BLP update

For the academic physics world the hydrino and Mills are even more persona non grata than LENR

Wyttenbach acknowledges some of Mills experimental work in Assisi

so I hear..

"The value of 495.8 eV matches very closely with the value Mills measured for his “Hydrino” condensate."

Wyttenbach also connects this 495.8EV with Holmlid's results and the LENR mechanism

It is interesting that Mills makes no connection between GUTCP and LENR

Its just- "the hydrino is not cold fusion."

From AtomEcology update 9th September. Russ George

"

Wyttenbach notes, in conversation, that he has found the Mills work is a 'good start' for this new physics, but that Mills would be well advised to broaden it to include the cold nuclear mechanisms facilitated by ultra-dense deuterium to deliver breakthrough ratios, up to 20x baseline, in the cold fusion fuels that Jürg and I develop and study at our modest Atom-Ecology laboratory in London."

"

Footsteps along the way.

Previously R. Mills, now of Brilliant Light Power in New Jersey, a company with scores of millions of Wall Street financing, found 30 years ago the first metric that allows us to convert mass at rest into a mass in a rotating relativistic frame. Because in mass aggregation (fusion) the average radius shrinks, the inward radial dimension must be included into the relativistic metric, which does not work with Einstein's general relativity model as it cannot handle the center of mass being a pole. Thus the inward (to pole) length contraction is given by α and the finite! mass increase by 2π (Mills). The combination of these two factors is the well known and here renamed constant is called 2FC.

There is a pdf of Jurgs poster..on Atom Ecology

Well I think this sums up BLP's work up to 2015:

Atomic hydrogen is predicted to form fractional Rydberg energy states

H(1/p) called “hydrino atoms” wherein

n=12,13,14,...,1p (

p≤137 is an integer) replaces the well-known parameter n = integer in the Rydberg equation for hydrogen excited states. The transition of

H to a stable hydrino state

H[aH/p=m+1] having a binding energy of

p2·13.6eV occurs by a nonradiative resonance energy transfer of

m·27.2eV (

m is an integer) to a matched energy acceptor such as nascent H2O that has a potential energy of 81.6 eV (m = 3). The energy transfer to the HOH catalyst results in its ionization wherein the charge build up may become limiting of the further propagation of the catalysis reaction. An applied, low-voltage, high current was predicted to ameliorate this space charge inhibition of the hydrino reaction. To achieve these conditions, a solid fuel was used that comprises a highly conductive matrix such as a metal powder with bound or suspended H2O that served as the source of HOH catalyst and H. When the high current was applied, the H2O-based solid exploded with a tremendous burst of optical power as recorded with high-speed video and spectroscopically. The power density was confirmed to be about 3 × 1010 W/liter of fuel volume using the measured time of the event and the energy released as measured by bomb calorimetry. The predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).

The similarities to Holmlid's UDH work is clear, both being Rydberg Matter (RM) states-maybe hydrino RM releases mesons too forming -muons and thus proton fusion reactions & excess energy when the electric discharge is applied? Hasn't Mills ever monitored radiation release from his experiments? Any new references? Lots of metal oxide present to catalyse UDH/hydrinos which are most likely the same hydrogen species. Both would theoretically release mesons on Infra red stimulation either by laser or electrical discharge. Obvious or what?

Light reading... as in photon..

From Wyttenbach's SO(4) pdf

http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…achModel_Poster15-003.pdf

Even more similarities of hydrinos to UDH -from a 2017 publication - both are being claimed to constitute dark matter. Both are catalysed by dehydrogenating metal oxides.

