• I haven't the slightest idea. But it is not a good sign.


    I cannot make head or tail of his present experiments. His early ones at Thermacore were much simpler. They looked like cold fusion, so I assumed they were cold fusion, only with Ni instead of Pd.


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf


    Jed, you wrote a book on cold fusion and you are confused. How much work did you put into this? You know, this is a big deal.


    Apparently some people need to be spoon fed. There are 100 papers on the subject - since there is no standard LENR theory - but the hydrino theory has passed more independent tests than any LENR experiment in history, perhaps it is time to take a look. This isn't going away so you either learn it now or later.


    This simple paper by Dr. Philips professor at the Naval Postgraduate School - and ex-Los Alamos scientist is pretty clear - a novel chemical energy process exists. Anyone can reproduce this and I know many who have at many universities. https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401132.pdf


    Hydrino-Reaction-v3.jpg

  • - a novel chemical energy process exists

    The actual overall subBohr transition '=chemical ' ?energy process revealed by the latest tests


    appears to be the formation of shrunken molecular hydrogen..H*-H* (Mills = H2 (1/4)

    rather than single hydrino atomic H* forms


    "The calorimetrically measured power of a typical 80 mg, 10 microliter shot ignition released

    by the nascent HOH catalyzed transition of H to hydrino state H2 (1/4) was 400,000 W.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0577907317316088


    If there is further evidence of single hydrino atomic H* forms beingobserved from recent tests it would be useful to know



  • This simple paper by Dr. Philips professor at the Naval Postgraduate School - and ex-Los Alamos scientist is pretty clear - a novel chemical energy process exists.

    That paper is not "simple" for me. It is mostly over my head. I do not understand nuclear physics at that level. I might understand his calorimetry. But, in any case, he (and Mills) say this is a chemical reaction. There is no mention of deuterium fusing to form helium. Therefore it is not cold fusion. One of the few things we know for sure about cold fusion is that it is fusion.


    Also, I do not understand why anyone calls this a "chemical" reaction. It is, quote: "the formation of fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen." I have no clue what that means, but I can see it is not molecules being re-arranged, and electron bonds being formed or broken. A chemical reaction by definition is a change in molecules, and the energy always comes from electron bonds. There is never any change to the atom. So this is not a chemical reaction. I have no idea what this is, what it should be called, or whether it exists, but it ain't chemical -- by definition. It happens to only one atom, all by itself! Chemistry always happens to combinations of atoms (molecules).


    I do know what cold fusion is. Anyone can see from the data. With Pd-D it is D+D fusion. I have no idea what it might be with Ni, assuming it even exists.

  • The problem is that Mills postulated a Hydrino particle model that is full of flaws. He correctly identified the resonant energy transfer between masses without understanding it's nature. All mass is magnetic EM mass and resonances are either joint waves or added energy. H*/D* is a joint wave where as a hydrino resonances is added energy.


    The good thing is that LENR and also the SUN-CELL reaction are based on the same mechanism that is not in Mills physics! Mills just says it's resonant transfer but all his hydrino calculations are as precise as SM that as best has about 1% error. This is way above the simple Bohr model.


    We all like Mills because he reintroduced Maxwell & Newton to nuclear physics and found a new way to treat magnetic effects. We also like him because he could isolate and measure H*-H*. But do not believe that his model explains anything fundamental about his experimental work or LENR.


    Do you feel his explanation for the double-slit - the central problem in QM according to Feynman - is on track? You stated you believe entanglement is a real phenomena so trying to assess how this fits in your physics conception

  • Do you feel his explanation for the double-slit - the central problem in QM according to Feynman - is on track?


    I'm not involved in philosophical discussions. As long as we do not fully understand dense matter (the matter of the slit!) we can hunt flies in night time.


    Fighting against QM like Mills does is childish behavior. QM is an engineering method nothing more. It's not fundamental.


    As said if Mills does not start to understand SO(4) physics he will fail the same way as the other 100'000 nuclear & particle physicists daily do too.


    Nobody is deeply interested in the double-slit experiment as long as we have no complete model for LENR and SM physicists are allowed do spread jokes about particles & their masses.

  • Mills and others are trying to commercialise and release the chemical process. Yes, a low energy fusion source with plenty punchy atomic releases of potencial are desirable. I humbly think the catalytic hydrogen process woud have the easiest route to broad civilian usage and quickest global roll out from the labs. Assuming both get proven mainstream I see LENR "magic" revitalizing the nuclear industry and sticking to military, scientific/academic research and space applications otherwise in the near future, because of safety and such in spite of low estimated cost. A possible resonant miracle of hydrogen chemistry could spread further and saturate pushing out the fossil fuels from the market. May just be educated posturing but it is amazing to think about both existing in some proper form, two fed by water and tensions over oil/gas relaxing. This is the official BLP thread anyway, buenas noches!


  • The double slit is the central problem of QM - I don't think anyone thinks it is child's play. Poor Jed barely can understand a resonant chemical reaction, so clearly he's going to be confused by double-slits and quantum foams and all the crazy stuff they have built up into the quantum philosophy.


    I'm curious to know if Mills explanationof interactions between electrons and photons - classical diffraction not interference - is agreed? How does SO(4) relevant or contribute to this?

  • the double slit is the central problem of QM


    QM has a number of problematic areas


    However the hydrino is centre stage..right and left as well.. at BLP

    There is a lot of credible evidence for the shrunken hydrogen which Mills calls H2(1/4).


    I am just wondering how Mills GUTCP predicts the 496 eV binding energy for the dihydrino H2(1/4)?

    as assigned to the peak at Lehigh U in 2018.

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


    Also if there is any evidence for the other dihydrinos..

    H2(1/2)...H2(1/3).. H2(1/5) H2 (1/6)?


