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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vo]:The new Rossi theory paper

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Vo]:LENR, shorter weekend edition

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?

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

[Vo]:Vital Dust

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?

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

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

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