-
#2340 by DnA915 on 03 Nov, 2016 17:01
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers.
This sort of statement just feels like bad science. No empirical evidence has been provided for many of the "Private" experiment results. Nothing against the any EMDrive experimenter or traveler, but saying that it will not change reality without presenting extraordinary evidence rubs me a bit wrong. -
#2341 by Space Ghost 1962 on 03 Nov, 2016 18:07
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people. -
#2342 by Bob012345 on 03 Nov, 2016 18:17
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people.
Are you referring to the stories I heard regarding metal microwave cavities being grossly distorted by huge EM pressures? -
#2343 by Space Ghost 1962 on 03 Nov, 2016 18:53
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
Are you referring to the stories I heard regarding metal microwave cavities being grossly distorted by huge EM pressures?
Am referring to own experience of non-Lorenz force explainable hundred newton "jumps" in superconducting magnets intended for an accelerator, in the environment of a vacuum microwave cavity. Won't detail it further. Limits.
Am aware of many other different anomalies encountered, of lesser scale. With other systems of vastly different design. Multiple phenomena.
Suggest perhaps EMdrive is just a more accessible means to experience a related phenomena. Perhaps too accessible for safety - agree with rfmwguy on the need for extreme caution. Too easy too "cook" self with.
Again, a thank you to those encouraging proper scientific discourse/analysis. And restraint. -
#2344 by rq3 on 03 Nov, 2016 23:58
-
<SNIP> Won't detail it further. Limits.
Am aware of many other different anomalies encountered, of lesser scale. With other systems of vastly different design. Multiple phenomena.
Can you please elucidate? I'm aware that English is not the native language for many members of this fascinating forum. But mathematics is. I'm also aware that the US Navy rail gun research had to "default" to earlier Maxwellian equations to explain why their efforts often failed catastophically under mega-ampere induction.
But chopped syntax with dropped hints that "I know something you don't know" are counter-productive. Some few members of this forum are notorious for this tactic. I beg you not to include yourself among them!
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form."
Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
Edit: corrected spelling aerror (sic), added social comment, and added apparently obligatory quote from someone who apparently once did one neat thing
-
#2345 by rq3 on 04 Nov, 2016 00:56
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view
You can backtrack this "science" to the original recent source considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). Given our recent ability to make the quantum level macroscopic, well,....think about the ramifications....
-
#2346 by rfmwguy on 04 Nov, 2016 01:14
-
Based on your concerns, I made a special video this past summer, monitoring heat rise on the power supply cable 4 inches from the magnetron
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is unlikely.
-
#2347 by M.LeBel on 04 Nov, 2016 02:14
-
Question: I know the all copper EMDrive acts pretty much like a Faraday cage. But, given all the power injected... is it possible that the frustum can't effectively shield it all. I mean, it requires a lots of free charges and with mobility into the megahertz.. Is there any capacitance like induced charges produced on the outside of the frustum? Has anything (Charges) been detected outside the frustum, apart from heat?
Thanks,
Marcel, -
#2348 by mwvp on 04 Nov, 2016 04:55
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
-
#2349 by SeeShells on 04 Nov, 2016 07:39
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
Hi MWVP,
Up for a late night coco then back to sleep.
This was a very nice summary of Todd's theory and showed a great depth of understanding, kudos to you. I agree with all that you said until the last sentence.QuoteIt's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
The small deviations that showed just above statistical error (something like 40x) was a data flag that there might be something going on, especially when combined with theories like Todd's. Important enough to follow up with a future White–Juday warp-field interferometer test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Results. *
This is why one of first the tests I'm planning after I get the new lab finished and some new hardware installed is alightly modified White–Juday warp-field interferometer using Quartz rods (which I have already in my build, one through the center of the cavity and one outside. By using matched evacuated hollow rods with optical capped ends I'll address the issues of heated air. I told Todd and others that I would be testing theories and this could provide some invaluable data. I'm very surprised this has been one of the flags that has not been pursued by others that showed a positive result.
Coco is finished, back to sleep.
My Best,
Shell
* Interferometer experiment with an EmDrive
Eagleworks warp-field interferometer test setup.
During the first two weeks of April 2015, scientists fired lasers through the EmDrive's resonance chamber[clarification needed] and noticed highly significant variations in the path time. The readings indicated that some of the laser pulses traveled longer, possibly pointing to a slight warp bubble inside the resonance chamber of the device. However, a small rise in ambient air temperature inside the chamber was also recorded, which could possibly have caused the recorded fluctuation in speeds of the laser pulses. According to Paul March, a NASA JSC researcher, the experiment was to be verified inside a vacuum chamber to remove all interference of air. This was done at the end of April 2015.[14][15] White does not think, however, that the measured change in path length is due to transient air heating, because the visibility threshold is 40 times larger than the predicted effect from air.[citation needed]
The experiment used a short, cylindrical, aluminum resonant cavity excited at a natural frequency of 1.48 GHz with an input power of 30 watts, over 27000 cycles of data (each 1.5 s cycle energizing the system for 0.75 s and de-energizing it for 0.75 s), which were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.[16] (bold added) -
#2350 by RERT on 04 Nov, 2016 12:45
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject. -
#2351 by kaublezw on 04 Nov, 2016 15:00
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive? -
#2352 by DnA915 on 04 Nov, 2016 15:13
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive?
