• Agree. Another classical, mechanical theory besides the GUTCP of Mills I've been loosely following for some years is from a fellow Canadian, Andre Michaud. He seems to be a polymath. Would be interested if others here are familiar with him and his theoretical work (which is largely beyond me). Too bad he doesn't (as far as I know) get into LENR.


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Michaud2

    Well another person of interest, would be awesome if he got into studying energy. Polymaths are some gorgious minds.

  • Agree. Another classical, mechanical theory besides the GUTCP of Mills I've been loosely following for some years is from a fellow Canadian, Andre Michaud.


    I checked a summary: Some nice and handsome formulas for other classical representations. Using 3 classic 3-spheres gives no extra insight as the topology is still the classic one. At least he sees the contradiction(s) inside the classic model but as said - they cannot be treated/resolved by classic thinking. Here I do include Mills thinking too that is still classic of course.

  • As some say - 95% of the universe is unexplained - so using the theories of the 5% to explain what is going on in the unknown 95% (and avoiding looking at new ideas) is CRAZY.


    Exactly. When Santilli proposed intermediate fusion I though " I heard this before from Pharis Williams." Santilli produced data but he didn't do analysis (mass balance and stoichiometry) to verify a reaction. So I did using his data and found a reaction but not the one predicted by Santilli. Both Williams and then Santilli proposed the electron cloud could be turned in to a toroid which then leaves the nucleus without a cover of electrons at it poles. But the reaction equation was not a simple two body collision. Rather an overall equation that requires a series of reactions on a catalyst to explain.


    Santill succeeded but not the way he though he had. He missed that because he didn't do the work required for a broader approach. Mill is missing an opportunity by not considering a broader approach . The nuclear word is scary to investors. However, claiming a non-nuclear process and avoiding possible nuclear safety issues doesn't make them go away.

  • When Santilli proposed intermediate fusion I though " I heard this before from Pharis Williams." Santilli produced data but he didn't do analysis (mass balance and stoichiometry) to verify a reaction. So I did using his data and found a reaction but not the one predicted by Santilli. Both Williams and then Santilli proposed the electron cloud could be turned in to a toroid which then leaves the nucleus without a cover of electrons at it poles. But the reaction equation was not a simple two body collision. Rather an overall equation that requires a series of reactions on a catalyst to explain.


    Santill succeeded but not the way he though he had. He missed that because he didn't do the work required for a broader approach. Mill is missing an opportunity by not considering a broader approach .

    You could be right. The point is so many are insisting that this new energy source has to be fundamentally nuclear or we are somehow short changing ourselves. Yes, nuclear reactions are happening at a slightly higher rate than expected. The desired widely applicable energy source that creates the majority of excess energy in all these similar experiments seems to have a fundamentally pico-chemical and dense H2 cause. This doesn't need to break or fuse the nucleus in order to be a phenomenal fountain of energy for humanity. My observation is it can probably stop there for energy purposes, we would be perfectly fine and doing quite well compared to current fission PWRs. A dusty plasma or a plasma with H gas pressure fed through reacting anode/cathode.

    Mill is missing an opportunity by not considering a broader approach . The nuclear word is scary to investors. However, claiming a non-nuclear process and avoiding possible nuclear safety issues doesn't make them go away.

    If a proccess includes a fundamental chemical process that is exothermic, dense enough to perform similar to current reactors without safety issues and avoids the complaints some investors have about nuclear energy, take note. Why assume that is trivial or just a step towards other energy sources it may enable? Assimilate the possibilities and my guess is people do more with what is currently proven, while others continue chasing instead of appreciating where they are. I agree that Mills is doing less with the theory and energy productions than he could. He is ignoring a plethora of multi-element chemical reactions possible with deep inner atom orbits that can release a great output!


    Screenshot from the article link posted in the pico-hydride and media threads. Would say that "pico-gravitation" pushes proof of extended field affects within an atom full of structure. An overlap between the strong force, gravity and electromagnetism? Linked here --> 52940c6fc6280223f9a72137e8d0f4185e1a.pdf

  • A transition metal alloy 'hydrino suncell' reaction chamber is almost like building a coal furnace out of gasoline saturated higher grade coal (probably "damp" so it doesn't explode immediately). They slowly consume themselves with a "fire" that is hotter than regular chemical fire. People have made partially right assumtions that "transmutations" happen in the walls weakening them, but I posit it is pico-chemical metal reactions from protons, deuterons bonding with and an electric current diffusing through the metal.

