BLP update

    Quote from stefan

    The calculation is short and neat.

    Stefan can you properly introduce all variables you use? "e" in physics can be an electron or a variable "de" means nothing unless until you define the meaning of "d" e.g. as derivation... the use teh proper letter. Also "x" without index is meant as vector?


    All these classic (Dirac, Schrödinger Klein-Gordon) equation fail do describe Hydrogen in detail, because the topology used is a sphere not a torus. So it always will be, as GUT-CP too, just a first order approximation.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Stefan can you properly introduce all variables you use? "e" in physics can be an electron or a variable "de" means nothing unless until you define the meaning of "d" e.g. as derivation... the use teh proper letter. Also "x" without index is meant as vector?


    All these classic (Dirac, Schrödinger Klein-Gordon) equation fail do describe Hydrogen in detail, because the topology used is a sphere not a torus. So it always will be, as GUT-CP too, just a first order approximation.

    I did a misstake, leaning on my memory, this does not work, I remembered wrongly. But there should be a connection between QM and GUTCP and Bohr, there must be.

    Quote from stefan

    But there should be a connection between QM and GUTCP and Bohr, there must be.

    Of course all these models use EM multi pole expansion for orbit interaction. Spherical harmonics come from EM wave theory and the radial function is as old as Newton just folded with the harmonicals.


    The big add-on of Mills was the proper isolation of the magnetic energy. I did improve his formula for the proton electron hyperfine coupling. Now I get the frequency with 9 digits of course with SO(4) logic.

    Then problem is his model only works for symmetric structures. It fails for deuterium. Also his 4-He calculations contain some cheatings same for single electron atoms.

    So he is a master of self deception like most genius he is able to cheat himself.


    Luckily for him there is H*-H* - found by Santilli that works a bit like the fictive Hydrino.

    Quote from stefan

    I did a misstake, leaning on my memory, this does not work, I remembered wrongly. But there should be a connection between QM and GUTCP and Bohr, there must be.

    I uploaded a new version, the intuition was correct before and I sketch how the connection between the eigenvalues of QED and Bohr most likely is constructed. Turns out that QM and QED is most likely a over complicated mathematical construct. I also indicate how to prove this connection for all solutions of the Hydrogene atom and even the expansion to all atoms as seen in GUTCP. The picture is at lest to me very clear now.

    As I said I have changed the link below to a better version (the same intuition though)

    A an abstract would be,


    By formulating the solution of the Klein Gordon (the same can most likely be done for Dirac) one can make an argument that by squeezing the region where the solution is located (radially) a solution can be maintained with the same energy. Because of the success of the Bohr model the contraction can most likely be so extreme that there is a notion of a solution for a spherical shell. Now comes a neat trick, the equation for the shell can be scaled so that due to the correspondence principle the physics of the shell can be interpreted with classical physics and explain why the Bohr model works (and also GUTCP). Now the same program can be tried (but is messy) for the Dirac equation, which is better as the spin = hbar/2 will lead to a quantization in the classical limit (e.g. the same as saying that L=hbar for a single particle orbiting at constant radii). It also looks like it is possible to reach solutions for multibody system as well and motivating the classical approaches for general atoms in GUTCP. By in detail study this approach for Dirac, I think that a more mechanized solving technique of the energy levels of all atoms might be possible. I do have too little time to put into this and I don't have any resources to follow up on the lead. But with this i'm quite intellectual pleased that Bohr and GUTCP is placed in the correct context with respect to QM. The hole technique is based on stitching solutions together with regions of constant Potential, a tip of how to do that is to google for e.g. Dirac and spherical box.

    Quote from stefan

    As I said I have changed the link below to a better version (the same intuition though)

    A an abstract would be,


    By formulating the solution of the Klein Gordon (the same can most likely be done for Dirac) one can make an argument that by squeezing the region where the solution is located (radially) a solution can be maintained with the same energy. Because of the success of the Bohr model the contraction can most likely be so extreme that there is a notion of a solution for a spherical shell. Now comes a neat trick, the equation for the shell can be scaled so that due to the correspondence principle the physics of the shell can be interpreted with classical physics and explain why the Bohr model works (and also GUTCP). Now the same program can be tried (but is messy) for the Dirac equation, which is better as the spin = hbar/2 will lead to a quantization in the classical limit (e.g. the same as saying that L=hbar for a single particle orbiting at constant radii). It also looks like it is possible to reach solutions for multibody system as well and motivating the classical approaches for general atoms in GUTCP. By in detail study this approach for Dirac, I think that a more mechanized solving technique of the energy levels of all atoms might be possible. I do have too little time to put into this and I don't have any resources to follow up on the lead. But with this i'm quite intellectual pleased that Bohr and GUTCP is placed in the correct context with respect to QM. The hole technique is based on stitching solutions together with regions of constant Potential, a tip of how to do that is to google for e.g. Dirac and spherical box.

