Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have
> yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by
> them.
>

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of
those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of
the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those
equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing.  My
strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass
ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from them.  But your knowledge here can
help to dispel this impression.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I 
have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories 
highlighted by them.


Rossi had it right years ago when he stated the skeptics will never 
believe an experiment but only the sale of working commercial units.


AA

On 3/25/2017 3:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory 
of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open 
to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going. 
But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes 
of hand waving.  Is it because these books seem impressive to some 
people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations 
on their own?


It could well be more a case of an arrogant "genius" inventor who 
thinks a guaranteed way to win a Nobel prize is to produce an 
earth-shaking theory that ditches parts of QM, to explain anomalous 
energy producing experiments. He may have had a modest amount of real 
gain for a long time, in less than ideal form. The more hand-waving 
the better, to cover up the shortfall. Sound familiar?


So far, Mills has come close to the goal of having it all, and would 
probably have succeeded had he embraced the Thermacore work... way 
back then - especially if Chuck Haldeman had been allowed to publish. 
Too bad he could not bring himself to share the honors with others, 
since he is probably further away today from the big prize than in 
1995, even if the SunCell is gainful. Thermacore had solid gains of at 
least 150% over input, but that was not enough, apparently. Since 
then, Mills has alienated many scientists, seeing them all as jealous 
competitors.


Dufour and Mayer and others like Holmlid and Meulenberg may have saved 
the day for Ni-H ... in both theory and experiment, but their work 
contradicts Mills in important ways. Mills may be intellectually 
superior to any one of them alone, but may fail miserably in the end 
-- since he is locked into a fundamental error which they dodged.


You can look up the reviews of his Millsian software package and see 
why that too has been a huge disappointment.

[Vo]:GSVIT review skeptically Report 41 (DeNinno)

[Alain Sepeda]

In Italian, their report
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/enea-rapporto-41-analisi-e-critica-tecnica-del-contenuto/

I imagine a translation, and some answers will be interesting.

[Vo]:Vital Dust

[Russ George]

It turns out that universal chemistry has produced some entirely unexpected 
dusty trails to explaining the answer to the question of life, the universe, 
and everything… http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/03/25/3788/ 

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[bobcook39923]

Is it well known based on real data that the charge of the electron remains 
constant at short distances from another charge-- positive or negative?

An interesting recent paper addresses this question.

“ Understanding the discrete nature of angular momentum of electron in hydrogen 
atom with (3G,2e) model of final unification”

at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=962

High energy electron scattering experiments may provide data to address this 
question of charge changing at short distances.  I am not sure what special 
relativity would indicate about high energy electron’s apparent charge, 
however.   

Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of the 
larger parent atom being taken into a sub-ground hydrino state.  In which case, 
each of the electrons in such a state would screen a proton and make those 
protons appear like neutrons.  For example, say one of the S orbital electrons 
of 55Co went into a sub-ground state orbital screening one if the proton 
charges.  The atom would appear chemically to have one less proton and one more 
neutron - becoming 55Fe.  From a nuclear stability standpoint, though it would 
still appear as 55Co presumably (but this is also unstable in this case).
A pico-hydride implies that the hydrino hydrogen would be able to form a shared 
chemical (electron) bond with the low abundance stable 54Fe.  I just can't 
imagine a hydrino being able to share an electronic state with another atom 
because the hydrino's electron is so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not 
an ordinary valence bond for sure.  In a high resolution mass spectrometer, the 
54Fe+picohydride would weigh more than a 55Fe and that should be observable.  
They have such a spectrometer at Purdue.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
 Bob Higgins wrote:
The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen 
suggest that it will be really hard to detect...  It must be detected by proxy. 
 Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require new, 
inventive techniques

Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I brought up 
Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride. It 
is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen.

The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a way 
that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT radioactive. Normal 
55Fe is strongly radioactive. 

This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the smoking 
gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory so he will 
never agree.

[Vo]:LENR, shorter weekend edition

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-25-2017-lenr-shorter-weekend-edition.html

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Jones Beene]

Eric Walker wrote:
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory 
of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open 
to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going.  
But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes 
of hand waving.  Is it because these books seem impressive to some 
people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on 
their own?


