Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Black Light Power

Dear Folks Check out this heat source, I sent it to all the guys on my list that are into plasma physics, I can't wait for their replies:


Hydrogen result causes controversy (August 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/4

and this:

From:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press_Release.html

RESEARCHER UNVEILS UNIQUE NEW CLASS
OF HYDRIDE COMPOUNDS

Discoveries Point to New Source of Low Cost Energy, Longer-Life Batteries, Magnetic Polymers, Lighter-Weight Materials; All Based on BlackLight Power?s Application of Dr. Randell Mills? "Grand Unified Atomic Theory"

ONTARIO, Calif. ? Oct. 6, 1999 ? Dr. Randell Mills, CEO and chief researcher of BlackLight Power, unveils today, at the 1999 Pacific Conference on Chemistry and Spectroscopy, the results of his research into the area of novel hydrogen chemistry. The conference, with some 800 scientists and researchers in attendance, is co-sponsored by California-based sections of the American Chemical Society and the Society for Applied Spectroscopy.

During the meeting, Mills and his colleagues are reviewing BLP?s ongoing research which indicates the discovery of a vast new energy source and a new field of hydrogen chemistry. Joining BLP?s presenters today is Dr. Johannes Conrads, retired Chairman of the Board and past Director of INP, Greifswald, Germany, one of the world?s foremost research centers for the study of low temperature plasma physics. Dr. Conrads will be discussing INP?s independent study of Mills? theory, which has demonstrated the generation of extreme ultraviolet emissions at low temperatures from atomic hydrogen.

"We are pleased to have Dr. Conrads join us today to report on his findings. In his 40 years as a researcher, he says he has never before observed the phenomena associated with the BlackLight Process," says Mills.

Rather than heating hydrogen to extreme temperatures or using high voltage, Mills and Conrads have demonstrated the capability independently of using the release of energy from hydrogen by specific catalysts to cause a plasma in hydrogen which may be observed and recorded by its ultraviolet emissions. "Essentially, we have shown we can produce heat, and therefore electricity, in a hydrogen plasma without a power input. We have a chemical reaction that produces valuable products," said Mills. Conrads? findings support and underscore the potential for revolutionary applications of the Mills Process in the fields of chemistry and energy.

The world could have a new source of low-cost, renewable, pollution-free energy because these reactions can be harnessed to create electricity. When hydrogen transitions to these lower stable states, energy in the form of extreme ultraviolet light is released. Extraordinary compounds are formed as by-product. An early application of these products would be vastly improved high voltage batteries with at least 10,000 times the power of conventional batteries, charged and recharged with low-cost electricity. This could help usher in the age of the electric automobile.

One new class of hydrogen polymers generated using the BlackLight Process has been shown to be conductive and ferromagnetic. Plastics capable of conducting electricity would have far reaching implications in electronic packaging and magnetic storage media. Compounds capable of having the flexibility, durability and lightweight properties of plastic but the strength and conductivity of metal would change how vehicles and aircraft are manufactured, producing lighter weight, more cost effective and more energy efficient modes of transportation.

Mills and his colleagues from BLP are presenting four papers today at the conference discussing the synthesis and characterization of this unique new class of hydride compounds, and the experimental data proving their existence. Two of the papers have been accepted for peer-reviewed publication, one in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, published by the International Hydrogen Energy Association, and the other in Fusion Technology, published by the American Nuclear Society.

Mills? work is based on his "Grand Unified Atomic Theory," published in 1995, stating hydrogen can exist in states lower than the ground state recognized by classical quantum physics. Mills? theory challenges long-held principles of quantum mechanics, but Mills has the data, products, evidence and confirmation from outside labs that his breakthrough theory is in fact correct. "I have kept the nature of this work confidential until now becauseI wanted to ensure we had the proper supporting data and corroboration by other researchers, such as Dr. Conrads, so my theory and its implications would receive serious consideration," said Mills. This controversial theory has potential applications reaching far beyond new hydrogen compounds.

BlackLight Power and Mills are now attracting widespread attention both within the scientific community and among serious investors. BlackLight Power?s most recent private offering was quickly oversubscribed, and the company has signed an agreement with Morgan Stanley to serve as its investment bank. Along with the financial backing of several major utilities and manufacturing companies, BlackLight is capitalized at more than $20 million.

