BLP update

To honor some work of Mills:

Mills treatment of the fundamental energies inside nuclear bonds by splitting them in to electric (coulomb part) magnetic and kinetic terms is a very good approach for symmetric, highly symmetric particles/bonds.

So he can deliver 6 digits precision for the the e-p hyper fine frequency but totally fails for Deuterium. Also the electron g-factor is highly precise. Of course Mills never found a way to use his own metric based on the proper gamma factor, what undermined his progress. Using the proper metric you can get 9 digits for the e-p system.

The general problem is that the Coulomb law breaks down in the near field and only in rare conditions the (compensating) magnetic energy can be derived in a simple way.

So you have to know the nuclear/particle symmetry that is given by the SO(4) topology.

So his work is full of good ideas and regrettably also full of mathematical and conceptual blunders. He makes the same mistake as e.g. Dirac made: Physics is not defined by mathematics. A formula that is correct for a specific case (thanks to symmetry) most often is blatantly wrong in the general case.

So e.g. standard model QED only could deliver some results (in scattering) because by sheer luck the interaction energy of the proton has a three rotation symmetry. So everything SM tells about the structure of particles/mass is blatant nonsense because QED has no knowledge of the internal SO(4) structure of particles.

So we can say that Mills did successfully throw the first big stone in an old window (SM) but he never made it through it.

May be one day he also will understand that H*-H* (His name dihydrino (1/4)..) is a weak nuclear bond between protons and that hydrinos are a mathematical fantasy or as many times said already: Known plasma resonances.

Quote from Wyttenbach

To honor some work of Mills:

...

May be one day he also will understand that H*-H* (His name dihydrino (1/4)..) is a weak nuclear bond between protons and that hydrinos are a mathematical fantasy or as many times said already: Known plasma resonances.

So how do you explain the absolutely stunning results from Hagen (and others)? Hagen shows that H2(1/4) exhibits paramagnetism, precisely as predicted over a decade ago by GUTC. The match to H2(1/4) is exact across multiple dimensions and frequencies. Other interpretations are ruled out based on Hagen's methodical approach. The measurements have been replicated independently on multiple apparatus in multiple labs.

The paramagnetism from the hydrino analog to H2 is mind-blowing. It means that for two electrons, sharing an orbit, one is paired and the other is unpaired. An orbit with an even number of electrons produce one that is unpaired, but only in di-hydrino. Please explain how nuclear bonds can produce that effect.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Wyttenbach

To honor some work of Mills:

Mills treatment of the fundamental energies inside nuclear bonds by splitting them in to electric (coulomb part) magnetic and kinetic terms is a very good approach for symmetric, highly symmetric particles/bonds.

So he can deliver 6 digits precision for the the e-p hyper fine frequency but totally fails for Deuterium. Also the electron g-factor is highly precise. Of course Mills never found a way to use his own metric based on the proper gamma factor, what undermined his progress. Using the proper metric you can get 9 digits for the e-p system.

The general problem is that the Coulomb law breaks down in the near field and only in rare conditions the (compensating) magnetic energy can be derived in a simple way.

So you have to know the nuclear/particle symmetry that is given by the SO(4) topology.

So his work is full of good ideas and regrettably also full of mathematical and conceptual blunders. He makes the same mistake as e.g. Dirac made: Physics is not defined by mathematics. A formula that is correct for a specific case (thanks to symmetry) most often is blatantly wrong in the general case.

So e.g. standard model QED only could deliver some results (in scattering) because by sheer luck the interaction energy of the proton has a three rotation symmetry. So everything SM tells about the structure of particles/mass is blatant nonsense because QED has no knowledge of the internal SO(4) structure of particles.

So we can say that Mills did successfully throw the first big stone in an old window (SM) but he never made it through it.

May be one day he also will understand that H*-H* (His name dihydrino (1/4)..) is a weak nuclear bond between protons and that hydrinos are a mathematical fantasy or as many times said already: Known plasma resonances.

