Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:06:03 -0800: Hi, This is one area where my version differs from Mills. In his model radiation is possible in this case. In mine, it would only be possible through the intervention of a second atom, with which angular momentum could be exchanged allowing for the formation of a photon. Of course in practice, it's probably impossible to tell whether or not a collision took place during emission of a photon. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:36:40 -0500 (EST): Hi Dave, The point I was trying to make, is that Maxwell's laws were all based upon macroscopic experimental evidence. Little was known of atoms at the time. Hence the limitations were not obvious. The equations governing radiation may need to be modified to include the fact that photons have h_bar angular momentum, as a limiting criterion. To use your modeling approach, space-time around the atom vibrates synchronously with the electron, but the vibration remains localized, unable to leave the atom as a traveling wave. Instead, it is locked in place as a localized standing wave. Energy constantly being exchanged back and forth between the medium and the electron, without loss. ...here I don't want it, you have it, no, no, I don't want it you have it(hot potato) ;) I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the ground state. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In analysis, it is important to understand what is fundamental and what is emergent. Are electrons fundamental or do they emerge from something more basic. For example, the spin net model of the vacume purports to show the derivation of photons, electrons, and U(1) gauge charge, small (relative to the planck mass) but nonzero masses, and suggestions that the leptons, quarks, and gluons, can be modeled in the same way. In other words, string-net condensation provides an unification of photon and electron (or gauge bosons and fermions). It can be viewed as an origin of light and electron (or gauge interactions and Fermi statistics). Under this way of thinking, an electron is a break(topological defect) in a light string. The string net liquid is the first medium from which the Maxwell equations can be derived. In condensed matter physics, a string-net is a fundamental extended object whose collective behavior has been proposed as a physical mechanism for topological order by Michael A. Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:36:40 -0500 (EST): Hi Dave, The point I was trying to make, is that Maxwell's laws were all based upon macroscopic experimental evidence. Little was known of atoms at the time. Hence the limitations were not obvious. The equations governing radiation may need to be modified to include the fact that photons have h_bar angular momentum, as a limiting criterion. To use your modeling approach, space-time around the atom vibrates synchronously with the electron, but the vibration remains localized, unable to leave the atom as a traveling wave. Instead, it is locked in place as a localized standing wave. Energy constantly being exchanged back and forth between the medium and the electron, without loss. ...here I don't want it, you have it, no, no, I don't want it you have it(hot potato) ;) I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. I agree. It does sound problematic. At the moment my main challenge is to understand Mills's claims, and then to understand what's been overlain on top of them in an attempt to improve upon them. The claim of a continuum spectrum photon emission as the electron inhabits a new redundant level may be an innovation on Mills's work rather than his own. I personally find the possibility quite unlikely. I would have expected the model to only transfer energy to the environment from the action on the Mills catalyst. In that case, I assume the total balance of energy escaping the hydrino would be a clean multiple 27.2 eV. But it's possible that Mills also discussed the part about the additional broadband photons being emitted above and beyond that. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
The way that it was explained to me (by my son who understands these things much more than I do) was that in a nuclear reaction that nucleus suddenly has lots of excess energy to get rid of, and normally the only option that its available that allows energy and momentum to be balanced is to emit a photon. If the reaction takes place in a 'controlled' way within a solid state system then there may be other ways for the nucleus to loose the excess energy without resorting to emitting a photon. There would still be elemental transformation of course. Does the 'solid state' fuel pellets provide such an environment? If BLP is nuclear at its heart then the alternative energy path would have to be very effiient for so much energy to be released as thermal energy (which is the implication of what we are told) without there being any measureable radioactivity. Nigel On 24/01/2014 03:06, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
As Jones Beene often reminds us, Mills theory is not a nuclear theory, it is chemical only, Therefore, no involvement of the nucleus. That means no transmutation an no gamma rays. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: The way that it was explained to me (by my son who understands these things much more than I do) was that in a nuclear reaction that nucleus suddenly has lots of excess energy to get rid of, and normally the only option that its available that allows energy and momentum to be balanced is to emit a photon. If the reaction takes place in a 'controlled' way within a solid state system then there may be other ways for the nucleus to loose the excess energy without resorting to emitting a photon. There would still be elemental transformation of course. Does the 'solid state' fuel pellets provide such an environment? If BLP is nuclear at its heart then the alternative energy path would have to be very effiient for so much energy to be released as thermal energy (which is the implication of what we are told) without there being any measureable radioactivity. Nigel On 24/01/2014 03:06, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
From: David Roberson Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic Gentlemen, It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband emission (noise) or so-called continuum with a cutoff is an artful evasion (cop-out) by Mills and could be a relic of instrumentation he has employed. It is that simple. It is almost meaningless. Mills cannot show several of the strong emission peaks corresponding to Rydberg multiples (as a the tell-tale signature which his theory predicts). The one or two that are seen are close but not exact . so he has invented this kludge. Yes we have talked about the invented neutrino proving itself later, but that cannot be a good analogy to this situation. Can anyone produce an opinion to the contrary by a spectroscopy expert who is not employed by BLP? Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
