# Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

• Wyttenbach, I gave you the example of electron capture in 40K, which shows that an electron must be transiting the nucleus, and I explained why this must be happening, giving the short reach of the weak interaction. There has never been a claim that an electron must stay inside a proton, and this is not what Mills says is impossible. Mills writes: "The Schrödinger equation permits the electron to exist in the nucleus, a state that is physically nonsensical with infinite potential energy and infinite negative kinetic energy." Electron capture shows that Mills is wrong.

@Eric Walker : I believe you mixup QM and QED we only talk of QM - orbits no other effects. My argument is simple. As the orbital probabilities (charge density, E,V) of the Schrödinger equction (e.g of Hydrogen) are based on the Rydberg constant (Radius). You would have to reevaluate the base in the moment charge is below Rydberg level. If charge is inside the nucleus, all orbits feel less charge than used to calculate the base radius.
I know that the integral over the charge density provided by the Schrödiger equation is correct in relation to the electron and Rydberg constant. But the equation does not reflect the (changed) charge distribution of the nucleus as a consequence of added electron charge (which would change both E and V of the Schrödiger Equation given based on constant e2 --> finally goes to a0).

For larger Z the added charge might be negligible, certainly not for Hydrogen.

I do not object that for mathematical reasons the electron must stay inside the nucleus, because otherwise the model would become awfully complex. I also like the simple explanation of tunneling probabilities, but the theory is not at all compelling and I would very much welcome amore logical model.

• @Eric

Going back to the basics of this should be fun, deriving it from the basics is a long story to do it in all details I believe. But you have to work as well. Let me suggest that you start from the conclusion and move backwards
following the references. If you get stuck post a description of it and I can comment. A short look at it (I've not studied this ratio before) shows that Mills is indeed working with what he done before and reuse formulas e.g.
it does not look like there is much options for manual tuning. Also we could just concentrate on the basic formula skipping the corrections to gain speed and reduce the work - that formula still is impressive.

Regards
Stefan

• Hi Stefan,

You have taken a look at the neutron-electron mass ratio; can you walk us through it? If after considering my request you decide to champion the claim that the derivation is insightful, you will need to support your position, and I will not be doing your work for you. My impression of the neutron-electron mass ratio is tentatively the opposite, but my claim about it is not strong, so it is not an impression I will go very far to support. But you can help to enlighten us and turn around some quite negative initial impressions of GUT-CP. You just need to lay out the steps by which Mills arrived at the derivation, and answer any questions that come up.

The post was edited 1 time, last by Eric Walker ().

• Going back to the basics of this should be fun, deriving it from the basics is a long story to do it in all details I believe. But you have to work as well. Let me suggest that you start from the conclusion and move backwards

To understand everything a reader should first start with chapter 32, where Mills explains the correction of space time due to matter converted into energy.

Again: The calculated tau mass is much less precise than the muons one, but this might steem from the fact the it's mass not very well measured..or G, alpha need higher accuracy. But the given values by Mills are more than just mere luck...

• There is no chance in this strongly regulated industry, that a product which function (and its potential risks!!) is not understood (as we see not even by the inventors themself...) will ever make it to market! The more, if this product is &quot;designed&quot;…

So, what would be up to the most of the people in the world to change this ?

There is no need to change this. The market is highly regulated for a good reason. Things like engines, boiler and generators are dangerous. The public demands that any new type of engine be certified as completely safe and reliable. If Rossi or Mills want to sell their devices, they will have to submit the machines to all of the usual certification and testing routines any new product is subjected to. This will take several years and it will cost billions of dollars, but once the products are launched the technology matures, they will save about a billion dollars a day, and prevent global warming, so the initial cost of testing and certification will be trivial in comparison.

There is no need to treat these machines any differently than we treat any other product.

• Key is equation 37.41, that mathematically lead to eq. 37.41.

in 37.1 that is based on an equation used for all the other mass ratios hence we don't need to verify that one ti check for manipulation is used.

There is a derived relation of the quark mass from the neutron mass, do you accept that one?

There are relativistic corrections to the equation that results in 2*pi corrections do you think those are the manipulation? These corrections are everywhere and consistant.

He substitutes the compton wavelength bar for the radious is this a source of tampering?

