QuoteWho is correct: R Mills, K Sholders, or L. Holmlid?
Dense hydrogen of Holmlid is definitely more physically realistic hypothesis than the hydrino of Mills. But I don't see the way, in which they could generate energy in both cases.
New journal article from Brilliant Light Power
-
-
Dense hydrogen of Holmlid is definitely more physically realistic hypothesis than the hydrino of Mills. But I don't see the way, in which they could generate energy in both cases.
Zephir_AWT : They both do experiments with no fitting model that explains what happens. Holmlid fuels dense hydrogen with an optical wave field, Mills uses high current.
In dense Hydrogen the stored magnetic energy is already high enough to play its role as a resonator. In Mills case he has to generate the dense field first. But as already said Mills completely misunderstands how this field is generated. This will possibly be one of the reasons, why he will not progress fast enough with design improvements.
-
If you think hydrinos are not real what do you think is he measuring with the Raman spectroscope? He thinks he is bringing H to the hydrino state with his experiment and so he is expecting dihydrino gas. Than he measures a peak which matches his expectation to four significant figures and also another (photoluminescence?) experiments indicate an internuclear distance of 1/4 that of H2 (page 27,28,106). Combining this with the null runs where the hydrino getter was not exposed to the reaction output it is hard to argue that these are measurement errors.
What´s your opinion?
PS: Thanks for your work with the helium atom. Hope you can solve the problem
-
If you think hydrinos are not real what do you think is he measuring with the Raman spectroscope? He thinks he is bringing H to the hydrino state with his experiment and so he is expecting dihydrino gas.
Epimetheus : I recently compared older Mills Hydrino spectra with other low-orbit models and they seemed to fit better. For me "Hydrino-resonances" are a reality, but the only long time stable low orbit Hydrogen model I trust, is the toroidal configuration calculated by Aringazin. In Mills Hydrino model there is no equation for the needed (added) photon central force. Mills assumption, that the central charge increases, needs a completely new model for the nucleus, that might work, but is not given by Mills. Otherwise it's a complete contradiction to his other assumption, that the charge and the Bohr-magneton are invariant.
What do his experiments show (just strongly simplifying the situation): As soon as you introduce high currents, Hydrogen will split into H3+ and H-. This happens much earlier than splitting Hydrogen into a monatomic form, because it's exo-thermic!! After that we live in a strict plasma regime, where part of the plasma is contained within a strong local H-field (that is more or less completly screened) . The disproportion into H3+ already explains the unexplained line in his paper.
The structure and the build up of the field needs a long explication, but at the end you can explain how the SUN-CELL works.
For me it's kind of tragedy that Mills, who did famous work with calculating in all magnetic effects, in his orbital model, finally fails to do the same with his experiments.
(You must understand, that I will not go further with discussing any details, because this might have impact on his IP.)
Toroidal Hydrogen seems to be long time stable, if it can attach to other molecules in the form of a magnetic bond.
-
Display More
If you think hydrinos are not real what do you think is he measuring with the Raman spectroscope? He thinks he is bringing H to the hydrino state with his experiment and so he is expecting dihydrino gas. Than he measures a peak which matches his expectation to four significant figures and also another (photoluminescence?) experiments indicate an internuclear distance of 1/4 that of H2 (page 27,28,106). Combining this with the null runs where the hydrino getter was not exposed to the reaction output it is hard to argue that these are measurement errors.
What´s your opinion?
PS: Thanks for your work with the helium atom. Hope you can solve the problem
Look into nanoplasmonics. Surface plasmon polaritons can both upshift and downshift light into the XUV range. These SPPs are produced by nanoparticle based clusters. The spacing between nanoparticles determines the output frequency of the light conversion. For example...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2011/10/111017092344.htm
Nano funnel used to generate extreme ultraviolet light pulses
-
IMHO, most LENR reactions are produced by the interaction of nanoparticles with light. The SunCell is no exception. SPPs form on the surface of nanopartiles when these nanopartiles are pumped with light energy. In the SunCell, condinsation of silver vapor into silver based antiparticles lead to the prediction that the silver based dirty plasma that the SunCell produces will not much exceed the boiling point of silver.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it is human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally resist rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to the survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially include these new experimental results.
On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to avoid any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with LENR.
The Proton 21 experiment has shown that a spark interacting with a metal (pure copper) will produce transmutation. I will guaranty that the silver in the SunCell will show transmutation of silver into other elements. When this transmutation assay is performed on the silver in the SunCell, what will Mills say about his dogma?
-
The Proton 21 experiment has shown that a spark interacting with a metal (pure copper) will produce transmutation. I will guaranty that the silver in the SunCell will show transmutation of silver into other elements. When this transmutation assay is performed on the silver in the SunCell, what will Mills say about his dogma?
axil: The Proton 21 experiment can be explained by the general LENR model. No mystery.
I guess Mills will tell nobody about the Ag isopic evolution in the SUN-CELL...
But the silver isotopic shift should only happen under certain rare conditions. May be you should ask him!
-
Thanks. With your current theory in mind do you see any show stoppers for Mills to run his suncell for 24 hours? My hope is if he can present his giant light bulb this will trigger a long needed experimental and theoretical scientific discourse about classical/local/causal models of our reality (of which Mills has a promising candidate in my eyes).
With the current probabilistic QM framework it is way too simple to hide any model errors and sell them as "the underlying probability density function is not measureable and so we have to approximate it. Thats where the error comes from.". This is a weak excuse. We control system engineers also use probabilistic models to describe e.g. the movement of objects (cars, airplanes,...). Why? Because estimating their state with a probabilistic model gives good results. Why? Because errors in the system model AND in the measurement are smoothed out. Can you tell what the systematic error in the system model looks like? Not really and I don´t care - I hand tune the filter parameters so that it works in practice.
I´d love to see this QM framework disappear...
-
Thanks. With your current theory in mind do you see any show stoppers for Mills to run his suncell for 24 hours?
Epimetheus : Only careful experiments will show if a 24 hour runtime is possible. Mills lack of engineering knowledge did cost him already one or two years. The idea of direct current generation was nice to gain some investors, but given current technology completely unrealistic. Here some more, deep engineering steps are needed.
The other problem he will face, is that with an incorrect process model, he will no be able to optimize the self-sustain mode.
QM-frameworks are only valuable in ranges, where the deviation of the magnetic energy can be neglected. I believe that in twenty years current QM is only taught as an engineering model, no longer as basic physical theory.
For me its enigmatic why Physicists ever could believe, that the relativistic Dirac equation correctly models orbital states.
-
Quote
why Physicists ever could believe, that the relativistic Dirac equation correctly models orbital states
Because it's basis of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is actually the most exact physical theory at all. Mills orbital models are naive, as he models everything with spheres and ovals - but the actual appearance of orbitals is way more complex and their geometry correctly predicts the chemistry of complexes and coordination bonds. It has no meaning to speculate about it, because the resolution of microscopes is already sufficient enough to observe them directly: and their appearance follows the quantum mechanical models - not these Milsian ones.
-
If a model produces an accurate formula it does not mean that it is the best model around. And from the linked wiki article I am not sure if I would say the value for alpha/g is predicted by QED. They say that the best models contain these steps: "...by fitting an experimental measurement to a theoretical expression (including higher-order radiative corrections) that includes α as a parameter." and " ...includes QED diagrams with up to four loops. Combining this with the experimental measurement of g yields..". For me this is exactly what Mills critizises about QED in the first chapter of his book. This definitly sounds like curve fitting terms with a half baked theoretical justification to the measurements (after more than 60 years of QED "half baked" is not the correct expression - overcooked is better.).
Mills also uses these pictures to underline that his theory is correct. So I am not sure if these pictures contradict Mills model. I challenge you that you proof that these pictures make a case for QM. The theoretical orbitals in c) and d) are just iso-areas that contain the electron with 90% probability. Combining the probabilitydistribution of the electron (in QM terms) with the measurement uncertainty of the "camera" I doubt that you would get these (more or less) sharply seperated atoms. Mills model has a sharply defined orbit and the "round" (not spherical) elements of the molecule stem from the modulation of the current density function of the "orbitosphere". I think you have to study these measurements in much greater detail before you can come to your (or my) conclusion.
