Quote from Simon Brink

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...

I have calculated dense hydrogen states based on special relativity and the assumption that such states result from the physics of phats. The equation for energy of phats of hydrogen is E=(13.58378925 eV)n². For relativity we have L/L₀=m₀/m=delta t₀/delta t = Lorentz factor. I used the volume of hydrogen at the n=1 state as 1.5 times the Bohr radius, 80,000 fm =L₀. Then when weak isospin causes the neutron likeness to approach 100%, the apparent radius is 1.4 fm = L. This is based on the formula of the value of nuclear radius. Energy of the "bare" electron in bonded relationship to nucleus manifests as relative mass of the antineutrino. The mass of the anti-neutrino is very small, so small that delta m at n=240 is the mass energy difference between the proton and the neutron rest mass = 0.7824260693 Me V. You can do the calculation/ fitting to get a best fit. I gave you fitted value of E at n=1 above. That value is the best fit at n=240 to 0.7824260693 Me V. You can calculate from the relationship of the Lorentz factor the value of rest mass of the anti-neutrino. It is about 0.109 eV. What I am describing is a state is in weak isospin space. The overall effect is as follows: the atomic radius decreases to the radius of a neutron; the state's decay time increases to that of a neutron free of the atomic nucleus and the relative mass of the antineutrino approaches the mass difference of the proton and the neutron.

For a more analysis of how LENR happens on the above basis see my other posts elsewhere in this forum.

In an EVO the same thing happens. The "bare" electron accesses weak isospin space. The energy which causes rotation in isospin space (from electroness to antineutrioness) cause the relative mass increase in antineutrinos etc as above for a hydrogen atom but without a nucleus. The cluster of electrons happens because the anti-neutrinos cause the effect of special relativity as above. Hence, a kind of artificial gravity (one based on relative mass not rest mass) pulls the electrons into a cluster in opposition to coulomb repulsion between electrons. You may find it fun to guess what is the size of bare electron which accesses the n=1 state in weak isospin space? Obviously, its a function of rest mass of the antineutrino. So, one might use energies as above. But what one needs is an accurate measure of size of an EVO relative to number of electrons in a cluster (EVO). From which one could also calculate half-life of the "bare" electron which access weak isospin space. Please feel free to help.

Quote from Drgenek

I have calculated dense hydrogen states based on special relativity

Classic relativity does not work for dense mass....But this takes a bit more deep insight...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Classic relativity does not work for dense mass....But this takes a bit more deep insight..

That is just your opinion. I gave you calculated results.

Quote from Drgenek

phats.

???

Quote from RobertBryant

???

Phat photons. Phat photons and phat lasers - NASA/ADS (harvard.edu). Think about chemical states and electron states that produce phat photons. If you have a copy of Bruce Schumm book "Deep Down Things The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" , then look at fig 8.4. Its shows neutronness vs protonness but the principle is the same. The ability of an electron to connect to weak isospin space increase as one strips away virtual particles to get to an electron that is "bare" to the vaccum particles. At least that what I understand from Bruce Schumm's book.

Quote from Drgenek

I gave you calculated results.

using the wrong base value....

Quote from Wyttenbach

using the wrong base value....

Wrong only according to you. The fact is it works. Its basis is good.

January 12 Business Update.

Brilliant Light Power | Brilliant Light Power has developed a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter, the previously unidentified…

Still COP 2.5???

Quote from Wyttenbach

Still COP 2.5???

Ya. Kinda like old USSR/Russian RBMK graphite-moderated reactor, 3,200 MW thermal output gets you only 1,000 MW electrical output?

Looking for better ...

Quote from Drgenek

Phat photons. Phat photons and phat lasers - NASA/ADS (harvard.edu). Think about chemical states and electron states that produce phat photons. If you have a copy of Bruce Schumm book "Deep Down Things The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" , then look at fig 8.4. Its shows neutronness vs protonness but the principle is the same. The ability of an electron to connect to weak isospin space increase as one strips away virtual particles to get to an electron that is "bare" to the vaccum particles. At least that what I understand from Bruce Schumm's book.

I'm interested ... and I ask myself a question and then I send this question to you - "Do you understand what you write here?"

To test you, I would suggest that you explain all the effects in this simple experiment ... I understand it and I understand it in such a way that it does not matter to free electrons what material it is in - a file, ceramics, glass, a human hand, an electric wire made of copper or aluminum, polyvinyl chloride wire braid or something else... They perform their function - they pump the mass of ether or photon mass into the "kacher" with the Tesla coil... What do you think about it?

Качер и лампа накаливания - разбираемся, почему она светит -

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

If you do not understand this simple experiment, if you do not understand that the so-called "electric current" is nothing more than the "transportation" of the "ethereal" mass by electrons, then you will never understand the physics of LENR and the topic related to BLP.

I catch your "stones" ...

As for the theory of Randal Mills, I see his delusions based on the delusions of Maxwell ... This is sad ... A lot of work has been done, but he does not understand WHAT exactly is happening in his installation ... Someday he will see the light if he lives up to this moment and wants to understand their delusions...