the continuum is not easy to see in the data because it is hidden by emissions due other atoms such as oxygen etc. But in some of their experiments, the fact that they get *any* xrays (the continuum radiation and oxygen peaks) is some proof of hydrinos because the voltage used to create it was so low that the xrays shouldn't exist. Only when they have a mixture of hydrogen and the low voltage do they get the xrays. Whey they remove the hydrogen and use other gasses they get no xrays (contimuum etc.). *And* there is other data that supports hydrinos such as balmer line widening, NMR data, Raman spectroscopy with the measurements exactly matching what the hydrino theory predicts. There is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment also. The continuum radiation happens after the hydrogen gives up a multiple of 27.2 eV to the catalyst and then the electron is in a no mans land area *between* stable fractional principal quantum number orbits. A stable orbit has exactly 1 unit of angular momentum hbar and the centripetal acceleration force outwards is balanced with electrostatic force in towards the nucleus. The electron, which is not in a stable orbit at this point, then spirals down to the next *lower* stable (fractional) orbit. It emits continuum radiation photon because it is spriraling down, like a sattelite spiraling down when it hits the drag of the earths atmosphere. I assume the reason for the continuum radiation photon is because the atom is in the no-radiation states as described by Hermann Haus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* David Roberson Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic Gentlemen, It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband emission (noise) or so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is an artful evasion (cop-out) by Mills and could be a relic of instrumentation he has employed. It is that simple. It is almost meaningless. Mills cannot show several of the strong emission peaks corresponding to Rydberg multiples (as a the tell-tale signature which his theory predicts). The one or two that are seen are close but not exact … so he has invented this kludge. Yes we have talked about the “invented neutrino” proving itself later, but that cannot be a good analogy to this situation. Can anyone produce an opinion to the contrary by a spectroscopy expert who is not employed by BLP? Jones -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Corrected for spelling and revised There is a well know property of nano-particles explained by nano-engineersing and nano-optics which provides conversion of incoming photon energy to either increase(even x-ray level) or decrease the frequency of the outgoing photon frequency. Other sited spectroscopic results can be explained by nano-particle interations with photons. If the hydrino has been mistaken for nanoparticle activity, this experimentally observed behavior is to be expected. This ambiguity in the interpretation of experimental results can be removed if Mills can prove that nanoparticles are not generated through the action of the catalysts and hydrogen. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: the continuum is not easy to see in the data because it is hidden by emissions due other atoms such as oxygen etc. But in some of their experiments, the fact that they get *any* xrays (the continuum radiation and oxygen peaks) is some proof of hydrinos because the voltage used to create it was so low that the xrays shouldn't exist. Only when they have a mixture of hydrogen and the low voltage do they get the xrays. Whey they remove the hydrogen and use other gasses they get no xrays (contimuum etc.). *And* there is other data that supports hydrinos such as balmer line widening, NMR data, Raman spectroscopy with the measurements exactly matching what the hydrino theory predicts. There is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment also. The continuum radiation happens after the hydrogen gives up a multiple of 27.2 eV to the catalyst and then the electron is in a no mans land area *between* stable fractional principal quantum number orbits. A stable orbit has exactly 1 unit of angular momentum hbar and the centripetal acceleration force outwards is balanced with electrostatic force in towards the nucleus. The electron, which is not in a stable orbit at this point, then spirals down to the next *lower* stable (fractional) orbit. It emits continuum radiation photon because it is spriraling down, like a sattelite spiraling down when it hits the drag of the earths atmosphere. I assume the reason for the continuum radiation photon is because the atom is in the no-radiation states as described by Hermann Haus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* David Roberson Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic Gentlemen, It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband emission (noise) or so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is an artful evasion (cop-out) by Mills and could be a relic of instrumentation he has employed. It is that simple. It is almost meaningless. Mills cannot show several of the strong emission peaks corresponding to Rydberg multiples (as a the tell-tale signature which his theory predicts). The one or two that are seen are close but not exact … so he has invented this kludge. Yes we have talked about the “invented neutrino” proving itself later, but that cannot be a good analogy to this situation. Can anyone produce an opinion to the contrary by a spectroscopy expert who is not employed by BLP? Jones -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:48:41 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. It is the nature of the photon itself which imposes the restriction. Photons have certain requirements, and if the moving electron can't meet those requirements, then no photon can be constructed. The result is trapped energy, which can't radiate, because the requirements can't be met. Mills uses the Haus condition to explain the trapping, while I use lack of angular momentum to explain it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? Radiation can be generated at every frequency above zero radians per second but, as you suspect, it becomes difficult to develop an efficient radiating structure at near zero. In the case of an atom, no radiation at all should be allowed, regardless of how inefficient the radiating structure unless it happens to be at one of the defined energy lines. So, if Mills' model has a structure that allows the distant E and H fields to vary in time at any rate, then it would radiate at that frequency. A non radiating structure can be shown to hold the far E and H fields constant at all frequencies. The loop carrying DC that I often use as a model is an example of a structure that does not radiate, but that is only true when continuous smooth DC flows around the loop. If for an experiment you collected the distributed charge from the perimeter of the DC loop and turned it into a single point charge in motion around the loop, radiation would be generated. This is a result of the accelerated charge in motion around the perimeter of the loop. When you spread the charge evenly however, each tiny incremental charge is accelerated and radiates into space. But, radiation is balanced out in all far field directions by the vector summation of all of the infinite incremental radiating segments. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 4:20 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:48:41 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. It is the nature of the photon itself which imposes the restriction. Photons have certain requirements, and if the moving electron can't meet those requirements, then no photon can be constructed. The result is trapped energy, which can't radiate, because the requirements can't be met. Mills uses the Haus condition to explain the trapping, while I use lack of angular momentum to explain it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the ground state. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the ground state. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Come to think of it, if a single photon were to remain trapped within a tiny cavity, it would loose energy and be converted into lower frequency photons as that occurred unless the cavity had no loss. If you consider that many photons could be trapped in the same hole together, energy loss should still occur. Would each behave individually and all slowly loose energy in synchronism? Would the loss be taken from one while the others remain intact? Classical analysis has not problem dealing with this situation since it would only be concerned with the total energy. That may be a more appropriate way to handle these cases. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:47 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
But Dear David, If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand waving just won't due. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I agree with you Axil. I suspect the theory will stand or fall when it attempts to explain many of these special cases. So far, the applications have been limited. If the theory is to move ahead it must be tested and stressed. I am trying to keep an open mind in spite of plenty of questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement But Dear David, If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand waving just won't due. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills needs to explain in detail, the white light(broadband) emissions case in terms of fractional hydrino orbits. Maybe he has? But until I run across that theory, I think that hydrinos are mistaken for nanoparticles produced by catalysts. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree with you Axil. I suspect the theory will stand or fall when it attempts to explain many of these special cases. So far, the applications have been limited. If the theory is to move ahead it must be tested and stressed. I am trying to keep an open mind in spite of plenty of questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement But Dear David, If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand waving just won't due. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:36:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. By this logic, Copernicus should only have improved on the theory of epicycles, iso completely replacing it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
What I mean to say is that first Mills is required to explain in total, the double slit experiment including the measurement paradox and then he should move forward from there. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:36:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. By this logic, Copernicus should only have improved on the theory of epicycles, iso completely replacing it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A dipole nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Powers technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the ultraviolet catastrophe of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing : http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1 the hydrino has a an electric dipole when the density of charge builds up locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find out by asking Mills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills’ work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A ‘dipole’ nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills’ intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell *From:* Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce n%0d%0athyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal -uds-cs%0d%0aeusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV . and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I've been working on an alternative
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hαand H β transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones *From:* Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hi Peter, There is no reason to delve into unknown physical processes when there is a well known alternative way to test for a signature of hydrino redundancy. This was in fact performed in the Lehigh work. It is obvious and it could be done by Mills today, except for the fact that oops . it does not show anything helpful. There was no signature below 55 eV in the Lehigh testing and there was NO CONTINUM either. The very foundation of Mills' theory rests on the Hartree value of 27.2 eV. This is mentioned at the core of every Patent application which Mills' has file. The issue of a continuum energy was a late addition which has been based on the fact that there is no signature where there should be one. The fact that Mills cannot demonstrate a signature at this Hartree value has - in recent years forced him to retreat into another mode that he can defend since it is basically (s you say) an unknown physical process - which is this continuing spectrum. I think that it is a cop-out - pain and simple. I think the demo will be an insult to anyone without a financial interest in BLP - which is all of the yes men which will be in attendance. Ask Mills for permission that one skeptic attend - LOL. Mills goes into full retreat mode. The demo is a joke and it will be a stage publicity event - meaning very little other than to calm the fears of the guys who have already invested $80 million and are seeing that disappear with Andrea Rossi's HotCat. From: P.J van Noorden Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce n%0d%0athyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal -uds-cs%0d%0aeusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jeff, Mills only provided the cell which was send to Conrads. Mills was not involved in the experiments which where done in Jüllich by Conrads (and a Phd). Conrads was a very respected plasmaphysicist (Germany). Unfortunateley he died years ago. A collegue of him in the Netherlands continued his work Peter - Original Message - From: Jeff Driscoll To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750�C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the H� and H� transitions as well as the L� and L� transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Like producing a positively charge sphere and bringing it near a negatively charged sphere in order to get the negative sphere to discharge? Harry On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
