Electron-assisted fusion

    Wyttenbach, as it was already written, Bohr and Mills pictures are excluded by electron capture ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture ) - the fact that nucleus can capture electron from orbital, what requires this electron to get to a distance nuclear force can start acting (femtomemters).
    There are also many other problems like the nature of this membrane - a very controversial infinitesimal made up entity.
    Until you can explain electron capture there, please let us stay away from this theory here.


    Regarding being "easy to understand", I don't know how this membrane applies, Gryzinski is just Kepler + magnetic dipole moment of electron + quantization condition.


    ps. please help defending his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…on/Free-fall_atomic_model

    Quote from Jarek

    Until you can explain electron capture there, please let us stay away from this theory here.


    Jarek: You didn't get the input of my post: Gryzinski claims that his calculations where somehow correct. In reality they are way off.


    Before I discuss a theory I make simple sanity checks, like I did e.g. with the SARG theory (failed too).


    Here my conclusion: Gryzinski's idea might be OK, but his model is inadequate because it fails the sanity check: He simply has to improve it.


    That's the way we all must take, if we finally want to reach the goal.

    First of all, if you looked at the material, you would know that Gryzinski himself will not improve it as he is now a historical figure - he has lived 1930-2004.
    Secondly, he has published ~30 papers in top journals (Phys. Rev. class) 1957-2000 about classical considerations, where he has focused on AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTS: mainly various scattering scenarios (nearly direct way of asking nature about structure of atom), but also spectral lines, screening coefficients, diamagnetic coefficient, Stark shift and many others.
    His papers have currently ~3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski


    And his only "new" idea comparing to Bohr-Sommerfeld (~1915), was using the fact that electron has magnetic dipole moment, which has been known since ~1925, when classical considerations have started being taken over by QM.
    He just gave the natural way a second chance and used more recent experiments to verify the details of Kepler orbit for electrons - that they should have nearly zero angular momentum (also required for electron capture).


    If you have found some insistencies in his work with reality/experiment, please share some details and we can discuss about it.
    He has already proven a lot - what do you think is still missing?

    When there is too many protons in the nucleus, how does the electron know it, and how does it combine with the proton to form a neutron, when the electron needs lots more energy than it has in its energy account?

    Quote from axil

    When there is too many protons in the nucleus, how does the electron know it, and how does it combine with the proton to form a neutron, when the electron needs lots more energy than it has in its energy account?


    In Gryzinski's picture, electron "knows" what to do only from Coulomb force + Lorentz force + Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition.


    Electron capture by nucleus requires involving nuclear forces - this is currently a separate world ... but hopefully the gap will be closed some day.
    Nuclei undergoing electron capture are those reducing energy in to this process.
    They have tendency to capture electron, waiting for opportunity for that: some specific set of parameters of incoming electron. Our knowledge of nuclear physics is currently not sufficient to calculate this space of parameters, but we can treat it statistically ... and the most crucial requirement is that nuclear force can initiate the nuclear transition - what requires electron to be in range of these forces.

    Quote from Jarek

    He just gave the natural way a second chance and used more recent experiments to verify the details of Kepler orbit for electrons - that they should have nearly zero angular momentum (also required for electron capture).


    These ideas are all correct and in agreement with others. I simply cannot accept a mathematical model, which believes good agreement while beeing 5% off. There is a refinement needed.


    When I find the time I will go again through Mills calculations, which are very complete concerning electrostatical/dynamical energies. If the formula is correct then his solution for He is light years better than any QM approach.
    This could be a good starting point to optimize G*'s modell.


    Just keep in mind, that physics well knows, since 100 years, that shooting electrons on atoms causes nuclear reactions. We also have many discussions (Holmlid etc.) about sub QM (-allowed) level stable matter. Thus the picture is not about something like free fall. It's all about time spending close enough to the atoms core.


    There is one crucial limit for electron capture: It involves weak interactions, which allows a relativly long timeframe for a coexistance, but a single traverse of an electron will allways be to short unless you find a way to keep it "at rest".

    What 5% of disagreement are you referring to?


    And generally, these are all only approximate models - we are still far from complete understanding of what's really going on in hydrogen atom, in its proton, or even a single electron: which itself is an extremely complex system: has charge (not a point one as it would give infinite energy of electric field), has magnetic dipole moment (is tiny magnet), behaves like a tiny gyroscope (but being a magnet is not from spinning charge) and finally has some internal periodic process (zitterbewegung/de Broglie's clock, required for interference and orbit quantization, directly observed in experiment: 2008 "A Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling").


