BLP update

Several posts moved to a more appropiate thread. Please avoid off topic posting.

Maybe BLP's success prompted Rossi to jump into plasma physics rather than boring old heat calorimetry? Or maybe the rapid successes of the SAFIRE project in synthesising novel elements in their anode following massive electrical discharges? At least its fun trying to spot the deliberate (or not) mistakes!

Quote from stefan

Maybe the mods can place this post in a better place, but it is related to BLP. I think I have had a breakthrough connecting

relativistic quantum theory and GUTCP. The connection is not rigid atm but very promising. With a very elegant solution to the

Klein Gordon equations it seams really possible that we can explain why the the energy values that you get from Hydrogen

and the Dirac equation (and hence Shrödingers equation) match the Bohr model and also GUTCP (they are heavilly connected)

at least for the ground state. The calculation is short and neat. Lot's of possibilities to expand this approach.

Enjoy,

connection between classical physics and QM

Display More

Again I bump this as I made a new version of it, with some calculations added.and noticing the 2pi discreptancy

I noticed that my calculation lead to a different equation than the solving Dirac classically. It's even more exact !!

I have published the python code to do the calculations, also I compared with GUTCP's special relativistic corrected values

for the energies and it looks like the new approach to formulate via Dirac types of equations is in principle just mimicing GUTCP

via the correspondance principle. Here is a code for calculating the values: Python calculator. A new version of the paper with more

shells calculated (thanks Wyttenbach) and an acknowledgement that Mills has the same presitions. See paper abovr for new table.

To really get into better precition one probably need to model the magnetic interaction with the nucleus. So it is as good as it get's

Also note that the old Dirac approach is quite exact but not as exact as one would like, seams not like a good theory to me. In all the

numerical evidences point to the fact that Mills classical approach is actually supported by Quantum mechanics, kind of fun. Anyhow

there are more mysteries and inconclusiveness that I've found. If we consider shells with more advanced spherical harmoics than just

the spheres, we should have j_1,j_2, ... etc, and the zeros for those are and of the kind 2pi n. I think this is because the single electron

when excited chooses all variants of m of the Y_{l,m}, |m| <= l , for a fixed l, uniformely and hence dur to the sum of those squared is 1

we get the spherical distribution again and 2 pi. The difficulty starts to show when magnetic energy starts to be important e.g. at the

fine structure level.

Quote from stefan

I noticed that my calculation lead to a different equation than the solving Dirac classically. It's even more exact !!

Interesting work Stefan - though I must admit it's not my area of expertise at all.

I think your work might benefit from adding more context so it becomes a standalone article, for example along the lines of the abstract that you posted on this thread. Also, it would be interesting to show how you obtain the same analytical solution as Mills (not just the numerical comparison).

Quote from Pallas

Interesting work Stefan - though I must admit it's not my area of expertise at all.

I think your work might benefit from adding more context so it becomes a standalone article, for example along the lines of the abstract that you posted on this thread. Also, it would be interesting to show how you obtain the same analytical solution as Mills (not just the numerical comparison).

Thanks for the interest. I tried to improve the text as you mensioned. Should be cleaner now. Fixed also a bug in the calculatoins, shoujld not change the conclusion.

The python code and the paper is linked to above.

Quote from Pallas

Interesting work Stefan - though I must admit it's not my area of expertise at all.

I think your work might benefit from adding more context so it becomes a standalone article, for example along the lines of the abstract that you posted on this thread. Also, it would be interesting to show how you obtain the same analytical solution as Mills (not just the numerical comparison).

It's not exactly the same, the correspondance principle mean that they are similar and close but not exactly the same.

Quote from stefan

have published the python code to do the calculations, also I compared with GUTCP's special relativistic corrected values

Nice improvement! & digits now, may be you just miss one more metric. I will look at it later.

NIST just has published a 12 digits value and it looks like the SOP solution gives all 12 digits now...This is the SOP semi classic solution that fits best!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Nice improvement! & digits now, may be you just miss one more metric. I will look at it later.

NIST just has published a 12 digits value and it looks like the SOP solution gives all 12 digits now...This is the SOP semi classic solution that fits best!

I think this is the limit, to go further you need to model the fine structure, which as you say mean modelling the magnetic interactions

Som more precitins of the numbers

Quote from Wyttenbach

Nice improvement! & digits now, may be you just miss one more metric. I will look at it later.

NIST just has published a 12 digits value and it looks like the SOP solution gives all 12 digits now...This is the SOP semi classic solution that fits best!

Do you have a reference of SOP and these calculations? I

Found a bug in the calculation of the Dirac energy values. Now all methods are almost equal

Quote from stefan

Now all methods are almost equal

All QM like methods are equal by a homomorphism as Call Furey did show.

My stuff is on researchgate! I mail you the latest.

So - nuclear physics not being my own personal PhD qualification (mine is in Bio-physics and Visual Neuroscience) do you now have some good new ideas as how to put your novel theories you have published on RESEARCH GATE into practice? From most of the recent CMNS publications and Holmlid's work, what is the next step? Co-deposition at the nano- or femto- level by digital screen printing?

I tried to incorporate a correction for the nuclear magnetic moment. It helps a little but not much. I'm not sure I got the

magnetic moment correctly but it's a try

This concentrator thermophotovoltaic SunCell® (cTPV-SunCell) comprises a plasma cell that injects hydrogen and catalyst, and two electromagnetic pumps serve as electrodes by injecting intersecting molten tin streams from corresponding reservoirs wherein the connected streams carry a low voltage, high current to form a Hydrino®-reaction plasma with an energy release of 200 times that of burning the hydrogen that can be obtained from water as a 0.5% parasitic load.

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. has developed a cTPV-SunCell capable of emitting 250 kW of 3000-5000 Kelvin blackbody plasma radiation through a window to be converted by a dense receiver array of concentrator PV cells delivering electrical power output. Infrared light that is PV inactive is reflected to the blackbody plasma, absorbed, and recycled as more blackbody radiation to greatly increase the efficiency up to 85%. Essential to the operation of this cTPV-SunCell® is that the PV window does not metalize, which is the norm for plasmas that comprise metal. As shown in this test, the PV window self-cleans, a major milestone towards power for essentially all power applications with no fuels or grid connection, projected $20/kW cap cost, $0.001 kW/h generation cost with no transmission, distribution, or demand charges, no supply chain issues, and zero pollution including CO2. For a reaction cell chamber temperature greater than 1350 °C and sufficient window solid transmission angle, ray path modeling projects that all of the power can be emitted from the cTPV-SunCell as light. Replacement of the current flat, 8 inch diameter window with a 10 inch diameter domed PV window is planned.

Did a try to automate the creation of magnetic forces suitable for calculating the atomic spectra. I did a try for Hydrogen from first principles and got a central force with the correct form but with the wrong constant., you can find it here,

Magnetic Force Calculation

If the constant where ok, then Mills does an interesting trick moving to a speed of light frame, then the new radii is a simple calculation resulting in the ionization energy.

Did you understand that you can get all this just using the magnetic resonance formula? Spherical harmonics are only needed for the spectrum unfolding.

Then you add the reduced mass and finally the SO(4) orbital coupling (1 -0.5*1FC'/(1FC*2FC*3FC) )

1FC*2FC*3FC is the 4th radius force 1FC' the added electro-weak coupling of the second torus.

In this formula just magnetic mass occurs. No radius, no velocity...

Physics can be really simple if we fully understand it.

With Helium - 2 electrons - you will fail with your method as classic models have no clue about electron spin paring that is given by the same second torus force.

I had a look at the basics of this method to derive transition energies a couple of years back. Refer to the paper ‘LENR catalyst identification model’ on the Subtle Atomics website.

In recent times I have become more concerned about the discontinuity around n=1 that this theory requires. Calculate the ratio of differences between adjacent states and you will understand. Either n=1 is a very special state (which it may be), or below ground state atomic states don’t make sense.

Between 2015 and 2020 around 250 experiments were conducted looking at the validity of the inverse Rydberg relationship for catalyst identification based on augur energies. No particular strong correlations were identified for all calculated catalysts, but there were some positive (excess energy) results with Ni, Cu, Sn, Sr(?) and one alloy. Transmutations were also recorded with Ti (CSIRO validated), not explainable by inverse Rydberg theory.

Based on these results I am now exploring other types of dense hydrogen, i.e. metallic, which can be described as m<1.

Not a lot data points to work with, but possibly another method to identify catalysts (and dark matter...).

The main point I’m making is that it is worth keeping in mind a broader range of calculation methods for identifying potential catalysts for dense H formation...