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
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/conversat
ions/messages/4330
and
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversat
ions/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
