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:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 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:[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. 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:[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] <mailto:[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. -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998 ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
