Doubts?

[Written so that laymen can understand although addressing physicists]

Considering that independent research institutes have confirmed that BrilliantLightPower can generate clean electrical power at a much lower cost than any alternative, it is high time for doubting physicists to reconsider their stance, because unjustified objections delay the implementation of this valuable technology.

A challenge

You who consider Millsian physics to be an erroneous theory are challenged to reply the following questions:

Key question

How can an erroneous theory enable the successful design of an advanced electron orbit transition process generating large amounts of energy?

An energy release of electron orbit transition intensity (which is far beyond those that any chemical reaction can generate, see footnote), has been repeatedly and consistently reported by the BLP lab and confirmed by six independent top-level research labs. This is in accord with, and seems to confirm, the prediction of Millsian physics that it is possible to induce a transition of Hydrogen into a lower energy state (called Hydrino) than the “ground state” (the least excited state according to Quantum Mechanics (QM)) with consequent huge energy release.

In addition, please explain:

  • How can you justify the rejection of Millsian physics because it predicts a lower energy state of Hydrogen than what is assumed – not proven – to exist by QM. The belief that an assumption can disprove a theory is dogmatism, not science.
  • How can an erroneous theory have a  predictive power that is greatly superior to that of Quantum Mechanics? This is illustrated by the diagrams below that represent the predictions of molecular bond energy. (For details, see The case for Millsian physics)  In brief, it shows that the values predicted by Millsian physics (red dots) exactly match the measured values (reported by independent labs) while QM predictions (black squares) fail in almost all cases, often considerably.millsian vs qm final 4
  • How can an erroneous theory have the ability to exactly predict the structure of complex molecules, while Quantum Mechanics is unable to predict more complex molecules than the simplest of all molecules, Hydrogen (H2)? The image below shows the exactly correct prediction of Millsian physics of the structure of a complex molecule.
    blp-physical-image-vs-predicted-shape-no-text

    Observed structure above, predicted structure below

     

  • How can a theory be considered erroneous or irrelevant that is mathematically consistent, stringent and successful as well as based on the solidly established major theories of physics? That is Newton’s gravitation Theory, Maxwell’s Theory of electromagnetism and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Please remember that this was what the founders of Quantum Mechanics – Max Planck, Erwin Shroedinger, Werner von Heisenberg and others tried hard to achieve, but failed, having to introduce some counter-intuitive postulates (arbitrary assumptions) to make it reasonably consistent mathematically. Mills has demonstrated that this is not necessary. Please remember that the famous Nobel Prize laureate, Erwin Shrödinger who was one of the founders of QM, rejected it later and even said he was ashamed of being associated with that theory.
  • How can you justify the use of Quantum Mechanics for the evaluation of a theory which has the very purpose to replace Quantum Mechanics? Rejecting Millsian Physics because it is incompatible with QM is like rejecting a German text because it is incompatible with English grammar (remarkably, this strange behavior has occurred among some leading physics professors criticizing Millsian Physics).

 

Please be responsible and objective

It is of great importance for the future of mankind that you handle this issue honestly and objectively. This is because of the great potential of BrilliantLightPower technology for solving some of the most burning issues of the world as it is completely pure, costs about 30 times less to produce than nuclear power, does not deplete natural resources and is easy to implement rapidly at a global scale for all kinds of energy generation applications.

My humble opinion is that your position is similar to that of the famous physicist who said flying is incompatible with the laws of physics while the glider of the Lilienthal brother was already about to take off. BrilliantLightPower is likewise about to “take off” (for commercialization).

Please free yourself from irrational prejudices and assume your social responsibility as a scientist, to tell the Truth about this invaluable invention.

It seems to me that most of the critics have not looked into the issue carefully, just rejecting it at face value because its tenets are not compatible with Quantum Mechanics (although this is exactly what should be the case). If you are one of them, I suggest you follow the example of professor Henry Weinberg, who studied the issue very carefully before he made a judgment:

“It would be irrational not to be very skeptical, and I was extremely skeptical.  However, after having reviewed Dr. Mills classical theory, participated in experimental designs and execution, and having reviewed vast amounts of other data BLP produced, I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims, and I encourage aggressive optimization and fast track development of a scaled up prototype,”…“To be able to use hydrogen from water as a cheap and nonpolluting source of power would represent one of the most important technological breakthroughs in history.”

W. Henry Weinberg. Was a professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology for eighteen years, a professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Materials Science at University of California, Santa Barbara for six years, and co-founder and CTO of Symyx Technologies for 13 years.


More about the theory

A good start to learn more is the review by professor Reinhart Engelmann.


Footnote

[For laymen]

About electron orbit transition

An electron orbit is the path of the electron’s movement around the atom. In the diagram below the electron is in the orbit closest to the nucleus of the atom, which means it is in the ground state.

Hydrogen Bohr model

According to Quantum Mechanics, the electron cannot get closer to the nucleus of the atom than in the Hydrogen ground state (the n=1 circle in the diagram below).

However, repeated experiments have confirmed that this is not correct. A catalytic reaction as described in the quote below has been able to bring about a transition of Hydrogen into a lower state of energy with the electron moving closer to the nucleus. It is a well-established fact in atomic physics that such a transition brings about the release of energy.

No chemical process comes close to being able to generate such amounts of energy. Therefore the scientists, who have measured the energy release generated through the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) process, have concluded that it has to be the result of a transition of the electron orbit.

Quote from the patent description (US Patent # 6,024,935; February 15, 2000):

[The] invention comprises methods and apparatuses for releasing heat energy from hydrogen atoms (molecules) by stimulating their electrons to relax to quantized potential energy levels below that of the “ground state” via electron transfer reactions of reactants including electrochemical reactant(s) (electrocatalytic ion(s) or couple(s)) which remove energy from the hydrogen atoms (molecules) to stimulate these transitions.

 

Jaan Suurkula

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: