BLP update

Quote from Wyttenbach

The sum of charge is constant. Always when you separate an electron from a proton you get a "+" and a "-" so the sum must be "0".

Mills assumes a locked in photon generates charge. This only happens inside nuclei where charge conservation does not hold. But Mills uses it for electron orbit relations.

Wouldn't it be logically consistent to say there is one mechanism for generating charge either in the nuclei or electron orbit relations? When you get into this dense H hydride arena shouldn't some pseudo-nuclei like collective forces start to overlap with standard EM forces? I am not sure why charge conservation would stop at the nucleus where even neutrons are a charge-balanced particle that beta decay into protons, electrons/positrons and neutrinos in predictable energies. A photon is an oscillating wave both electric and magnetic.

Quote from LeBob

I am not sure why charge conservation would stop at the nucleus where even neutrons are a charge-balanced particle that beta decay into protons, electrons/positrons and neutrinos in predictable energies.

Internal charge is neither positive nor negative its topological charge, It is proportional to the force needed to hold together the rotating EM mass. If we break nuclear flux then we get a left and a right winded part that we name positive or negative. As soon as people talk of an electron then the nature of the charge is given.

Pure Coulomb charge like actions only can be seen in the far field where the flux no longer couples. But keep in mind that the Coulomb force always is a first order approximation of a basic magnetic action.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Internal charge is neither positive nor negative its topological charge, It is proportional to the force needed to hold together the rotating EM mass. If we break nuclear flux then we get a left and a right winded part that we name positive or negative. As soon as people talk of an electron then the nature of the charge is given.

Pure Coulomb charge like actions only can be seen in the far field where the flux no longer couples. But keep in mind that the Coulomb force always is a first order approximation of a basic magnetic action.

So this is how pico-chemistry becomes a valid and clear middle ground between chemical and nuclear decay transmutations. A resonant island of stable bonds in a metal atom's (like Fe, Mn, Cu or Ni) depths for an H* or four.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills assumes a locked in photon generates charge. This only happens inside nuclei where charge conservation does not hold. But Mills uses it for electron orbit relations.

I agree that this is a fudge by Mills. He wouldn't say the trapped photon creates charge but rather alters the "effective" charge of the nucleus on the electron. I suppose he borrowed the basic idea from the charge shielding idea (cheat?) of QM.

In Mills theory, for excited electron states, the trapped photon decreases the effective attractive charge of the nucleus on the electron. For hydrino states, the trapped photon increases the effective attractive charge on the electron.

I as far as I understand the trapped photon is a time varying EM fields without any charges. What holds the in place is the Em forces in combination with the mass centripetal force.

Somehow, which is a mystery to me, the EM fields of the trapped electron increases the attractive forces or eqvivalently it is as if the charge is increased with some factor. Not sure

what's true but that has been my interpretation of hydrinos which is very weakly explained in the book in my mind. Charges (if for the sake of argument assume is 1D world) are really

a cusp in the potential field e.g. the derivative of the field has a jump, and the second derivative is a dirac measure. I believe photons has a cusp in the force fields and the second

derivative has a jump at the electron shell, hence no charge.

Anyhow, things are really unclear and hard to understand in my view.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Mark U

I agree that this is a fudge by Mills. He wouldn't say the trapped photon creates charge but rather alters the "effective" charge of the nucleus on the electron. I suppose he borrowed the basic idea from the charge shielding idea (cheat?) of QM.

In Mills theory, for excited electron states, the trapped photon decreases the effective attractive charge of the nucleus on the electron. For hydrino states, the trapped photon increases the effective attractive charge on the electron.

Thank you for your comment! This allows me to POINT to physicists once again that the "charge" is not what Maxwell invented in 1873, but this is what Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Harris and Thomson wrote about - this is "mass" ... Electron, absorbing a photon, absorb the mass of a photon !!! An increase in the mass of an electron leads to an increase in its magnetization or the "magnetic potential" of an electron ...

Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/pT8k/rWHqs5FsT

Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 – https://drive.google.com/file/…sdj6pm6G/view?usp=sharing

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Thank you for your comment! This allows me to POINT to physicists once again that the "charge" is not what Maxwell invented in 1873, but this is what Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Harris and Thomson wrote about - this is "mass" ... Electron, absorbing a photon, absorb the mass of a photon !!! An increase in the mass of an electron leads to an increase in its magnetization or the "magnetic potential" of an electron ...

To me 'charge' or whatever name one might be used is just a convenient label. I think it is a particular manifestation of magnetism. Heck I'm thinking these days that even gravity is a particular manifestation of magnetism.

As I recall, Mills theory has it that an electron, once freed from the nucleus, takes with it the trapped photon, which is now glued to the electron surface as a flat disk. Does it alter the magnetic field of the electron? I suppose if there is a photon attached in some way to an electron it has to alter something. BTW do you distinguish the magnetic potential of the electron from its magnetic moment?

A new post from the company on Youtube.

Wyttenbach What do you think about Mills claim that hydrino is dark matter?

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Mark U

To me 'charge' or whatever name one might be used is just a convenient label. I think it is a particular manifestation of magnetism. Heck I'm thinking these days that even gravity is a particular manifestation of magnetism.

As I recall, Mills theory has it that an electron, once freed from the nucleus, takes with it the trapped photon, which is now glued to the electron surface as a flat disk. Does it alter the magnetic field of the electron? I suppose if there is a photon attached in some way to an electron it has to alter something. BTW do you distinguish the magnetic potential of the electron from its magnetic moment?

