Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 132 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science


ECW E-Cat World


Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times



Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga)
Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 @ 22:18:34 GMT by vlad

Devices "...Mills has raised some $50 million of private funding, and reportedly is engaged in building partnerships to develop and implement various aspects of the technology. When replicated devices using BLP technology appear on the market, that will confound all criticism which then must explain the energy source without using CQM."

In the HSG yahoo group Mike Carrell writes: Lurkers here have seen a "spirited exchange of views" over CQM and SQM. Mills has not posted any new reports on experiments for some time, so the discussion has centered on Mills' theory. Recently , PZ (Peter Zimmerman) has stated:

Some of us believe, Tom, that Mills's "experimental and theoretical falsification" of QM is obviously and manifestly fatally flawed. So don't tell us we're "very human" but not "right". Having shown that Mills's experiments are crude & don't hold water (let alone Helium), and that his theories have fundamental mathematical errors, we would contend that we *have* falsified "CQM", both its theory and its experiments.
This a belief, not supported by facts. The belief is shared by a groups of skeptics. For brevity in the following, I will refer to them as PZ & Co. Charles Pible (woogie_the_cat) is in the PZ camp and we have had extended discussions about certain Mills experiments, mentioned in a recent post to HSG. Charles said:

What are we to do when the principal proponent of CQM is unwilling to do simple experiments to falsify his own theories? What do we do when Mills does not consider his own experimental evidence with a jaundiced eye and ignores the experiments that do not fit with his world-view? How many ad hoc rationalizations of the bits that don't fit should we allow? Which non-Millsian experiments does SQM fail to explain?
This clarified my understanding of a basic issue driving the conversation here, which may not be visible to lurkers. Thus this small essay.

Mills' GUT-CQM is by any measure audacious, especially coming from an MD, not a member of any of the proper academic clubs. If correct, it shakes the foundations of 20th century physics.
In The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman says:

"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science." --------------------------and PZ said:

Feynman puts the theorists' side of the hunt brilliantly. And of course we ham handed, dirty-fingered experimentalists are out there seeking data to form the appropriate pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Once in a great while an experimentalist with a new toy (storage ring, accelerator, telescope, etc) will try to find out what it will do and will map wholly unknown territory. Then the theorist studies the map and asks for additional details.
So here we have Mills with a new theory and piles of reports supporting the theory. That is what Feynman said scientist should do, and PZ agrees, but also says above:
Having shown that Mills's experiments are crude & don't hold water (let alone Helium), and that his theories have fundamental mathematical errors, we would contend that we *have* falsified "CQM", both its theory and its experiments.
What's going on here? Mills had an idea, the orbitsphere, and it led him to the idea of the 'resonant transfer' catalyst, and asked Dr. Farrell to identify atomic energy states that might be catalytic, and built a potassium carbonate electrolytic cell that delivered excess heat. Theory>predicted experiment>confirmation, just like Feynman stated and PZ applauded. So why the attack?

For something as audacious as CQM, the criteria for acceptance of experimental support is extremely severe, understandably and perhaps properly so, considering what is at stake in terms of intellectual commitment. Thus Charles Pibel's questions above. PZ & Co. have posed questions and tests over the years which Mills has ignored or answered on his own terms.

Again, what's going on here? Mills has been uncommonly forthcoming about his work. He publishes his massive theory free on the website, publishes turtorials, and a long list of downloadable, detailed lab reports on his ongoing work. He has papers accepted by first and second tier technical journals. And PZ & Co. believe they have falsified the whole edifice.

My take on what is going on is that Mills is confident of his own lab work and has his purpose firmly directed at commercial deployment of a truly innovative technology. He and his investors have the potential to become immensly and deservedly wealthy. A basic patent was nearly issued and then suddenly withdrawn because it did not conform to general understanding of physics. A new, massive patent application has hundreds of claims and hundreds of clauses, covering virtually every aspect of the experimental work but not leaning on CQM at all.

There could easily be a royal battle over the patents, including the one withdrawn. Now Mills can go to court with massive disclosure and reduction to practice and replication by other observers and defend his patents against all comers.

Mills' posted lab reports and journal papers may well lack the extreme rigor required for an assault on SQM, and in that sense are "crude". But for all other purposes, especially showing the existence of new and useful phenomena, they are plenty good enough. Long before Mills had the present building, he sponsored experiments at universities and commercial research labs. Those reports, dozens of them, are no longer on the website, but are boiled down to tables which show up in some presentations. There have indeed been confirmations of the BLP reactions in other labs. None of this is accepted by PZ & Co., who will demand ever more rigorous testing.

Mills has raised some $50 million of private funding, and reportedly is engaged in building partnerships to develop and implement various aspects of the technology. When replicated devices using BLP technology appear on the market, that will confound all criticism which then must explain the energy source without using CQM.

Meanwhile, Mills cannot afford to have his research program directed by PZ & Co. by responding to every test that can be imagined by critics. As the saying goes, that is an exercise left for generations of graduate students.