-
To emphasize my point lets look at a picture from this article:
Especially with more orbitals you see a high discrepancy between measurment and theoretical prediction. My guess is that this is because of a "blurring" effect of the "camera". As long as there is no inverse "camera model" to cancel out the effect of the measurement system you cannot tell what probability distribution you are measuring. It is always a combination of the atom and the "camera" distribution.
-
QuoteI challenge you that you proof that these pictures make a case for QM. The theoretical orbitals in c) and d) are just iso-areas that contain the electron with 90% probability.
This is just what the orbital definition is all about. Mills considers, that the orbitals aren't fuzzy probability blobs (actually standing deBroglie waves of electrons) but thin hollow shells of spherical or oval shape. Such a model has no meaning for common orbitals which are involved in chemical bonds, it's actually relevant for electrons, which are moving highly beneath (Auger) or above (Rydberg) these orbitals. But the quantum mechanics in this case predict their spherical shapes too - there is no need to utilize the Mills theory for it.
The c) and d) orbitals are boundary states of molecular orbitals (spin parallel and antiparallel), which were directly observed with AFM as well - so that they cannot be only theoretical. If you can see something, you should be also intepret it.
But the Mills theory cannot explain many other subtleties, like the Pi-orbitals, which are contributing to graphene bonds and aromatic behavior of many organic compounds, d- and f-orbitals important for coordination compounds, superconductivity and so on.
IMO Mills would face way more fundamental problems for his investors, than the intepretation of abstract orbital models: i.e. the proof, that his SunCell reactor really produces surplus of energy - and if yes, than this energy comes from hydrino formation and not from some unknown LENR process. Because on this mechanism most of his patents are based - without it the another LENR water plasma technologies (Energoniva) would gain priority.
-
Because it's basis of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is actually the most exact physical theory at all. Mills orbital models are naive, as he models everything with spheres and ovals - but the actual appearance of orbitals is way more complex and their geometry correctly predicts the chemistry of complexes and coordination bonds. It has no meaning to speculate about it, because the resolution of microscopes is already sufficient enough to observe them directly: and their appearance follows the quantum mechanical models - not these Milsian ones.
What is pictured here? Do you have a reference for these pictures? Others like them?
-
What is pictured here? Do you have a reference for these pictures? Others like them?
Use picture search
-
Use picture search
Duh. Thanks. Reverse image search never works for me, so I usually forget to even try it...
-
This is just what the orbital definition is all about. Mills considers, that the orbitals aren't fuzzy probability blobs (actually standing deBroglie waves of electrons) but thin hollow shells of spherical or oval shape.
@Zephir: Mills in fact calculates only the relevant forces needed for stability, charge density and momentum density. To understand the basic properties of a molecule, you dont need a fuzzy random picture of the orbits.
All QM formulas completely neglet the internal magnetic energies/forces. This is not that severe for chemical orbits. But the farther (deeper) you move away from the equilibrium position (Bohr level), the more off QM will be.
QM is an engineering approach to Physics and not a basic method to understand the behavior of molecules/atoms.
To understand the pictures you showed, made by the atomic force microscope, you must know, that the sensor is a single atom on the top of a needle. You can't get between the atoms if the distance is of the same size. Normally you basically scan a surface with equal force. (Or forces at equal distance, what is much trickier.) The pictured values of the gaps can only be estimated by an approximation. May be we should also know the physical parameters of the measurement, which might influence the measurements. Thus next time you should add these too.
-
@Zephir "
Because it's basis of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is actually the most exact physical theory at all."
Here you are arguing based on the authority of Wikipedia....not the most unbiased of sources.
Wyttenbach "Physics and not a basic method to understand the behavior of molecules/atoms."
I found five pages of physics maths by Stefan Tampe, which works through independently from Maxwell's equations
and gets similar results to Mills.