  • There is also a third validation report by the newcomer and relatively young Dr. Stephen Tse from Rutgers University in New Jersey. The results are about the same and do seem disappointing, but I'm going to investigate further tonight, since his results show the amount of H2 used. The COP may have been low simply because there was not much hydrogen to convert to hydrino. They were running at only about 5 Torr (one atmosphere is about 760 Torr).


    Conversely, when they were reporting high COP it was in condensed matter - hydrated silver pellets - where the H concentration would have been high after the water in the pellet was dissociated.


    I wish they would conduct a similar pellet experiment but with gallium instead. Adjusting for the lower conductivity, would the COP have been comparable with the silver pellet? I figure that Wittenbach would answer an emphatic 'no!'. I tend to agree but remain undecided.


    I recently checked, and thankfully Dr Nansteel and Dr. Tse included the H2 flow rates into the cell. From that I could calculate the average energy in eV per H atom released. Between Tse's two tests and Nansteel's four tests, the eV per H atom ranged from about 100 eV to 500eV depending on the test. The GUTCP theoretical maximum is (4^2 - 1^2)*13.6eV = 204 eV per atom of H. (This ignores the hydrino to dihydrino reaction.)

    This indicates to me that likely the reaction was starved for hydrogen and that's why the COP ranged only around 2 or 3.

  • A transition metal alloy 'hydrino suncell' reaction chamber is almost like building a coal furnace out of gasoline saturated higher grade coal (probably "damp" so it doesn't explode immediately). They slowly consume themselves with a "fire" that is hotter than regular chemical fire. People have made partially right assumtions that "transmutations" happen in the walls weakening them, but I posit it is pico-chemical metal reactions from protons, deuterons bonding with and an electric current diffusing through the metal.

    I don't know about the walls of the Suncells, but the recent validations reported that the gallium was analyzed for any chemical changes using X-ray spectroscopy and no changes were found.

  • I don't know about the walls of the Suncells, but the recent validations reported that the gallium was analyzed for any chemical changes using X-ray spectroscopy and no changes were found.

    That's the Gallium, how about Silver or the metal (some iron alloy?) from the melted parts of cells that had a thermal meltdown? Go back to the experiments where it seems they couldn't manage the excess energy, what did they engineer out? What was the energy per atom then?


    I agree that hydrogen pressure is important, "LENR-like" experiments in general would do better with higher pressure H2 flow and higher energy inputs on average. Don't you think there is some interaction between hydrogen in close proximity to and with various metals in the conditions conducive to hydrino formation? There are those in this forum that have stated that the damage is due to transmutations. Of course Mills denies this and I too see the physics gymnastics that would be nessasary because the energy balance doesn't match up. All I'm proposing is a middle ground perhaps there is a pico-chemical change, an intermediate compound with hydrogen at a deep orbit. It would be exothermic but only about 10s × more energy per reaction than hydrino/dihydrino predictions alone, less of a stretch than the MeV levels that haven't lined up with measured "transmutation". Fits extremely well with data from The SAFIRE experiments as well (resonant energy transfers, trace nuclear reactions and substantial electron/electromagnetically mediated deep orbit reactions).

  • Not the experience of Mizuno...

    Do the energy level calculations for Nickel and Palladium, how much hydrogen can be loaded and see if the energy levels add up (deep orbit bonds in a hydride) for the time it lasted and the energy output. What we see as unsatisfactory LENR experiments with unexplained transmutations may be Hydrogen starved, inefficient, multi element pico-chemical and "dihydrino" reactors. Use ionization levels in this document. If it is possible in the standard model as claimed, seems strange this approach isn't being concidered by those who seek to encompass the standard model while unleashing a paradigm change.
    >>> Table_1-2.pdf

  • Screenshot from the article link posted in the pico-hydride and media threads. Would say that "pico-gravitation" pushes proof of extended field affects within an atom full of structure. An overlap between the strong force, gravity and electromagnetism? Linked here --> 52940c6fc6280223f9a72137e8d0f4185e1a.pdf


    The last phase in the article linked above by Dufour is " A massive graviton, with mass between 25 to 50 keV, would be associated with pico-chemistry."