Heck I'm thinking these days that even gravity is a particular manifestation of magnetism. - I completely agree with you - gravity is magnetism.

Quote from Mark U

To me 'charge' or whatever name one might be used is just a convenient label. I think it is a particular manifestation of magnetism. Heck I'm thinking these days that even gravity is a particular manifestation of magnetism.

As I recall, Mills theory has it that an electron, once freed from the nucleus, takes with it the trapped photon, which is now glued to the electron surface as a flat disk. Does it alter the magnetic field of the electron? I suppose if there is a photon attached in some way to an electron it has to alter something. BTW do you distinguish the magnetic potential of the electron from its magnetic moment?

You ask - "BTW do you distinguish the magnetic potential of the electron from its magnetic moment?"

This is a very difficult question ... I have big doubts ... This is exactly what I just wrote an article about -

Ответ Черепанова А.И. Сергею Белову от 18 мая 2021 года – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/qbnJ/b8aYd7uFA

Ответ Черепанова А.И. Сергею Белову от 18 мая 2021 года – https://drive.google.com/file/…Dam_jYEn/view?usp=sharing

Here is an excerpt from this article - "What is the main problem here and the unconditional difficulties ...

Above, I have already written about how we “mechanistically” transfer the concept of the magnetic moment of a circuit with a current to the microworld ... So what happens? According to this "transfer" I "mechanistically" look at the motion - the direction of rotation, the electron torus around its axis and, according to this, I determine the direction of the magnetic moment ... - on the left and right, the magnetic moment vector is directed "up" ... This is, if you like, such a "physical formalism "... But at the same time I am aware of the following - the rotation of the electron torus body around its axis near the electron in the figure on the left differs from the rotation of the electron torus around its axis near the electron in the figure on the right ... I marked this schematically - on the left, twisting occurs from top to bottom, and on the right, twisting happens from bottom to top ... By common sense, the streams of ether, which are "carried away by these rotations" also have a different direction ...

What is the physical meaning of all this ??? Doesn't this mean that the magnetic moment is the vector of the magnetic moment, the electron on the right should be directed "down", and not "up" as in my picture on the right ???

So the very experiment of Andersen tells us that the direction of the magnetic moment is correct on the right ... But ... But this is if by the magnetic field we understand what Faraday invented ... And if we consider these interactions in a new way - for example, as the interaction of aetheric streams, then we do not need a "magnetic moment", but the direction of rotation of the torus body around the axis of the torus body ... And here we are approaching THAT that Atsukovsky tried to build in his time ... From these positions, electron 1 is in the figure on the left, and electron 2 is in the figure on the right have a difference in their interaction with the etheric environment, which forms around itself, for example, a permanent magnet ...

Dynamics of the ether, Atsukovsky V.A., 1974 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/r8hq/XF1aRjWZ5

Dynamics of the ether, Atsukovsky V.A., 1974 - https://drive.google.com/file/…7RSnxJM0/view?usp=sharing ... "

Quote from Navid

What do you think about Mills claim that hydrino is dark matter?

Holmlid claims the same. H*-H* is very abundant in the universe.

Some more movies from BrLP, looks ready to hook into the steam pipes.

BrLP Link

People are calling it a scam. Really have you ever seen a scam come this far?? Anyway I would like to

heat a bath for longer periods with that steam to evaluate what practical COP they have. Possibly so low that

it is not cheaper than heating it with fuel, who knows. Anyhow a COP > 1 + e is revolutionary (e is heat of burning

hydrogen) and we can rule out splashing.

Quote from Shane D.

the holy grail

the holy grail appears to have some pre-history as a witch's cauldron.. the Goddess Ceridwen etc..

the devil is in the detail..

In the latest video..

"AFAIK ..no known competitor's??" what does Robert Godes say to that?

the current focus is on a 250KW boiler..

the photovoltaics to direct electricity .could take another few decades..

I guess there will be a market space for 3kW thermal in the style of Mizuno for some time,

The new video seems to suggest they are testing a newly developed 250 KW boiler that has a continuous operation mode.

Unfortunately their validation figures still consists of test that only lasts a few minutes.

To get to a mature commercial mode they certainly will need to upgrade their validation reporting to a much longer validation interval e.g. 24 hours.

Apart from that, they seem to accelerate development progress. This will be a critical business phase.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills assumes a locked in photon generates charge. This only happens inside nuclei where charge conservation does not hold. But Mills uses it for electron orbit relations.

Not true - absolutely nowhere does Mills say that a photon "generates charge". He says that the electric field of the photon will either detract from or augment the electric field of the central charge as felt by the electron. The net charge of the hydrogen atom remains in balance at all times. However, the field of the photon is responsible - by force balance - for the electron's orbital radius increasing or decreasing. Please read up on this.

Quote from optiongeek

The net charge of the hydrogen atom remains in balance at all times. However, the field of the photon is responsible - by force balance - for the electron's orbital radius increasing or decreasing. Please read up on this.

He gives no physics that explains this fantastic effect. This fantastic effect also has never been measured. So it's plain nonsense.

Quote from Wyttenbach

He gives no physics that explains this fantastic effect. This fantastic effect also has never been measured. So it's plain nonsense.

The derivation for interaction of the trapped photon's electric field within a bound electron is provided starting around Equation 2.10 in GUTCP.

(edit) I found the following in the text near the start of Chapter 2:

Quote

The atom and the "trapped photon" caused by a transition to a resonant state other than the n=1 state have neutral charge.