What Mills presents as a definitive demonstration of hydrinos is illustrate in the Technical Presentation using a special apparatus and performed by GEN 3 partners. The apparatus produces a stream of protons which is illuminated by a burst from an electron gun. The spectrum from the creation of hydrogen atoms is in the sub 10 nanometer range, below the cutoff point for normal hydrogen. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce nthyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-c seusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV . and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I've been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) - but the conclusion is that this signal
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jones You mean the experiment in which a very long capillary tube of nickel was pressurised with H2 gas and put in a K2CO3 solution? Peter - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:11 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Peter, Here is the citation on the LENR site. The fact that it is an older paper should not diminish the fact that it was in Mills’ interest to ignore both the results and the Lehigh technique. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cseusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ sa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cseusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ As Dave immediately recognized – this is the obvious way that one validates a redundant ground state. The reason that Mills does not now do validation in this way could be because he realizes that it does not really validate his contention well enough - that there are various progressive steps in redundancy. Plus the value is not exactly the predicted value, and it is off by a significant fraction (55 eV instead of 54.4 eV). At the time that slight variation seemed to be within acceptable limits, and in fact Thermacore said it was “predicted by Mills” but now, with better testing twenty years later - the truth may be “inconvenient” … and the true value may indeed be the higher energy level number, which is not a Rydberg multiple as Mills’ theory suggests that it should be. Yes – that is an opinion and a reinterpretation - so we can leave it like that for now, and agree to disagree until more is known. Jones
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jones, the Thermacore experiment was done before I was tracking the scene, and I believe Mills and Thermacore had gone their separate ways. You might term it a gas phase experiment because the capillary tubing was internally pressurized. The excess heat reaction occurred in an electrolytic environment with K+ ions the catalyst. For Mills it confirmed his hypothesis, but the energy density was too low to be useful. The gas phase experiments were done at about 1 Torr in a microwave-excited Evanson cavity. This provided a controllable research environment, but still not the needed energy density, which led to solid catalysts. There H and a catalyst are intimate until an activation temperature is reached. An early system based on this was verified at Rowan University with cooperation of the chemistry department. You have been diligent in highlighting mistakes and dead ends that Mills has encountered: I am also aware of them, but I prefer to highlight the progress. Mike arrell _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I have read Conrad’s account of his experiments, which were very well done and clearly demonstrated he phenomena Mills claimed when the Mills conditions were met. His report was available on the BLP websitefor some time. Mike Carrell From: P.J van Noorden [mailto:pjvannoor...@caiway.nl] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Hello Jeff, Mills only provided the cell which was send to Conrads. Mills was not involved in the experiments which where done in Jüllich by Conrads (and a Phd). Conrads was a very respected plasmaphysicist (Germany). Unfortunateley he died years ago. A collegue of him in the Netherlands continued his work Peter - Original Message - From: Jeff Driscoll mailto:jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750�C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the H� and H� transitions as well as the L� and L� transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. If Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation. The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as the charge rotation speed goes to zero. A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna. Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal. I suggest you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am describing. My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non radiating is valid. The information on your site showing how Mills describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of small loops would work as a non radiating design. This is true if the current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to describe. Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating. As I also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each. This would include the S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics. All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing : http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1 the hydrino has a an electric dipole when the density of charge builds up locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find out by asking Mills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills’ work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A ‘dipole’ nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills’ intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I don't understand it, but it seems to be answered here - on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition quoting from portions: Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2] The nonradiation condition went largely ignored for many years. Philip Pearle reviews the subject in his 1982 article Classical Electron Models.[7] A Reed College undergraduate thesis on nonradiation in infinite planes and solenoids appears in 1984.[8] An important advance occurred in 1986, when Hermann Haus derived Goedeke’s condition in a new way.