    There must is a relationship between the BEH field and quantum fields. Dufour is not proposing energy production from below the ground state thermodynamics. Rather, pico-chemistry would harvest energy from the BEH field via gravitons. Sorry for any confusion. My interpretation is that gravitons would be brought in a quantum relationship by the BEH field, the field that cause mass. But which is cause and which is effect. Does an state of the electroweak field cause the binding of a graviton and then energy release by pico-chemistry or does the random interaction of graviton lead a state of BEH field (or electroweak field) and then release of energy by pico-chemistry?

  • I have done the sums for Mizuno - not totally convinced I have not missed something important.

    Wonderful, I want to see the numbers! All the H atoms are ruffly accounted for and it's MeV energy levels per reaction? What average reaction energy per atom have all replication attempts since plateaued at? What about claimed energy levels when any measured isotope/elemental shifts in the Mizuno mesh are accounted for? Lastly is the energy output significantly less than the expected output from that amount of nuclear change, taking in acount claimed fusion and transmutation rates based on measurements?? The theoretical energy output per claimed transmutation reaction, assuming it is a genuine elemental change at the nuclear level, is usually higher than that of D+D or H+H fusion.

  • The last phase in the article linked above by Dufour is " A massive graviton, with mass between 25 to 50 keV, would be associated with pico-chemistry."


    There must is a relationship between the BEH field and quantum fields. Dufour is not proposing energy production from below the ground state thermodynamics. Rather, pico-chemistry would harvest energy from the BEH field via gravitons. Sorry for any confusion. My interpretation is that gravitons would be brought in a quantum relationship by the BEH field, the field that cause mass. But which is cause and which is effect. Does an state of the electroweak field cause the binding of a graviton and then energy release by pico-chemistry or does the random interaction of graviton lead a state of BEH field (or electroweak field) and then release of energy by pico-chemistry?

    I've come to the conclusion that gravity is probably a secondary affect of a more powerful fundamental force on a larger scale. For sake of illustration let's say electromagnetism. I think pico-chemistry is about an electromagnetic or strong/magnetic force bonding point at closer orbits to the nucleus. What we call gravity may be stronger at picometric distances to the nucleus, harmoniously counteracting the standard repulsion. This is how dihydrogen can condense and a proton/electron can stably bond/orbit at an A metal isotope's lower electron level exothermically. Presumably with catalysis and nontrivial input energies.

  • That's the Gallium, how about Silver or the metal (some iron alloy?) from the melted parts of cells that had a thermal meltdown? Go back to the experiments where it seems they couldn't manage the excess energy, what did they engineer out? What was the energy per atom then?


    I agree that hydrogen pressure is important, "LENR-like" experiments in general would do better with higher pressure H2 flow and higher energy inputs on average. Don't you think there is some interaction between hydrogen in close proximity to and with various metals in the conditions conducive to hydrino formation? There are those in this forum that have stated that the damage is due to transmutations. Of course Mills denies this and I too see the physics gymnastics that would be nessasary because the energy balance doesn't match up. All I'm proposing is a middle ground perhaps there is a pico-chemical change, an intermediate compound with hydrogen at a deep orbit. It would be exothermic but only about 10s × more energy per reaction than dihydrino formations alone, less of a stretch than the MeV levels that haven't lined up with measured "transmutation". Fits extremely well with data from The SAFIRE experiments as well.

    No idea about the energy per atom in those earlier experiments that were run to blow out, since there was not nearly enough data given.

    The earlier experiments when hydrated silver pellets were exploded showed high COP, but : there was much more hydrogen available in those pellets than in the tiny 5 torr gas pressure of the present Suncells used in the validations. It should be relatively easy to reproduce the exploding pellets experiment and look for transmutation products and settle the matter. I can understand why Mills wouldn't even want to look, but given that the experiment is pretty straightforward, maybe its only a matter of time before someone replicates it and looks for transmutation.

  • No idea about the energy per atom in those earlier experiments that were run to blow out, since there was not nearly enough data given.

    The earlier experiments when hydrated silver pellets were exploded showed high COP, but : there was much more hydrogen available in those pellets than in the tiny 5 torr gas pressure of the present Suncells used in the validations. It should be relatively easy to reproduce the exploding pellets experiment and look for transmutation products and settle the matter. I can understand why Mills wouldn't even want to look, but given that the experiment is pretty straightforward, maybe its only a matter of time before someone replicates it and looks for transmutation.

    Understood, why are we so stingy with hydrogen in hydrogen/metal and "hydrino" energy experiments? I'm not arguing in favor of nuclear transmutation at these relatively low energy input/output levels per atom. I am simply acknowledging that there could be new chemical phenomina at a halfway point between standard chemical and genuine nuclear shuffling.