It could well be more a case of an arrogant "genius" inventor who thinks 
a guaranteed way to win a Nobel prize is to produce an earth-shaking 
theory that ditches parts of QM, to explain anomalous energy producing 
experiments. He may have had a modest amount of real gain for a long 
time, in less than ideal form. The more hand-waving the better, to cover 
up the shortfall. Sound familiar?


So far, Mills has come close to the goal of having it all, and would 
probably have succeeded had he embraced the Thermacore work... way back 
then - especially if Chuck Haldeman had been allowed to publish. Too bad 
he could not bring himself to share the honors with others, since he is 
probably further away today from the big prize than in 1995, even if the 
SunCell is gainful. Thermacore had solid gains of at least 150% over 
input, but that was not enough, apparently. Since then, Mills has 
alienated many scientists, seeing them all as jealous competitors.


Dufour and Mayer and others like Holmlid and Meulenberg may have saved 
the day for Ni-H ... in both theory and experiment, but their work 
contradicts Mills in important ways. Mills may be intellectually 
superior to any one of them alone, but may fail miserably in the end -- 
since he is locked into a fundamental error which they dodged.


You can look up the reviews of his Millsian software package and see why 
that too has been a huge disappointment.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Eric Walker]

The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of
Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy, and I have a hard time not
concluding that this is other than intentional.  I had my suspicions from
the start, but they were more than borne out when we actually looked at one
of the "predictions," in this case of the electron-neutron mass ratio:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4761-brilliant-light-power-dec-16-2016-uk-roadshow/?postID=45162#post45162

The mess of equations are obviously word salad, and no one who champions
Mills has been willing to connect the dots.

I guess I'm open to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps
them going.  But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several
volumes of hand waving.  Is it because these books seem impressive to some
people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on
their own?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:  I just can't imagine a hydrino being able to share 
an electronic state with another atom because the hydrino's electron is 
so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond 
for sure.


... a premise for this is extreme magnetic binding

In a high resolution mass spectrometer, the 54Fe+picohydride would weigh 
more than a 55Fe and that should be observable.  They have such a 
spectrometer at Purdue.


... Well - this is where it gets interesting. The dense hydrogen would 
only weigh slightly more if it was the standard hydrogen mass when bound 
to the iron. But... according to Mayer, the proton gives up mass in the 
dense (pico-hydride) state.


Assuming Mayer and Dufour are talking about essentially the same species 
- it will probably weigh less (compared to 54Fe+P) on a high resolution 
MS device, but if there is any difference at all, it will be important 
to quantify that difference. Let's hope the results get published. They 
would answer a lot of questions.


The pico-hydride would have a huge magnetic field due to the single 
electron spin at tight geometry (mega-Tesla) and that would indicate 
that the species would have a preference to strongly bind to iron, 
nickel and cobalt - the ferromagnetic elements. Since cobalt is nearly 
100% single isotope at amu 59, it would be interesting to look for 60Co 
in a reaction, and this assumes that cobalt induces the reaction 
catalytically as iron, nickel and palladium are known to do. Anyway, a 
mix of Pd and Co under heat and hydrogen pressure could show anomalous 
60Co, which would be a smoking gun of densification.


The reason that Mills would not like this is simple - the Mayer/Dufour 
MO is highly indicative of the single reduction event -- instead of 
Mills' own 136 steps, for which the proof is weak to non-existent.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Bob Higgins]

There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of
the larger parent atom being taken into a sub-ground hydrino state.  In
which case, each of the electrons in such a state would screen a proton and
make those protons appear like neutrons.  For example, say one of the S
orbital electrons of 55Co went into a sub-ground state orbital screening
one if the proton charges.  The atom would appear chemically to have one
less proton and one more neutron - becoming 55Fe.  From a nuclear stability
standpoint, though it would still appear as 55Co presumably (but this is
also unstable in this case).

A pico-hydride implies that the hydrino hydrogen would be able to form a
shared chemical (electron) bond with the low abundance stable 54Fe.  I just
can't imagine a hydrino being able to share an electronic state with
another atom because the hydrino's electron is so tightly bound to the
hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond for sure.  In a high
resolution mass spectrometer, the 54Fe+picohydride would weigh more than a
55Fe and that should be observable.  They have such a spectrometer at
Purdue.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen
> suggest that it will be really hard to detect...  It must be detected by
> proxy.  Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require
> new, inventive techniques
>
>>
>> Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I brought
> up Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called
> pico-hydride. It is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen.
>
> The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a
> way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT
> radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive.
>
> This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the
> smoking gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory so
> he will never agree.
>

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Jones Beene]

 Bob Higgins wrote:

The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state 
hydrogen suggest that it will be really hard to detect...  It must be 
detected by proxy.  Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the 
hydrino will require new, inventive techniques



Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I 
brought up Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called 
pico-hydride. It is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen.