Mike Carrell

From: peter zimmerman
Subject: Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines

Well, Mike, I should hardly have expected my beliefs, which I hold are now proven facts, to be shared by true believers, should I?

The "piles of reports" shrink considerably when an expert in the field (as CPibel is in spectroscopy and Eli in other chemical-physics fields) examine them critically and look for slip-ups.

As for the differences between catalyst and non-catalyst situations, I have 2 suggestions:

1) maybe Mills has some interesting chemical conditions, tho' I doubt it.
2) it's a pity that Mills and his team know which gases are in the mix when they do their experiments.

If I were establishing the protocols, a computer would randomly switch among identically prepared samples with, and w/o catalysts. The experimentalists would take their data and write it to a Write-Once/Read Many system, and then analyze each separate experiment. Only after all the randomly changed runs were analyzed would the computer break the code and tell the experimenters which were which. This is absolutely standard practice in nuclear and partcle physics. It's too damned easy for an experimenter to find what he's looking for if he know's he's got the prism in the N-ray beam. Self-foolery has been the making of many a discovery. And random changes of sample have been the unmaking of the same discoveries.


Note: A real, "tiny" even, working O/U device on the market is the only key to unlocking the new energy revolution. Smart talk is still cheap and will lead/push us over the edge sooner than later. [Vlad]



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Devices
· News by vlad

Most read story about Devices:
Overunity magnet motor released !

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga)" | Login/Create an Account | 7 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Thursday, August 19, 2004 @ 04:46:29 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.suppressedscience.net
This simple minded question of whether QM or CQM is correct represents a false dichotomy in my point of view. Theories can be partially correct, in the sense that they make many correct predictions, but also some incorrect ones. Newtonian physics is an example of such a theory.

Mills' CQM and standard QM may well be both partially correct. Even if the skeptics are correct and there are experiments that contradict CQM, CQM may still have value if it has indeed (as Mills claims) lead to the discovery of a whole new class of chemical reactions.

In addition, it should be pointed out that QM itself stands falsified by the overwhelming body of evidence for LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions).

Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by kurt9 on Thursday, August 19, 2004 @ 20:44:22 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.metatechnica.com
Has Mills indeed raised $50 million from investors? If this is true, he is either on to something real or he is a very good con man.

Is it possible that he is doing something real, but his theory may yet be wrong?

Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by mojo on Sunday, August 22, 2004 @ 12:37:04 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
At the present moment it is not important which therories are correct. Working free energy devices are needed now. The theoretical implications can come later.

Anyway, both QM and GR are on the verge of being drastically overhauled in the near future.


Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 @ 21:19:26 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:35:07 -0400
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Lurker Advisory: Archive illustrations, Broadened Hydrogen

Following recent discussions with Charles Pibel and Eli Rabett, I have placed in the HSG files archive "BLP Comparison of N2 air Fig.24 with Pibel N2 grid". Also of interest is an older file "BLP thermal plasma cell". These may be downloaded by going to the website, then email, then Files. Charles has responded to my critiques and I have posted a response to his points.

For the lurkers here, some perspective may be useful.

PZ & Co. attack any perceived mistake by Mills or BLP, and project specific errors into a general condemnation. One recent curious episode involves measurement of broadening of hydrogen gas emission lines in BLP plasmas. If the gas is 'cold', the emission band of wavelengths is very narrow. If the gas is 'hot' the emitting atoms move fast in all directions, and the Doppler effect makes their apparent wavelength shift toward the red and blue, broadening the line. Measurement of the line broadening can be translated directly into gas termperature, and BLP reports some very high temperatures in many papers.

Rowan University, under a government contract, studied the possiblity that a BLP reactor could be a basis for a deep space probe thruster. In one of their measurements, the hydrogen line width was compared for two conditions, and for one, the plot was truncated by obvious instrument overlaod. The purpose of the measurement was to illustrate the effect of cell gas pressure on the cell activity as indicated by the line width, not to determine the actual gas temperature.

Now PZ & Co. has recently cited this one graph as another example of measurement incompetence by BLP. What is wrong with this?

1) The graph is in a Rowan report, not a BLP publication, although the measurement was undoubtedly made at BLP's facilites with their spectrometer. Rowan is responsible for the measurement, not BLP.

2) The stated purpose of the measurement, in the paragraph below the figure, is not considered.

3) In the past favorable comments by, or observation of, BLP activity by the Rowan professors, has been devalued as Rowan is not a first rank university. Now a "mistake" by Rowan is cited and used to cast doubt on BLP.

A long dispute between Charles Pible and myself over certain spectral features has surfaced again. The key is a a series of peaks in the 4000 - 4040 A range in the emission of a thermal reactor with a KNO3 catalyst. Mills attributes these to hydrino hydrides, and Charles asserts that they are due to N2 from the nitrate catalyst.