[2] Haus finds that all radiation is caused by Fourier components of the charge/current distribution that are lightlike (i.e. components that are synchronous with light speed). When a distribution has no lightlike Fourier components, such as a point charge in uniform motion, then there is no radiation. Haus uses his formulation to explain Cerenkov radiation in which the speed of light of the surrounding medium is less than c. Randell Mills uses the nonradiation condition as the foundation for his model of the hydrogen atom, in which the electron is a two-dimensional extended membrane of negative charge that is stable according to this condition.[9] Mills' model is controversial and not accepted by the scientific community, which currently accepts the theory of quantum mechanics in which the electron does not need to obey classical physics. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_A._Haus On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. If Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation. The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as the charge rotation speed goes to zero. A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna. Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal. I suggest you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am describing. My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non radiating is valid. The information on your site showing how Mills describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of small loops would work as a non radiating design. This is true if the current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to describe. Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating. As I also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each. This would include the S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics. All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing : http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. I believe the charge distribution in the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, in order to provide a replacement for the spin quantum number [1]. This gives the sphere an electric dipole moment. Two questions I have are (1) what regulates the distribution of charge when there's a single orbitsphere (e.g., hydrogen), and (2) how do the orbitspheres orient themselves when there are multiple, encapsulating orbitspheres? For example, why does the charge distribution not vary over time? And when there are multiple, containing orbitspheres, do they cancel one another out, with the distributions orienting in order to minimize Coulomb repulsion? Also, since the charge density over the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, I take it that a single great circle of circulating current of width dx will not have a vector sum of charge of zero. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. I get the impression that probability is not thought to apply -- the orbitsphere is the sum total of an infinite number of great circles of circulating current of width dx and (possibly varying) thickness dz. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this point. Eric [1] http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. I was attempting to explain how the probabilistic location and movement of electrons according to quantum mechanics is non radiating. As long as an observer at the far field locations does not detect a change in the E or H field vectors as a function of time, then no radiation will be generated. Begin with a DC current flowing within a loop of wire and you will see that at a far off location the H field remains constant for all time. No change generally means no radiation. Of course, there exists a constant value which leads to the magnetic field due to the loop current. Note that this is also at a zero radian per second rate if expressed in frequency terms. If you look into the situation further, you will realize that any 3 dimensional current path is non radiational provided the current flows at a constant rate at every point along the structure. Charges will be accelerated in most wire configurations, but no radiation is generated. The S,P,D, and any other orbital shapes can be accommodated. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 8:04 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. I believe the charge distribution in the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, in order to provide a replacement for the spin quantum number [1]. This gives the sphere an electric dipole moment. Two questions I have are (1) what regulates the distribution of charge when there's a single orbitsphere (e.g., hydrogen), and (2) how do the orbitspheres orient themselves when there are multiple, encapsulating orbitspheres? For example, why does the charge distribution not vary over time? And when there are multiple, containing orbitspheres, do they cancel one another out, with the distributions orienting in order to minimize Coulomb repulsion? Also, since the charge density over the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, I take it that a single great circle of circulating current of width dx will not have a vector sum of charge of zero. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. I get the impression that probability is not thought to apply -- the orbitsphere is the sum total of an infinite number of great circles of circulating current of width dx and (possibly varying) thickness dz. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this point. Eric [1] http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized situations were so similar that I assumed you were discussing the Mills model of the atom. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
My bad. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized situations were so similar that I assumed you were discussing the Mills model of the atom. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. Im no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This **is** what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