I am not competent to evaluate it . Could you? its on a Maxwell.pdf file.
https://gitlab.com/tampe/gutcp-atom-calculations
I think Stefan works for ABB Schweiz.
.
-
Mills deserves a lot of credit for making major headway improving calculations, but the foundations he's building on are are much shakier than he thinks. Since he hasn't gone back and fixed the mistakes in the very existing equations upon which his own work has been erected, there is only so far he will get.
The hard part is to calculate the "orbiting radius" of the electrons and how this radius changes when the electron configuration of the atom changes (the radius changes because of the changing electric and magnetic interactions between "electron neighbors").
It's especially hard because Bohr mucked it up in the first place. He thought he was calculating the radius of the electron's orbit, but he was actually calculating the radius of the electron itself. From here:
"And now we see that the radius hidden under Bohr’s bad math is the radius of the electron, not the radius of the orbit. And the spins belong to the electron as well. But we should have known that long before. All the angular momenta have to apply to the electron, not the orbit. If the orbit was the primary cause of the various fields of the electron, then the orbit itself would show a magnetic moment and an electrical field, and so on. And if it did that, the atom wouldn’t be neutral, it would be an ion. Besides, we know that free electrons also have electrical fields and magnetic fields. So it cannot be the orbit that has all the angular momentum. The angular momentum and the magnetic moment belong to the electron, so the radius must also.
"And the velocity must also belong to the electron. That is, it belongs to the spin, not to the orbit. The velocity in this equation is not a velocity of the electron in orbit, it is the velocity of the spin. It is the tangential velocity on the surface of the spin, or the linear velocity a point on the surface of the spin border would be going if it weren’t going in a circle. The magnetic moment, like the charge, belongs to the electron, not to the orbit!"
It's also hard to calculate because the electron doesn't actually orbit the nucleus, neither in a probabilty density cloud nor in an orbitsphere: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html
On to of that, the behavior of electrons is epiphenomenal -- meaning that electrons are not the prime movers; the charge field is. The electrons are pushed around by the charge field, and since physicists have only observed electrons while ignoring evidence of the existence of the charge field, they have assigned characteristics to electrons that properly belong to the charge field: http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
Mills shares with mainstream physics both a misunderstanding of the fundamental structure of the nucleus as well as the complex ways in which charge and electrons interact with the nucleonic structure.My main reason for accepting GUTCP is the derivation of the hydrogen radius using only centripetal forces and electrical forces skipping the magnetic forces.
Except that the hydrogen radius is about 100 times larger than we think. In fact, "Everything in the atomic and quantum world—including the atom, the nucleus, the proton, and the electron—is about 100 times larger than you were taught." (Take that link if you want to know where the fine structure constant comes from.) Can Mills explain the so-called proton radius puzzle that "confirms physics is broken"? I know somebody who can.
And a bonus for anyone wanting a deeper understanding of Maxwell's equations: http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf
-
Mills claims that his model explains the proton radius puzzle (although I dont understand his very short statement about this "puzzle").
There will be more models out there that will give good results on many experiments. To judge them one key aspect is to make predictions with these models and see if they fit reality. In case of Mills this is pretty simple: he already passed the test about molecular structure which he can calculate way way better than QM (this is of course no prediction). Another part of his theory predicts hydrinos. He thinks he is measuring them in the laboratory - independant validation is still missing (the recently launched solar probe may give some hints). Than he is predicting pseudo electrons (electrons that are repelled by gravitation) - he already gave some ideas how to create them.
I dont know what mathis theory predicts but in the end it is all about: 1. Can a model explain the set of known experiments? 2. Can a model make testable predictions? --> if there is more than one model which passes these tests than we should take the "simpler" one. Of course in reality this is much harder, because e.g. a theory recently hatched out of an egg may be far inferiour to the current accepted "mainstream" model but after putting 20 years of work in it it might be far superior.
I see a small chance that Mills theory will lay the foundation for the next big widely accepted theory, but I dont see the slightest chance that Mathis model is ever going to be deeply studied unless he invents a new technology with it. Reading Mathis invokes the urge to punch him hard in the face in every physicist looking into it just because of his arrogant writing style