To follow the discussion, the above cited figures should be downloaded. Particular attention should first be given to the reactor cell configuration and the location of the fiber optic probe which conducts light to the spectrometer.

Fig. 24 was cited in a recent post by Charles and is reproduced in the other file. There are two spectra shown, one from a microwave-excited discharge using a gas mixture containing air and thereby nitrogen. It is quite 'noisy', but some broader peaks can be seen in the noise. The lower, cleaner spectrum is from the reactor shown in the other file.

The issue is whether the peaks in the reactor spectrum have the same wavelength as the nitrogen peaks. If so, then Charles' argument that nitrogen is the source of these peaks is strengthened. If not, then his argument is weakened. An eyeball inspection og the two curves in the region where the red lines are, will show that the air-N2 peaks are at distinctly different wavelengths than the peaks in the reactor plasma light.

This difference is clear and similar in many figures in the cited report. Howver, Charles repeatedly cites an earlier report with a claibration error to claim that wavelength differences in later reports are due to calibration errors.

A tool Charles used in his earlier studies is a comb-like grid whose lines are a plot of known emission lines derived from accepted standard tables.[In the figure text, Icite NIST as the source; Charles informs me this is an error in that the it was not published by NIST] Included among these lines are two lines which match emission lines of potassium. These can be used for calibration.

The illustration was generated with Canvas, a verastile graphics program, using Fig. 24 taken directly from the BLP download file, and the comb generated from the Excel file by an Excel reader. All comparisons are entirely in the digital domain; paper and printing are involved only in the final output.

I drew *vertical* thin red lines and carefully placed then in the centers of the two K peaks in Fig 24. Limited resolution in the whole reproduction chain made the exact position of the peaks a bit undertain, so at high magnification, I placed the red lines midway between the vertical lines of the peaks.

These lines project doward into the comb plot. Canvas allows smooth scaling, so I adjusted the size of the comb plot so the spacing between the K lines of the comb plot matched the spacing beteen the lines projected from the K peaks in Fig. 24. The N2 lines of the comb plot should now be at their proper positions, referred to Fig. 24. I projected red lines vertically back into Fig. 24.

My visual impression is that the comb lines do not exactly match either the Fig 24 air-N2 peaks or the reactor 'hhh' peaks. I must say here that this is a best effort. Small differences in the spacing of the K lines affect the scale factor of the rest of the comb, and thereby the positon of the N2 lines in the comb. Also, the comb contains groupings of lines, and I was arbitrary in selecting thich lines to project.

The final item of interest is the pink peak at about 4030 A. The peaks in the reactor emission are rather broad. It had been argued that this indicates an out-of-focus spectrometer, or too wide a slit, all part of an expected pattern of error. The pink peak was traced from Fig. 42 of the cited report, which was of hydrogen alpha line broadening. I scaled the tracing to fit one of the peaks of the reactor spectrum. This suggests that the hydrino hydride spectral lines are broadened by the Doppler effect as the other hydrogen in the reactor. This would not be surprising, for hydrinos are formed by the very energetic BLP reaction.

Bottom line here is that Charles chose Fig 24 to advance his argument that nitrogen is the source of the spectral peaks in that region. The assertion is not supported.

Larger issues include doubt that N2 emission, if any, could be seen by the fiber optic probe at the position illustrated. Plasma is generated by evolution of K+ from thermal dissociation of KNO3 within the reactor, and BLP reactions with hydrogen passing through the system. The gas dynamics in the reactor are complex. No plasma is generated when NaNO3 is used, for Na is not a catalyst.

Mike Carrell

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:34:55 -0700
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Lurker Advisory: Night and Day

in all the detailed discussion about perceived measurement errors by BLP, some much larger issues have been shoved to the background. This Advisory is about the difference between catalysts and non-catalysts, which is like the difference between night and day.

Most of BLP reported experiments have been done with identified catalysts and chemically similar non-catalysts. With catalysts the plasma fires up with heat and certain spectral features plainly visible. With non-catalysts, the plasma is weak (with microwave excitation) or non-existant (thermal excitation). Night and day. No equivocation, no debates about instrumental accuracy.

It is good science to run experiments with controls, and BLP does this using the non-catalysts.

Catalysts are atoms which can present to an isolated hydrogen atom an enegy 'hole' of specific 'size'. Specifically, it is multiple of 27.2 electron volts, the 'ground state' energy of the hydrogen atom. Proximity to this energy hole destabilizes the hydrogen atom, which transfers that energy to the catalyst, and then collapses to a lower energy state, releasing still more energy. This is the BLP reaction, described in tutorials on the BLP website. The collapsed hydrogen atom is called a hydrino.

Known catalysts include singly ionized potassium (K+), rubidium (Rb+), Strontium (Sr+), helium (He+), argon (Ar+), neon (Ne+) and doubly ionized oxygen (O++). Sodium is chemically similar to K and Rb, but is not a catalyst, and is used as a control. Krypton (Kr) and Xenon (Xe) are noble gases like He, Ar and Ne, but are not catalysts, and are used as controls.

