I think that sampling the population to understand what fraction have or have had the virus is the next stage. Tests that allow this seam to be ready soon and then we will have much clearer understanding on how severe hit this virus has on our wallet and life. There is a curious fact and that is that different action from the authorities have yielded pretty much the same response. This together with indication that 4 out of 5 seam not to have any symptoms may mean that a higher fraction of the population that we might think have or already have had the virus e.g. more cases has been under the radar. If this is true then less people will die, less worries and the economy can start going quite soon. As an example experts in Sweden calculate that at end of April beginning of May half of the Swedish population will have had the virus and then can start working again and start the economy. Maybe the virus is more virulent then expected but with less teeth then expected, simply that. Anyway I'm a computer lover and overweight and spend my days working and walking now (I live in a calm area where walking has no hazards regarding virus spread). The plan is to get better lung heart and bode strength as I believe that is more important than being skinny, if one encounter the virus.
Posts by stefan


Those Chinese medical experts are right. They are not doing enough. Anyone can see they are not doing enough, because if they were doing enough, the daily total cases would start to fall. The rate of increase has not changed at all for the whole of this month. They need to find and isolate every patient, and account for all of the connections. I do not know if it is possible to do that at this late date, with so many patients, but that is what they must do to control the epidemic. Otherwise, it will have to run its course just as epidemics have done for all of human history.
The Chinese were able to do this because although they had many cases, most of them were in Wuhan. The U.S. cases are so spread out, and there are so many, I doubt we could find them follow up on the cases. I doubt we can even count them. I fear it is too late for that. It could have been done easily a month or two ago, but there were never enough test kits.
The mayor of New York today also locked down the city, and he called for the military to assist. Not to enforce the lockdown, but to assist.
Many people will violate the lockdown unless we start to see hundreds of thousands of new cases per day. Which will be around April 3, if present trends continue. Let me emphasize: if present trends continue. I do not know if they will. I am not predicting they will. Perhaps the lockdowns will begin to have some effect, and the curve will be somewhat flattened, so we won't see hundreds of thousands until May or June. That will save countless lives. The only thing I can predict is that if nothing is done, by about April 3, there will be more than 200,000 new cases per day, and about 4,000 deaths per day, roughly equivalent the daily losses on the battlefields during most of World War I.
The lockdowns have not had a measurable effect in Italy or France. Perhaps it is too soon. Or, perhaps, it is too late. I cannot judge.
Hmm, I think that it's virtually impossible to stop the rate of new infections in an initial phase. If 95% of the people stopped spreading the virus you would still have 5% that do not care and spread it within this group can be as coupled as normal society. And assuming this you will still get a 30% rate of increase in new cases. After some time depending on this group size the spread will decrease and we can delay. That's what's I'm hoping for, that the measures taken will lead to a not too fast process and the health care can cope. I'm an optimist though and think that we will find a simple enough cure for death so that we can get it over with before june. Else most probably a very long struggle with quite some deaths is ahead or a fast really deadly scenario.

Ah, here we go again...
A grid powered ECat, that produces energy!
(No hidden wires, I swear!)

Andrea Rossi
February 8, 2020 at 4:32 AM
Long Time Follower:
Not a bad idea.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Long Time Follower
February 8, 2020 at 4:20 AM
Dear Dr Rossi,
Maybe it is better if in your presentation of the Ecat SKL you do not make the closed loop, because almost surely voices will be raised that there are hidden batteries or the like. I suggest to plug a power source and measure both the electricity the Ecat draws from the grid and the electricity that it produces: then it will be obvious that the COP is infinite, if the electricity produced is more than the electricity consumed.
Cheers
Long Time Follwer
And plugging things in a wall outlet rule out batteries. LOL.

Andrea Rossi
February 8, 2020 at 4:32 AM

There is also no comparison with control in the water calorimetry..
perhaps Booker is rewriting the report with a number of qualifications..
due to feedback from BLP readership..
A 300kw heater of the same size is a bit difficult to get thingie I suspect so It is not strange that there is no control.
But why only high power short runs. Much more interesting to see the COP of what's working e.g. the 5h run.

We have the Booker report and the performance is Mizuno like. Still can they get the same return when running it for 5h, that is unclear. Anyhow
Interesting and probably enough to get funding flowing. ANd most of all it seams to be reproducable. If only it could be repeated by other research teams.
Then science can be set in stone and the human bandwagon can spend time to optimse the COP.

An anagram solver on the internet indicates Hijuelas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijuelas
Produces a lot of flowers. R might mean Rose then
Also if we added an invented o, than you get "jailhouse" and then R would stand for rock.