    These phenomina in some A metal isotopes exothermically produce atom sized hydrides that would loosely resemble isotopic/elemental shifts under relatively low energy situations. I'm arguing that dense hydrogen clustering and A-metal pico-hydrides possibly are made possible from the same source mechanism.

  • This is an "Axilation"2! Can you give any experiment that proves gravitons ???


    You know well that Gravitons are theory without any definitive proof. But it could be the experiments just have not been run yet.


    Interestingly all bosons (of which a graviton if it exists would be one) decay to lighter bosons (all produce light as one of their decay products). Hence, an energy that causes dilation of space (gravity) between two particles (systems of particles), would describe a graviton. Hence, one would need to detect the decay light and correlate it to expansion (for example dense hydrogen becoming regular hydrogen). The experiment wouldn't be all that hard to do with funding.


    If you examine my pending patent, you find that a description of electro-weak states which are postulated to cause dilation between the electron cloud and quarks. The energy exchange I label w-waves and claim would be extremely short lived w particles. Those w particles manifest as accelerated neutrinos. My proposal derives a mass for the neutrino and uses special relativity to predict the dilation as a function of the energy of the exchange. That same w-wave when it passes into the area of atom with the strong nuclear force is postulated to create a nuclear dipole and therefore to cause a magnetic field for the atom that far exceeds the magnetic field of said atom in its ground state. That effect produces magnecules (magnetic atom to atom bonding). With the assumption of magnecules I was able to do the mass balance and stoichiometry to prove a colder form of fusion. So magnecules are proven by verification of that assumption and the impossibility of the accuracy and precision of the stoichiometry being a chance occurrence. Likewise w-waves are strongly implied as basis for fusion and magnecules. So a graviton like system is implied. Hence, the basis for the decay experiment above is set. Meanwhile, I have already shown energy can be extracted from "fuel produced by fusion" as described by a kinetic equation in a classical form. That implies collision, activation energy and a return to the ground state of the fuel by emission of light.


    So are short lived energetic w particles = gravitons? Can special relativity and general relativity be reduced to these gravitons? Does the missing the mass from this colder fusion get transferred out of the nuclear reactions as these gravitons? Are these gravitons = x-17 like particles? Do these gravitons have a partial charge? Could we detect these particles from the sun if the detectors were far enough above the earth's magnetic field? Would the sudden collapse of an artificial sun produce an the burst of EM of these particles? How does that relate to strange radiation from cold fusion? How many different kinds particles or energies of particles are produced by colder fusion reactions? Can energies be related by the phat equation? Or are phats (a condensation of several low energy photons to a higher energy photon) caused by gravitons?


    I would like to know but answers don't come without funding research.

  • Hence, an energy that causes dilation of space (gravity) between two particles (systems of particles), would describe a graviton.


    From a mathematical point of view fields in standard model (SM) can only describe particle interactions that can be reduced to Coulomb like (virial) fields. Unluckily for the folks the magnetic interaction that dominates in mass does not fit the SM framework. As a consequence of modeling the correct magnetic interaction (with SO(4) physics), we must now conclude that the SM invented particles are completely nonsensical and from an experimentalist point of view simply fraud. Quarks are not particles. Up/Down Quarks are resonances of the proton perturbative mass only. CERN never ever measured a free quark. They had to tell the public that they see a particle to ensure funding.


    Everything you mention, like "w-wave", above are brain farts of the last 90 years of wrong physics. Gravitation can be exactly derived in SO(4) physics. There are no gravitons as gravitation is a residual EM force. We now can calculate the structure of a proton, neutron, Hydrogen, Deuterium 4He, 3He down to or below 1eV "rest error".


    It's time that you understand the difference between a particle and a resonance. A particle can be measured at least twice !! at two different locations a resonance only once. Photons are different as the measurement consumes the photon and thus we should not call them particles.

  • Gravitation can be exactly derived in SO(4) physics. There are no gravitons as gravitation is a residual EM force. We now can calculate the structure of a proton, neutron, Hydrogen, Deuterium 4He, 3He down to or below 1eV "rest error".


    I hope you are right about being able to calculate particles, resonances and the energy in fields. Unfortunately, your tone is angry; anything you say in such anger is by my personality rejected as mad scientist opinion. It's nothing personal.


    You reject w-waves which are an electroweak energy causing dilation of space, yet you say gravitation is a residual EM force. I don't understand you.

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.