Mills is president and founder of BlackLight Power, and inventor of the BlackLight Process. He also has started several other companies, including Luminide Pharmaceutical. Mills graduated Harvard University Medical School with an M.D. in 1986, and did postgraduate work at MIT in physics and chemistry. Mills? book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, first published in 1995, details his theory which neatly stitches together quantum mechanics and relativity. "Most significantly, my theory and the research we?ve done gives rise to the possibility of an inexhaustible energy source," said Mills.

BlackLight Power is expanding rapidly, with a major 53,000 square-foot research and development facility slated to house more than 100 researchers and supporting staff located in Cranbury, N.J., near Princeton, N.J. Mills has been awarded patents by Australia and South Africa within the past year, and has several patents pending in the United States.

Dr. Randell Mills is Chief Executive Officer and Chief Researcher of BlackLight Power, a company dedicated to discovering and developing new hydrogen compounds that are a by-product of a practically inexhaustible novel form of energy produced via the BlackLight Process. BlackLight Power is headquartered in Cranbury, N.J., near Princeton, N.J.

Dr. Randell Mills bio.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/biomills.html

Contacts:
John Moscatelli
Earle Palmer Brown
215-851-9651
mailto:jmoscate@epb.com

John Eccleston
Earle Palmer Brown
203-705-9237
mailto:jecclest@epb.com

Mills is a liar and a crook. His hydrino scam is impossible at face value. His "company" has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money.

In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "No cat, no cradle." Not even a cell phone battery.

thanks for the reply, and not telling me that my head is up my ass

Uncle Al -- What kind of a baloney response is this?

Where is your scientific spirit for investigating anomolous and not understood experimental results?

Uncle Al said: "His 'company' has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money."

Oh really? So, I suppose the 88 validation points counts as nothing to you??? (see http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/ValidationPoints061005.pdf)

Can you explain these anomolous results using conventional theory? How about the excessive line broadening in plasmas? How about the unexplained proton NMR shifts in the collected products after these reactions are complete.

How about the fact that these experiments and their anomolous results have been replicated at a number of labs around the world including a Plasma research lab in Europe (Conrads), NASA (Marchese), researchers at various national labs (Phillips) and a group at Technical University of Eindhoven (Europe)..

Your complete judgementalness in your response shows your lack of creative thinking, closed-mindedness and puts you right on the bandwagon with all the other nay-sayers who don't have enough balls to step up to the plate and investigate something which we DON'T understand and may very well lead us to a greater scientific understanding...

I am perfectly willing to accept Mills' theory is incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect. BUT, the experiments and the results speak for themselves--they give anomolous data, unexpected results and results which we are having difficulty understanding. And these experiments have been and are being replicated... There IS something going on here that in the spirit of science, deserves attention. And for those who will retort with the "Not enough independent replication has been done" -- well, more is underway...

Why don't you use your brainpower for something more creative and expansive rather than being a band-wagon nay-sayer.

Johnny

Nothing whatsover - all smoke and mirrors when it is not outright lies. Mills is a liar and a crook. His hydrino scam is impossible at face value. His "company" has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money.

Relativity has c=c, G=G, h=0. Quantum field theory has c=c, G=0, h=h. They cannot be unified. Mills is a liar and a crook. His hydrino scam is impossible at face value. His "company" has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money.

In science it it is always up to the scientists who propose alternative theories to prove them. In this case they should forget about their alternative version of QM and just try to produce energy from hydrogen. If they can do that they would have proven that conventional QM (and thermodynamics) is wrong. This still wouldn't imply that their version of QM is right, though.

Count asks:
"In science it it is always up to the scientists who propose alternative theories to prove them."

Of course not. Einstein proved nothing. Einstein created a framework allowing others to prove or disprove his ideas.

But every crank, running a scam for dollars, does not deserve the respect of being called a scientist.

Johnny Said: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh really? So, I suppose the 88 validation points counts as nothing to you???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Al Responsed:
----------------------------
Nothing whatsover - all smoke and mirrors when it is not outright lies. Mills is a liar and a crook. His hydrino scam is impossible at face value. His > "company" has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money.
----------------------------------

Johnny: I shudder to think of how far back in the dark ages we would be if every scientist had an M.O. of glibly dismissing years of scientific experimentation, investigation and theorization and following it up with a few extra lines of thoughtless slander. Speaking of which, your allegations of fraud, deceit, lies, smoke and mirrors also extend to the reputable scientists who have put their names, time, energy and r&d funds on the line to successfully replicate these experiments. It also extends to the now numerous peer-reviewed journals which have published Randy's research and experiments and thus opened up the floor to professional scientific debate.