Display More

I support your phrase -

“He makes the same mistake as e.g. Dirac made: Physics is not defined by mathematics. "

Unfortunately for the fans of Maxwell, but it was he who put "his mathematics" ahead of physics and thus led nuclear physicists, starting with Rutherford and Niels Bohr, into a dead end ... Dirac also ended up in "Maxwell's networks" ... And a chain of delusions began - "orbital the movement of an electron ", which does not exist in nature, the mathematical prediction of a positron by Dirac, which also does not exist in nature, but Anderson believed in Dirac's mathematics so much that he took the electron for a positron, not knowing that 17 years after his" mistaken discovery "would be discovered the electron has its own magnetic moment and it will become clear that the electron has its own magnetic field and its own magnetic poles ... Schrödinger also believed physicists in his mathematics that it was according to Schrödinger's mathematics that elementary particles behave in nature - Schrödinger did not know that he uses fake "Maxwell's electric charge" ... All these mathematicians in their equations "stopped time" and presented us with rmula in which the coordinate did not depend on time - where can you observe this in nature ??? This is certainly not in nature, and the coordinate of any object has always depended and depends on time ... Mathematicians have distorted our beloved physics, but this is invisible to an inexperienced physicist ...

I repeat what I wrote before -

Unfortunately, Maxwell behaved like a true mathematician, thinking that he was doing the right thing, but he was far from physics for objective reasons - he really did not have as much knowledge as physicists have today ... But there is another aspect that was very surprising me - Maxwell in his treatises demonstrates a whispering attitude towards dimensions, but at the same time in his 1873 treatise he made a gross mistake, an unacceptable mistake that gave rise to the dimension of the "Maxwell charge" and which turned physics for 150 years in the wrong direction ... Maxwell, Rutherford and Bohr led the entire physical community into the jungle on the basis of this physics ... This gave rise to the non-existent in nature orbital motion of the electron - and this is precisely thanks to the Maxwell charge, which physicists "put" on the electron and proton ... And this is nothing in nature no ... The charge of an electron is the mass of a photon, which it absorbs - this paradigm was developed by Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Ampere, Harry s, Thomson ...

Quote from optiongeek

Please explain how nuclear bonds can produce that effect.

The exact derivation is in the SO(4) physics write-up. One electron of H*-H* is only loosely bound with about 9.1eV. Then other is the one with 495.7eV.

Mills should explain why no single hydrinos exist and only one (1/4) dihydrino is stable. Further he should explain the difference of the measured energy 495.7eV with the calculated one.

The base lines of the rotational spectra are given by the basic bond energy that is more or less the same for the weak nuclear bond so the relative difference will be much smaller.

So basically Mills lives in a state of self dazzlement by interpreting result as facts and not thinking about alternate explanations.

We all look forward for the first 1/2, 1/3, 1/x hydrino but I guess we will wait for ever....

Quote from optiongeek

So how do you explain the absolutely stunning results from Hagen (and others)? Hagen shows that H2(1/4) exhibits paramagnetism, precisely as predicted over a decade ago by GUTC. The match to H2(1/4) is exact across multiple dimensions and frequencies. Other interpretations are ruled out based on Hagen's methodical approach. The measurements have been replicated independently on multiple apparatus in multiple labs.

Excerpt from article - "Distinguishing Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Signature of Molecular Hydrino" - "By contrast, it has been proposed that the n = 1 state is not the true ground state, and that so-called 'hydrino' states of lower energy can exist , which are characterized by fractional quantum numbers n = 1 / p, in which 1 <p <137 is a limited integer1,2. " This crap - "by fractional quantum numbers" - this is fantasy and cheating - and this is not physics - this is the reasoning of mathematicians - a physicist should not do this!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills should explain why no single hydrinos exist and only one (1/4) dihydrino is stable.

Two hydrinos will spin pair to form molecular hydrino, just as hydrogen atoms spin pair to form molecular hydrogen. And H(/4) is not the only stable hydrino. He also describes H(1/17). The hydrino product depends on the catalyst. When the catalyst is H-O-H (nascent water), then because it accepts 3 x 27.2eV, it will require the H atom to give up 3 x 27eV in the resonant transfer and therefore transition from H to H(1/4)

Quote from Cherepanov2020

\" This crap - "by fractional quantum numbers" - this is fantasy and cheating - and this is not physics - this is the reasoning of mathematicians - a physicist should not do this!