Quote from Cherepanov2020

As for the theory of Randal Mills

Stated succinctly (in few words as possible), what is it? So many people cannot state it succinctly, thereby thinking it and quoting it incorrectly later. Either you accept QM/QED and their assumption of the 'ground state' of the electron as they state, or, Mills is right, with his theory of sub-orbitals (as is often thought). That is the Bottom Line.

Quote from _Jim

Stated succinctly (in few words as possible), what is it? So many people cannot state it succinctly, thereby thinking it and quoting it incorrectly later. Either you accept QM/QED and their assumption of the 'ground state' of the electron as they state, or, Mills is right, with his theory of sub-orbitals (as is often thought). That is the Bottom Line.

Neither - QM / QED, and nothing else - Mills' theory ... There are no suborbitals ... Mills, like others, believed Maxwell - as if there are CHARGES on the electron and proton ... But they are not there ... And what is ? There is an increase in mass - this is the "CHARGE" - the greater the mass of the electron, the greater its angular velocity ... which is associated with its magnetic properties ... but this is a bit different from what Faraday came up with ...

The electron interacts with the proton of the nucleus linearly! And both - both the electron and the proton, rotate, in the hydrogen atom they rotate on the same axis ... The hydrogen atom is an integral part of any molecule ...

Very good Cherepanov2020 you fully understand that Maxwellian Physics has been replaced by the special theory of relativity. Well done!

Quote from _Jim

Either you accept QM/QED and their assumption of the 'ground state' of the electron as they state, or, Mills is right, with his theory of sub-orbitals (as is often thought).

I can only say that Mills did add nothing to QED regarding Hydrogen and thus both are wrong or more precise incomplete models.

Electric potentials are first order effects of magnetism = EM mass. So a complete solution has to include also the second order magnetic force what Mills could not achieve as he did not understand how to separate the reduced mass effect and magnetic energy...These two are not equal as he falsely claims....

Quote from Wyttenbach

I can only say that Mills did add nothing to QED regarding Hydrogen and thus both are wrong or more precise incomplete models.

Electric potentials are first order effects of magnetism = EM mass. So a complete solution has to include also the second order magnetic force what Mills could not achieve as he did not understand how to separate the reduced mass effect and magnetic energy...These two are not equal as he falsely claims....

Not as easily testable, unlike the Mills test when he sent a 'gas' derived from his "arc + energy acceptor" process (resulting in Hydrino gas) through a standard (IOW, he did not build it) gas chromatograph tester and detected a definitely smaller Hydrogen atom (dubbed a Hydrino), an element that appears SMALLER as it propagated through the gas chromatograph sieve faster than hydrogen, or any other known element .

Is Feynman's premise (paraphrasing now) invalid here: 'lab tests (experiments, observations in nature should) overrule purely thought-conceived theory'? Some, including me, would like to know why a few others in the assembled multitude reading here can ignore such tests as the gas chromatography lab tests ... if any one (any one person) can ignore reality to this degree and in this particular lab test, what more 'ignoring' can be expected in the science of this matter, or any other matter, by some members of an assembled multitude of technical individuals? Gentleman, if we cannot agree on objective tests like the gas chromatography, there would seem to be little hope for ANY objective observations.

I use the gas chromatography test singled out because a more broad band or group of technical people may be able to understand the simple migration of test 'gas' samples along and through a small diameter tube (called a sieve) is faster and facilitated WHEN the test gas atoms are --smaller-- than the other *known* gas samples migrating through the 'sieve' ... its been several years now since the gas chromatography tests were performed, I am surprised more people have not reviewed the results and understood the implications.

Quote from _Jim

definitely smaller Hydrogen atom

This is wrong. What he did detect is H*-H* a dense hydrogen molecule. This has first been found by R.Santilli more than 10 years earlier. But he could not measure it properly because he made the same error as Mills claiming it to be a single dense Hydrogen...

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Neither - QM / QED, and nothing else - Mills' theory ... There are no suborbitals ... Mills, like others, believed Maxwell - as if there are CHARGES on the electron and proton ... But they are not there ... And what is ? There is an increase in mass - this is the "CHARGE" - the greater the mass of the electron, the greater its angular velocity ... which is associated with its magnetic properties ... but this is a bit different from what Faraday came up with ...

The electron interacts with the proton of the nucleus linearly! And both - both the electron and the proton, rotate, in the hydrogen atom they rotate on the same axis ... The hydrogen atom is an integral part of any molecule ...

The biggest take-away (that is, the biggest 'thing' Maxwell did) for me from Maxwell's work was his equation stating that a magnetic mono-pole cannot exist. We know, today, in 2022 that this is owed to the nature of 'spin' property exhibited by electrons*. 'Spin' would imply that both N and S of a magnet must exist, and it is the orientation of the electron that determines the N and S directions; one or the other pole cannot be simply eliminated by orientation.

What say you to this?

.

.

* Also the mass movement of electrons in an electric circuit can create the magnetic effect, subject to same rules as for spin.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is wrong. What he did detect is H*-H* a dense hydrogen molecule.

That is the essence of the Hydrino. You seemed to have scored one 'through the net'. Furthermore, he predicted this 'effect' existed, then has proven it by objective lab testing.

The theory involving sub-orbitals (below QM "ground state") also releases energy, which Mills shows agrees with his a priori theory.