The criticial issue for the critics is the very existence of the below-ground hydrino state of hydrogen.

Mills' reactors are of three principal types: 1) and electrolytic cell with potassium carbonate in H20, 2) thermally driven gas phase with potassium or rubidium nitrates as catalysts, and 3) gas phase with microwave excitation.

Mills' evidence is 1) 'excess heat' released with catalysts compared to non-catalysts, 2) strong plasmas produced with catalysts, compared to weak or no plasma with non-catalysts, 3) hydrogen line broadening with catalysts comapred to non-catalysts, 4) unusual spectral features with catalysts that can be attributed to hydrinos by calculations, which appear only with catalysts, 5) a gas from BLP reactors -- with catalyst -- which liquefies in a liquid nitrogen trap, and has unusual properties.

The first two are observed on a macroscopic scale, equivalent to the difference between dropping a lighted match into a pan or water or of gasoline. 3) is observable with an ordinary spectrograph and no special calibration or sensitivity is needed. 4) and 5) can be controversal, for in theory contaminating chemicals can produce ususual spectral features, and instrumentaton errors can cause misidentification: the unusual features appear only with catalysts.

HSG has recorded extensive debate on the measurement issues, but what is ignored that the features debated appear **only** when catalysts are used in the reactor. Mills claims that the catalysts induce the production of hydrinos as well as intense heat and UV radiation.

Remarkable among the catalysts are He, Ar, and Ne. All are noble gases, so-called because they do not form compounds (Ar forms weak compounds at low temperature), and certainly do not "burn" with hydrogen. Yet He or Ar , mixed with a few percent hydrogen and excited by microwaves (and other means), generates intense heat and unusual spectra features. The heat released is as much as 100 times that obtained by burning the same amount of hydrogen. This does not occur with Kr or Xe, also noble gases which are not catalysts.

These salient facts are ignored by critics, who fuss about measurement details whose effects are much smaller than what happens.

Mills' conception of the orbitsphere model led to the catalyst criterion, and a search for candidate catalysts which were confirmed by early experiments. Thus, the existence of these catalytic reactions are support for Mills' work, beyond details of measurements. The catalysts were not discovered by random search.

Mike Carrell

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:47:53 -0400
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Re: Re: Lurker Advisory: Night and Day or (Dusk or Dawn)

Charles wrote:

++ Mills claims K+ is a catalyst. K+ + K+ + H --> hydrinos forgetting for the moment, the problem of three body collisions in the gas phase (let alone with two positive ions). Why does K2CO3 not produce a hydrino hydride hyperfine spectrum? Mills provides an ad hoc explanation for this, which I find less than compelling.
(K+) + (K+) + H > H(1/2) + (K) + (K++) as I read the Mills text, with a bit of editing of your text to clarify the grouping of +'s. Yes, this is a three body reaction , but it foes not follow that it does not occur. The gas dynamics in the thermal reactor are complex to say the least. There must be configurations that are easier to understand and analyze, i.e. the flow through Evenson cell microwave experiments.

As for K2CO3, it does produce such a spectrum, but the reaction produces H(1/4), not H(1/2), so that spectrum is located at a shorter wavelength. If memory serves, when we were discussing this intensly a while back, I dug out the paper where that spectrum is shown. For some reason K2CO3 dissociates with a K+++ which can react to give H(1/4), but K+++ can also pass through lower ionization states, including K+, and participate in producing H(1/2).

This may seem ad hoc to Charles, but Nature is that way until one has a deep enough understanding. Mills is producing lab reports, not a user's manual, so the necessary data are scattered. There are passages which suggest speculation, but an enormous amount of data is given 'explanation', whether one is comfortable with it or not.
Other workers see very hot H atom emission in rf discharges -- this is not new to Mills, but represents 20 year old observations. Why does a pure H2 RF discharge produce the largest Doppler broadening measured? There is no catalyst here, yes?
I was not aware of that datum. However the broadening is a function of gas temtperature, and there are many ways to pump a gas to very high temperatures, as in Tokomaks. So what is missing in that assertion is the context of the experiment in which the line broadening was produced. By comparison, for example, in the thermal reactor, 17 eV broadening was observed with no ionizing electric field, only the heater electric power. So this comparison is irrelevant to the discussion.
Can Mike give me a reference to a spectrum that shows the NaNO3 rt-plasma emission? I recall that Mills claimed that this salt gave a rt-plasma, but was a bit weaker than with KNO3 or RbNO3.
Sorry, I can't. In the thermal reactor N2 paper he mentions that NaNO3 produces a rt plasma but no hydrinos, and that Al and Mg nitrates are controls producing no plasma. Now I find this curious, for it is implied that rt plasmas can occur without destabilzation of the hydrogen atom.