EUV radiation in the 10-30 nm region observed only arising from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen first at Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BrLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA) was determined to be due to the transition of H to the lower-energy hydrogen or hydrino state H(1/4) whose emission matches that observed wherein alternative sources were eliminated. The identity of the catalyst that accepts 3 × 27.2 eV from the H to cause the H to H(1/4) transition was investigated by recording the EUV continuum emission from electrodes having metal oxides that are thermodynamically favorable to undergo H reduction to form HOH catalyst; whereas, those that are unfavorable did not show any continuum even though the low-melting point metals tested are very favorable to forming metal ion plasmas with strong short-wavelength continua in more powerful plasma sources. Of the two possible catalysts, 3 H and HOH, the latter catalyst is more likely to be active in the H pinch plasma based on the behavior with oxide-coated electrodes and the consideration of the intensity profile of the multi-body reaction required during 3 H catalysis. The HOH catalyst was further shown to give EUV radiation of the same nature by igniting a solid fuel comprising a source of H and HOH catalyst by passing a low voltage, high current through the fuel to produce explosive plasma. No chemical reaction can release such high-energy light, and the field corresponded to a voltage that was less than 15 V for the atmospheric pressure collisional plasma. No high field existed to form highly ionized ions that could give radiation in this EUV region. This plasma source serves as strong evidence for the existence of the transition of H to hydrino H(1/4) by HOH as the catalyst. The hydrino reaction is a powerful new energy source released primarily as blackbody radiation equivalent to the Sun spectrum. Initial prototypes to generate extraordinary optical power by the formation of hydrinos are already producing photovoltaic generated electrical power. Moreover, m H catalyst was identified to be active in the laboratory and astronomical sources such as the Sun, stars, and interstellar medium wherein the characteristics of hydrino product match those of the dark matter of the universe.

So if its not a chemical reaction what is it? You got it - must be nuclear. If Holmlid/Norront Energy applied the same protocol to UDH surely he would obtain the same results? A massive release of -muons and an explosive release of energy & radiation, neutrons etc from fusion reactions.

My overall assessment is that very very few in LENR have actually looked at Mills work. I include the grandfathers of the field like Fleischmann. I include the university based LENR people. I say that based on evidence but I'm not going to get into specific names. Not taking this seriously, will limit figuring out if and how there are nuclear effects downstream of the hydrino reaction. I'm curious about that as a side bar.

BTW, Mills in the above statement is saying "no KNOWN chemical reaction can release such high-energy light." Hydrino catalysis is a chemical reaction.

Quote from Shane D.

Maybe so, but Wyttenbach, and others here at LF "have looked at Mills work

I have looked.. I get a Millsian headache each time

but when I read Wyttenbach I get a worse 4D SO(4) headache.

Its becoming recurrent recently.

Wyttenbach links h-h fusion and d-d fusion with Mills and Holmlid

I guess its time for Mills to try deuterium..

"The first step in a Hydrogen fusion reaction is the forming of e.g. H*-H*/D*-D* pairs (Hydrino,dense Hydrogen
..) as shown by Mills/Holmlid.

This process can be explained by the weak force equivalent constant 1FC that
forces the two joining perturbative proton masses on one more rotation orbit.

The charge corrected calculated net potential of 495.8eV

is in perfect agreement with 496eV measured by R.Mills in the H*-H* case.

Further we will show a model how the D-D fusion energy is thermalized."

abstracts ICCF 22 Assisi

https://iscmns.org/iccf22/program/

Check how many times 496   comes up as exptalevidence in this Mills document.

Mills Hydrino of H2(1/4) = H*-H* oair or D*-D* pair.(Wyttenbach)

https://www.brilliantlightpowe…l-Presentation-120718.pdf

Wyttenbach wrote: 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 ...

Quote from Navid

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.

