specta of hydrogen atoms being excited?
-
#207
by
RonM
on 13 Jun, 2017 16:41
-
Here's the conclusion from a paper by the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. They analyzed the hydrino model and found problems. Note that they did not address the experimental data, but suggest it be reinterpreted under conventional physics.
Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
-
#208
by
Bob012345
on 13 Jun, 2017 18:32
-
Here's the conclusion from a paper by the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. They analyzed the hydrino model and found problems. Note that they did not address the experimental data, but suggest it be reinterpreted under conventional physics.
Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.html
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
Rathke's paper was refuted by Mills who claims Rathke made fundamental errors in his analysis as well as misunderstandings of his work. It's telling that they didn't bother to actually analyze the data since it's always possible that Mills discovered hydrino's AND has logical flaws in his written theory. Serendipity has happened before in science so Rathke should have considered that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinoshttp://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf
-
#209
by
meberbs
on 13 Jun, 2017 22:38
-
165 pages to reply to 9. This seems like a similar technique to a Gish gallop. Anyway, I lost count of errors and nonsensical statements by page 2.
For example, he assumes that there are only 2 spatial dimensions, and allows non-normalizable wavefunctions.
-
#210
by
Bob012345
on 14 Jun, 2017 18:14
-
165 pages to reply to 9. This seems like a similar technique to a Gish gallop. Anyway, I lost count of errors and nonsensical statements by page 2.
For example, he assumes that there are only 2 spatial dimensions, and allows non-normalizable wavefunctions.
He says the electron is a two dimensional membrane in his model, not that only two spacial dimensions exist. And he doesn't use "wavefunctions" at all. Also, the second shorter paper addresses specific mistakes Rathke makes.
-
#211
by
as58
on 14 Jun, 2017 23:54
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
-
#212
by
ChrisWilson68
on 15 Jun, 2017 00:15
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
-
#213
by
QuantumG
on 15 Jun, 2017 02:19
-
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Oh no! I sure hope we don't have to borrow Elon's boring machine and restart the core!
-
#214
by
Bob012345
on 15 Jun, 2017 16:08
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
-
#215
by
Bob012345
on 15 Jun, 2017 16:14
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.
Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
-
#216
by
whitelancer64
on 15 Jun, 2017 16:21
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
You've got the idea of Dark Matter backwards: it DOES gravitationally interact with the rest of the universe - its gravitational effects are how we know it's out there - but otherwise it emits no EM radiation and it interacts weakly with the other forces.
-
#217
by
Bob012345
on 15 Jun, 2017 16:26
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
You've got the idea of Dark Matter backwards: it DOES gravitationally interact with the rest of the universe - its gravitational effects are how we know it's out there - but otherwise it emits no EM radiation and it interacts weakly with the other forces.
No, that's what I'm saying (or trying to say).
-
#218
by
as58
on 15 Jun, 2017 18:24
-
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.
Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
Nothing, which is why I said not hugely much more energy that normal reactions. The point is that there should be significant amounts of hydrinos in the waste. For example, with 204 eV per reaction, a 10kW reactor operating for an hour should produce about 3.6 grams of hydrinos. I don't see how all that could be hidden so that their presence wouldn't be obvious to other scientists if they were allowed to study the waste products.
-
#219
by
ChrisWilson68
on 16 Jun, 2017 00:53
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
Why would you think I meant "exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter"? It wouldn't fall through the Earth if it didn't interact gravitationally. It would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth if it *only* interacted gravitationally with normal matter. If you think it's going to "float off into space" then you have to believe that it doesn't interact gravitationally with normal matter (and hence isn't an explanation for dark matter).
Anyway, whether it drops through the Earth or floats into space or whatever, my point remains: either the hydrinos produced would stick around and they could be provided to other scientists as proof it works, or they leave somehow and the reactor loses significant mass. It has to be one or the other, and either should be a simple way to provide strong evidence of hydrinos. But we've never been given such evidence. Why not?
