BLP update

So EOP is marketing/advising on hydrino energy? So you must be linked to R Mills or at least sanctioned to represent BLP? I have been researching into the possibility that the hydrino, Holmlid's UDH and Storm's hydraton are in fact equivalent species essential for any excess heat production in LENR - all three are dense forms of matter and as such capable of detecting solar neutrinos - the hypothesis being such ultra dense matter is capable of extracting the neutrino energy and converting it to mesons which break down in turn to negative muons which then initiate D or p fusion reactions - the original cold fusion proposed by A Sakharov etc. So there is a nice parallel here between solar energy and LENR if further research indeed shows this to be the case. So in the case of BLP's hydrinos, how about persuading them to try measuring their excess power release with 1) lowered or elevated backgrounds of neutrinos 2) lowered or elevated levels of secondary muons. Difficult experiments but they might be interested.

We are here to educate, from our perspective, which is independent from BLP. We don't have any sanctions from BLP. Do we hope they are successful - of course. I drew a simple analogy to oil and gas. It is an industry. Are we early? No. On January 9, 2007 we had a $1T a year industry form that didn't exist before. Exponential technologies - which create an industry - can grow fast.

It seems like most people here want to help science. We want to do that to, it is pure advocacy. I wrote this article on Linkedin for that reason: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse…ocked-box-navid-sadikali/

One project we need someone for with very advanced E&M is to help us step by step explain spin. We see that as the keystone in explaining GUTCP to others. I can share details with those who might be interested, message me. These projects are pure advocacy, and we do them in our spare time.

@clarifier Tell us something positive. Negativity doesn't contribute much to forward progress. If you have skills let's use them. Virtually every time I have pushed someone to contribute, they backdown.

Quote

It seems like most people here want to help science. We want to do that to, it is pure advocacy.

How about this: advocate that BLP provide clear, well controlled and calibrated calorimetry showing exactly how they measure the input to the "Suncell" device, and how they measure the output, including enough raw data that their calculations can be checked along with whether they have done enough to rule out errors? Or perhaps they can make the Suncell self-running (remove the power input to the cell) to correspond to their claims of high efficiency and high power out? They use photocells to convert light to electricity, right? And the device is powered by electricity, right? See the point?

Quote from Navid

We see that as the keystone in explaining GUTCP to others.

GUTCP is very interesting for electron shell calculations. Unluckily for LENR it contains some false assumptions how the strong force works. Mills also failed too recognize that the excellent quotients for the lepton masses did point too some new physics.

Hydrinos have no complete force equation and the assumption of a doubling etc. of charge with shrinking radius is the opposite behavior we see for nuclear mass ...In reality the charge for H*-H* (dense hydrogen - aka hydrino) decreases because a new type of magnetic bond is working.

If Mills finds no way to further shrink H*-H* and finally induce LENR then the SUN-CELL's are a dead end compared to LENR. The use of Deuterium could simplify many things as D*-D* can be manipulated/fused of site, what does not work with H*-H*.

Thus please go on to explain GUTCP to physical chemists but for nuclear physics it can only offer the handling of magnetic flux - what is great stuff! - but no explanation for the real questions of nuclear physics.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

How about this: advocate that BLP provide clear, well controlled and calibrated calorimetry showing exactly how they measure the input to the "Suncell" device, and how they measure the output, including enough raw data that their calculations can be checked along with whether they have done enough to rule out errors? Or perhaps they can make the Suncell self-running (remove the power input to the cell) to correspond to their claims of high efficiency and high power out? They use photocells to convert light to electricity, right? And the device is powered by electricity, right? See the point?

They are clearly working on just this. But they keep the card tight to their chest. Perhaps they have not completed the work yet, or they want to save the announcement to a point where it is beneficial for the company like a finished product or if they must ask for more monney for development. If it works and the monney is there to be spend why feeding the competitors? I surely would not like my investment to do that too early. But you are right what you ask for in order to accept the suncell is reasonable.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Hydrinos have no complete force equation and the assumption of a doubling etc. of charge with shrinking radius is the opposite behavior we see for nuclear mass ...

Wrong. It shows you don't know what is happening in hydrino creation, nor understanding photons, nor understanding electrons. I would start there.

- How does excitation of an electron by a photon really work? What causes the increase in radius and decrease in the velocity of the currents during excitation?

- What is the relationship between an electron radius and "photon standing wave" wavelengths?

Einstein won the Nobel prize for physics for the photoelectric effect but didn't have a clue what an electron or photon was. If you don't understand this in detail -- you can't understand why hydrinos ARE in force balance.

Navid

I am pretty sure that not many people looked so deep into GUTCP as Wyttenbach. And he gives Mills credit for what he achieved and is building up on many of his results. GUTCP is not very clear on many aspects. This does not mean that MIlls is not correct, but some of his conclusions seem wrong/incomplete from what is written down. This is no surprise, because the topics are highly complex and there are many topics covered in GUTCP.

Epimetheus I trust Wyttenbach is genuine. But because you are dealing with a new area even major misses can occur by people genuinely interested. My comments were to direct focus on those specific areas which cannot be ignored - what is an electron and what is a photon - if we don't focus on the basics we cannot move forward into new areas.

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Navid

Seems like an unwarranted attack on Wyttenbach. Why so defensive? Surely open discussion of GUTCP which is a classical view of nuclear physics with respect to Quantum theories or W's magnetic theories is a good thing? Might even pull BLP out of the hole they appear to be in at the moment with all their secretive stuff.

Dr Richard You guys are sensitive and reading into things that aren't there.

I said he is wrong on a point, saying he is wrong is not an attack on someone's person. He is allowed to make mistakes. Let's focus on the data and theory, and forget innuendo or trying to characterize things we don't understand as "secrets."

Quote

They [BLP] are clearly working on just this [calorimetry].

Well, a couple of points. They've been making extravagant claims for decades! And with nothing whatever credible or tangible to show except bright flashes of light generated by huge currents in small spaces. They also spend what? $20 million per year? More? That could buy a calorimeter or two, don't you think? By now?

I disagree, there is no mistake in what Wyttenbach proposed from his own theoretical perspective. None of us here are particularly sensitive - its good to thrash out disagreements by logical arguments and transparency of data is number one. If large sums of money for research are being swallowed up by a research group without publication of results over a very long period of time surely it is only natural for us to speculate what exactly is going on there? To put this into perspective - even LHC data is regularly released to the public for theoretical physicists in universities to work on (and there are proposals to try and archive every piece of data or experiment for theoreticians to carry on working on for the forseeable future). So what's up at BLP?

Dr Richard I did not comment on any theory by Wyttenbach. Go read what I wrote.

Rather than speculate about what is going on at BLP why don't you we turn to the 100+ papers showing new hydrogen chemistry from them and many collaborators -- happy to discuss those? A partial list

We are genuinely interested in R.Mills work - do you have 2017-2019 references (to assess what progress has been made recently)?