Then how do you explain Hagen's results? How do you explain the same results on multiple apparatus?

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from optiongeek

Then how do you explain Hagen's results? How do you explain the same results on multiple apparatus?

To explain all this to you, I need you to first study the physical chemistry of the microworld of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich ... Start with this ... Then go on to reading my article - The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions , December 7, 2017 - https://drive.google.com/file/…12BxqdNU/view?usp=sharing

The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/27Ad/4bDGJ92rH

In fact, over the past 5 years, I had to completely reformat all the knowledge that was invested in me at NRNU MEPhI from 1972 to 1978.

This site has a separate thread - read it - "Physchemistry of the microworld" which was opened for us by the Russian physicist Kanarev F.M., 1993-2016 -physicist /

Quote from optiongeek

Two hydrinos will spin pair to form molecular hydrino, just as hydrogen atoms spin pair to form molecular hydrogen. And H(/4) is not the only stable hydrino. He also describes H(1/17).

This is fantasy. Hydrogen can exist without spin pairing. And so far Mills did not show any measurement of single H(1/4) and H(1/17). Physics is not just postulation of a possible idea. Only measurement counts.

H* has been first found and measured by Santilli. So he is the one who discovered it. Further Holmlid has measured various forms of H*/D* clusters, but with unreliable methods and his claims (about bond energy) seem to be as wrong as Mills ones.

We should continue to talk when Mills delivers a first reliable measurement of a single (1/x) hydrino or an other (> 1/4) dihydrino that in fact can exists as the quantization of the proton magnetic moment allows higher states in combination with other nuclei.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from optiongeek

Then how do you explain Hagen's results? How do you explain the same results on multiple apparatus?

Посмотрите на модели ядерных элементов - https://my.mail.ru/mail/owt2012/photo/1191 Все они магнитную измененную форму и по этой причине, вызванной этим, является именно структурой и ядром атома - это фактически одно и тоже, так каждый связанный электрон в атоме имеет линейную связь со своим протоном.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is fantasy. Hydrogen can exist without spin pairing. And so far Mills did not show any measurement of single H(1/4) and H(1/17). Physics is not just postulation of a possible idea. Only measurement counts.

H* has been first found and measured by Santilli. So he is the one who discovered it. Further Holmlid has measured various forms of H*/D* clusters, but with unreliable methods and his claims (about bond energy) seem to be as wrong as Mills ones.

We should continue to talk when Mills delivers a first reliable measurement of a single (1/x) hydrino or an other (> 1/4) dihydrino that in fact can exists as the quantization of the proton magnetic moment allows higher states in combination with other nuclei.

There have been almost two dozen analytical techniques showing hydrino, including atomic hydrino and various hydrino levels. See attached images.

Quote from optiongeek

There have been almost two dozen analytical techniques showing hydrino, including atomic hydrino and various hydrino levels. See attached images.

As I already mentioned : In plasma's you can have resonances that fit "hydrino levels". This has nothing to do with hydrinos as these resonances follow different rules.

Physics works the other way. If you have a spectrum then you must isolate the the origin and show that the isolated element also delivers the same spectrum. This so far has only been possible with H*-H* pairs from the sun cell.

If you diffuse H*-H* pairs into a solid matrix then you get overlapping spectra from nuclear chemical bonds and from pairing H*-H* with other H*-H*. See Holmlids results.

Mills lives in self deception.

Quote from optiongeek

There have been almost two dozen analytical techniques showing hydrino,

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mills should explain why no single hydrinos exist and only one (1/4) dihydrino is stable.