My personal view of this is that the exact nature of the BLP reaction on a femtosecond time scale is not actully understood by Mills or anyone else. The best he can do is to point to other well known reactions which are in some way similar, to ward off criticism that he is seeing nothing but error and wishful thinking. So he points out that H atoms in compounds can exist in lower energy states, that energy transfer can occur without emission of photons in fluorescent materials, etc .
How does one reconcile the largest excess heat being produced in an early electrolytic cell with a non-hydrino catalyst? [This was in an very early Fusion Technol. paper.? I provided the original reference in one of my previous posts.]
I can't, not having the report at hand. Some early experiments were commissioned at Thermacore, a well established firm near Lancaster PA. I'm unaware of who Fusion Technology is or what they did. Calorimetry in electrolytic cells can be very tricky, so I can't help further. From what you say, this seems one anomalous report among many confirmatory ones.
Some of the observed spectra in the BLP rt plasmas may be explained to a degree by the complex chemistry that occurs in these salts when they are heated. I previously provided some references regarding this.
Indeed you did, but citing the assuredly complex chemistry does not answer the points raised in Mills detailed discussion in the revised paper. There is the matter of the position of the spectrometerr fiber optics probe, seen in the illustration I put in the HSG files, based on direct questions asked of BLP. There is the matter of the total amount of catalyst put in the reactor, and the persistence of the spectrum over a six hour run as hydrogen was flowed in [and I am bothered that the H inlet and outlet are nearby at one end of the reactor -- I can only assume turbulant mizing due to the extreme thermal gradients.] There is the matter of N2 existing in a molecular state at the temperatures involved -- I was not able to find any data about this.

Thus while you can raise questions about possible sources of unusual peaks, I can ask as many or more about whether these could have significantly contributed to the actual observations in the experiment as conducted.

The other nitrates melt or dissociate at lower temperatures and don't produce a plasma, so how is it that these nitrogen-like series show up only in a plasma which is not electrically driven, but is driven by the BLP reaction? You have never really answered this question, you only raise other issues.
One is also left with the problem when dealing with difficult-to- reproduce experiments (like LENR, hydrino-science, etc), to determine what level of effort to put into trying to get a control to work, compared with getting a "real" data run to produce results. Are these the same, when the experimenter knows which is which? I know from personal experience that human nature is such that you can't but help try a bit less hard, when you are "sure" that you "shouldn't" get a result. Further experience gives one the paranoiac eyes of a real experimentalist. Bunnies are most known for being on their guard...
I remember an animated movie based on a book about life from the viewpoint of bunnies. Part of their creation story was how they got their powerful hind legs. Early on, a bunny ignored God, who punished all bunnies by making them a prey animal. He compesated the curse by giving them powerful legs and the ability to run, so the predators would have to catch the bunnies first.

You and Eli have raised what is a cultural issue, and it is legitimate, and I have taken a different view, and we have disputed about this for some time now. Part of that was the reason for this Advisory, if only to lay this open for inspection and understanding of vistors and lurkers here.

Taken line broadening, for example. It is agreed that this is an easy way to detect hot hydrogen and it doesn't take refined calibration to do it. It can be produced by several known means. Mills has taken pains, particularly in the APS paper, to show that the known conditions for producing the broadening he sees do not exist in the microwave appratus, and certainly not in the thermal cell. Yet it is there. This should falsify all arguments that the broadening that Mills attributes to the Doppler effect are indeed such. Yet critics turn to the Rowan report to find a stinking red herring to continue the impression that Mills' line broadening observations are not valid indications of a very hot plasma, produced under experimental conditions that are consistent with a BLP reaction but cannot be explained otherwise.

You are also ignoring the line broadening produced by the H-Ar reaction. Mills was not the first to observe it, but he shows that with the Evenson cavity in a water bath calorimeter that watts of excess heat are produced. This is not a spectroscopic artifact. It does not happed with Xe or Kr. Please, Charles, explain this: It is like night and day.

Above are you are implying that many other catalysts could be found if only Mills tried hard enough? You may be right. Intuitivley, if one accepts the idea that atoms can be induced into a lower energy state by as suitable 'rt' transfer process, then surely this is not obviously restricted to single electron atoms. It should be universal, but the rules and conditions elude our present understanding. Such may be found (think of the piles of Master's theses). That is not bad news for Mills.

You are implying that the BLP experiments are "difficult to reproduce", comparing them to LENR. I heard Mills wish that others would do his experiments. A few have, with supporting results, usually with the advice of Mills. Such does not satisfy PZ. There are dozens of reports in the archives of tests done in other labs with positive results. I have recently posted here remarks about the Master's thesis of Dr. Peter Jannson of Rowan, which was a BLP KNO3 experiment in a Calvet calorimeter. The failure of Jovicevic and Little to duplicate Mills' results does not make it "difficult", it means that know-how is required, as in refined spectroscopy. Eventually this will be commonplace. The success rate excess heat production in LENR experiments is now in the 85% range for some investigators and it is being done by high school students.
Is this the dusk or dawn of hydrino science?
It is the dark before the dawn. Mills has not posted experimental work for some time. Other indicators are that he is working with potential partners toward commercialization of BLP technologies. I expect a long quiet spell. The patent application is a massive applied technology document. The really difficult work of optimization, scale up, and prototype design may well by under way. This is where one finds if he really understands what is going on. There is no incentive to publicize until something is ready. An IPO may or may not emerge.