On JONP someone, calles R. Lisa Huje posted some wordplays.
I know, what "Lisa Huje" means....
.... And the R stands for???
An anagram solver on the internet indicates Hijuelas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijuelas
Produces a lot of flowers. R might mean Rose then

Cool if true, but a lot of things is cool if true. Anyway last demo was a lot of fun. So to me it is entertaining. And who knows maybe hell freezes over.

Not the first time that has been said. This is from the 1999 article LeBob just posted:
"Tests at Lehigh University are interesting, confirms Dr. Alfred Miller, a senior research scientist there who has tested BlackLight Power’s compounds. Miller probed the energy levels of the atoms by bombarding them with X rays and measuring the energy of the electrons leaving the atoms—a technique called Xray photoelectron spectroscopy. “I try and exhaust all possibilities and there really aren’t an enormous number of conventional explanations” for what he found.
Miller emphasizes that he didn’t want his tests being interpreted as unequivocally confirming the hydrino theory, but “over the years I haven’t really come across too many things that haven’t been explainable. At least if you thought about it long enough and hard enough.”
Ricerca Inc.’s lab east of Cleveland was similarly flummoxed by what it found when studying BlackLight Power’s materials. “They were inorganic compounds that have organic properties. That is unusual,” says Dr. YongXi Li, manager of Ricerca’s advanced mass spectrometry lab. “We totally don’t know what’s going on. The reason is that I’ve never seen before these kinds of properties in all my career. Probably we have to do more work.”Plenty other comments like this going back to 1991, that back Mills up. Question is: Why is the tech still in the lab, and BLP struggling to attract funding and a partner? I can't figure it out.
I think that many characterizations is of the kind "we do not know" but the number of ways it can happen via normal science is so large that you simply cannot prove the Hydrino theory, maybe there is an unknown proper argument ..... On the other hand for this experiment the early peak is very clear. It beats hydrogene because that is the king in this early game. Also I think that being faster than hydrogen means it is smaller than hydrogen so this rules out essentially modern science. The only possible alternative is an artifact. I searched the internet hand have not found any known such case. Anyway repeating the experiment say 10 times and get the same result in 2 different labs with different equipment would quickly rule out such an artifact.

Hydrino gas has been introduced in gas chromotagraphs. This peak looks impressive and as far as I know ghost peaks are from contaminations. This result should not be there according to current science.
I hope they get a few labs confirming this at some point.

Dimensions is the wrong word, degrees of freedom is better, for example movments of a rigid body have more than three degrees of freedom
and could be seen as living in a space with 6 dimesions mathematically speaking as you have 6 degrees of freedom. Wyttenbach theory is an
abstract theory which uses the freedoms and symmetry of SO(4). And connects the geometry of that object to results in particle physics.
This does not nessesary mean (but can perhaps) that space has 4 dimensions, just that you can find the SO(4) structure in the math. The
same applies to all theories talking about dimensions. My point is that combining the 3 fields above means that essentially you have the
same degrees of freedom as in SO(4) and could perhaps be a direct model that shows the one property needed to prove Wyttenbach's
results is indeed included in the formulation.

Hmm I'm wondering about the Hamilton Jaccobi equation for three orbitals, if you write it out includeing the typicall magnetic influence you will find in QM have
p(1,x)^2 + p(1,y)^2 + p(1,z)^2 + p(2,x)^2 + p(2,y)^2 + p(2,z)^2 + p(3,x)^2 + p(3,y)^2 + p(3,z)^2 + m^2 + U(r1)L1.Ltot + U(r2)L2.Ltot + U(r3)L3.Ltot
All p's has 12 degrees of freedom S0(4) have 7 degrees of freedom. fixing the influences of the magnetic field via L1.Ltot, L2.Ltot, L3.Ltot, fixates three dimensions
123 = 9. And also energy is a constant that will give you 124 = 8 degres of freedom. Finally the total angular momentum is fixed (in magnitude) and you are left
12  5 = 7 degrees of freedom. Hmm Wyttenbach I believe you and me might be on the same track.
/Stefan

This is an interesting discussion Bohr Model, the technique with deriving the Hamilton Jaccobi equations really is interesting. It do look that spherical shells and Mills theory can popup
from this feature of QM. To me they essentially look the same and explains why Bohr and hence also Mills which does essentially what Bohr did but with a better model that explains a
lot more than Bohr did.

Did some more work. Found a solution to Dirac equation (matrix equation).
Also noted that this solution has infinite energy and norm. Another observation is that
we can allow a nonsmooth solution at a spherical surfaces because the weighting function [1] has zeros
at spherical surfaces. Also I added an idea that confined fotons give rise to gravity. see paper2 link in the post above.