13 hits for H2(1/4) on this page... none forH(1/2) ... H2(1/2) or other Miilsian species.

except H(1/4) .. 5 hits.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/Hydrino_States_of_Hydrogen.pdf

The hydrino reactions are expected to yield multiple 27 keV according to Mills

but the the H2(1/4) yields ~500 KeV..as measured by spectroscopy

H2(1/4) is almost the entire focus of the most recent paper.. dec,2020

https://brilliantlightpower.co…no_States_of_Hydrogen.pdf

maybe Mills should rework his theory to dihydrino(1/4) rather han hydrino..

Quote from Wyttenbach

We should continue to talk when Mills delivers a first reliable measurement of a single (1/x) hydrino or an other (> 1/4) dihydrino that in fact can exists as the quantization of the proton magnetic moment allows higher states in combination with other nuclei.

There are the hydrino metal hydride compounds to explain, such as at

http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf

and

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…20.8498&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Novel inorganic alkali and alkaline earth hydrides of the formula MH* and MH*X wherein M is the metal, X, is a singly negatively charged anion, and H* comprises a novel high binding energy hydride ion were synthesized in a high temperature gas cell by reaction of atomic hydrogen with a catalyst such as potassium metal and MH, MX or MX2 corresponding to an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal compound, respectively [18, 21]. Novel hydride compounds were identified by 1.) time of flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy which showed a dominant hydride ion in the negative ion spectrum, 2.) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy which showed novel hydride peaks and significant shifts of the core levels of the primary elements bound to the novel hydride ions, 3.) 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) which showed extraordinary upfield chemical shifts compared to the NMR of the corresponding ordinary hydrides, and 4.) thermal decomposition with analysis by gas chromatography, and mass spectroscopy which identified the compounds as hydrides [18, 21].

Quote from Mark U

There are the hydrino metal hydride compounds to explain, such as at

http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf

and

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…20.8498&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Novel inorganic alkali and alkaline earth hydrides of the formula MH* and MH*X wherein M is the metal, X, is a singly negatively charged anion, and H* comprises a novel high binding energy hydride ion were synthesized in a high temperature gas cell by reaction of atomic hydrogen with a catalyst such as potassium metal and MH, MX or MX2 corresponding to an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal compound, respectively [18, 21]. Novel hydride compounds were identified by 1.) time of flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy which showed a dominant hydride ion in the negative ion spectrum, 2.) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy which showed novel hydride peaks and significant shifts of the core levels of the primary elements bound to the novel hydride ions, 3.) 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) which showed extraordinary upfield chemical shifts compared to the NMR of the corresponding ordinary hydrides, and 4.) thermal decomposition with analysis by gas chromatography, and mass spectroscopy which identified the compounds as hydrides [18, 21].

Display More

The analytical work was done at Grace chemical so Potassium Hydrino Hydride seems to be something unique with a shielded nucleus (upfield shift). I'd be interested to hear what it is, even if Mills doesnt have the ultimate explanation.

Dufour in Asti showed very interesting spectra of 57-Co being in fact 56-Fe+H* compared to real 57-Co. Unluckily the French mafia did not keep his presentation and he never published the findings.

Quote from Wyttenbach

. Of course Mills never found a way to use his own metric based on the proper gamma factor, what undermined his progress. Using the proper metric you can get 9 digits for the e-p system.

Did you ever try to show Mills your corrections? This seems like something he would be interested to see. Once a long time ago I asked a question on the BLP website, and he did respond personally. It seems worth a shot.

His Email address

[email protected]

Quote from Wyttenbach

As I already mentioned : In plasma's you can have resonances that fit "hydrino levels". This has nothing to do with hydrinos as these resonances follow different rules.

Physics works the other way. If you have a spectrum then you must isolate the the origin and show that the isolated element also delivers the same spectrum. This so far has only been possible with H*-H* pairs from the sun cell.

If you diffuse H*-H* pairs into a solid matrix then you get overlapping spectra from nuclear chemical bonds and from pairing H*-H* with other H*-H*. See Holmlids results.

Mills lives in self deception.

I ask once again if you ever tried to contact Mills with your corrections? This seems important to me, if you are serious about solving Mills deception. I think you are both important in trying to use real math and physics to solve the problem.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

solving Mills deception.

self deception is difficult to solve from the outside when one has invested a life and a few millions in it against many odds