Mike Carrell


Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:08:00 -0400
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Re: Re: Lurker Advisory: Night and Day

Don Hotson wrote:

Dear Mike,

It seems to me that Joseph Papp's three patents might be 'prior' to Mills in some important ways. (See "Infinite Energy" 9, 51 (2003) p. 21.) Papp uses many of the same 'noble' catalysts and many of the same 'triggers' with explosive release of heat. (He also uses Xenon, not a catalyst for Mills, but only in mixtures with Neon and Argon). Was Papp producing hydrinos? Or is Mills duplicating some of Papp's results?
As I was closely associated with Gene for a while, I was aware of the Papp engine and have the relevant issues of IE discussing it. I cannot say I have studied it in sufficient depth. At first, the claim of running on noble gases was absurd, but with the H-Ar and H-He reactions that Mills has discussed at length, the Papp engine is worth some more thought. There was the matter of a secret 'preparation' which might have introduced water as well.

Mills has conducted experiments under very carefully controlled conditions that lend themselves to careful analysis. Certainly they point to energy releases on the scale Papp reported. So far as I know, Mills is far from building a Papp engine; his path of development is probably in another direction.
I assume this has all been thrashed out in these pages before, but I would appreciate some discussion of the similarities and differences between Papp's and Mills' approaches.
The Papp engine has not surfaced on HSG at all. Given the lack of critical specifics, there is nothing to discuss. It has been mentioned on Vortex, but no thread developed.

Mike Carrell

Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 @ 21:08:45 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:32:21 -0400
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lurker Advisory: Night and Day or (Dusk or Dawn)

Peter wrote:

I'm afraid that Mike is engaged in thinkful wishing, rather than logic.

MC: A neat phrase, thinkful wishing -- at least you give priority to the
thinking part. I'm able to agree with you in part, nuances get lost in
trying to be brief in an email post. I'm also trying to convey nuances to
the lurkers.

Please see my inserts below my own copied original post replete with
MC's inserts.

>MC: An interesting question. Peter makes an assumption about the distance
>required for the reaction to occur, and proceeds to build a case for the
>improbability of the reaction. But is this assumption valid? In the "N2"
>paper, on p3, Mills says:
>"In the case of 2K+ , the catalyst mechanism does not require a three body
>collision, but a coupled through-space energy transfer according to Förster
>MC: When this first came up, there were protests that Forster theory was
>inapplicable, as it is used to explain energy interchages from one part of a
>complex molecule to another, and involves terms related to dipole couplings
>with great sensitivity to distance and orientation. I pointed out at the
>time that the field configurtations involved with atoms are different.
PZ: This is wistful wishing without attention to the force laws involved.
You cannot take a theory involving the transmission of energy across a
molecule consisting of already bound atoms to the situation requiring 3
bodies in free space, **not** bound to one another, and lacking the
"elasticity" (for want of a better word and with the understanding that
I am not being linguistically precise) of a molecule. Mills, himself,
was engaged in some creative straw-clutching. The range of a dipole
coupling is very short, and the force varies as 1/r**3, not even 1/r**2.
Clearly invoking a dipole coupling requires closer approaches than I
was willing to credit using an inverse square force. Maybe I should
suggest a dipole energy computation?

MC: I'm aware of this. In the statement of the Forster law I saw, the
distance factor was in the denominator with a 6th power exponent. That
exponent was based on geometrical factors, the interactions of two dipoles
of different orientations, affecting the structure of Colombic fields. Now
if Colombic fields can effect the energy transfer, and K+ will have a
Columbic field, then it is reasonable to speculate that the applicable force
law might have a lower exponent. That's all.

PZ: BTW, how does Mills produce an electric dipole moment for a K+???

MC: He doesn't, so far as I can see. The point, I believe, in citing Forster
theory, was to point out that energy transfers occur between atoms at
distances greater than 'contact', and without exchange of photons.

>However, here is an illustration from accepted physics that an energy
>transfore does not require the "collision" that Peter's straw man requires.
>Experimentally, the K+ lines are present and produced by the experimental
>conditions. Therefore Peter's hypothesis is falsified.
PZ: Mike is off the beaten track again, I'm afraid. The Foerster theory
is developed for energy transfer between parts of large molecules, not
between ions in free space. My hypothesis, which hardly rose to that
level, is in no way falsified. I just suggested that somebody calculate
the required distance of approach for effective energy transfer, the
energy required to bring 2 K+ ions to that distance, and the plasma
temperature corresponding to that energy. It's baby physics, Mike, but
I won't do it for you because you should have better tables than I do
for the diameter of the K+ ion. Or Mills should.

