BLP news

[chrismb]

Chris, you made these unfounded assertions many months ago and still have no sources to back up your claims. You don't know if hydrinos can be captured at all. We certainly have no reason to suspect they're inert, especially given the claims that hydrino crystals exist. You're not a chemist and you're not conversant in the theory, or in the level of chemistry necessary to debunk BLP's claims.

From: Randell Mills <rmills@blacklightpower.com>
Subject: Re: Q: What is the average energy state of hydrino gas?
To: "chrismb"

> dihydrino gas, then, must presumably be extremely
> chemically inert outside of the catalysed reactions you
> report

correct

GIThruster's response?:

[D Tibbets]

Again, my problem of hydrino existance, is not how it is possible, but why it is not detectable. Spectroscopy is a well understood field of study. When an electron changes its orbital energy it does so in discrete amounts and this is always accompanied by a photon absorption or emission. This is easily detectable by spectroscopy. Until this missing link is demonstrated I remain extremely skeptical.

Dan Tibbets

[GIThruster]

Yeah Dan. . . you're ready to confront a professor at Cal Teck based upon what you don't know?

Hell yeah, I'm all there watching to see what comes out!

[chrismb]

Yeah Dan. . . you're ready to confront a professor at Cal Teck based upon what you don't know?

• 

[GIThruster]

I see the quality of your comments has not improved with time.

[nferguso]

And taking a general look at the scam/reality ratio. Something on the order of 1E3 to 1E6 I'd say.

So you figure the odds are 50/50? Snurk, snurk, snurk.

[MSimon]

And taking a general look at the scam/reality ratio. Something on the order of 1E3 to 1E6 I'd say.

So you figure the odds are 50/50? Snurk, snurk, snurk.

LOL.

Yeah on any particular scam. It is that sort of attitude that makes life interesting. It also makes horse races.

[GIThruster]

Again, my problem of hydrino existance, is not how it is possible, but why it is not detectable. Spectroscopy is a well understood field of study. When an electron changes its orbital energy it does so in discrete amounts and this is always accompanied by a photon absorption or emission. This is easily detectable by spectroscopy. Until this missing link is demonstrated I remain extremely skeptical.

Dan Tibbets

It's been demonstrated thousands of times over 25 years, Dan. You're mistaking Chris' bogus claims with the facts. There have been plenty of spectroscopic examinations and these have been published many dozens of times in the last 20 years. Spectroscopic examination has likewise been done by third parties like Gen3. This is indeed why I have no sympathy with Chris's demands for a specific kind of evidence because there's plenty of evidence to be reviewed by those who can do the chemistry.

[D Tibbets]

Again, my problem of hydrino existance, is not how it is possible, but why it is not detectable. Spectroscopy is a well understood field of study. When an electron changes its orbital energy it does so in discrete amounts and this is always accompanied by a photon absorption or emission. This is easily detectable by spectroscopy. Until this missing link is demonstrated I remain extremely skeptical.

Dan Tibbets

It's been demonstrated thousands of times over 25 years, Dan. You're acting like it hasn't because of the doped like Chris pretending there's a lack of evidence. He'd rather post up kiddy graphics than look at the evidence.

You are claiming that spectroscopic measurements of hydrino transitions are comon. Please provide links to such papers.

DanTibbets

[GIThruster]

Dan, you know all the papers have just been taken down since the web site was reorganized, but they've been posted for decades. If you won't take my word for it, take the word of the catalytic chemist PhD prof at Cal Tech where he writes:

". . .it has been detected in a number of different ways which include upfield proton NMR spectra, soft X-ray continuum radiation from pure hydrogen pinch plasmas, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and Doppler broadening of fast hydrogen in a plasma, the latter of which is particularly compelling."

This paper is 3 pages long. I can't imagine why people won't read it but are still willing to post to this thread. Just to be clear--the people with the proper training and tools find the evidence compelling, so pretending there is none is pretty silly, IMHO.

If you want to poke around and see for yourself, you can always start with the master list of 95 published papers over the last 21 years found here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/publications/

[tomclarke]

Dan, you know all the papers have just been taken down since the web site was reorganized, but they've been posted for decades. If you won't take my word for it, take the word of the catalytic chemist PhD prof at Cal Tech where he writes:

". . .it has been detected in a number of different ways which include upfield proton NMR spectra, soft X-ray continuum radiation from pure hydrogen pinch plasmas, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and Doppler broadening of fast hydrogen in a plasma, the latter of which is particularly compelling."

This paper is 3 pages long. I can't imagine why people won't read it but are still willing to post to this thread. Just to be clear--the people with the proper training and tools find the evidence compelling, so pretending there is none is pretty silly, IMHO.

If you want to poke around and see for yourself, you can always start with the master list of 95 published papers over the last 21 years found here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/publications/

Why does no-one take this seriously? Apart from the fact that the Hydrino theory is so riddles with internal inconsistency it is a joke, experimentally:

and Doppler broadening of fast hydrogen in a plasma, the latter of which is particularly compelling.

and

January 4, 2005: Šišović et al. published a paper describing experimental data and analysis of the Mills' theory that a resonant transfer model (RTM) explains the excessive Doppler broadening of the Hα line. Šišović et al. concluded that: "The detected large excessive broadening in pure hydrogen and in Ne–H2 mixture is in agreement with CM [Collision Model] and other experimental results" and that "These results can’t be explained by RTM". The collision model explanation for excessive broadening of the Hα line is based on established physics.

Since this data is stated by BLP as particularly compelling we can safely assume that excess heat etc evidence is marginal, as always.

