The article on the Nature website by Fukuhara is published in the journal Scientific Reports. Fukuhara cites S. Jones, as well as citing as an authority a Bush and Eagleton paper called "Cold Nuclear Fusion," suggesting that Fukuhara follows LENR developments. It's a little surprising this article made it into Scientific Reports, which is associated with Nature, but I'm also guessing that Scientific Reports is mostly separate from Nature, the journal.
Eric Walker
Verified User
- from Loveland, Colorado
- Member since Oct 5th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Eric Walker
-
-
So two approaching photons, the energy as always relative the frequency and then a direct hit near a third body - needed for conservation and you could according to Mills produce an electron and a positron. This is standrad Mills and I can give you a reference if you are interested.
Pair production from an energetic photon is a phenomenon well known to physics. The photon must be energetic (1.02 MeV or more), and the third body must be charged and preferably heavy. There is also photon-photon pair production. I do not consider it a selling-point that Mills accounts for pair-production in his theory; it seems rather to be a simple necessity. If his theory said that pair production couldn't happen, it would be a strong count against it.Is he [Mills] right. I believe so because I don't think he could have made the suncell without guidance from a correct theory and there are strong spectroscopic evidences of the hydrino. I don't think it is a scam though.
Mills's theory can be correct, and BrLP's experimental output mistaken. Mills's theory can be mistaken, and BrLP's experimental output good. You trust that BrLP's success with the SunCell (here we must assume that there has been genuine success for the SunCell) was only possible with Mills's theory, but I think this is a non-sequitor, i.e., one conclusion does not follow from the other. -
The hypothesis of a transmutations (with alpha=4He2- emission) instead of fusion does not match the modest transmutations observed in PdD, except if there is a Pd nuclear catalysis somethings like
Palladium may be entirely inert, and not involved. There is also platinum, which is usually used as the counter-electrode, is heavier, and hence is more amenable to breaking up under Coloumb repulsion when there is sufficient screening.The evidence you point to suggests that there is no dd fusion occurring (or fusion of deuterium, or production of helium from deuterium, or whatever).
-
The energy is in the two colliding photons.
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion. Is it simply a thought experiment for a process that might occur on occasion, or is it proposed to be a regular process? -
yes there is a a pair produced as I understand - my fault, was a bit too quick
In that case, the energy required to produce the electron-positron pair from the photons is not 511 keV, but 1.02 MeV, above and beyond whatever kinetic energy that start out with. Where does this energy come from? -
To my knowledge, GUTCP is silent on the issue of conservation of lepton number. It only discusses the conservation of angular momentum.
Ok, let's not worry about the suspicious reworking of angular momentum or the question of conservation of lepton number. How is charge conserved in Stefan's reaction? Before the reaction, we have two photons (charge 0e), and after the reaction we have an electron (charge -1e). Experimentally it's observed that in atomic and nuclear experiments, charge is neither created nor destroyed; rather it's conserved. Stefan: did you mean to include a positron in your suggestion? -
It's a reinterpretation of Maxwell's equation where you extend the possible solution to a broader mathematical space. Indeed it look like an innovation and that all is based on conclusions from allowing space to form resonant cavities and their limits
Am I correct in inferring, then, that you disagree with optiongeek when he says that "This is the instance of energy to mass conversion. All from classical physics"? It seems that we are dealing with something other than classical physics; among other things, a reinterpretation of critical parts of it. -
In GUTCP, every particle has h_bar of angular momentum. The electron's spin is multi-polar, with h_bar/2 in the z-axis, and h_bar/4 along the x & y-axes. The same goes for the positron. Angular momentum is conserved during pair production. The multi-polar configuration of angular momentum results in re-interpretation of the Stern-Gerlach finding.
In addition there is the conservation of lepton number. In the present context, this means that if electrons are assigned a value of 1, positrons a value of -1, and photons a value of 0, the combined lepton number before and after the reaction must be the same. Stefan proposed that two photons (lepton number 0) combined to create an electron (lepton number 1). How is lepton number conserved in this process? -
However, nuclear fusion is not comparable with dark matter .... Unfortunately, this theory cannot explain nuclear fusion at low temperatures.
One assumption you might revisit is the assumption that there is fusion going on. There are other ways to get nuclear levels of energy, transmutations and other observed products without needing fusion. I suggest the experiments are partly equivocal on this point, or more likely that they rule out fusion, and that certain popularizers have followed their own intuitions beyond the constraints imposed by the available evidence. -
It can very well be that the photon acording to MIlls does not solve a proper EM equations .... This sounds weird and is a difficult subject to understand .... So the photon is not of the same nature as e.g. radio waves and can be viewd as a completely different spiecies than EM radiation - contrairy to how we are tought to view light. So you can envision these two disks colliding. Before collition they are moving at the speed of light. At the collition they form an electron.
This no longer sounds like purely classical physics, as was suggested earlier. It sounds like we might have to set aside not only QM, but Maxwell's contribution as well, for the present purpose.How do two photons (each spin=1, total lepton number=0) collide to form an electron (spin=1/2, lepton number=1)?
-
The charge velocity approaches light speed as the radius approaches alpha * Bohr radius. And in the limit, the conversion from matter to energy is accomplished.
I think you're saying, then, that the electron charge does not circulate at the speed of light. Nonetheless, note that the increase in mass of the (massive) electron is unbounded as it approaches the speed of light. As the speed approaches the limit, the mass of the electron will approach infinity. What would the relativistic mass of the electron circulating at at radius 1/137 * Bohr radius be according to Mills's calculations? Perhaps we are no longer talking about ~ 511 keV/c^2.If you want to "freeze" a photon with the proper amount of energy (511k eV) into an electron
Here we must talk about an electron and a positron in order to conserve lepton number and spin if we're discussing a photon becoming an electron. Above you mentioned an electron-positron pair, perhaps for this reason; is that the scenario we're still considering? In that case the energy would be (511 keV * 2 = 1.02 MeV). The scenario I had originally understood was that of an electron approaching an orbit at small radius around the nucleus; here we seem to be talking about a photon becoming an electron. Can you clarify the situation, so that I can better follow your discussion?Because it will cause the photon to experience infinite impedance and therefore be unable to maintain its propagation through space.