Ok I tried to motivate further for why the multiplication of the fields yields a QM correspondance. here is a new addedum of paper2.
Assume that we have a standing wave with source terms running at the speed of light. I will assume that
this is the trapped photon.
If we now ask to add a new Maxwellian field with sources free to move slower than the speed of light, with a fixed energy so that it is orthogonal
to the photon which probably mean that it minimizing the energy given that the new field has a fixed energy. Also this means that the forces on
this new fields source terms sum to zero.

Sorry for posting nonsence, I did a new update of the paper on google docs.
New finding is that If you take an sort of even distribution of a EM soup with mostly high frequence stuff or related to small length scales
and then note that an EM field cand be used as a source term and produce an EM field that in turn produces a source term etc, if we consider this process
and consider themagnitude of the new source terms as a constant to the old one and then add all those field together you get my [f]. With this
I think I understand wuite well where QED is comming from. PLease read my linked google doc piece, Im starting to really get it now.

New version added, cleanup, more straightforward deduction more details added to enable people to follow
New version, better explanation of what I'm doing I think. Also I put it on google docs download the pdf from there
and read it on your home computer. The reason for this is that the page in physExchange is on hold, it's a bad question
simply.

New version added, cleanup, more straightforward deduction more details added to enable people to follow

Hi Stefan,
The relationship between EM and QM equations is a good question, and very nontrivial. Certainly, a person truly
interested in understanding Nature cannot accept the "shut up and calculate" mentality.
Several people tried to establish the link between Maxwell and Dirac equations. You can search the literature for
"optical Dirac equation" for instance. It's not easy to show how Maxwell equation leads to the Dirac equation,
otherwise it would be in textbooks already. But it's one of the most important basic questions, in my view.
In chapter 2, we show that the Dirac equation is the same as the KleinGordon equation. In chapter 4, we show that
the KleinGordon equation is the same as the Proca equation. These are three faces of the same equation, yet most
physicists consider them to apply to different kinds of particles. The problem is not with the equations, but with
understanding their meaning and correct application to elementary particles.
For instance, "i" is just treated as imaginary complex number in QM, without ever explaining what the imaginary values
physically mean. We show that "i" of QM is the Clifford pseudoscalar which we get by multiplying unit vectors:
e_t*e_x*e_y*e_z. Understanding the correct geometry is the first step towards understanding what the equations mean.
We make the first steps to derive the Dirac equation from Maxwell equation, but some points remain open. In the 2nd
edition of the book, we plan to present the complete derivation of QM equations from EM equations.
Regarding Wyttenbach's and Zephir's comments: obviously neither of you looked into the book.
A wise person would not make dogmatic statements without first reading and understanding the authors' work.
Especially not in a thread which is catering to those who are interested to understand this topic.
Even more so when you have never yet written down a physical equation which is predictive, and not just numerology.
The reason I am mentioning this is not for being mean to you, but to point out that your activity reduces my
motivation to participate in this forum.
Best regards,
Andras
+
Wyttenbach
I did another try today in formulating a EM  QED connection, it was great fun not sure if it works though but Wyttenbachs SO(4) seam to pop up as well.
In order to have some nice markup I placed it at PhysStackExchange

The problem with all these QM like claims is that they only work if you neglect the inner magnetic energy, what is kindergarden physics. Already Mills did show that the reduced mass term in the coulomb gauge is the magnetic force contribution. Unluckily the magnetic force is not a central force as it works on the boundary of a rotation and induces a further rotation. This has severe consequences!
The whole approach of QM for deep potentials simply is wrong as it has no physical basis that works. Only at elevated levels (higher n states) the contribution of the magnetic force can be "neglected".
The lucky thing for classic QM modeling is that the two resulting coupled energy states are orthogonal and thus the contribution of the missing state to the classic wave energy is small much smaller than than the missing energy.
The paper claims as many before the existence of a so called Zitterbewegungs orbit. But the author does not explain the magnetic energy of such a state.
Having a link between EM and QM will mean that we have a better argument. We can say yes QM is proper physics in some regards. But using QM for the particles
themselves is wrong, QM works for an electrons in hydrogen because the electron is small compared to the size of an atom, because QM is an approximation. Hence don't
use it for particle physics. I also think that your SO(4) physics is hidden in a correct formulation of particles using EM. So QM is EM but you remove details and get something
that is close to EM sometimes but very wrong to EM sometimes. Then they make a kludge: the standard model, to try churn the properties that was lost back in again.