37.42 is combined with a similar equation for the mass of the electron 36.3 to yield sec is defined in the lepton chapter and out comes a good estimate of the nutron electron mass ratio e.g. 38.23
it gives 1838.06 where the experimental is 1838.68 no need to add the correction and if Mills can't tamper with this derivation he surely is genuine.

• Just out of curiosity I contacted Dr. Thomas Wrubel who conducted experiments with Prof. Conrads regarding the hydrino reaction. They did these experiments in the course of a year at the university where I graduated a few years ago:

Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.

He says that the results of their experiments are still unexplained and that he is watching the current developments with interest. Of course this is no proof of the hydrino reaction but if a plasma physicist who worked with plasmas for 40 years does not find an explanation for UV radiation in a simple hydrogen plasma + catalyst within a year then I think this should be further studied.

• if a plasma physicist who worked with plasmas for 40 years does not find an explanation for UV radiation in a simple hydrogen plasma + catalyst within a year then I think this should be further studied.

Do you think Dr. Wrubel would feel confident to express an opinion on the novelty of a "self-sustaining" plasma? I've seen assertions elsewhere that a terrestrial plasma has never been shown to sustain itself in the absence of a source of charged particles, such as a electric current. Surely he's seen the "self-sustaining" mode in the SunCell videos. Can he confirm that, if genuine, it would indeed represent new physics to his understanding?

• Do you think Dr. Wrubel would feel confident to express an opinion on the novelty of a "self-sustaining" plasma? I've seen assertions elsewhere that a terrestrial plasma has never been shown to sustain itself in the absence of a source of charged particles, such as a electric current. Surely he's seen the "self-sustaining" mode in the SunCell videos. Can he confirm that, if genuine, it would indeed represent new physics to his understanding?

There is no new physics involved. Its all explained by nanoplasmonics and the production of muons through the enhanced weak force (granted amplification of the weak force might be new physics).

• And I found this response to Axil from Brian Ahern over on Vortex interesting:

LENR folks are giving way too much adulation to:

Andrea RossiRandall Mills

Robert Godes

All three have succeeded with no independent data. They all refuse simple
obvious testing. Mills is perhaps the biggest show of all. His SunCell has
never been tested. It would be child's play to hook up a water flow calorimeter
to

demonstrate a COP above 1.0

He will not do it. Have you heard his reasoning?

He explained the lack of testing with the simple solution:'Shut up'!!!

Me again : It seems LENR insiders love to make bold, especially negative, statements, where least likely to be read. If you ask me, it should be the opposite. Instead of shying away from confrontation, it should be welcomed, desired even. Only in that way can we get to the truth of this mystery. Nothing wrong with boldly making ones case, and letting the process respond, then having to defend. LENR needs an airing if you ask me.

• Mills is perhaps the biggest show of all. His SunCell has
never been tested. It would be child's play to hook up a water flow calorimeter
to demonstrate a COP above 1.0

I agree it would be good to test it, but I think a water flow calorimeter would be challenging. There is a huge impedance mismatch with the temperature difference. I am not saying it can't be done.

• Jed,

To your credit, you have never shied away from making your opinion known. Good on you. Others in LENR could learn something from how you respond to reasonable, respectable, peer review.

• Quote

Key is equation 37.41, that mathematically lead to eq. 37.41.

in 37.1 that is based on an equation used for all the other mass ratios hence we don't need to verify that one ti check for manipulation is used.[... snip ...]

37.42 is combined with a similar equation for the mass of the electron 36.3 to yield sec is defined in the lepton chapter and out comes a good estimate of the nutron electron mass ratio e.g. 38.23 it gives 1838.06 where the experimental is 1838.68 no need to add the correction and if Mills can't tamper with this derivation he surely is genuine.

I have looked up the equations you refer to above, as well as ones referred to immediately in the GUT-CP text, here arranged by reference number. These look like contiguous paragraphs, but really the equations are on different pages in the text (mostly from the third volume). To make sense of the flow of the equations, it's best to start from the bottom and work backwards. The recursive chain of references appears to be bottomless, so I have had to cut things off somewhere. Let me know if there's an important equation that has been missed.

How do we obtain 38.31, which was also shown on p. 3, from the preceding equations? No doubt there's a simple sequence of algebraic transformations that you can walk us through to understand how to obtain this equation.

