Electron-assisted fusion

Quote from Jarek

Another argument that 3 electrons would not fit in one orbital is that electrons are tiny magnets.

But I think this is precisely what you see in the fine splitting for p-orbital electrons: three electrons, all clustered around an energy value. The implication seems to be that you have 3 electrons filling a subshell. How does Gryzinski account for this, or is your reply going beyond Gryzinski at this point?

Sorry — I should have said six p-orbital electrons per shell, not three. I'll take a look at the video when I have time, later on.

Quote from Jarek

I think the big difference can be the orbital angular momentum: electron capture from p orbital seem completely negligible in QM, while it seems probable in free-fall model.

I'll take your word for it, because I don't have enough knowledge of Gryzinski to say, but seems like an important test, if a prediction can be made that is at variance with current expectations. How much experimental exploration has been done about the ratio of K/L/M capture and/or internal conversion? Quite a bit, I get the impression.

Quote from Jarek

Another argument that 3 electrons would not fit in one orbital is that electrons are tiny magnets. There are only two ways to place two magnets in stable motion: parallel or anti-parallel alignment. Otherwise you would get additional twisting force. While two anti-parallel magnets attract each other (1/r^4) allowing to lower energy (electron can stay closer to nucleus), there is no place for 3 electrons in stable synchronous motion.

I had the 3 electrons thing wrong, because I was being hasty. For p-subshells, it's actually six electrons: three pairs of two each. I think the electrons in each pair have their spins aligned anti-parallel to one another. And the individual p-subshells (x, y, z) are all orthogonal to one another.

Quote from Jarek

Sure he distinguishes between s and 3 different p orbitals: gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html

Some questions that came up for me as I watched the video:

• If electrons in Gryzinski's account are classical charges in free-fall around the nucleus, why do they not radiate away energy?
• Electromagnetism, apart from its relative strength, is a lot like gravity. We know mathematically that any system comprised of more than two orbiting bodies is a chaotic system, and the precise orbits become difficult to predict after a certain amount of time. I would expect this difficulty to be compounded greatly once we have the bodies orbiting in more than a plane. But what we see in the video is a careful choreography of electrons. What maintains the careful choreography and prevents the electrons from becoming a chaotic jumble, like a planetary system with bodies orbiting in three dimensions would become?
• Why were some of Gryzinski's electrons paired in a spirograph-like orbit around the nucleus, while other electrons were not and instead just made a close approach to the nucleus and then went far out, in an eccentric orbit?

Quote from Jarek

And honestly, does QM answers lack of bremsstrahlung question? It just avoids it by neglecting electron dynamics, which in fact is there like in this observed delay in photoemission.

My knowledge of QM is pretty limited. But I think it's answer to this is that electrons bound to an atom are are more like standing waves of a field than classical point charges moving in an orbit. But I agree that the explanations I've heard sort of redefine this question away.

Quote from eros

What if DFG fields was huge muon radiation? It generate lot of noise in copper lines, looks like RF noise, show nothing in geiger etc.

About month ago I got hint to ground reactor RF shield. I put maybe 5m wire from reactor that was unconnected to reactor then I start to connect next part. When touched that 5m wire copper end it give nasty electric shock. When grounding line was ready and RF shield grounded it affect nothing to RF. It is not RF that make noise like RF.
Best explanation theory currently are muons.

Me365 report RF radiation that go through 1cm Al.

What if it's a question of scalar-waves ? Sounds probably quite silly and controversial as LENR itself. Anyway some links to device instructions:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/sclxmtr.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/spg_shield.htm

Then what could be the source of these waves in LENR ? No idea but the 'symptoms' lead to this direction.
Another question is how to build a scalar-wave sensitive detector that could receive scalar-waves only. Maybe the similar coil-structure
as in those articles could be used as a receiver antenna also.

MFMP https://www.facebook.com/Marti…nMemorialProject/?fref=nf linked one interesting pdf from A.G.Parkhomov, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.1591.pdf
where he studies the influence of relic neutrinos on beta radioactivity.
Just a thought, cause you discussed of decay above.

Quote from Jarek

- there is Coulomb repulsion between electrons, affecting spatial distribution of orbitals,
- everything is happening in a field, electron finds resonance with - suggesting some synchronization between electrons from different orbitals.
Very good test of Gryzinski's picture seem these screening constants (outer shell electrons screening charge of nucleus for inner electrons) - he claims better agreement than for quantum calculation (I plan to test it): gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html

For a cross check I just read Mill's compendium (new PDF version p. 286 theory p. 253, chapt 7)

The Helium ionization energy is calculated very exactly (error << 1%), also based on a semi classical formula, which is way more exact than Gryzinski does. For those interested in a "modern semi QM approach" I can only recommend to dig a little bit in Mills GUT .

http://brilliantlightpower.com…T-CP-2016-Ed-Book-Web.pdf

It is definitly worth to take a closer look. Mills builds upon the work of a MIT Professor of electrical engineering, whom he met when Mills was at MIT. Mills is not primarily about Hydrinos - Mills is about the nonradiation condition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition

And this is mainly the work of Goedeke and Haus. Mills spoke with Haus while he was at MIT and thats where Mills realised the importance of Haus findings. Mills took the nonradiation condition and build a theory of stable atoms around it. The last 25 years he tried to find out what physical experiments his model is able to explain and how predictive his model is - his results are breathtaking.