MC: Yes, it's baby physics, and I get your point without doing the exercise.
Mills also got the point, else he would not have put in the quoted statement
as a rationale to explain why the reacton does occur for 2K+.

MC: But with all this theoretical fan dancing, what is ignored is evidence
that an energetic plasma is generated in a thermally driven reactor with
KNO3 as a catalyst. Thus, all the quibbling about Forster theory, and force
laws, and temperature necessary for to K+'s to react with H, is an excerise
for us students. Now if Peter can offer a better explanation than
measurement error, let's have it. And please explain the photographic
evidence of an active plasma in this reactor on the website.

The only thing left is to imply that the glow is produced by high voltage
excitation by hidden wires, and not a chemically driven plasma as Mills
asserts. But then, Peter will also have to explain the similar thermally
driven plasma with a potassium carbonate catalyst obtained by Conrad et.al.
and published by the Institute of Physics Publishing in 2003.

I think it's highly likely that Mills's entire spectroscopic endeavour
(BritSpeak) will soon be falsified because of some really serious

MC: Now I fear Peter is thinking wishfully. He has yet to identify the
"really serious" problems, but he seems to hope they are there. There are
many obvservations of broadened H alpha lines to be explained away.

PZ: Time will tell, along with a little closer attention to the
precise details of the experimental conditions. Paranoia is the
experimentalist's best friend. Mills, however, is an optimist -- a very
bad personality trait for a working experimentalist doing frontier work.

MC: Au contraire -- optimism is the fundamental requirement to keep going in
the face of so much criticism, while collecting arrows in the back.

>MC: PJ van Noorden has pointed out a separate reaction when potassium
>carbonate is used in the thermal reactor. Dissociation produces K+++, which
>is not repelled by the neutral H atom, and does in initate a BLP reaction.
>Again, the distance threshold for the reaction is not known, I suspect,
>by Mills. Investigation of this detail is a whole other study to be
>undertaken later, and perhaps by others.
PZ: Uh, in a word, "no". This is one of those bits of homework that Mills
has to do in order to make his explanations of his results plausible,
quantitatively. Let us remember that it was not quite enough for
Rutherford to observe alphas bouncing from gold foils. He had to
compute the fraction scattering into each solid angle and the angular
dependance before he could conclude something useful... that there had
to be a nucleus inside an atom and that the "plum pudding" model of
electrons scattered throughout an extended, atomic sized, positive
charge distribution was wrong. Rutherford, of course, got it exactly
right which is why we hold him out as an exemplary experimentalist.
Similarly, it is not enough for Mills to announce excess energy or
nifty lines. He has to make the rate at which such things appear, the
intensity of the lines, for example, to be plausible and consistent with
the properties of his apparatus.

MC: We approach the razor's edge of our disagreement. In a formal sense,
yes, Mills should undertake a full study of the 'rt' phenomenon in exquisite
detail for all to see, including Peter. Mills' hasn't time for that when the
world is in urgent need of alternative energy sources. I'm pointing out for
the Lurkers that there is a real puzzle here, and I'm aware of it, but that
does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist, or that workable energy
systems cannot be built. Mills needs to scale up and do commercial
development. His understanding of the rt phenomenon may or may not be
adequate for the task. That will be soon evident. If commercial development
occurs, in time Mills and many others may tackle the 'rt' phenomenon with
rigorous study.

PZ: It is Mills's lack of attention to this kind of details that makes his
experimental results so suspicious to the 'critics' around here. The
point is that the hydrino hypothesis must explain the total experiment
better than, say, contamination or poor technique.

MC: Quite so, which is why I speak of night and day and large magnitude
effects. Peter has not really addressed these.

And, Mike, I thoroughly studied the calorimetry expt ages ago. I ain't
convinced by lines such as

PZ: Once a run is
>started, it is a matter of a minute or less to lift the assembly out of the
>tank, adjust for minimum reflected power, and immerse it again. Another
>moment is required to turn the knob on the generator to set the forward
>power to a desired value.
Mike... If you weren't there, you *don't know* that all the details you
stress above and below well-represent what went on inside BLP's lab.
Calorimetry is a black art suited to telling us how bad a Big Mac is
for us, but really not good for finding new physics.

MC: And Peter, your weren't there either so you don't know that good
procedure was not followed. It is possible that many practice runs were made
to get everything right and produce a good set of data. Such often happens.
It does not logically follow that the data present is not truthfully
representative of the actual phenomenon.

As for calorimetry not bing a good tool for finding new physics, you are
familiar with the F&P effect, for which the heat signature is definitive.
The really flaming point here is that heat is utterly basic, for all other
processes have heat as their end point, and it is more fundamental that
readings of radiation detectors. Calorimetry is indeed a black art, better
practiced by chemists than physicists, which is why many blundered in
following up of the F&P experiments. A decade later, the desired nuclear ash
is being seen, conmesurant with the heat released.