    The H2(1/5) ..H2(1/6) etc would give out even more 'exothermic' energy than

    the 491..496 eV of the H2(1/4)??

  • The double slit is the central problem of QM


    You overestimate the relevance of QM. But it is a fact that it is misused for many explanations that are not conform with the QM model. As said any interaction of a photon with matter is via magnetic flux what is not in QM. Thus QM uses an approximation. The same holds for Mills as he has no detailed model for the magnetic interaction(s). Polarized photons are conform with 1FC orbits and can be fully absorbed by material that own such orbits. May be double slit with a dense hydrogen layer might be interesting.


    We should not waste time on experiments that are based on incomplete knowledge. We are interested in new stuff. Mills hydrino model is on the way to fail. Please try to defend this first instead chewing century old gums.

  • So is this saying something different than...

    This?

  • Yes and No.. the condensed hydrogen reaction seems to be exothermic.. exptally for " H2(1/4)"


    but the theory behind multiple dihydrinos seems to be incomplete

    and the existence of multiple dihydrinos H2(1/2) H2(1/3) ... H2(1/5) etc has not been confirmed


    Wrong. At the 1999 APS meeting he presented data showing high binding KHI. He had Hydride ions that formed blue crystals H-[1/4] and green crystals H-[1/6].

    The paper and a ton of experimental work was done to confirm this and the published paper is here.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0360319900000379


    He also told everyone that a unique battery could be made from these ions because of their high binding energies.


    Note: I found this out recently. Fleischmann and Mallove were there, and really some world class people like Johannes Conrads. There were about 25 people there for 3 hrs - and the comments were pretty basic like "how come if this is true don't we see this all the time?"

  • Wrong. At the 1999 APS meeting he presented data showing high binding KHI


    Neither wrong nor right.. the evidence is not available publically.

    Also green crystals of hydrinide H-[1/6] ion . are not dihydrino..H2 (1/6)?

    Do you have the original paper Navid.. or is this opinion?


    I am just wondering how Mills GUTCP predicts the 496 eV binding energy for the dihydrino H2(1/4)?

    as assigned to the peak at Lehigh U in 2018.

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


    Also if there is any spectral evidence for the other dihydrinos..

    H2(1/2)...H2(1/3).. H2(1/5) H2 (1/6)?

    surely these would show up in XPS.

    Does GUTCP predict the relative populations of H2(1/2) H2(1/3) ... H2(1/5) etc..

    Why is it that H2(1/4) seems favoured?


  • Robert, I put in a link to the paper in my note. I can probably get you answers for all these questions but not now - it's a lot of work and digging.


    To answer H2[1/4] is favored by Mills because he use the water catalyst - which has a 81.6ev (27.2 * 3).

    If he was using Zn (with 1st ionization potential of 9.39 and 2nd of 17.96 = 27.2) the H[1/2] would be favored.
    It is all chemistry, not hocus pocus.

    The hocus pocus are people who use the catalysts without knowing why they work.

  • To answer H2[1/4] is favored by Mills because he use the water catalyst - which has a 81.6ev (27.2 * 3).

    It is all chemistry, not hocus pocus


    Navid.. I am talking about the dihydrino..not the hydrino.

    The answer you have given is for the hydrino H(1/4)... not the dihydrino H2(1/4).

    The answer was also in GUTCP2016 which I read before..

    Unfortunately the answers to my questions cannot be found in the 2016 GUTCP..

    "the 496 eV binding energy for the dihydrino H2(1/4)???????????... chemistry or assumption?




    Hydrino and dihydrino are very different.


    Why am I interested in the dihydrino?

    because the shrunken or condensed H2 seems to be a link btw

    the theories of Holmlid.. Wyttenbach and Mills


    also the most recent Mills Lehigh spectral evidence..https://brilliantlightpower.com/presentations/Analytical_Presentation_083019.pptx

    mostly points to only H2(1/4) and not any other hydrino..or any other dihydrino

    also Mills draws nice yellow dihydrinos..

  • New BLP USPTO Patent Application ---


    United States Patent Application 20190389723 December 26, 2019


    HYDROGEN-CATALYST REACTOR


    Abstract

    A power source and hydride reactor is provided comprising a reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form novel hydrogen species and compositions of matter comprising new forms of hydrogen, a source of atomic hydrogen, a source of a hydrogen catalyst comprising a reaction mixture of at least one reactant comprising the element or elements that form the catalyst and at least one other element, whereby the catalyst is formed from the source and the catalysis of atomic hydrogen releases energy in an amount greater than about 300 kJ per mole of hydrogen during the catalysis of the hydrogen atom. Further provided is a reactor wherein the reaction mixture comprises a catalyst or a source of catalyst and atomic hydrogen or a source of atomic hydrogen (H) wherein at least one of the catalyst and atomic hydrogen is released by a chemical reaction of at least one species of the reaction mixture or between two or more reaction-mixture species. In an embodiment, the species may be at least one of an element, complex, alloy, or a compound such as a molecular or inorganic compound wherein each may be at least one of a reagent or product in the reactor. Alternatively, the species may form a complex, alloy, or compound with at least one of hydrogen and the catalyst. Preferably, the reaction to generate at least one of atomic H and catalyst is reversible.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0389723&RS=DN/20190389723

  • [US9115913 + hydrino] >>>> US20190389723


    Last and quick turn [early publication request for application 16/426687 filed May 30, 2019] : RM give up ACME electric welders and grabs hydrino entangled boilers AR style.


    Release of a video with a scalding water pool is next step.

  • Chemical release of energy when burning H is 286 KJ per mole. The patent abstract says “greater than about 300 KJ” so the improvement over chemical ain’t that impressive, perhaps this was on purpose?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.