Let me get this straight... You would have us believe that all the scientists on the peer-review panels, and all the scientists who have put effort into analyzing or replicating either Randy's theories or experiments have been somehow duped by what you would have us believe is a liar and a crook out for peoples money, but somehow you--with obviously highly above average intelligence and education beyond all these scientists--can see through it all??? What a load of baloney!!!

How many other scientists who have published multiple papers in multiple well respected scientific journals have you made a habit of slandering?


Johnny Said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..details his theory which neatly stitches together quantum mechanics and relativity.... Why don't you use your brainpower for something more creative and expansive rather than being a band-wagon nay-sayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uncle Al Responded:
-------------------------
> Relativity has c=c, G=G, h=0. Quantum field theory has c=c, G=0, h=h. They cannot be unified. Mills is a liar and a crook. His hydrino scam is
> impossible at face value. His "company" has never produced anything other than appeals for more investor money.
-------------------------

Johnny: The theory doesn't literally "stitch together" SQM & QFT ***as they are***. His theory develops a different way of looking at reality from micro to marco and as such derives many of the expected results which SQM & QFT yield but also explains these anomolous experimental results which SQM & QFT fall short of...

So opinions differ... You want these results to fit into SQM & QFT? Fine! Go ahead and take a shot at it. I'm sure you could get some good papers published out of any sound material you could produce. Or is it that you don't even believe the published experimental data? If not, then are you calling the replications by Conrads, Marchese, Phillips and other groups fraudulent too? Heck, why don't you just call the whole scientific community a bunch of untrustworthy liars while you're at it?

IBIS said:
-----------
In science it it is always up to the scientists who propose alternative theories to prove them. In this case they should forget about their alternative version of QM and just try to produce energy from hydrogen. If they can do that they would have proven that conventional QM (and thermodynamics) is wrong. This still wouldn't imply that their version of QM is right, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Johnny: Ibis, on the one hand you want Mills to shoulder all the responsibility for proving his theory... Fine... On the other hand you seem tolerant of an environment of slander. What gives? How is a scientist or a lab group supposed to make much headway in an environment of slander with allegations of scamming money!?!?! IMO Randy is making phenomenal progress in the face of intractable, irrational resistance and allegations the likes of what Uncle Al has provided a perfect example of. Besides, if any scientist brings up good solid evidence of something we don't understand which is replicated by other scientists, it opens the door for any scientist to jump in an contribute to an effort of ongoing deeper understanding into what is happening... Certainly, no scientist is obligated to do this... And it appears from the responses here, that this group won't be making any constructive contributions.

By the way, what possesses you to say that a scientist who has observed anolomous experimental data, currently unexplainable with accepted theory should "drop" his own theory which has had, at the *very least*, a moderate to major degree of success in predicting these anomolous experimental results? What the heck kind of a statement is that? And also, producing excess energy from hydrogen has been focused on, and has been shown in experiments, and it has been replicated. Do some research, read some papers. As far as which version of what theory will end up ultimately being accepted, who knows. A lot more research needs to be done, a lot more debate needs to happen, a lot more papers need to be published and who knows where the dust is going to settle.


DA Morgan said:
------------------------
But every crank, running a scam for dollars, does not deserve the respect of being called a scientist.
-------------------------

Johnny: What is with you guys? Can't you think past the cliche of "crank" when you observe a group of scientists who are producing results which are not understood and consequently pushing the envelope of what we understand? Geez....


Johnny

Yes, you don't have to prove it yourself, but you must show that the theory is viable (consistent with present experimental results etc.).

''Johnny: Ibis, on the one hand you want Mills to shoulder all the responsibility for proving his theory... Fine... On the other hand you seem tolerant of an environment of slander. What gives? How is a scientist or a lab group supposed to make much headway in an environment of slander with allegations of scamming money!?!?! IMO Randy is making phenomenal progress in the face of intractable, irrational resistance and allegations the likes of what Uncle Al has provided a perfect example of. Besides, if any scientist brings up good solid evidence of something we don't understand which is replicated by other scientists, it opens the door for any scientist to jump in an contribute to an effort of ongoing deeper understanding into what is happening... Certainly, no scientist is obligated to do this... And it appears from the responses here, that this group won't be making any constructive contributions.''