Display More

Mills is all about force balance. He takes full account of the forces he believes are in operation, and makes his calculations, which seem to work very well. The reason Mills calculations work is is because he introduces the trapped photon, which alters the coulombic force that the electron experiences from the proton. For excited states, the trapped photon(s) decreases the force ; for hydrino states the trapped photon(s) increased the force. This is critical in the calculations. Without them, no hydrino. Now, I suppose Wyttenbach thinks that this trapped photon is a bit of a cheat. Perhaps it is, or perhaps this is the way nature does it. The thing going for Mills is that he has performed experiments that appear to validate the existence of certain of the hydrino states precisely, like for instance the H2(1/4) Ro-vibrational spectrum branch one sees starting on page 15 of

https://www.brilliantlightpowe…l-Presentation-120718.pdf

Wyttenbach's theory however, to the best of my knowledge, predicts only one low energy shrunken hydrogen state, much smaller and lower energy than H2(1/4), something that might give off about 500eV. Don't quote me on that though. So the two theories predict different things. Who knows, Mills may be shown to be more or less correct on the electron level, while Wyttenbach may be more or less correct on the nuclear level. Either way, both are champions in my eyes.

Navid

My overall assessment is that very very few in LENR have actually looked at Mills work. I include the grandfathers of the field like Fleischmann. I include the university based LENR people. I say that based on evidence but I'm not going to get into specific names. Not taking this seriously, will limit figuring out if and how there are nuclear effects downstream of the hydrino reaction. I'm curious about that as a side bar.

Because R.Mills is a classical physicist having no truck with cold fusion or LENR, does not submit papers to J of CMNS or attend ICCF meetings - so we tend not to read his work very much, Which is short-sighted with respect to both parties. Then again Holmlid's group only started contributing recently. So we have two lone-wolf mavericks both apparently making great progress in their chosen fields without any recognition from peer physicists who have consistently ignored their work for decades. I am intrigued by how this can happen in this century - its not that people are not aware of the research - for some reason nobody believes it because it cannot like cold fusion be explained by a rational theory. Nobody in conventional science accepts partial quantal states or ultra-condensation of matter underlying hydrinos or ultra dense hydrogen as proposed by R.Mills and Holmlid respectively. But a few non-conventional scientists like myself are willing to suspend our disbelief and go along with their propositions and experimental work, follow it down to some logical conclusions, and see where it all leads to. Theoretical physicists do this all the time with Large Hadron Collider proton experiments who all pat each other on their backs for coming up with the somewhat meaningless Higg's particle for example - notice in particle physics everything seems to be predicted mathematically decades before the God-damned particle actually turns up! So that their conventional smug theorists can sit back with their Nobel awards/DOE research grants and project their own brand of QM, QED and QCD on their underling next generation of PhD's and post-doctoral slaves. Sorry about the rant but science is riddled with just about the same level of hypocrisy as any other human activity. My point is there is a need for such mavericks as Mills and Holmlid to challenge the conventional view of science. I think Einstein would have agreed with me because as a lowly, unpretentious patent clerk, that's all he ever did. Challenge the status quo.

Quote from Navid

- 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?

With SO(4) physics you can model Hydrogen with much higher precision than Mills classical approach. The photon he introduces is a proxy for an explanation nobody needs. Unless he cannot show how charge is generated by a photon (never seen in any experiment...) it is just fooling the crowed.

The problem is that many people do not understand the difference between a resoannce and an orbit. An orbit needs a complete physical model. A resonance can be given as a relation to a model what is much weaker.

Mills conclusion came from experiments that did show Hydrino energy resonances.

Thus it's up to Mills! He shall show/tell the world how (by strict physics) a photon with e.g 13.6eV energy can produce a charge!...and why nobody sees this charge in scattering experiments...

Maybe R. Mills or L. Holmlid could intercede at this juncture and add a few suggestions to this discussion, if they're not too busy? Tempt them with the carrot of a Nobel prize because if fully substantiated, that would be what their work would be worth.

Well maybe they sometimes do using avatars, who knows? But if such work is never freely discussed in open situations such as this by either the originators or co-workers then no-wonder its not being taken seriously. Still, I'll just go back to studying their papers and establish any logical links to LENR & recent publications at ICCF22. A lot or research is like detective work.

But wouldn't honest science discussion increase investor interest - there would be plenty of opportunity to prove/disprove his and Holmlid's ideas one way or another - how else can the negative views on other forum like International Skeptics ever be rejected?