This same device or a device almost identical was just addressed in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41475.0
Long story short, it is not propellent-less and would not work in a frictionless vacuum. More of a reaction wheel that is pushing off its surroundings. -
#2353 by Bob012345 on 04 Nov, 2016 16:08
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive?
It's a variant of the Dean drive. My dad, a brilliant tinkerer but no physicist, was fascinated with the concept and we argued endlessly about whether or not it could work in space. I was a physics major so you know my position. In the end, he had so much fun playing around I just let him. Once he made a HO model train run on the Dean drive concept. At least this guy is having fun. -
#2354 by Bob012345 on 04 Nov, 2016 17:09
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view
You can backtrack this "science" to the original recent source considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). Given our recent ability to make the quantum level macroscopic, well,....think about the ramifications....
I have to laugh when I read "considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). ".
It's not that I reject that, it's just that it so far behind and removed from recent developments in 2nd law research. A new macro scale physical process called Epicatalysis has been discovered and been realized in systems that effectively organize ambient heat into a permanent, steady state temperature differences capable in principle of driving heat engines. Differences on the order of 100K were seen in high temperature enclosed blackbody systems and there is emerging evidence of the effect at room temperature, though weaker so far.
The data suggest heat recyclers are possible in principle that could endlessly recycle ambient and waste heat into useful work. This work, which has been peer reviewed and published, requires rethinking about the nature of the 2nd law and its universality. I think that's happening albeit very slowly but most people aren't even aware of these advances yet.
Such devices, if successfully developed, could power everything, homes, cars, even jets. Imagine cars zipping along sucking energy out of the ambient air and leaving just a stream of cold air. Jets streaking across the sky doing the same at higher rates. Great ships taking energy from the water. Self-powered desalination plants. The ultimate green energy source on earth is ambient environmental heat.
-
#2355 by Bob012345 on 04 Nov, 2016 18:03
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible. -
#2356 by as58 on 04 Nov, 2016 18:33
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible.
I find it interesting that you are willing to accept Mills' Black/Brilliant Light claims, yet consider ECat a fraud. They both score close to maximum on my personal fraud-likelihood scale.
To link this post somehow to space: is the second author of that Ecat paper the cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov? Even the first letter of the patronymic is the same. -
#2357 by WarpTech on 04 Nov, 2016 18:44
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
The bandwidth of gravity is wide enough to affect all matter and frequencies with "equal" acceleration. So although c/K varies in a gravitational field, the acceleration of test particles is not dependent on frequency or mass.
Again the only difference between what you're saying about gravity and what happens inside the frustum is frequency and bandwidth. If the frequency were such that copper is transparent, then the effects would be external too, but there would not be much resonance if the energy could escape that way.
Atoms are resonant oscillators. They fall due to asymmetrical damping, where the damping factor is 2GM/r*c2 and M is the gravitational center of mass. We "interpret" this as curved space-time. It is one interpretation, ONLY. There are others.
-
#2358 by SeeShells on 04 Nov, 2016 18:50
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
I also remember hearing rumors about forces in the SSC and wondered at that time how much was fact and how much was fiction.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people.
Nice write up Space Ghost.
Shell
-
#2359 by Bob012345 on 04 Nov, 2016 18:51
-
I didn't say what I thought of Rossi and E-cat. But since you assumed, I used to run around claiming Rossi was a "convicted con man" which is true but misleading as his conviction was not about defrauding investors with energy scams but about dumping garbage. Now, I don't say that anymore however I am very leery of the whole Rossi business. Rossi is secretive and combative, not a good combination.Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible.
I find it interesting that you are willing to accept Mills' Black/Brilliant Light claims, yet consider ECat a fraud. They both score close to maximum on my personal fraud-likelihood scale.
To link this post somehow to space: is the second author of that Ecat paper the cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov? Even the first letter of the patronymic is the same.
There may be something to LENR as thousands of scientists seem to think there is yet they still haven't nailed it down into a process that is comprehensible and a copious producer of energy. I've watched Mills for over 15 years and am more convinced now than before he has discovered what he says he has. He has done several public demonstrations of the process, each one more convincing than before with several methods of data collection and outside experts testifying. The EUV spectra alone should be convincing that new physics is going on. Mills work is peer reviewed and published. Now, the process has been developed to the very brink of commercialization. I hope widespread reception of the hydrino discovery is at hand.
There is an excellent new book available at Amazon called Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy by Brett Holverstott who served as an intern at Brilliant Light for a few years. The book puts Mills' 25 year odyssey in perspective and shows how many different incarnations of the reaction worked, yet proved to have not enough energy density or power to be commercializable.
To quote Mills himself:QuoteIt took an enormous amount of work, $100 million and two decades, but we have found something that can replace fire, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, bio fuels and more.
I see similarities between Mills and Shawyer, both are visionaries, but the more advanced by far is Mills.