    I feel sorry for you ... You are wasting your efforts ... Why are you doing this? Do you understand that disappointment awaits you and in the future you will understand the futility of your work ... Treat yourself with self-criticism ... Stop ... Look around - there are a lot of scientists who have already understood the fallacy of the path you are going to take .. You just probably have not read their works and their argementation.

    The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment of its stay at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with an energy of 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained


    13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40


    but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

    -13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)


    and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negative charge of the electron. Clever, isn't it?


    And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

    Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)


    Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Comprehend THIS ...


    Let us write down similar relations for the transition of an electron from the first to the third and fourth energy levels.


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.09 = Ee - 1.51 (3)


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.75 = Ee - 0.85 (4)

    From relations (2), (3) and (4) follows the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom -


    Ee - Ei + Ef = Ee - E1 / n2 → Ef = Ei - E1 / n2, (5)


    where: Ef = hvf is the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon; Ei is the ionization energy equal to the energy of such a photon, after absorption of which the electron loses its bond with the nucleus and becomes free; E1 - the binding energy of the electron with the atomic nucleus, corresponding to the first energy level is also equal to the photon energy


    For a hydrogen atom, E1 = Ei = hv1 = hvf. Taking this into account, the mathematical model (5) can be written as follows


    hvf = hvi - hv1 / n2 → vf = vi - v1 / n2 (6)


          We have obtained a mathematical model of the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, which includes only the frequencies of absorbed or emitted photons, that is, the frequency of rotation of photons about their axes. And where is the frequency of rotation of an electron around the nucleus of an atom? There is no it. There is no rotational motion of the electron around the atomic nucleus!



    This is precisely this that allows us today to look at the microcosm with completely meaningful eyes and not with the eyes of madmen who are shocked by the uncertainty of the rotation of electrons around nuclei and who are forced to bear complete nonsense when you ask them an elementary question - “Describe, explain how two electrons make a connection between each other in the well-known "electron-electronic bond" in molecules, while one of them "dangles" in an indefinite way in the orbit of the nucleus of one molecule, and the other in the same indefinite way "dangles" in the orbit of the nucleus of another molecule? "


    After this question comes a complete stupor ... And we calmly answer this question, since we know that electrons do not have any rotational motion around the nuclei of atoms - they rotate around their axes and are linearly related to the protons of the nucleus, since they sit on the axes of rotation protons, i.e. their axes of rotation are aligned ...

    With BLP's somewhat limitless financial resources and a genius like R Mills at the controls I can't understand why they haven't produced a commercially available boiler yet. I suppose Brillouin Energy with their CECR process are stealing a lead by teaming up to some extent with Team Google, refining their plating processes etc.and going a long way forward in advancing the underlying theory. In the UK, like the old motorcycle industry which was superseded by new high-revving lighter Japanese machines, then driven back by modern Triumph Motorcycles, with limited resources the British way is to 'bang it together and see if it works' since all possible permutations for reactor construction have been patented and are in the PD. Undoubtedly TG's new patents will be granted with their massive finance and intellectual expertise, but really is there anything really new in all this mad-dash :) :) attempting to cover everything? :) :)

    Why sorry?


    We can measure the Energy level of the Hydrogen atom quite accurately and that matches QM but also the very classical Bohr argument. The post just say that most likely how the two approaches are connected. this also indicate that we could solve the energy levels of e.g. all atoms using a method doesn't need a computer the size of the earth and big brained scientists.

    We know that QED give the same energy levels as Hydrogen and some of Helium to an amazing number of digits. Maybe just a mathematical construction, but quite exact and hence if we know how to solve it effectively, very useful. So if you have this other fantastic approach, calculate the ground state energy of helium to say 5 digits of accuracy without cheating.