    Sadly these basic questions have stopped being asked with the dawn of QM - making people satisfied with density clouds.
    Gryzinski showed that humanity has given up understanding too early.
    And please don't compere it with modern magical "explanations" using made up stuff like 2D membrane.

    [quote='Jarek','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1640-Electron-assisted-fusion/?postID=37508#post37508']And please don't compere it with modern magical "explanations" using made up stuff like 2D membrane.[/quote]


    Can You give us a paper, where You found this rubish citation ?



    Regarding the 5%: Sprawa Atomu page 9! (He)

    Two persons describing Mills theory here have written about 2D membrane/surface where electron is prisoner in atom.
    I see there are some published papers about his theory ... but only those showing its nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ant_Light_Power#Criticism


    Regarding helium, page 9 of Sprawa Atomu is just a picture having nothing to do with helium.
    Here you can find his considerations about helium: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html
    It starts with ionization energies, which are known as: 24.59eV and 54.42eV.
    The second is just 2^2 * 13.6eV for single electron in 2e potential.
    The first allows to find screening coefficient s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater%27s_rules ) :
    W = (24.59 + 54.42.42)/2 = (Z - s)^2 * 13.6
    getting experimental s = 0.296.
    Additionally, we know it has zero magnetic dipole moment, excluding Bohr-like trajectories:

    The right picture was the original Gryzinski's model, but it has s = 0.25.
    So he considers also other trajectories, but the the screening coefficient is still not right:


    Finally he ads spin-spin interaction into consideration, getting s = 0.302, what is 2% from the experimental value.
    His final trajectory is:


    But sure, there are obviously still approximations to improve here.

    Here is a description of the orbitsphere from the Millsian site, which looks official, which describes the orbitsphere as a spherical shell of charge. In this patent summary, Mills discusses the matter of great circles being a component of orbitspheres. In paragraph 19, Mills writes "FIG. 13 is the orbitsphere, a two dimensional spherical shell in accordance with the present invention". The connection between orbitspheres and hydrinos is made, e.g., in this link at BrLP's site: "At the H(1/137) hydrino state, the electron orbitsphere current loops have velocity close to light speed and additional shrinkage is relativistically impossible. This is the true Ground State."


    Conclusion: according to Mills/BrLP, electrons orbiting in hydrinos do so in an "orbitsphere", which is a (two-dimensional) spherical surface comprised of great circles of circulating current.

    Quote from Jarek

    I see there are some published papers about his theory ... but only those showing its nonsense: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power#Criticism



    You are right: The famous Rathke paper is still mentionned in Wiki, although he had to retract it...


    Quote from Jarek

    W = (24.59 + 54.42.42)/2


    I guess this is Gryzinski's erroness assumption: If he assumes


    In the case of helium atom Z = 2, W = (U 1 + U 2) / 2 = 39.5 eV,


    then he believes the electron move symmetrically, what would not be expected in a free fall orbit, because minimal energy is attained if they move counter-clock wise. (Coulomb repulsion minimal!) Only if they would gain more magnetic energy than loose coulomb energy, they would orbit in sync! (modelling the B-field energy is even more complex, as He is screening the magnetic attraction!!)


    In a circular orbit the magnetic energy is in fact greater than the coulomb energy (see Mills calculations!) but this must be integrated over a full orbit with a paired electron!, what is not the case in G* modell.


    The other point is that all measurements made on a free He molecul show circular orbits! Of course in scattering there are many different orbits occurring, not even talking about He halo nucleous resonances!


    An other counter argument against G* modell: Eliptic orbits would give a large statistical spread in ionization energies, which never has been found.

    Regarding circular trajectories you want, beside being excluded by electron capture as we have written a few times here (nuclear force does not work in 10^-10m scale, while real orbital electrons are being captured by the nucleus), a very different clear counter-argument is magnetic dipole moment of the atom.
    Gryzinski writes as it was obvious that experiments shows that magnetic dipole moment of hydrogen or helium is zero, but I couldn't find any experimental paper (probably <1950).
    And QM clearly says what is magnetic dipole moment of atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…agnetic_moment_of_an_atom
    m = g*mu*sqrt(j*(j+1))
    which is zero for both hydrogen and helium (and Gryzinski - his hydrogen has zero orbital angular momentum).
    In contrast, circulating electrons create magnetic field, giving these atoms nonzero magnetic dipole moment - wrong again.


