Does Brilliant Light Power Reactor’s Run on Overunity Too? (a personal speculation)

Quote from stefan

Let me suggest that we could all agree that his charge densities has the property that they does not radiate and possess the needed property that it can yield a discrete set of orbetals as we know the atom has.

Key of GUT-CP is the correct derivation of the magnetic energy. The non radiation condition is a missing piece of QM as the QM theory cannot explain the stability of the state(s). The non radiation condition only affects the electric energy and can be understood as a small enhancement of QM.

QM, as mentioned many times ago, completely fails to incorporate the internal magnetic energy and thus is just an engineering level theory, suitable for higher orbits calculations. QM is by no way a fundamental theory. Nevertheless for certain low energy problems it is the best approach, because the probabilities can easily interpolate dynamic behavior.

I also tried to add it to stack exchange phys in order to get more review of the question and solution. I have not answered the question there, but It could be interesting to get some comments. Good comments so far that imporved the quality of the stated question. See pse

@HG you could say the same to QM, so the concept of packing a charge distribution without assuming it consisting of small lego brick charge units is indeed a common theme of

todays physics.

@HG, my view is that there should be a link between QM and GUTCP, I don't diss QM as much as Mills. Standard model is well, here I'm with Wyttenbach.

Also look up the work by Goedecke he actually shows a Heisenbergs inequaltity kind of statements for non radiating classical fields.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Here you can find some deep thoughts on the subject:

Quantum Mechanics, The Stability of Matter and Quantum Electrodynamics
by Elliott H. Lieb

@H-G Branzell : Such papers are my concern, as the authors do not try to find an answer from real physics and just cite the nonsense others invented:

Citation: Thus, the basic stability problem for an atom was solved by an inequality that says that ⟨1/|x|⟩, the expected value of 1/|x|, can be made large only at the expense of making the kinetic energy, which is proportional to ⟨p2⟩, even larger.

The above is not completely true: If the electron goes closer to the nucleus the field energy decreases. As better models show: The field energy is what counts for the nuclear mass. Thus the overall mass does not increase. The only question is the relativistic part of the dE_kin of the electron, which slightly increases for the upper orbits.

(But whether the electron does fully gravitate or not is an open question!!)

For deep orbits the story is quite different because the Einstein/Minkovski metric fails and all classic paper can be put into the thrash.

Citation: The nuclei are fixed because they are so massive relative to the electron that their motion is irrelevant.

This is already wrong for the hydrogen Nucleus. But for higher Z the electrons more or less average the field and there is no reduced mass equivalent. The argument is wrong but the consequence is correct...

To understand the problems of QM just read chapter "4.1.1 One-Electron Atom"

Mills showed (detailed math!!) that the magnetic field interaction of the proton/electron pair - by mere luck - is just equivalent to the QM reduced mass formula. QM uses the reduced mass without knowing it's true origin.

Already for 4-He the reduced mass formula no longer works, because of the symmetry of the electrons. Further on the magnetic orbital coupling of the electron with the nuclear mass is only given by two out of 4 space dimensions, what reduces the absolute value of the coupling. Standard model folks forget that all mass is of electromagnetic nature and magnetic forces do not couple radially. In fact they induce torque!

To work just with the Coulomb gauge is OK as I said before for high level QM orbits, but all tries of QED to use the same mechanism for nuclear dimensions, are not more than educated nonsense. The true physical space is SO(4) and not any combination of SO(3) SU(2) with Pauli matrixes. This just covers (less than) halve of the space...

The alleged results of QED stem from the fact that some problems staying in SO(4) do have a valid projection into the classical space (SO(3) SU(2) with Pauli matrixes). In fact SO(4) is the cross product of the classical space.

Maybe so. What Mills needs to show is a reactor which actually produces lots of accurately measurable net extra energy for a long enough time. Also, a way to detect, collect, trap, hold and analyze hydrinos. Then, his theories may be more worth spending the time to attempt comprehension.

What exactly does it mean to "run on overunity" as per the title of this string?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Maybe so. What Mills needs to show is a reactor which actually produces lots of accurately measurable net extra energy for a long enough time. Also, a way to detect, collect, trap, hold and analyze hydrinos. Then, his theories may be more worth spending the time to attempt comprehension.

Indeed we need the full operational prove for at least some hours of heat production.

I personally would be very surprised if we ever get stable "hydrinos" in any form. But this has nothing to do with his theory which deals 99.9% with real physics.