There is a derived relation of the quark mass from the neutron mass, do you accept that one?

Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?

Quote

There are relativistic corrections to the equation that results in 2*pi corrections do you think those are the manipulation? These corrections are everywhere and consistant.

Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?

Quote

He substitutes the compton wavelength bar for the radious is this a source of tampering?

Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?

The post was edited 7 times, last by Eric Walker ().

• Looks like Axil is a fan of MIlls now: http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…-a-lenr-system-axil-axil/

Oh how fast the tide turns.

I support anything that advances the prospects of LENR, truth, and facts. I have referenced a handful of LENR systems that produce what the SunCell produces and have explained the way that production applies. And I have made predictions to verify either Mills theory or LENR theory. In this prediction, I draw a vivid and easy to understand distinction between Mills theory and LENR theory.

• Quote

You got a lot of nerve [removed] criticizing me because you disagree where I put a forward slash...

Sadly, you don't even seem to understand the critique. It's not about where you put a forward slash but about the fact that you don't seem to understand basic dimensional analysis and the use of units.

Quote

... when you use a fake name to post in forums. Unlike you I do not disguise who I am.

Bully for you-eee. Until I demand that you believe me based on my name rather than on what I write, that's also nonsense.

Quote

No Im not a scientist or physicist, but I have worked on energy projects specifically wind farm developments. I work for engineering firms overseeing construction of enormous water and wastewater systems of amazing complexity. I have 30 years experience building systems and have a strong understanding of all system components and how they integrate. I really don't care about the physics of Mills et al Rossi's cold fusion systems. I care about how they will operate and how they may integrate into my industry. I'm not here to criticize when someone makes a spelling error unlike you who finds great pleasure in belittling anyone with whom you may disagree. In other words offer helpful criticism or just sit in your cubicle and STFU.

The problem you are missing with your lack of proper background in science and engineering is that Mills' and Rossi's "systems" almost certainly don't work and have no place in any industry. So, you disagree? What industry is Mills' device used in after more than 25 years of specious claims and expensive development? How about Rossi's stuff? Who uses it and where after claims of "customer" installations since at least 2011? Who are all the mysterious customers? Where are they and how do they maintain such complete and absolute secrecy? (clue: they do it by not existing!)

Come on, John. Use your head. I know you badly wish these things were real but look at the evidence instead of the claims, for once!

• First off my name is Jon not John... and I do understand about KWh/h and I do admit I typed it incorrectly. I was responding to a question that someone asked about Mills and his videos of his claimed output of his Suncell. I do not claim anywhere that his device works or does not work, but I follow alternative energy systems because if they do work I want to be first in utilizing the technology in my industry. Even if these devices don't work I continue to learn from the various discussions back and forth between supporters and naysayers.

I worked in the renewable energy market as a field engineer installing data collection for wind farm developments. I worked with manufacturers testing prototypes for wind assessment equipment and performed energy production analysis for project financing. I helped spec out sensors and controls for the water industry, installed plc's and scada systems, and helped troubleshoot system problems. I oversee construction on billion dollar wastewater plants, concrete quality control, computer control system installations, water system upgrades. I have obtained numerous licenses in the water and wastewater industry and continue to learn and study in my field. I respect all opinions and try to teach people about my industry and the work I perform. I started in the field 30 years ago and will spend the rest of my career constructing the infrastructure that keeps society moving. I am proud of the work I do and the service I provide to the public. I never belittle someone for their lack of knowledge in my industry and instead try to encourage new people to get education and training in my field. I don't like how you insult people and belittle them when you don't agree with their opinions or make a simple error.

http://electronics.stackexchan…-mwh-h-as-unit-of-measure
As people are generally billed in kWh or (MWh for big business?) it is simpler to indicate the a unit of power per time period.* kWh and MWh are alternatives to joules for representing an amount of energy, * kWh/h and MWh/h are alternatives to kW and MW for representing power (or energy production/consumption).

• Thanks Eric, its holliday atm here and I have not much time to respond. I will try to get back later tomorrow or saturday.

• Eric Walker : The referenced values for e, mu, tau - electron relation are the uncorrected ones ....

Thank you, Wyttenbach, for the sharp eyesight. I missed those and have updated the earlier post to incorporate them, as well as the final equation you mentioned.