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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > *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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > *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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected] <[email protected]?>] > *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, <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> 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. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. > Department. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. > Department. >