There is no solid evidence of anything here. I'm suggesting that the people working on this first try to find solid evidence and then publish their results. What they've done so far is typical of pseudoscience. They've cooked up a highly problematic theory which contradics most of modern science and then they've said that this theory seems to be consistent with some anomalies. These anomalies could be explained in many different ways, it's certainly no proof of the Hydrino theory.


If these people want to prove anything at all they should concentrate on a clear experimental signal that cannot be explained by conventional theories. They should publish their results journals like Physical Review Letters, not journals in which engineers publish. Engineers do not have the training to properly evaluate these sort of theories and they may decide in favor of publication, because in their opinion the theory could be true and the anomalies point in that direction.


However, a trained experimental physicist would probably conclude that the observed anomalies are not anomalies at all and that the theory make false prediction for a whole host of other phenomena and is thus already falsified.

Iblis said:
I'm afraid we are in great disagreement here. There is absolutely plenty of experimental data produced by rigorous experimentation which has produced reams of anomolous data, which has been replicated. That, in itself, is *solid evidence* that greater understanding is needed. It is *solid evidence* that work is warranted in trying to understand what is going on. There is plenty of *solid evidence* that something is going on that we don't understand, and as scientists, it would be irresponsible to ignore it or dismiss it out of hand just because it makes us think a little harder or doesn't fit within a perfectly pretty picture of what we do understand, or because it's not easily or immediately explainable. Yes, I know you want to believe there are all sorts of conventional explanations for this data--I'll address that below.

Iblis said:
Hmm... Well that's a great idea! But wait! I just went to www.blacklightpower.com, and found reams of spectroscopic data, experimental data and analysis, plasma experimentations and power analysis, spectral analysis, material science studies, and third party technology testing reports. Oh look, I also did some poking around in the journals and found 53 published papers and another 47 papers in press or submitted as of 06/10/05 (see http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/REFERENCES061005.pdf)... Looks like they somehow thought of this idea too and have been putting it into practice for a number of years now!

Iblis said:
What a baloney statement...

Iblis said:
Excellent!!! Well since you seem to find this "hydrino theory" such a pile of "pseudoscience", and according to you there are many different ways to explain this anomolous data, then please--go ahead! I'm sure a lot of people who dislike the hydrino theory would love to hear these well thought out, logical, within-standard-model explanations! And frankly, I'm not being a cheerleader here for CQM--if there is a simple conventional way to explain the anomolous data, then I'm all ears... My intent here is to gain a deeper understanding into what all these experiments that Mills, the replication groups, and the 3rd party technology testing companies are showing us--not to cherry pick one theory over another simply because one is dogma, or another is fad.

However, what seems to have happened so far, is that the few literature attempts that I have seen to show a conventional explanation for these results don't stand up to further scrutiny or additional experimentation. Does that mean the hydrino theory is right? No, not necessarily, and I'm certainly not claiming that--but I am claiming that it means more research and investigation is warranted.

Iblis said:
As pointed out above, they have done that from a number of angles Iblis. A few examples are, anomolous materials specta, anomolous power outputs (in various experimental configurations, the common thread being the presence of a certain atomic "catalysts"), and anomolous plasma conditions. Several of these experiments have been confirmed by other scientists who have been involved in replication efforts. Other experiments have been validated by 3rd party technology testing companies.

Iblis said:
A quick poke through their reference paper (link above) shows publications in:

- European Physical Journal: Applied Physics
- Journal Applied Physics
- J. Phys D. Applied Physics
- Applied Phys Letters
- New Journal of Physics
- J. Plasma Physics

including other publications in various spectroscopy and material science journals.

Mills has done some significant publishing of experiments and experimental data showing anomolous results without mixing too much of his theory into his publications. Given the high resistance to any new theory in place of SQM, my take on it is that he is building up a literature base to begin bouncing more of his controversial theory off of... If he simply tried publishing his theory first without a good deal of experimental literature to back it up, I don't think there is any way he'd be given the time of day.

So, maybe soon we'll see a Phys Rev Lett--maybe one of those 47 papers in press or submitted is in there, I don't know.

Iblis said:
If the CQM theory gets thrown out for *valid* reasons, then so be it! All I ask is that we don't throw out all the experiments and experimental data with it! I do not want to see our quest for understanding this phenomena abandoned simply because of over-inflated egos or ignorance of the data behind the controversy.