The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a 
way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT 
radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive.


This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the 
smoking gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory 
so he will never agree.

[Vo]:The new Rossi theory paper

[Axil Axil]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf

In the new Rossi theory paper, a tunneling current is seen to flow between
the nickel electrodes.

The tunneling current flow of R = 1 Ohm , U = 0.105 Volt may be caused by
nanoscale superconductivity were the plasma is an imperfect superconductor
and the current flow is caused by a pseudogap.​

High-temperature superconductivity doesn't happen all at once. As doping
increases, superconductivity starts in isolated nanoscale patches that
gradually expand until they take over. In this case, superconductive
quasiparticles develop in the plasma so that electrons tunnel between the
patches of superconductivity resulting in a pseudogap​.

Does this mean that this level of current flow is caused by Crossed Andreev
reflection between two normal  electrodes separated by an imperfectly
developing superconductive plasma?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_reflection​

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Bob Higgins]

The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen
suggest that it will be really hard to detect.  According to Meulenberg,
these states lack sufficient angular momentum to have a photon
transaction.  Thus, the hydrino hydrogen would not have telltale absorption
spectra of any kind.  It must be detected by proxy.  Like detecting the
neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require new, inventive techniques
and custom (probably expensive) equipment.  Mills probably doesn't care as
long as his SunCell works based on his insight from the hydrino hypothesis.

Once I was visiting a university professor friend who had developed a nifty
hydrogen sensor based on a metal film that was so thin it could not be seen
even under the SEM.  I commented that having an invisible technology is
wonderful for being able to safely share your device for testing.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> One of the better articles to appear on the subject of LENR in the context
> of a valid commercial effort appeared recently in C (which is becoming a
> top flight science journal) and was picked up by SciAm.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-
> lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
>
> Stephen Ritter, the author, relies a lot on his expert Howard J. Wilk ,
> who is an organic chemist, obsessed with Randy Mills’s progress, still
> trying to decide if the SunCell commercialization effort is real or scam.
> The situation with Rossi is a little clearer on the negative side, and
> should be resolved in a few months, at least in its legal aspects, but the
> idea that Mills could be a more sophisticated con-artist is hard for many
> to digest. RM has real and impressive academic credentials and other
> business accomplishments (software)... and "no priors", as Harry Bosch
> would say. Much of the following is quoted or paraphrased from Ritter's
> fine article.
>
> In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had ever isolated hydrinos, and although
> Mills had previously written in research papers and patents that he had,
> Mills replied that he had not. Moreover, it would be “a really, really huge
> task.” Side note: This is an outright cop-out by Mills - since he was
> actually showing vials of hydrino compounds as far back as 15 years ago. No
> matter what his credentials are, Mills has the habit of spreading blatant
> falsehoods, to a lesser degree than Andrea Rossi, but enough to make one
> wonder if the same character flaws are not deeply embedded.
>
> Almost everyone who has closely followed Mills agrees: If the SunCell
> generates hydrinos and megawatts, then there has to be demonstrable hard
> evidence: “Show us the hydrino!” Wilk mentions four possible explanations:
> Mills’s science is actually correct, [but harder to tame than it should be,
> possibly missing a single piece of understanding], it’s a complete fraud by
> a genius with no morals [this could be closer to Rossi], or it’s just
> simply bad science [providing a lavish livelihood at investor's expense],
> or it’s what Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called "pathological
> science"... which is a kind of logical delusion that Langmuir himself
> suffered from, at times. We could add that a mix of several of these is
> more likely. Even so, even the skeptics hope that there is some grain of
> truth involved in the claims.
>
> “I hope they’re right,” Wilk says but he has never been a true believer.
> “I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been detected by others in
> laboratories or in nature years ago and would be used by now.” As an
> wanna-be-believer, I would add that the "solar wind" should be an
> undeniable source of hydrinos and should have shown the needed hard
> evidence, based on Mills theory, since it has been studied since 1859. You
> have to imagine that in the past 27 years, Mills has spent millions on
> finding real particles. If not, why not?
>
> We on this forum have for years been coming to same conclusion as Ritter:
> "All the discussions about cold fusion and LENR end this way: They always
> come back to the fact that no one has a commercial device on the market
> yet, and none of the prototypes seem workable on a commercial scale in the
> near future." Plus, the inventors always follow one failed effort with what
> looks like a serial scam, a next big disappointment and never let 3rd
> parties test any device independently.
>
> A real product, even if only micro scale or a toy - not a legal proceeding
> or massive fund-raising effort, will be the ultimate arbiter of truth...
> but isolating dense hydrogen in the solar wind, with the agreement of NASA,
> would help immensely.
>
> Another possible way to confirm - from Dufour's ICCF20 paper is the
> iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride.
>
> This is dense hydrogen, which is attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in
> such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT
> radioactive. 

[Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Jones Beene]

One of the better articles to appear on the subject of LENR in the 
context of a valid commercial effort appeared recently in C (which is 
becoming a top flight science journal) and was picked up by SciAm.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

Stephen Ritter, the author, relies a lot on his expert Howard J. Wilk , 
who is an organic chemist, obsessed with Randy Mills’s progress, still 
trying to decide if the SunCell commercialization effort is real or 
scam. The situation with Rossi is a little clearer on the negative side, 
and should be resolved in a few months, at least in its legal aspects, 
but the idea that Mills could be a more sophisticated con-artist is hard 
for many to digest. RM has real and impressive academic credentials and 
other business accomplishments (software)... and "no priors", as Harry 
Bosch would say. Much of the following is quoted or paraphrased from 
Ritter's fine article.


In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had ever isolated hydrinos, and although 
Mills had previously written in research papers and patents that he had, 
Mills replied that he had not. Moreover, it would be “a really, really 
huge task.” Side note: This is an outright cop-out by Mills - since he 
was actually showing vials of hydrino compounds as far back as 15 years 
ago. No matter what his credentials are, Mills has the habit of 
spreading blatant falsehoods, to a lesser degree than Andrea Rossi, but 
enough to make one wonder if the same character flaws are not deeply 
embedded.


Almost everyone who has closely followed Mills agrees: If the SunCell 
generates hydrinos and megawatts, then there has to be demonstrable hard 
evidence: “Show us the hydrino!” Wilk mentions four possible 
explanations: Mills’s science is actually correct, [but harder to tame 
than it should be, possibly missing a single piece of understanding], 
it’s a complete fraud by a genius with no morals [this could be closer 
to Rossi], or it’s just simply bad science [providing a lavish 
livelihood at investor's expense], or it’s what Nobel Laureate Irving 
Langmuir called "pathological science"... which is a kind of logical 
delusion that Langmuir himself suffered from, at times. We could add 
that a mix of several of these is more likely. Even so, even the 
skeptics hope that there is some grain of truth involved in the claims.


“I hope they’re right,” Wilk says but he has never been a true believer. 
“I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been detected by others in 
laboratories or in nature years ago and would be used by now.” As an 
wanna-be-believer, I would add that the "solar wind" should be an 
undeniable source of hydrinos and should have shown the needed hard 
evidence, based on Mills theory, since it has been studied since 1859. 
You have to imagine that in the past 27 years, Mills has spent millions 
on finding real particles. If not, why not?


We on this forum have for years been coming to same conclusion as 
Ritter: "All the discussions about cold fusion and LENR end this way: 
They always come back to the fact that no one has a commercial device on 
the market yet, and none of the prototypes seem workable on a commercial 
scale in the near future." Plus, the inventors always follow one failed 
effort with what looks like a serial scam, a next big disappointment and 
never let 3rd parties test any device independently.


A real product, even if only micro scale or a toy - not a legal 
proceeding or massive fund-raising effort, will be the ultimate arbiter 
of truth... but isolating dense hydrogen in the solar wind, with the 
agreement of NASA, would help immensely.


Another possible way to confirm - from Dufour's ICCF20 paper is the 
iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride.


This is dense hydrogen, which is attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in 
such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT 
radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive. This is brilliant ! 
and could be the smoking gun for dense hydrogen reality, but it does not 
come from Mills and has a different lineage, so to speak.