As I mentioned many times before: There are stable forms of Hydrogen (H*) with a reduced radius e.g. used in Santillis Magne-Fuel or Holmlids dense Deuterium (Hydrogen). But both have nothing in common with "Hydrinos" .

Thus if Mills SunCell works, it is because he is fussing Hydrogen and not because he is producing his claimed "Hydrinos" . Of course he could also see strings of H* but again this is Holmlid like matter...

The best prove of absence of Hydrinos is the complete missing of spectral evidence for any claimed "Hydrino" form < H1/4!!

Quote

I personally would be very surprised if we ever get stable "hydrinos" in any form

Me too but probably for a different reason

But has not Mills claimed essentially "hydrinos in a bottle" soon?

I agree with Axil, the BLP, SAFIRE and plasma QX approaches are probably all based on similar underlying nuclear reactions-the only reason the inventors claim different mechanisms is a consequence of our flawed patenting to engineering production system, That is no-one can exploit any invention unless it is uniquely different from every other patent filed-perhaps a cynical view but the whole invention-patenting process should be discarded so real progress in LENR could be made. Total transparency of each research group/company and free exchange of ideas and data is the only way we are ever going to have low energy fusion reactors running by the end of this century. I think the SAFIRE low temperature plasma approach is the most likely to succeed-simple tried and tested tech, no complicated theory-just dump your Ni or other transition metal catalyst, or diamond powder into a plasma arc in nanopowder form, suspension of reactants with H or D in the double-layer next to the cathode will result in nuclear fusion reactions, excess heat some gamma radiation/neutron release. All contained within a spherical reaction chamber, nice and easy to monitor and research further LENR experiments. None of this can be patented so nobody will do the work-UNLESS we committed LENR buddies pass the hat round to the big players, ask for a contribution from their ill-gotten gains (cash mountains from naive investors) to build and test such a system. Surely this might exonerate their fraudulent behaviour, and they're by definition ALL frauds without exception because there's nothing on the market as of now which actually works! After years and years (and years) of working on it. Wouldn't the FBI have busted any other industry players by now having made such claims over such long periods without delivering the goods?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The fact that Randell Mills is using "nascent hydrogen" in mix with argon strengthens my suspicion that it's overunity device analogous to Papp's engine rather than dense hydrogen and/or even hydrino device. Maybe the hydrogen/water vapour isn't really necessary in it at all and we get Chernetski plasma device. Both nascent, i.e. atomic hydrogen, both argon have spherically symmetric orbitals, prone to negentropic forbidden electron transitions due to absence of gauss radiation condition.

If You 'll omit Hydrino as posible source of energy, where from You take enrgy exces?

Papp's engine does not exclude hydrino I think.

Zephir_AWT, from your "negentropic" link above, a quote from you:

"Even the conformal changes of protein molecules within our bodies often exhibit the hysteresis, which could drain the energy from vacuum for yogins and breatharians."

Are you saying successful breatharians actually exist? My favorite is "Human Barbie". She doesn"t eat yet stays smoking hot. Do you believe all crackpot theories, or just the vast majority of them?

https://www.nydailynews.com/ne…ght-air-article-1.1707932

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The fact that Randell Mills is using "nascent hydrogen" in mix with argon strengthens my suspicion that it's overunity device analogous to Papp's engine rather than dense hydrogen and/or even hydrino device. Maybe the hydrogen/water vapour isn't really necessary in it at all and we get Chernetski plasma device. Both nascent, i.e. atomic hydrogen, both argon have spherically symmetric orbitals, prone to negentropic forbidden electron transitions due to absence of gauss radiation condition.

Looking at Papp's patent applications, at least 3 different gasses, not including hydrogen, are specified in the claims.
The only noble gas Mills applies is Argon as far as known.
Papp specifies that water is a component, so if you assume water can be omitted and a single noble gas may be applied it's likely not compliant with Papp's principles.

The mystery remains as long as interest is not increasing so other independent researchers replicate and flaws in current physics aren't corrected.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

The mystery remains

There is no mystery: H*-H* condensation frees 495eV. This has been exactly verified by measurements and theory but not Mills Hydrino theory that of course is far off.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is no mystery: H*-H* condensation frees 495eV. This has been exactly verified by measurements and theory but not Mills Hydrino theory that of course is far off.

Agreed, but only known by very few insiders. I meant to say 'mystery for mainstream science'.
Successful promotion is currently the biggest challenge.