We can also note that if Hydrinos existed, given 25 years of experimentation and claimed positive results, BLP should have been able to make a plausible heater by now.

[GIThruster]

Tom:

1) The quote you have is from 2005. The quote I have from the Cal-Tech prof is from 2012. We're obviously talking about different things. Your quote would seem useless if the particularly convincing data is 7 years newer. there are 6 different kinds of tests that BLP has been publishing about for 20 years. Finding one group that disputes one sort of evidence is not sufficient to simply set it all aside.

2) BLP built a heater 5 years ago. Rowan build a couple 4 years ago. Obviously this is what the Rowan demonstration was all about. The latest device is a fuel cell, so there's no way to use something like WLT to explain the electricity generated. In any event, it's pretty obvious they built a heater as did Rowan.

3) No, you cannot safely assume the precise opposite of what the Rowan experiment clearly demonstrated--very large heat that cannot be explained through normal chemistry.

[tomclarke]

Tom:

1) The quote you have is from 2005. The quote I have from the Cal-Tech prof is from 2012. We're obviously talking about different things. Your quote would seem useless if the particularly convincing data is 7 years newer. there are 6 different kinds of tests that BLP has been publishing about for 20 years. Finding one group that disputes one sort of evidence is not sufficient to simply set it all aside.

2) BLP built a heater 5 years ago. Rowan build a couple 4 years ago. Obviously this is what the Rowan demonstration was all about. The latest device is a fuel cell, so there's no way to use something like WLT to explain the electricity generated. In any event, it's pretty obvious they built a heater as did Rowan.

3) No, you cannot safely assume the precise opposite of what the Rowan experiment clearly demonstrated--very large heat that cannot be explained through normal chemistry.

The problem is this. There are any number of companies which claim to be developing a commercial product based on non-standard physics. That is very exciting. Unfortunately none (including BLP) have ever actually got such a product to work. Repeated claims are therefore rightly treated with skepticism.

On the other hand if Mills wishes his stuff to have some academic merit all he needs to do is to get an experiment under controlled conditions validated by a reputable 3rd party. You will know that there are always any number of scientists easy to convince of such claims - look at Rossi and Essen etc.

You should also note that the evidence for non-standard physics splits neatly into two incompatible groups. For example the SPAWAR research claims to point strongly to
2D1+2D1 -> 4H2 + (low level lattice energy)

This is not compatible with Hydrogen/metal systems.

When I look at this evidence I cannot say the BLP claims are any better than Miley's & SPAWARs claims. Yet the chances that there are two such unusual mechanisms are small. That of course is assuming that all the other H claims, specifically WL, have the theory wrong and hydrinos exist, or that hydrinos don't exist and something loike WL is true. But in the latter case there is no explanation for this broadened H line other than the perfectly reasonable conventional one I posted.

When you take a step back and look at the totality of information here the evidence for any of these non-standard physics claims is remarkably small.

[GIThruster]

Tom, I'm sorry but you don't seem to be considering the facts. Posting that BLP has not been able to make their reactors work is completely out of touch. The FACTS are that they have gotten both their thermal reactor and their fuel cell to work. They've had them both validated by others. The original thermal reactor was replicated by a university team that built it from scratch and mixed their own catalyst, all 4 years ago.

Sorry but it just shows you haven't looked at the issue at all to post this sort of thing. Saying that you found one person who made a claim 7 years ago that he could explain the line broadening has nothing whatsoever to do with the other 5 tests nor the opinions of the experts like the prof at Cal-Tech.

Again just to be sure I'm understood--I am not a proponent of BLP's physics. I don't know what to make of them. I do think it's a tragedy that people dismiss such overwhelming evidence for whatever reason. Tom is writing as if BLP hasn't had these thermal reactors working for 5 years. That seems pretty out of touch to me.

[tomclarke]

Tom, I'm sorry but you don't seem to be considering the facts. Posting that BLP has not been able to make their reactors work is completely out of touch. The FACTS are that they have gotten both their thermal reactor and their fuel cell to work. They've had them both validated by others.

I think you are not reading the documents carefully. Their "fuel cell" is very complex, requires heating to 400C, and emits 5W-h of electricity over 2 months. That is 18kJ/month. Or 7mW of power.

Whether this 7mW represents something outside normal physics depends on an incredibly difficult analysis of errors and possible unintended effects, as well as chemical reactions. Their own analysis puts the emitted energy within 5% of that available from chemical reactions, and they consider only the most obvious such.

Saying this is "working" is stretching the English language, unless you view it as a PR masterpiece. In that capacity it appears to work well enough.

These results are just not safe from anyone. Especially not from a co mpany whose continued existence depends on convincing people they have something new.

You have two hypotheses: there is non-standard physics, or it is all experimental error and unexpected effects.

If there is non-standard physics, it is surprising that the results lie always in the range of experimental error. How can this be? The energy release is supposed to be large. But in any case it will be variable. It seems its always detectable, but never large enough for a definitive experiment. If it were real you would expect something more after 25 years.

You need very high levels of validation before you discard 50 years + of compatible evidence and choose a weird non-standard self-inconsistent theory with no clear evidence over standard theory backed by 50 years of experiments.

The judgement, when you look carefully at all the evidence, is a no brainer.

Still, if BLP are right they will have working heaters quite soon. Won't they?

PS - I tried to work out whether the fuel cell experiment was safe or not, from the standpoint of the electrical circuits alone. I could not, because they did not give enough information. I don't particularly expect errors here when there are so many other more tendentious aspects. But it annoys me that I cannot check.