I don't understand it, but it seems to be answered here - on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition quoting from portions:
Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2] .... The nonradiation condition went largely ignored for many years. Philip Pearle reviews the subject in his 1982 article Classical Electron Models.[7] A Reed College undergraduate thesis on nonradiation in infinite planes and solenoids appears in 1984.[8] An important advance occurred in 1986, when Hermann Haus derived Goedeke’s condition in a new way.[2] Haus finds that all radiation is caused by Fourier components of the charge/current distribution that are lightlike (i.e. components that are synchronous with light speed). When a distribution has no lightlike Fourier components, such as a point charge in uniform motion, then there is no radiation. Haus uses his formulation to explain Cerenkov radiation in which the speed of light of the surrounding medium is less than c. Randell Mills uses the nonradiation condition as the foundation for his model of the hydrogen atom, in which the electron is a two-dimensional extended membrane of negative charge that is stable according to this condition.[9] Mills' model is controversial and not accepted by the scientific community, which currently accepts the theory of quantum mechanics in which the electron does not need to obey classical physics. and .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_A._Haus On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Jeff, > > I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the > conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see > an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. > This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. If > Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would > be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation. > The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as > the charge rotation speed goes to zero. > > A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be > unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna. > Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not > be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal. I suggest > you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am > describing. > > My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non > radiating is valid. The information on your site showing how Mills > describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of > small loops would work as a non radiating design. This is true if the > current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to > describe. Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire > vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating. As I > also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not > radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each. This would include the > S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics. All > they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital > is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing > as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not > attempt to track the position of the electron in time. That should be > adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability > function. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement > > if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in > a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th > power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen > transferring energy via FRET. > > this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET > ...note, I think the "16" in the equations from this link is really (1/6) > exponent with the slash missing : > http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1 > > the hydrino has a an electric dipole when the density of charge builds > up locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website: > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf > > Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is > standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find > out by asking Mills. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell <mi...@medleas.com> wrote: > >> 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:jef...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> >> *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 Power’s 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 <dlrober...@aol.com> >> 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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <mi...@medleas.com> >> 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:janap...@gmail.com] >> *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 <mi...@medleas.com> >> 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:janap...@gmail.com] >> *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 <dlrober...@aol.com> >> 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 <mi...@medleas.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> 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:janap...@gmail.com <janap...@gmail.com?>] >> *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, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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. >> > > > > -- > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
