The hydrino is a variant of the hydrogen atom. It is never claimed by Mills to be a fundamental particle. Hence it needs so low energy so that you can maintain the bound You can't find it using collisions of high energy, which is where most bucks these days is targeted at. If you knock the hydrino you will get a proton and an electron. So to find a antihydrino you need to cool down a produced anti proton and an anti electron and reach a hydrino state, which you need some chemical reaction to achieve because the cool down system would go to the normal anti hydrogen su you need to create a bunch of anti compounds and do chemistry with them. Good luck with that.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is > not a fundamental particle but a quasi-particle produced under the > interactions of other multiple electrons. This is also true for cooper > pairs of electrons. A fundamental particle always has an anti-particle. > This hydrino quasi-particle is produced under special multiple electron > interactions and is also not a fundamental particle. Hydrinos are a special > case produced in condensed matter. They are not produced as virtual > particles because they have no associated anti-particle. > > LENR exists in a special state of condensed matter and energy where > multiple interactions among electrons acting in a special way exists. The > same is true for hydrinos, they are quasi-particles, a special state of > matter like the SPPs, not fundimental. > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Stefan >> >> I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost >> nobody >> is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few >> years ago to >> a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry. >> >> Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at the start of >> the first formula >> to describe the atom with the Quantum theory where they went wrong. >> They couldnt explain the stability of the atom in a classic way and Bohr >> postulated >> the stability of the atom. Mills found the solution to that problem. He >> proposed that the electron is a shell of current which >> is flowing in such a way that there are solutions to the Maxwell >> equations who correspond to the stable >> quantum levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom. What is more he >> found that with his model fractional quantum levels >> where also possible. He found these stable fractional quantum levels in >> his experiments, when he followed his theory >> that predicted that the groundstate of a hydrogen atom can be destablized >> by using catalyst which can take away n x 27.2 eV >> from atom through collision. >> >> Peter van Noorden >> >> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 7:20 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:QM rant >> >> I would like to see a grants and target institution targeted to answer >> your questions. Also it is good to remember that the standard model was >> fitted to high energy >> particle data, typically advanced theories degenerates at limits to a >> limited set of possible solutions, the standard model QED etc could very >> well be spot on at those >> high limits. Also you don't get to see hydrinos at thise limits so it is >> unclear if it is wise to try what your suggest, jMills does take care to >> try explain quarks, electorns >> etc as well in his book to hint on the nature of these particles. I can't >> judge those efforts, but for sure it is not certain that everything that >> needs to be developed have been done so >> using his ideas as a base. But if he does not have developed something >> there are possible a permutation of ideas to try ranging from simple >> modifications to what >> Mills is doing to actually add further terms and additions to maxwells >> equations. Again we need to put manwork and grants into this to get >> anywhere. >> >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the electron >>> to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental verification >>> of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma rays produced to >>> account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the anti-hydrino >>> interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a hydrino is >>> emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and combinations of >>> interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated involving the >>> hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Orionworks, >>>> >>>> Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any >>>> replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there >>>> enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to >>>> create hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for >>>> example >>>> cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can with >>>> great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why can't I >>>> hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are we >>>> servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or are the >>>> folks there cooked into their theory that is wrong. I think that there >>>> is huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so already >>>> experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know about >>>> atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all. >>>> Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole >>>> fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling >>>> excited about this opportunity, is amazing. >>>> >>>> Have Fun >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stefan, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same >>>>> "stefan" who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion >>>>> group. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM interesting, >>>>> perhaps even tantalizing, see: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM theory. >>>>> I need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report & analysis. >>>>> It is my personal take on an upstart brave new theory which seems to have >>>>> a >>>>> lot going for it. I tried to remain as objective as I could concerning a >>>>> highly controversial theory for which I have insufficient mathematical >>>>> expertise to either confirm or disprove. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me change gears here. To be honest I am getting tired listening to >>>>> yet another argument that Mills' CQM theory is better than QM. Such >>>>> arguments will resolve nothing. The solution is both paradoxically simple >>>>> while admittedly being technologically challenging. BLP needs to cobble >>>>> together an experimental prototype which definitively verifies the fact >>>>> that the technology is capable of self-running while generating lots of >>>>> excess electricity. I have repeatedly suggested BLP demonstrate an >>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype as a precursor to creating a commercial prototype. >>>>> I >>>>> have done so because I am under the opinion that assembling the first >>>>> commercial system may still be many years off into the future. BLP bravely >>>>> implies that a commercial system is just around the corner... but I don't >>>>> believe it. Nevertheless, I would love to be proven wrong on this point. >>>>> But until I'm proven wrong, I have to continue to rely on my own gut >>>>> instincts based on my own 36 years of personal experience in the software >>>>> industry. In my experience developing brand new software (and hardware), >>>>> particularly a new product that has never developed before tends to take >>>>> a >>>>> lot longer than originally anticipated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> See my personal posts: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4330 >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4345 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So far, Dr. Mills as repeatedly ignored the primary concerns expressed >>>>> in my above posts. He has said nothing about the possibility of assembling >>>>> a more definitive experimental prototype within BLPs' lab walls. IMO, he >>>>> seems to be evading the question. Mills has instead deflected conversation >>>>> towards the fact that BLP continues to accumulate independent scientific >>>>> reports that appear to verify various aspects of his CQM theory. All the >>>>> peanut gallery knows at the moment is the fact that BLP has contracted >>>>> with >>>>> outside engineering firms to assemble the first commercial system. The >>>>> first delivery was supposed to have occurred in December of last year. >>>>> That, of course, never happened. We have yet to hear when a new revised >>>>> delivery date is to be expected. We have, in fact, no idea. That is >>>>> another >>>>> reason why I tend to think the actual delivery date for a real commercial >>>>> system is likely to be years, not months off into the future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me end by saying I don't fault BLPs' efforts. I have no reason to >>>>> think BLP or Mills are acting in less honorable ways. My primary concern >>>>> is >>>>> that, IMHO, if BLP wants to be taken more seriously, sooner rather than >>>>> later, then I suggest the company cobble together an experimental >>>>> prototype >>>>> that self-runs and produces excess electricity ASAP. The prototype does >>>>> not >>>>> have to run long. Just long enough to prove their point. I say this >>>>> because >>>>> I am under the impression that the anticipated commercial system is >>>>> probably going to take a lot longer than BLP had originally anticipated... >>>>> perhaps as long as several more years. I say this because I suspect that >>>>> if >>>>> BLP attempted to cobble together nothing more deceptively simple as just >>>>> an >>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype (a prototype not meant for commercial applications) >>>>> such attempts will also likely to turn out to be an equally formidable >>>>> challenge. In fact I suspect the challenge is precisely why Mills has not >>>>> directly replied to my suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would nevertheless be thrilled to be proven wrong on these last >>>>> points. ...and perhaps Mills doesn't care to be taken more seriously >>>>> sooner >>>>> rather than later. Focus on developing the commercial system, and be >>>>> damned >>>>> with assembling another intermediate experimental demo. If BLP's financial >>>>> backers remain in the loop... if they remain satisfied with the progress >>>>> they are seeing, running a more stealthy operation is a perfectly >>>>> legitimate strategy. Granted it's a bummer for the rest of us who reside >>>>> in >>>>> the peanut gallery, but it's not my call. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>>>> >>>>> svjart.orionworks.com >>>>> >>>>> zazzle.com/orionworks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