Also, any proposed solutions to explaining these experiments within the standard framework need to be analyzed with the same rigor as that which is being applied to CQM. I suspect that in the end we will find some gems in CQM simply because it provides the best predictions for the anomolous experimentals results I have seen yet. If someone can produce better predictions for these anomolous results within the standard framework, great--more power to them! It will make the science a whole lot simpler, because there won't be any new theory to migrate over into accepting, teaching, and living.

At the very, very least, Mills has brought to the attention of the scientific community a number of experiments which show us some very significant processes which we don't understand. His work has given us an opportunity here to expand our understanding of our world. Period.

Johnny

I looked at his theory papers and it is clear that CQM is pseudoscience because it is in conflict with experiment. He has managed just one publication in physics essays (that's the place were many crank scientists publish their papers)


His experimental papers reporting on observed anomalies are ok. But invoking CQM is like trying to explain the Pioneer anomaly by suggesting that Copernicus could have been wrong about the Earth orbiting the Sun.


There are plenty of anomalies out there but these usually involve phenomena involving many particle systems. The examples you mention fall in this category. You can cook up a theory that seems to explain a few of these anomalies but this is doomed to failure because now you can't explain well established experimental results anymore.

Iblis said:
Such as? Please provide an example or examples.

Iblis said:
I can't find this paper... Can you provide a link please?

Iblis said:
Well, many chemical and physical systems fall into many-particle categories, this doesn't invalid them or make them any less important.

So, you are clearly stating that, in your opinion, CQM either predicts something which experimental observations contradict, and/or CQM does not allow (or predict) something which experimental observations show us to clearly be the case.

So... Please provide some examples!!! What do you see to support these statements?

...

On another note...

A new preprint has arrived on arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509003.pdf

This paper investigates the anomolous doppler broadening observed in many different plasma environments and builds more evidence to toss the standard "field acceleration" model and provides more experimental evidence which supports Randy's CQM theory...

Johnny

Actually, I found out that Andreas Rathke has taken the time to review CQM:

A critical analysis of the hydrino model

So, the conclusion is that CQM is not a viable theory. You'll have to look elswere to explain the observed anomalies.

Iblis, did you bother reading Randell Mills response to the Rathke paper?

See:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/PhysicalSolutionsNatureofAtomPhoton060805.pdf

I understand its been submitted for press.

Frankly, it seems that Rathke didn't bother to much more of Mills' theory than you did--if any. Rathke made several statements, and assumptions in his analysis which are clearly misunderstandings of Mills' theory. Mills addresses this in his response. See the end of page 1 and continuing into page 2 of the paper for an overview of these misunderstandings of the theory. Read the rest of the paper to try and get a better understanding of what Mills' theory is about and his response to the Rathke paper.

By the way, another theoretical paper finds the CQM theory plausible, see:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193

-------------------------

On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom
Authors: Jan Naudts
Comments: 8 pages, slightly improved version
Subj-class: General Physics

The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion.

------------------------

Funny how you're ready to completely dismiss a theory and pawn off reams of scientific anomolous data because you find one critical paper, without apparently, taking the time to read the response to the paper, or take into consideration other supportive experimental or theoretical material.

Too bad you have so much unscientific bias. tsk...tsk...how unscientific of you.

Iblis said:
No Iblis, you can go look elsewhere for an explanation for the anomolies (and be sure to come back if you find something pertinent to discuss)--but apparently, you'll be satisfied to dismiss it all anyways. You are clearly unscientifically biased towards your own narrow point of view. So be it...

There are plenty of other more open-minded scientific individuals with more balanced points of view which will be constructive in working through this set of experiments, data and the theories which are attempting to explain it--and more of these scientific individuals are picking up the challenge. I applaud them, regardless of where the dust settles.

Johnny

I actually read the response to Rathke before I read Rathke's paper. Now, I can't afford to spend too much time on this, but Rathke has taken the time to review Mills work in detail.

Jan Naudts work isn't relevant for CQM, but it is for the possible existence of hydrinos and maybe for the observed anomalies.


One critical paper is all that it takes to debunk a theory. Of course, one may argue that the paper may be wrong. However, if you read Rathke's paper, he is very tolerant of mathematical inconsistencies and mathematical errors that Mills has made. He doesn't dismiss the theory because of that. He actually shows that these problems cannot be corrected to make the theory work.


''You are clearly unscientifically biased towards your own narrow point of view. So be it...''

Nonsense. I have an open mind and I have published many papers on very speculative theories myself. However, I know what the difference between pseudoscience and regular science is.