OK Mike, I desire a better understanding to what Mills has derived from classical fields. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to join that group provided I meet the qualifications. Perhaps Dr. Mills can answer my questions in person which I would appreciate greatly. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I have a good intro to the basics of Mills's theory (plus much more detail) at http://zhydrogen.com/ much of it is details on the hydrogen atom and hydrinos - I don't go into details of SQM (Standard Quantum Mechanics) vs CQM (Classical Quantum Mechanics) where Mills's theory is based on CQM. Mills's theory fits existing data better than standard quantum mechanics and the equations are *much* simpler and easier to understand, though it takes some elbow grease to understand it, Jeff On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Mike, I desire a better understanding to what Mills has derived from classical fields. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to join that group provided I meet the qualifications. Perhaps Dr. Mills can answer my questions in person which I would appreciate greatly. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This **is** what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the ultraviolet catastrophe of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. Im no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Thanks Jeff, I attempted to download some of the pdfs on BLP site and had no luck so far. I will look at yours next and hope for better. I prefer classical fields over quantum mechanics provided it covers the bases. It would seem very strange to find out that the current theories are easy to replace with Mills' concepts since they appear so differently based. Who knows, one day that might occur, and I will be pleasantly surprised. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I have a good intro to the basics of Mills's theory (plus much more detail) at http://zhydrogen.com/ much of it is details on the hydrogen atom and hydrinos - I don't go into details of SQM (Standard Quantum Mechanics) vs CQM (Classical Quantum Mechanics) where Mills's theory is based on CQM. Mills's theory fits existing data better than standard quantum mechanics and the equations are *much* simpler and easier to understand, though it takes some elbow grease to understand it, Jeff On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Mike, I desire a better understanding to what Mills has derived from classical fields. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to join that group provided I meet the qualifications. Perhaps Dr. Mills can answer my questions in person which I would appreciate greatly. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Unusual, that sounds like an important postulate of the Mills theory. For those who know it well, where can I find it written in the 2,000 some odd pages that explains the theory; it takes energy to lose energy. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:13 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills is in good company when he cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. The belief that an electron is located at a tiny point which then rotates around the nucleus is the main problem. As you state, an accelerated charge should always radiate and that most likely is true under most conditions. The beauty of a distributed charge such as Mills is apparently assuming is that each differential point on the orbit occupied by a infinitesimal charge radiates into space just as theory predicts. At the far field, one could theoretically detect that radiation. Fortunately, there is a vector addition of radiated waves from all of the tiny charges around the orbit at every point in far space. The net vector sum of all the components is exactly zero with one exception which is at a frequency of zero radians per second. This zero radian per second field is actually the atomic magnetic field that we measure. It evades me as to why the early theorists did not build upon the fact that a moving distributed electron charge could prevent radiation and the associated energy loss. Perhaps they were so attached to the point electron concept that they could not move beyond that issue. Now, it appears that Mills has brought the idea back into focus. I sincerely hope that his methods and conclusions are acceptable. The thermodynamic questions that arise as a result of having a sink for energy that only appears to operate in one direction remain. Generally, if energy can be taken from hydrogen to convert it into a hydrino, then the other direction should be possible. You would suspect that some of the hydrinos would extract energy from other atoms and head toward the zero radiation state. I am thinking about a laser medium that can not lase when subject to a large number of photons at its typical output frequency unless a population inversion exists ahead of that event. A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Considering this situation, one might be inclined to search for hydrogen clouds that seem to appear out of nowhere in space which is subject to strong x-ray or gamma ray illumination. And, of course, any region of space that looks dark in the gamma or x-ray wavelengths might harbor hydrino clouds. These waves should not pass freely. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:18 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:15:56 -0500: Hi, [snip] Beauty comes from truth. The truth is not always beautiful. However what I was trying to say is that whether or not one finds something easy to swallow varies from one person to the next. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills' GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills' work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills' work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dear Mike, A new theory is only as good as the predictions that it can make that are latter proven to be true. Einstein made predictions that were proven true superseded and extended the laws of *Newton*. Where are the list of predictions made by the Mills theories that will extend existing laws? When I see that these predictions are supported by new experimental results, then Mills theory will no doubt gain acceptance. When the Mills reactor proves successful and can be improved by applying Mills theory, then Mills theory will be more broadly taken seriously. For one thing, having spent little time understanding Mills ideas if someone knows, why does the Mills reaction need a spark to activate the hydrino formation process? A energy hole will extract energy from a close by hydrogen bound electron when the catalyst gets within a close range. A spark is a high energy item. It’s a seeming contradiction that a high energy event can cause an electron to lose energy. This I don't yet understand. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This **is** what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This **is** what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:39:32 +: Hi Fran, [snip] Hydrinos have never been observed directly and only occur inside the metal lattice where geometry dictates. This is just wrong. The most common signature of Hydrino reactions is usually detected in gas/plasma. Check out the papers on Mills' web site. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:39:32 +: Hi Fran, [snip] Hydrinos have never been observed directly and only occur inside the metal lattice where geometry dictates. This is just wrong. The most common signature of Hydrino reactions is usually detected in gas/plasma. Check out the papers on Mills' web site. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Why? They seem to be devoting much of their money to identifying the reaction. I assume they think they have done that. Maybe they are wrong, but it does not seem like a scam. The website itself does seem overblown. I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a megawatt of power. It would melt. A large truck engine produces about a half megawatt of mechanical propulsion, which I guess means it produces about 2 MW of waste heat as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge from more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions? For example, cooper pairs of electrons only occur in superconductors. There are very specific and unusual conditions in a solid that produce cooper pairing. Clearly, hydrinos are not the usual condition of the electrons existence. If hydrinos were common, they would have shown up in many other experiments involving electrons. Another example is the fractional charge of the electron produced by the fractional Hall Effect. If Mills can demonstrate that hydrinos exist, this unusual state of electron behavior must be one of the 500 states of matter defined by each unique dance of the electrons between and among themselves. The question that must then be asked and answered, what is the strange music that these electrons dance to? In the presence of this new music, what other strange things are happening to other fermions in the neighborhood of these strange electrons: what are the protons doing, and the quarks inside the protons, and the other nuclei in the general vicinity? It maybe that the hydrino is just one small piece of a bigger puzzle and not the be all and end all of the Mills reaction. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I wrote: I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a megawatt of power. It would melt. Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Jan 15, 2014, at 5:59, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Why? They seem to be devoting much of their money to identifying the reaction. I assume they think they have done that. Maybe they are wrong, but it does not seem like a scam. I was thinking more along the lines of it sounding like the words of a salesperson on an infomercial, extolling the ten scientifically proven benefits of new cosmetic cream. Perhaps there are now ten ways to systematically verify that what's going on is that hydrinos are being generated; or perhaps the person writing the press release is being a little optimistic. I don't get the sense that BLP is illegitimate, just that they may be over-invested in the founder's theory. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In a pulsed system, the peak power might only be produced for a small fraction of a second…like what happens in an explosion. The average power is a function of the repetition rate of the pulse. It might be that the power produced by the SF-CIHT cell comes mostly from the near instantaneous expansion of the water plasma. If this power production mechanism is the case, the SF-CIHT must be engineered to capture all of this explosive force and convert it into electric power. IMHO, this energy conversion process is best done in a reciprocating piston engine design…as in the PAPP engine. You never see the power produced by explosive fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel captured using direct electrostatic and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) conversion as Mills wants to do. But Aircraft do use turbine designs to move lots of air but then jet engines are not pulsed systems. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a megawatt of power. It would melt. Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
More... http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Regarding the statement: “The disclosure of one of BlackLight’s patent application that was recently-filed worldwide, its 10 MW electric SF-CIHT cell system engineering design and simulation, high-speed video of millions of watts of supersonically expanding SF-CIHT cell plasma…” This says to me that the SF-CIHT is a pulsed system featuring a instantaneous high powered plasma pulse. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In a pulsed system, the peak power might only be produced for a small fraction of a second…like what happens in an explosion. The average power is a function of the repetition rate of the pulse. It might be that the power produced by the SF-CIHT cell comes mostly from the near instantaneous expansion of the water plasma. If this power production mechanism is the case, the SF-CIHT must be engineered to capture all of this explosive force and convert it into electric power. IMHO, this energy conversion process is best done in a reciprocating piston engine design…as in the PAPP engine. You never see the power produced by explosive fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel captured using direct electrostatic and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) conversion as Mills wants to do. But Aircraft do use turbine designs to move lots of air but then jet engines are not pulsed systems. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a megawatt of power. It would melt. Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A truly annoying press release. Good summary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
for me the only question is about the reports of testing by visitors, and the last independent replication. If real, whatever we think of Hydrino, of the press release, it works at least enough to make a revolution at kW/kg scale. Fantastic news, even if all else is wrong. If not real, this is a sad story. Does anybody had confirmation by one of the testers? have their impression ? do they commit in public ? 2014/1/15 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A truly annoying press release. Good summary. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Axil, Hydrinos have never been observed directly and only occur inside the metal lattice where geometry dictates. IMHO Jan Naudts paper on relativistic hydrogen nailed it but people refuse to accept that gas atoms are being exposed to radical changes in equivalent velocity induced by zero point motion of gas in opposition to changes in suppression of vacuum waves. This would only contradict the COE caveat that zero point energy and gas motion can not be exploited and treat ZPE as a power source - effectively saying that quantum effects can allow for a Maxwellian or Heisenburg trap. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge from more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions? For example, cooper pairs of electrons only occur in superconductors. There are very specific and unusual conditions in a solid that produce cooper pairing. Clearly, hydrinos are not the usual condition of the electrons existence. If hydrinos were common, they would have shown up in many other experiments involving electrons. Another example is the fractional charge of the electron produced by the fractional Hall Effect. If Mills can demonstrate that hydrinos exist, this unusual state of electron behavior must be one of the 500 states of matter defined by each unique dance of the electrons between and among themselves. The question that must then be asked and answered, what is the strange music that these electrons dance to? In the presence of this new music, what other strange things are happening to other fermions in the neighborhood of these strange electrons: what are the protons doing, and the quarks inside the protons, and the other nuclei in the general vicinity? It maybe that the hydrino is just one small piece of a bigger puzzle and not the be all and end all of the Mills reaction. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.commailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.commailto:jabow...@gmail.com wrote: the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