According to special relativity, the the fact of a photon traveling at the speed of light is intrinsic to the photon. If you alter this detail, you will no longer have a photon, but something else, for the photon is always in motion. The phase velocity of light can be slowed down in certain media, however. Are you suggesting that in the atomic context at this small orbit, the phase velocity of the proposed photon-in-formation is somehow brought to a standstill?If you have a better definition for alpha I'm all ears.
No, I have no definition for alpha to propose. I'm simply making an effort to understand the implications of your proposal. -
No, charge/matter can never travel at light speed.
Special relativity agrees with you on this detail, of course. Above you wrote, "When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion." Is that the charge of the electron that is travelling at the speed of light? -
ETA- a hypothesis based on slim evidence that I will publish soon points to Pb/H, bizarrely, as being a possible alternative to Pd/D. That would certainly be affordable.
I'm not too surprised. According to my own working hypothesis, you might be seeing fissioning of the Pb into lighter daughters, and possibly alpha decay. If this is true, nearly any heavy element will do the trick, although some are better (less stable) than others.Do you have a writeup of what you've been seeing with Pb/H?
BTW, have you come across any references in your library to XSH events in Pb/H?
The red Storms book has several nice tables that enumerate a number of systems in which excess heat (one table) and transmutations (another table) have been seen. If you don't already have this book, I recommend it. (What I seem to have been vaguely recalling when I made this suggestion was the appearance of Pb in a W/H2O system, mentioned in Table 9, p. 97, but looking now I don't see any system in which Pb was the substrate.) -
Two particles are formed, a positively charged positron and a negatively charged electron, also as two orbitspheres. There's a lot more, including how this process results in the creation of gravity as space-time contracts. But, yes, it's all from classical physics.
Do the two leptons travel at the speed of light in Mills's telling? -
When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion. All from classical physics.
You are describing the conversion of a massive lepton (an electron) into something, presumably not a lepton (a photon?), traveling at the speed of light. Either there is no conservation of lepton number, or a massive particle is traveling at the speed of light. In either case, we are no longer talking about classical physics. -
Anyway, I mentioned Papp because I try to look at everything (another example is cavitation).
I, too, am interested in the Papp claims. I would not worry too much about Mary's very critical take on them. It's good to be wary and critical of woo, but it's also good to do a proper investigation of specific technical claims rather than painting a person with a broad brush and then throwing everything out. -
I believe they have plans to stick this in space and see if run. If this works it will be way more convincing.
There's the Cannae Drive, which is similar, which will be tested in space. Not sure whether there are similar plans for the EmDrive. -
And I've only scratched the surface here. GUTCP calculates nearly every physical value. These are just the ones I've replicated on my own to date.
Thank you for the detailed reply. I will take a look.You should consider collating these calculations and publishing them as a paper. Such a paper might get the attention of people who would be able to provide a critical assessment of your findings. Since you're interested in the truth, you will no doubt welcome such a critical assessment in order put your findings on a more solid footing. At a high level, what I'm interested in knowing is: (1) what do the GUTCP calcluations cover and not cover? (2) Are they simply variants of existing semiclassical calculations, or are they derived from basic axioms adopted by Mills? (3) Are the errors within smaller or larger bounds than the mainstream calculations? Answers to these questions will help me to better assess the strength of the claim that is often made here and elsewhere that Mills does a better job of calculating a number of quantities in physics with fewer assumptions. At the moment, this claim feels very hand-wavy. It would be nice to pin it down somehow. You can surely help, here.
I took a brief look at the section in GUTCP on electron capture and was most underwhelmed.
Regarding beta decay - how do you get beta decay from approximately 1v? Mills is getting EUV continuum radiation from extremely low voltage, and only when predicted catalysts are present i.e. Hydrogen and *not* Helium.
I often hear of very high voltage arc discharges in connection with Mills. But let's go with your assertion of 1 V. Personally, I think it could potentially be the hydrogen that induces beta decay in already beta-unstable isotopes, such as 40K, by bringing a bound electron in close proximity to the nuclear volume, with the applied voltage possibly playing a secondary role. But this is just one idea; there could be other explanations. Do you agree that, if beta radiation could somehow be induced in Mills's setup, it would quite sufficiently explain the continuum spectrum? -
@Jarek, I think you're missing an important distinction that is currently made between the aether and the EM field. The latter is an uncontroversial phenomenon, universally recognized in physics. It is understood to be frictionless and unable to carry momentum away. The former is a highly controversial topic, and, in your adaptation of it, it must be able to carry away momentum. In conflating the two concepts as you have knowingly done, you risk creating confusion for yourself and others in attempting to understand physicists' objections to the aether.
Whether pilot waves can do this duty is an interesting question. But I would not confuse them with the EM field as you have done.
-
I've worked through and replicated the equations myself and it's absolutely the case the GUTCP is an exact match to physical reality.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have a link to your calculations?I also find it persuasive that Mills and others have seen EUV continuum radiation with cutoffs predicted by the equation 91.2nm / (n - 1)^2. I don't know how you could obtain that type of spectrum with hydrino states that weren't exactly as Mills describes - i.e. with fractional orbit radii.
Fast electrons, e.g., from beta decay, will result in EUV continuum radiation with an endpoint (cutoff).