PZ: I do hope this helps.
MC: So do I.

Mike Carrell

Lurker Advisory: BLP confirmation by external labs (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 @ 21:39:39 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:36:25 -0400
From: "Mike Carrell"
Subject: Lurker Advisory: BLP confirmation by external labs

In recent discussion, both Peter Zimmerman and Charles Pibel agree that experiment rules. They have expressed ogoing dissatisfaction with reports of experiments from BLP labs. Confidence in new claims is gained if they are found in other labs, done by other people. Exact replication is good, but if cited phenomena are found in different experimental configurations, that is better. When another investigator misses some essential parameter, and reports a non-confirmation, that is bad unless the error can be found.

In this latter case, the paper by Jovicevic et. al. reported a failure to observe H line broadening under conditions intended to be those used by Mills. Mills pointed out that their use of pulsed high power exicitation was not what BLP does, and that BLP did not see the broadening when they used pulsed power.

There are two papers listed on the BLP website of successful production of BLP effects by other labs. The first is:
Emission in the Deep Vacuum Ultraviolet from a Plasma Formed by Incandescently Heating Hydrogen Gas with Trace Amounts of Potassium Carbonate, H. Conrads, R. Mills, Th. Wrubel - 06/05/03 Plasma Sources Science and Technology, Vol. 12 (2003), pp. 389-395. Found at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/toc/0963-0252/12/3
Conrads and Wrubel are in Germany and the paper is published under the auspices of the Institute of Physics. Mills was apparently an advisor, but did not do the work. The paper is very detailed, and I will summarize.

Conrads set up a thermal cell, similar to that discussed in the "N2" paper and illustrated on the BLP website. He used a potassium carbonate catalyst and observed an energetic plasma, with H line broadening and excitation of H2 emission by VUV radiation from the H-K2CO3 plasma. Three variations on the cell configuration were tried to verify that the plasma occurred only with a concordance of K2CO3, a titanium dissociator, and a hot tungsten filament, as are in the BLP cell. NaCO3 did not produce a plasma, as Mills reported.Various 'explanations' of the effect are considered and dismissed. In conclusion:
The emission from a plasma was observed at low temperatures (e.g. ?103 K) from atomic hydrogen and potassium. The release of energy from hydrogen was evidenced by the hydrogen Lyman and Balmer emission which identified the presence of a hydrogen plasma. The persistence of emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell indicates that unknown chemical power source is present. The implication is that a new plasma and light source for the vacuum ultraviolet has been discovered.
The second paper is available for dowload from the BLP website:
Evidence of Catalytic Production of Hot Atomic Hydrogen in RF Generated Hydrogen/Helium Plasmas - NEW 09/26/03
The authors are Jonathan Phillips and Chun-Ku Chen at the University of New Mexico. A photograph of the 'GEC' cell with dimensions and the positions of the observation points is in the paper. H/He and H/Xe are used, at a variety of pressures and observation points. The cell is 14 cm dia. and 36 cm long. In the center are two parallel disc electrodes about 1 cm apart, between which a 13.6 MHz field is maintained, producing ionization in that region.

Observation points were 1) upstream at the gas inlet, some 15 cm from the ionization region, 2) centrally, 2 cm from the ionization region, and 3) 15 cm downstream from the center. Broadening of the hydrogen alpha line was observed at all positions. The degree of broadening was seen as a function of pressure.

While not explicitly stated the work was evidently done at UNM as the cell is quite different from those used at BLP and the spectrometer was "built around a 1.25 m visible light instrument from Jvon-Spex.....".

Both the Phillips and Conrad papers explore parameters of the effects reported by BLP. The BLP reports are confirmed in principle and explored in some detail.

BLP reports have been criticized for brevity and lack of wanted details, which are partially supplied by the reports cited above.

My view is that the primary function of the reports posted on the BLP website is to establish a broad and deep trail of "reduction to practice" in support of present and future patents. For that purpose, the reports are entirely adequate.

I know that the cited work does not meet Peter Zimmerman's criterion of authority and independence, but that is his own criterion. Others may view the work as independant experimental confirmation of some of Mills' claims.

Mike Carrell

Re: Lurker Advisory: The Battle Lines (BLP saga) (Score: 1)
by Marv on Thursday, September 02, 2004 @ 12:26:39 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I enjoy reading the comments of the physics theorists. In their stories we see their interpretations as being a result of the way they see the witnessing instruments. If experimental research is not witnessed first hand they must rely on whatever data the researcher chooses to release.
Reading these reports and opinions is an excellent way to learn some physics, but not to learn who is right or wrong. Truth may be shown when a physicist tells me a good enough story about what he or she has seen in person. At the lab we experience the thrill of victory and misery of defeat.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.