But you don't have to believe me. What I think is not relevant. Mills has to prove that his theory is viable. And he can do that by publishing his theory in a respectable journal (not in Physics Essays). Only then will he have shown that his CQM is worth considering by the scientific community.

OK, I read 0509003 from arxiv, and instead of getting answers, I only have more questions.
Since in a "previous life" so to speak I used to be a plasmist working in plasma kinetics, here are the questions:
A) There is no info about the purity of the plasmas. They work with high pressure plasmas (mTorr is a high pressure plasma, despite their claims; low pressure plasmas have pressures of microTorr), using an oil forepump and glass chambers and fittings. All of these either work with oil (the pump) or they are sealed with vaseline, which by definition will impurify the gas due to vapor pressure. Furthermore, no cold trap is mentioned in the description of the chamber, which is simply moronic.
What I used to do at the time was to take a full spectrum of the plasma, when I was doing optical spectroscopy, or, in certain cases to do mass spectrometry. None such data is presented, and a small (by this I mean trace) amount of impurities can have a major effect on the plasmas (DC or RF).See organic lasers for more info.
B) Since the total broadening of the spectral lines depends on pressure also, they should have used different conditions for their experiment, and different pressure measuring devices. The standard thermal pressure gauges are notoriously unreliable (at their best, they have an error of 50% in pressure).Furthermore, such pressure gauges are affected by gas flow (they use a continuous flow in their experiments), and these morons have installed the pressure gauge at the pump, which is never done except to monitor the pumphead pressure.
C. They have used a quartz window in one of the electrodes, which is also a rater moronic thing to do since such a vindow will strongly perturb the electric field applied to the gas/plasma.
D. There is a major lack of an actual discussion of the results. Most of the 30 pages of the Discussion section is mostly blah-blah, with little quantitative considerations.

In my case, even if I were to believe that there is an "underground" H level, this data can do nothing to make me consider it as evidence for such a level.

Iblis said:
My response is from the footnote of page 24 of Mills' response:
and from page 94/95 of Mills' response:
Apart from the other errors and misunderstandings in Rathke's paper, as noted above, he copied the equation for his primary arguement incorrectly from the cited material.

You can verify this for yourself. See Rathke's equation (9) in his paper on page 4 and compare it to that in reference [24] which he cites in his paper. They are different. Subsequently, his analysis makes no sense.

Johnny

OK, Johnnyl, Rathke indeed messed a sign in the angular wave equation.And of course, this messed up all the following considerations regarding the angular distribution of charge density. I agree with Mills here, for once.

But you seem to miss the major part of it.The actual hydrino levels come from the solutions to the separated radial equation (those are the functions containing the pricipal quantum number n, and hence, the "quantization of the orbit radius"). And if you actually do the calculations, you will have to agree with Rathke, there is no way an Euler diff eqn will give you a D-delta function as a solution.

And as far as I have been able to read Mills' copious paper (99 pages for all the ramblings in there is rather preposterous, you have to admit that), he did address the error in Rathke's paper regarding the angular Laplaceian, but not the solution of the radial one, and even worse, not even the Loretz lack of invariance of his model (Mills is only looking to a rather small picture because when you think that you have to integrate QM with gravity, Lorentz invariance requirements are a must).Truth be told, he dismissed Rathke's paper in a very cavalier way, by only correcting what suited him, and claiming in the same footnote you posted that all Rathke's further considerations become invalid because of the mistake in the angular wave eqn. Which is obviously incorrect, if one bothers to read Rathke's paper in its entirety.

Hi Pasti, yes I have seen the argument before against the D-delta function... Others have brought it up too... Mills' has had a response to it which I have seen somewhere, although I have not verified what he claimed for myself.

Let me dig into it, do some research... I'll post what I find.

Your other arguments re: Lorentz invariance, etc--I will look at addressing if and when I can reconcile the dirac delta argument against the theory.

Johnny

J:"...yes I have seen the argument before against the D-delta function... Others have brought it up too... Mills' has had a response to it which I have seen somewhere, although I have not verified what he claimed for myself."

Well, he might have a response (and I would like to see it too) but what strikes me as very odd, not to mention cavalier also, is that in 99 pages he did not find the place/time/desire to address it.

J:"Let me dig into it, do some research... I'll post what I find."

OK, I am curious to read it myself, because there is no way, mathematically speaking, that an Euler eqn will give you a delta function as a solution. If you read Rathke's paper, he offers you enough tools to check that for yourself.