    Regarding further arguments of Gryzinski for his helium model, there are lots of them.
    His lecture ( http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html ) at the end points a link for further arguments - it doesn't longer work, but I have its content:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohn7ihx92mnf815/helium.pdf?dl=0
    So briefly his arguments for needle-like helium are:
    - the mentioned screening coefficient (ionization energies),
    - magnetic susceptibility (<2% difference from experiment),
    - in some place he writes that being "needle-like" allows it to easily escape - that helium is the only atom that can diffuse through thick glass,
    - asymptotic behavior: electric quadrupole along needle + pulsating electric dipole (perpendicular to needle) - the strength of quadrupole was written to be confirmed by scattering experiments in the paper he has introduced multi-electron configuration (1975 "Low energy scattering and the "free-fall" atomic model"),
    - he uses oscillating electric dipole to explain interaction between helium atoms, van der Waals force, helium molecules, clusters, density of liquid helium:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_dimer
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_trimer

    Quote from Jarek

    Regarding circular trajectories you want, beside being excluded by electron capture as we have written a few times here (nuclear force does not work in 10^-10m scale, while real orbital electrons are being captured by the nucleus), a very different clear counter-argument is magnetic dipole moment of the atom.


    All atoms have resonance orbits, which can be measured e.g. in a microwave field. Scattering always stimulates resonance orbits! If You shoot an electron at helium G's picture might be right.
    A needle orbit in sync is highly instable as the magnetic force electron/electron interactions goes down with 1/r3! Thus at the extremas the electron's wont notice it anymore. Any perturbance will tilt the electron.
    Further even more strange: The alignment of the electron frees energy. Where is this energy going to, when they sparrate?


    Free fall orbits are of parabolic nature why is there an elipsis?? (Like in a p-orbit - stable orbits need a center of attraction!)

    Regarding resonance orbits, if you mean shell frequencies, here is a table with experiment and Gryzinski's calculations for noble gases from 1975 "Low energy scattering and the "free-fall" atomic model" (they neglect spin-spin 1/r^4 interaction):



    Regarding needle-like electron orbits, Gryzinski has used both spin-charge (1/r^3) and spin-spin (1/r^4) interactions in his calculations - I haven't test it, but plan to do it.


    I like his argument that helium is the only atom that can diffuse through glass - one could think that it should be simpler for hydrogen, but surprisingly the second electron makes it easier to squeeze in.
    Is there a quantum explanation for this fact?


    I don't understand your question about freeing energy (ionization energy is ok), nor "center of attraction"?
    Gryzinski's orbits are Kepler for very low orbital angular momentum (in QM, s orbital has zero angular momentum), with taken into consideration corrections from spin-orbit interaction (v/r^3, practically negligible unless nearly passing the nucleus).

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    To complete the picture: These orbitspheres undergo Thomas precision what at the end give a 3D QM picture...


    Do you have a reference to Mills for this, or is this a modification you have added? Electrons in such orbits would not follow the paths of great circles. Is a relativistic correction such as Thomas precession needed for electrons in the least redundant states, which are purportedly the most common (1/2, 1/3, 1/4)?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    o you have a reference to Mills for this, or is this a modification you have added? Electrons in such orbits would not follow the paths of great circles. Is a relativistic correction such as Thomas precession needed for electrons in the least redundant states, which are purportedly the most common (1/2, 1/3, 1/4)?



    In a presentation there is a mathlab script, showing the precision. Mills assumes precision is always happening, but he is not explicitly referring to Thomas precision. I mentioned this for didactcal reason, because many people believe, that Mills model is just about one single plane, where the electron is moving around a nucleus. But also a free H (in space) will undergo precision.
    For the most common measured states (resonances?) I think the relativistic correction would be to small to be noticed. E/B forces dominate.


    Holmlids dense H (covalent radius 2.3pm) is just around H* 1/11 to 1/13 which is interesting (13 is the end of the "statistics"!).

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    In a presentation there is a mathlab script, showing the precision. Mills assumes precision is always happening, but he is not explicitly referring to Thomas precision.


    Will Thomas precession, or any kind of precession of a spherical shell, be strong a enough effect to cause the Mills orbitsphere to intersect with the nuclear volume (needed for electron capture)? Do you have a link to the slides you mention that show Mills's assumption about precession?

    As you appreciate, we're talking about Mills, not Meulenberg and Paillet. Mills eschews any kind of LENR, and Meulenberg and Paillet adapt Dirac's DDL solution (vaguely similar to Mills) to get to dd fusion LENR. On the page you link to, I see Larmor precession in a magnetic field and precession of a free electron. But I do not see any kind of precession that would deform the orbitsphere into something other than a 2d spherical surface.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.