To your question Jarek: As far as I understand it (as a simple control systems engineer) he assumed the electron as a classical object with physical extend (no singularity) moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus. He is basically solving the 2D wave equation under the electrodynamical constraint of nonradiation and assuming a spherical membrane where the electrons move upon. I am reading in Mills GUT for about 3 weeks now how he was able to calculate the binding energies and the binding angles of molecules to measurement accuracy. I did not find any trick, no assumptions of unicorns riding on a rainbow nothing that would make me say, he is just making these numbers up. Now I am looking for someone who is trained in physics to look into the basic derivation (solving 2D laplace + nonradiation condition) to the point where he was able to calculate the molecules. I estimated I would need 6-10 weeks fulltime to understand it all and I dont have that time.

If you are interested please take a deeper look - If you understand this basic derivation I think you will also find out what hydrinos are all about. I can not judge. But I could judge the formulars for the molecules to some degree. And that looks really promising. I also looked into the arguments of the critics - they are pretty week - you can see that they had a clear agenda and just wanted to show on the fastest way why Mills has to be a complete idiot. And because they did not want to invest more time, they got most things wrong. Compare it to the early replications of Fleishman and Pons - "Now the experiments run for 40 days and we still dont see excess heat ==> fraud".

Greetings

I used the term membrane - sorry for that :-). That should just say that it is a 2D "spherical area" where the non radiating electrons can exist according to the solution of the 2D wave equation under nonradiating condition. I emphasize the 2D, because Rathke (one of the critics mentioned in the BLP wikipedia article) used the 3D waveequation.

I can not say anything about the minimum radii. All I can say is, it seems he really is just using wave equation + maxwell + sphere + special relativity + physical constants. No new physics, no crazy assumptions - just as Mills states: classical physics with a new model for the electron and not using the schrödinger equation but the wave equation. That seems to be all. And there is no proof out there that contradicts these claims. And that is why I think someone has to take a deep look at it - not just short glimpse.

In the early 1900s the quantum theorie guys had a really hard time to model the electron and many of them where not satisfied by the direction their solution with the schrödinger equation was taking them. Why not going back and try to solve the electron problem classically and see how far this approach can take one. And Mills did just that.

Quote from Epimetheus

As far as I understand it (as a simple control systems engineer) he assumed the electron as a classical object with physical extend (no singularity) moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus. He is basically solving the 2D wave equation under the electrodynamical constraint of nonradiation and assuming a spherical membrane where the electrons move upon. I am reading in Mills GUT for about 3 weeks now how he was able to calculate the binding energies and the binding angles of molecules to measurement accuracy.

(1) Along the lines of what you say, I believe Mills proposes a two-dimensional "orbitsphere" for his electrons. The sphere is a two-dimensional surface of infinitesimal thickness consisting of great circles of circulating current. The present understanding of electron capture is that it occurs when the field of the electron is three-dimensional and overlaps with the nucleus. Because the weak interaction works at very short distances, you presumably can't have electron capture from something that is hundreds of fermis away. Reiterating Jarek's question, how does Mills explain electron capture?

(2) You are justifiably surprised to see Mills calculate the binding energies and angles of molecules to measurement accuracy. Have you dropped the same numbers into the same equations and gotten the same results?

I cannot say anything to the electron capture process. My focus is on point (2). As far as I know, no current theory is able to calculate these characteristics of molecules to that degree of precision. If Mills is not cheating than he has to be doing something incredible right. My impression was, that dropping parameters into the equations he gives for the molecules is pointless, because everyone would assume he made the equations up. But you could be right that this is a first small step that I can do on my own for a few molecules. But the most important thing is that someone goes through the complete derivation of the equations.

Someone recalculated the OH molecule – but he was paid by BLP to verify the equations:
http://brilliantlightpower.com…papers/PayneOHRadical.pdf

But he gave some python scripts – I think I will do it in Matlab/Octave. I am totally hooked, because the underlying idea of Mills model is straight forward and simple. And the best thing is that “the internet” does not have to speculate endlessly – everyone can look up the binding energies and bond angles from NIST and compare it to Mills model. There is no room for speculation – we have an independent ground truth (NIST) and we have the equations. Talking about hydrinos is pointless, because the arguments of both sides go back and forth endlessly. If Mills made up the equations for "normal" molecules the hydrino discussion is immediately of the table - but if not there is the possibility that Mills other claims are justified. And that would be incredible.

Greets

Quote from Epimetheus

If Mills is not cheating than he has to be doing something incredible right. My impression was, that dropping parameters into the equations he gives for the molecules is pointless, because everyone would assume he made the equations up. But you could be right that this is a first small step that I can do on my own for a few molecules.

Not pointless at all! Someone independent of Mills, who does not have a financial relationship or a debt of gratitude, should follow up on the claims about being able to accurately predict this or that. It sounds like you might have the energy to do this; if so, that would be great. One question I will have for you when you know more: are there any suspicious fitted parameters that are dropped in willy-nilly here or there, which don't go back to Mills's theory?

Quote from Jarek

If you want LENR to be treated seriously, please stay away from magical explanations.

Jarek: I posted the Helium calculations. This has nothing to do with Hydrinos...

I read many different "so called theories" (there are hundreds out there) but Mills ideas are easy to understand and are no way off like others, which claim to have something, which fits around 10% off the table...

Quote from Jarek

Regarding electron "moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus", it sounds terrible.

May be You remember Bor, He too was talking about a 2D sphere orbit for the electron... You should blame him!

In Mills model the electron Orbit itself is undergoing precision, what is mandatory if You look up the reason for the Thomas precision.

I did some recalculation of a simple Mill's formula, but without a quadruple precision (128 bit) calculator I was off some %%. Mills himself provides mathematica code. May be I should buy a license...

About cheating: There is an other well known theory in LENR, which is propagated with cheated calculations...