On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
You have oftentimes citied imagination as unproductive in the
formulation of theory.
To be clear, I said use of ONLY imagination is a waste of time. A
theory has be be related to reality - imagination does not.
Nevertheless, theory very frequently STARTS with imagination. A
theory that goes no further is a waste of time. Mills did not stop
with theory. He demonstrated a set of predictions. You are free to
believe the results or not.
I might rightfully apply the method that Mills uses to interpret the
experimental basis of the hydrino theory as imagination.
Not any more.
QM says it’s impossible to know what those electrons are actually
doing to produce the experimental results Mills sites because of
inherent uncertainty in the behavior of electrons.
He gets a product that has properties consistent with his predictions.
That is the only way any and all theories are tested.
Any sort of resonance phenomena might be producing those
experimental hydrino results acting under any sort of chemical
topology.
How does Mills KNOW that hydrinos are the root cause of those
spectral results and not Fano interference at work in the gap of a
nanoparticle dimer.
I suggest you ask Mills or read his many papers. He claims to have
demonstrated the existence of something he can describe as a hydrino.
Ed
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Axil, QM is only a tool. It is not a law. It is a tool used to
describe behavior. Yes, many aspects of chemistry can be described
using QM. On the other hand, the concept that energy states have a
characteristic energy, i.e. quanta, is a law of nature.
The hydrino is a concept put forth by Mills. The idea has
experimental support although the mathematical description Milsl
uses leaves a lot of questions. He does not claim to use QM.
Therefore, your conclusion makes no sense.
Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The rules of the game
No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no
matter how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical
justification.
Is QM considered a chemical rule?
I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are
incompatible with quantum mechanics.
Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard
quantum mechanics
http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631
If we accept one, we have to reject the other?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out
from Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to
my approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all
approaches, which might be combined, and where they are different
and might need to be modified.
I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to
form in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy
conversion because no conventional chemical structure can do this.
Each of the proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but
each one is different. The proposed structure is given different
names and different properties, but the goal is the same. We are
all trying to solve the same problem by proposing different
mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations
within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can
live with.
No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially
a normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the
mathematical justification. No idea will be accepted if it
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. Can we agree on
this basic requirement??
I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the
lattice itself without violating these rules, which I have
explained previously. This conclusion is important and BASIC to
understanding LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their
structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as the location is
the major flaw in the theories. This requirement MUST be resolved
because no agreement exists at the present time.
Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model
fits this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from
hydrons, which other people have called a cluster. I simply add
more details about how this structure can be created based on
conventional concepts. Most other models ignore the formation
process.
Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron
can be promoted to the p level. This promotion cannot occur in the
normal lattice because the p level has more energy than does the s
level. On the other hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the
s state electron to the p state as a result of the intense negative
charge on the walls of the crack. This should be easy to justify
using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom explore.
This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a
string. At this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is
described. The only novel feature is the ability of the charge on
the walls of the crack to promote the election to the next quantum
level. Nevertheless, the structure contains all the features
required to start the mass-energy conversion, i.e. many hydrons
coupled together by electrons and a physical form that can
resonate. The only question remaining, Is this structure
sufficient to initiate mass-energy conversion?
The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the
mechanism for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each
of the structures has flaws and limitations we each can identify in
the other models, but not perhaps not in our own. Can we agree
that the structure most likely to be correct and certainly the most
useful one will explain the greatest number of observations? Also,
no proposed structure can be tested unless the conditions causing
its formation can be created in real materials. Purely mathematical
models applied to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected
immediately.
Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions?
Ed