It will be interesting to get more details about this device. Hopefully, the testing is solid and not subject to interpretation. The current level being injected into the cell seems enormous and capable of causing difficulties in the measurement system. Also, the pulse nature of the activity complicates accuracy. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com; CMNS c...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:37 am Subject: [Vo]:BLP's announcement This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
A truly annoying press release. Nothing about continuous or sustained power. Nothing about the energy in represented by that 12,000 amps. The 12,000 amps is stated as though we're supposed to be impressed at the large number when it is talking in terms of input to the system and could easily represent 10MW or more instantaneous power. Who writes these things? On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Erratum: There is one sentence that is unambiguous about the word continuous: Technical papers by BlackLight providing the experimental tests of plasma to electric conversion, results of excess energy production from solid fuels, *results of continuous electricity production* at fifty times higher power density than prior generation CIHT electrochemical cells, and the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlinkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklightpower.com%2Fesheet=50782686newsitemid=20140114005647lan=en-USanchor=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklightpower.com%2Findex=3md5=295f7787704f7c715be7ddfe67368394 .http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlinkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklightpower.comesheet=50782686newsitemid=20140114005647lan=en-USanchor=.index=4md5=e6c2c7f1d84732987e7ae8f5dcd308e3 If their January 28 demonstration isn't continuous and they instead provide an impressive pulse, it will be evidence of some kind of game they're playing or of abject idiocy on the part of their PR folks. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A truly annoying press release. Nothing about continuous or sustained power. Nothing about the energy in represented by that 12,000 amps. The 12,000 amps is stated as though we're supposed to be impressed at the large number when it is talking in terms of input to the system and could easily represent 10MW or more instantaneous power. Who writes these things? On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
There are two job openings at BLP: DIRECTOR, PLASMA TO ELECTRIC CONVERSION PROGRAM http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Director%20Plasma%20to%20Electric%20Conversion%20Program%20112713.pdf and SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Senior%20Mechanical%20Engineer120313.pdf The job description details hint at where they are in the development process. But no date shown - these could be old postings.
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
The main reason to suspect that this truly annoying press release is not LENR is because the inventor emphatically supplies his own theory as an alternative - which he steadfastly considers NOT to involve the nucleus. But Mills could be wrong about M.O. and right about the gain (or wrong about both). The method of operation is a self-serving opinion for now which has ramifications for IP but is independent of the reality of net energy gain . and given 23 years of hyperbole, failed promises and disappointing results - Mills presently has about the same level of credibility as Andrea Rossi when it comes to the underlying science. Which is not to say that he has not found finally something of extreme value, but only that he does not understand it very well himself, even as the inventor. Rossi is in the same category. No inventor, no matter how brilliant, gets to automatically make the final scientific determination about how his device functions. He may insist that he designed it to function in a certain manner, but that is not enough. If the device is gainful, then BLP may get most of the financial benefit of the invention - but there is only a slight presumption that he understands the science and the exact nature of gain. In this case and given the history - it is entirely possible that this device will be found to be both gainful AND that the hydrino will be found to be a fiction, at least as Mills' understands it. CIHT could end up being best explained as a variety of LENR - one in which the excess energy comes from conversion of nuclear mass into energy. In fact, there is a risk to BLP to insist that it is not LENR. From: James Bowery A truly annoying press release. Nothing about continuous or sustained power. Nothing about the energy in represented by that 12,000 amps. The 12,000 amps is stated as though we're supposed to be impressed at the large number when it is talking in terms of input to the system and could easily represent 10MW or more instantaneous power. Who writes these things? Peter Gluck wrote: This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Ch anging+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Not LENR, but energy Peter
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No inventor, no matter how brilliant, gets to automatically make the final scientific determination about how his device functions. He may insist that he designed it to function in a certain manner, but that is not enough. Yes! This is important. It should be obvious, but for some reason in this field the person who first does an experiment is considered to go-to expert to explain it theoretically. The researchers themselves fall into this trap. Arata was first to use nanoparticles. Many of his papers are devoted to theory, such as his latticequake theory. I don't think he is particularly qualified to do theory. This did not happen in the past as much. Edison discovered the Edison effect (thermionic emission) but I do not think he tried to explain it. He was not a theorist. (Although I think he understood more about chemistry and theory than he let on.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Eric