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    With BLP's somewhat limitless financial resources and a genius like R Mills at the controls I can't understand why they haven't produced a commercially available boiler yet. I suppose Brillouin Energy with their CECR process are stealing a lead by teaming up to some extent with Team Google, refining their plating processes etc.and going a long way forward in advancing the underlying theory. In the UK, like the old motorcycle industry which was superseded by new high-revving lighter Japanese machines, then driven back by modern Triumph Motorcycles, with limited resources the British way is to 'bang it together and see if it works' since all possible permutations for reactor construction have been patented and are in the PD. Undoubtedly TG's new patents will be granted with their massive finance and intellectual expertise, but really is there anything really new in all this mad-dash :) :) attempting to cover everything? :) :)

    BLP are just about to test a commercial prototype

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Stefan can you properly introduce all variables you use? "e" in physics can be an electron or a variable "de" means nothing unless until you define the meaning of "d" e.g. as derivation... the use teh proper letter. Also "x" without index is meant as vector?


    All these classic (Dirac, Schrödinger Klein-Gordon) equation fail do describe Hydrogen in detail, because the topology used is a sphere not a torus. So it always will be, as GUT-CP too, just a first order approximation.

    e is a vector so that |e| = 1, de = dS. Note the whole solution of the usual Dirac equation can be seen as a radial modulation of plane waves orginating from origo in all directions and for the regions where the charge and mass is zero. If we have a non radiating condition where the cutoff is, it will not leak energy and we would get a sane solution, when we confine the solution we will need to have a nonradiative condition which lead to a quantization.

    Common sense would suggest that the photovoltaic conversion of light in BLP's system is going to be massively energy inefficient especially in the UV-he does claim to have 'special photovoltaic cells' but I don't see how this makes a super-efficient central-heating boiler for instance. Just powering the reactor up would use a massive amount of electricity from the mains since they are essentially using welding gear. Still, if they make the whole apparatus large enough some critical mass of LENR particles may develop to make it self-sustaining. Or explode like a hydrogen bomb! :) :) :)

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    Common sense would suggest that the photovoltaic conversion of light in BLP's system is going to be massively energy inefficient especially in the UV-he does claim to have 'special photovoltaic cells' but I don't see how this makes a super-efficient central-heating boiler for instance. Just powering the reactor up would use a massive amount of electricity from the mains since they are essentially using welding gear. Still, if they make the whole apparatus large enough some critical mass of LENR particles may develop to make it self-sustaining. Or explode like a hydrogen bomb! :) :) :)

    Normal photocells yes, but when the concentration of light is high, the efficiency goes up dramatically. But I'm not too optimistic that this approach will work due to other issues like cooling requirements of the phoitovoltaic ...

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    I suppose Brillouin Energy with their CECR process are stealing a lead by teaming up to some extent with Team Google, refining their plating processes etc.and going a long way forward in advancing the underlying theory

    Are any of the inventors on this recent Team Google CMNS energy tech patent associated with Brillouin?


    Inventors: Thomas Schenkel, Ross Koningstein, Peter Seidl, Arun Persaud, Qing Ji, David K. Fork, Matthew D. Trevithick, Curtis Berlinguette, Philip A. Schauer, Benjamin P. MacLeod


    Noteworthy


    This may be the first known cold fusion LENR CMNS energy technology patent assigned to the U. S. Department of Energy.


    Apparatus And Method For Sourcing Fusion Reaction Products

    US20210151206A1 - Apparatus And Method For Sourcing Fusion Reaction Products - Google Patents

    STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

    2020-03-02 Assigned to THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

    2020-03-02 Assigned to GOOGLE INC.

    2020-12-07 Assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

    2020-12-16 Assigned to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


    [0002] This invention was made with government support under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The government has certain rights in this invention.


    Abstract

    An apparatus and method for sourcing nuclear fusion products uses an electrochemical loading process to load low-kinetic-energy (low-k) light element particles into a target electrode, which comprises a light-element-absorbing material (e.g., Palladium). An electrolyte solution containing the low-k light element particles is maintained in contact with a backside surface of the target electrode while a bias voltage is applied between the target electrode and an electrochemical anode, thereby causing low-k light element particles to diffuse from the backside surface to an opposing frontside surface of the target electrode. High-kinetic-energy (high-k) light element particles are directed against the frontside, thereby causing fusion reactions each time a high-k light element particle operably collides with a low-k light element particle disposed on the frontside surface. Fusion reaction rates are controlled by adjusting the bias voltage.




