. However in QM everything is possible at the same time.
So can Wyttenbach, and Mills both be right at the same time?
BLP update
-
-
Shane D. You are increasingly assuming ☮️ ing role of rhe elemantry school teacher or maybe it is nurse Rachel talking?
If we want to get down to the point trying to grow organic garden of different options is not going to work. We already have that. It is called mainsteam physics.
Max,
That is very confusing to me. Can you rephrase that?
-
I think the gist is that letting many different theoretical explanations thrive just for the sake of thought diversity is not going to help advancing LENR.
-
I think the gist is that letting many different theoretical explanations thrive just for the sake of thought diversity is not going to help advancing LENR.
Can,
Not sure that is what Max meant. If so, I would counter that maybe the opinion: "letting many different theoretical explanations thrive just for the sake of thought diversity is not going to help advancing LENR" could just as easily backfire, and cripple LENR innovation. The field has never been accommodating to conventional mainstream expectations. Just the opposite in fact.
-
I was only paraphrasing; I don't necessarily agree with that. See if the adaptation below makes more sense to you:
Quote[...] In ideal world, yes. In reality, only one can be right. However, in QM [i.e. mainstream physics] everything is possible at the same time. If we want to get to the point [of LENR], trying to grow [an] organic garden of different options is not going to work. We already have that: it is called mainstream physics.
For a more complete reply: I think the main issue is that there is still no confirmed working experiment to be replicated that doesn't either require years of preparatory work or NDAs to sign, whether formal or informal. Competition on the theory side would be best left for when at least one is found.
-
https://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
It looks like Wyttenbach needs to go back to the drawing board. At BrLP, silver is out and gallium is in. Where does that leave Wyttenbach in his silver based calculations? This goes to show that one can not be correct all the time.
-
Wyttenbach would be the first person (I am sure) to recognise that MIlls' theories were the starting point for his own very elegant and almost complete re-working of the standard model that is both useful and predictive - in ways the standard model is not. His problem with gallium is that it is unlikely to perform as well as silver, even though it is easier to handle. I would also like to add that after his presentation one of the great men of nuclear science was deeply impressed and has reached out to learn more.
-
Here is a paper that gives an alternative explanation for the "hydrino", strange radiation, and LENR. I do not specifically agree with the idea, but I think that it's likely there is something else happening that explains the KE production that BLP observes when hydrogen atoms are exposed to their catalysts. I tend to think there's some kind of capture of an EVO like heavy electron.
-
Alan Smith was the presentation recorded?
-
Max Nozin Unfortunately due to lower attendance this year there wasn't the funding for video, but Robert Ellefson may have captured the audio. Alternatively Wyttenbach may wish to give you a link to the latest version of the paper.
-
The best internal model we can have is that we all are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This is the base of both being right and wrong at the same time.
-
-
stefan this is good for pure phylosopical discussion or as a theme for ato explore in the novel but totally inappropriate for engineering. You can design reliable breaking system for f you only right sometimes.
Well theories are used to predict, afterwords you will see that your prediction bear fruit or not, i'm not psycoligical, I code, and there might be bugs in my reasoning, meaning that I am sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but when I'm wrong I fix the bugs. We should not aim to be always right, but fix the bugs or else we would be still living in caves.
-
-
So can Wyttenbach, and Mills both be right at the same time?
Mills did outstanding work regarding classical Maxwell effects. But stable Hydrinos are just a mathematical guess with no fundamental physical justification or experimental backing. Some experiments show high energy hydrogen with a high J quantum number as classical explanation. Holmlid sees a deep magnetic orbit but also tries to explain it classically what is physical nonsense.
What may make things worse is that hydrino resonances may exists under a strong perturbative field. This explains why Mills can measure certain lines in the range of H(0) ..H 1/4 what is above 3.43 pm. Already 20 years ago Santilli found H* with the same methods Mills uses. He was aware that it is a deep magnetic (toroidal) state because he could store H* inside carbon fuel (CnHm) what did lead to an overall compression of the fuel (he named it magnefuel).
Only one thing is clear so far. LENR is magnetism (Maxwell) based. I do number my models like software companies do. Current version number is NPP.2.x. A future version 3.x will almost for sure be better than 2.x and made by others. We theorists can only be better than others before, what means closer to experiments. We are never totally right in the pure logic sense.
And the goal line is: Explain LENR mechanisms!
-
Wyttenbach on the sidelines of Sochi Russians aldo seem to be getting to the agreement that lenr is EM and not a nuclear process. Which is strange cause you attempt to classify real single world by the branches of abstract approximation theories.
-
on the sidelines of Sochi Russians aldo seem to be getting to the agreement that lenr is EM and not a nuclear process.
All nuclear processes in nature are EM processes. There are no potentials and no standard model dummy particles mimicking forces...
But cleaning 90 year long wrong teached brains will take at least one decade.
-
Wyttenbach,
Here's a question for you. What's your opinion on the physical reality of the magnetic vector potential?
-
Alan Smith was the presentation recorded?
I did record the audio, which I will make available soon at ColdFusionNow.org. Unfortunately the room acoustics were not good, and the resulting audio capture is of marginal quality, but you might find it useful anyhow. I am traveling again right now, but once I'm home next week I'll begin processing the raw audio and then get it to Ruby for publication.
-
stefan I code too. That is how I know that at some point it is better to start from scratch than keep on fixing bugs.
That too, I think that this is what we need to do with QM and Standard model, back paddle and redesign. This is actually the hard part both with
coding and here: leaving current QM ground with many man years investing and do a retake. Mills and then Wyttenbach is leading the way. And to note
hydrinos are mathematical extreme, If you found Mills EM model of the atom with one infinite thin shell weird, than hydrinos are double
weird mathematical speaking. My thumbs is also up hoping that Wyttenbach will get a recognition of his effort on the nuclear theory part.
He has few parameters and a very good fit, even do prediction that is acked by experiments, that typically should attract backers. Mills has gone
way down the hydrino path and that is his hammer and he sees nails everywhere. But as far as I know the LENR nail is not easy to cast into a
hydrino effect.