    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    This may be the first known cold fusion LENR CMNS energy technology patent assigned to the U. S. Department of Energy.

    From reading the patent (Claim 1) , this doesn't look like LENR:

    "the particle accelerator is configured to provide each said high-k light element particle with sufficient energy to generate a fusion reaction"


    Perhaps that is why Department Of Energy is involved. Use of a high-k particle accelerator would probably bring it into the regulatory scope of the Office Of Nuclear Energy

    How can we think about the charge density for a free electron? Well Einstein is the clue. So lets study the lorenz invariance when we boost the hydrogen atom close

    to the speed of light in the z direction. Now because the charge density are defined when k|r| = c and that z->gamma z, gamma -> infty as v->c we conclude that

    the hydrogen atom transform into a thin circular ellipsoid, thin in the z direction. Now the upper and lower side of the ellipsoid have similar values so we could glue

    them together in the limit. But still we have a photon and and the nucleus and the field on th eoutside, that makes the limiting distribution more complex. Now let's

    kick the photon and the nucleus away simulating the effect of a ionization. This means that the internal complexity is removed and we get a sane object going

    to the limit e.g. when can glue the upper and lower parts. now we can boost back and conclude that the charge distribution is flat and the projection of the sphere

    onto a plane, we only maintain the outer em field and make sure it has the non radiative properties. The nocked of photon will in it's "rest" frame have the similar

    setup as inside the hydrogen atom and the boost to the speed of light will transform into a disk like stucture moving at the speed of light, but with the right energy

    E = h v. The photon is obviously radiating so we do not need to specify conditions. This explains how we could interpret the photon as a trapped em field in a well

    the have boundary conditions and then boosted to the speed of light essentially freezing the form. Why freezing? well you live in a space ship running at the speed close

    to light 1s in the ship reference frame can be a year for an observer on earth going to the limit the time freezes internally so the structure is preserved. This is Randell

    mills descriptoin of what an electron is and what a photon is. It's all maxwell but not the usual solutions. I find his ideas genial and doesn't deserve the flac it get's from

    physisists. It's all pretty logical and pretty Einsteinian meaning that it is a lot to swallow for someone who have already made up their mind how nature works, very much

    like when special relativity was once constructed.

    So hydrinos, this mystery, what's that, can we find a corresponding theory in QM?

    Now the standing wave photon (spherical symmetric) in EM is essentially


    A sin((w/c)r)/r


    so we have a zero for w_photon r ~ n (= 1,2,3,...). (~ = proportional)


    The electron has it's own wave and a relationship between k_electron and w_electron according to

    the post about about QM and GUCP via Klein Gordon.


    Note that E_electron ~ w_electron=w_photon ~ E_photon


    But now if we excite the photon and hence n goes from 1 to n for a fixed r, then the energy of the photon

    goes Eph -> nEph, and w_ph -> nw_ph, the added energy need to be taken from the "circulating" charges

    spinning through in a Bohr like manner and hence there is a reduced radius to balance stuff and again

    get a stable setup. This is the essential process with how hydrinos are modeled and I can't see why one

    cannot model this in QM by introducing a region with a charge and mass and outside that region is

    mass-less and charge-less.

    Quote from stefan

    there is a reduced radius to balance stuff and again

    get a stable setup.

    This is a silly error already Mills made. Emitting a photon makes the mass lower thus the orbit increases. Hence Mills believes the central charge does increase what is total nonsense. Also an new orbital charge -generated by photon is total nonsense as the sum of charges must be 0. ==> Hydrinos total nonsense.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is a silly error already Mills made. Emitting a photon makes the mass lower thus the orbit increases. Hence Mills believes the central charge does increase what is total nonsense. Also an new orbital charge -generated by photon is total nonsense as the sum of charges must be 0. ==> Hydrinos total nonsense.

    No the mass and charge i constant in this argument.. why does it loose mass and charge? energy is also in the fields. Note that a higher order photon cant radiate due to the fact that it can't sqeeze into a disk and still be a proper mathematical object as an radiated photon moves to the speed of light.

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.