Posts by Wyttenbach

    "When do the first fusion power plants go into operation?

    We are doing precautionary research for the second half of the century. If you do not plant trees today, there will be no forest in 50 years"

    Anybody that understands a bit more than graduate physics, can see/understand that hot D/T fusion is a complete nonsense. Even if it will be possible to reach a positive COP, you will produce nothing else than continuous, neutron-bomb like radiation.

    It is easy to moderate low energy neutrons, but a whole spectrum of low to high energy neutrons is not manageable without outraging costs.

    LENR is just the clever way to fuse the right mixture of Hydrogen etc., with the additional payback of higher energy density and lack of pollution.

    But what really worries the Lobby: LENR scales down and enables individuals to become more or less energy independent.

    Thus the only people that are interested in ITER/Wendelstein etc. are the old, egg head military Chauvinists, that believe in spin-off weapon technology.

    There are smaller pipes from the BFs before the main outlet pipe collector, possibly representing a restriction. (The outlet from the BF is relatively small).

    I don't quite follow the whole steam pressure from source to condenser plan.

    What I am getting at is, what is the pressure inside the BF? Regardless of the pump lift, which is minimal, how does the BF interior maintain 0 barg?

    @PDM: Any fluid has an evaporation pressure given by its temperature. I would used it as the backpressure. Further: Only halve of the kinetic energy directly goes into pipe flow motion. Thus the density above evaporation can be calculated! (From mean kinetic stationary vs. tot. kin. moving.)

    Sad to see that AR did learn nothing. Even if it is finally a non issue an overheating power-supply is a bad sign. Depending on the waveform he used any measurement of ohm's are bare nonsense.

    He shall provide a battery (work off grid) and a bunch of quark's and finally sum up all energies. His presentation is not worth any discussion. I recommend that we wait for an independent certification.

    In summary, the results of this paper show that the ionization
    energy of lithium is now understood at the 0.2
    micro a. u. level of accuracy.

    There is one good point in the paper THH referenced. The method used is 6-dimensional, what is needed for nuclear energies.

    The remainder only proves that QM has absolutely no clue about the underlying physics. The authors do a six times six (+ spin dimensions) polynomial fit with high precision measured values, with the goal to extrapolate the missed non measured values.

    If they apply the same unchanged fit to other Isotopes the error is the usual QED error of 0.5-2% or as we say they do just educated guessing.

    To sum it up: The authors calculated a polynomial matrix for just one Isotope. They at no point, nowhere in the paper calculated anything from given base data. Mills calculation is from base data.

    Thus THH still lacks to give us a paper where somebody calculates something useful without using measured values...

    Thus Mills to QED is still 100:1 and not the THH fudge factor.

    PS: (The authors only say it correct, we understand and not derive...)

    Hi Wyttenbach — was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving? (Hopefully I will find the time to take your suggested ratio; looking at the units, I am doubtful your suggestion will accomplish what you want.)

    Eric Walker : If don't understand the base formulas just tell us... They are used everywhere to derive the mass from gravity, alpha and c.

    Regarding Mills Helium calculations: I own the original (Mills-) spreadsheet and checked most levels. There is one unintentional tiny cheat Mills did unconsciously, with the reduced mass. I wont tell you the details, but the precision for the base value (that was to good) goes down one digit.

    But this cheat has guided me to a important conclusion, that will finally completely annihilate all result from the standard model.

    But as long as THH, the other FUD'er, are telling us, that QUED has any value, I certainly will not talk about serious research. My new model had one big hit: I got an 11 digits exact match between two independently measured physical masses using the 4(6)D model. If this is mere look, then I should win all lotteries in the world at least once.

    For this, you certainly you must do more than Mills explains. Mills is just the first step in a new staircase to a correct nuclear & particle physics building model, that is able to predict values & energies.

    Mills has been working for many years to get equations that seem to make sense and correspond to known physics and large parts, but diverge in others.

    @THH: This is perfect FUD: No sample but a decisive opinion...

    Eric : Confusing about the neutron-electron mass ratio...

    For the kindergarden people:

    The neutron/electron mass ratio can be derived by building the quotient of the formulas

    -36.3 and 38.29 (38.29 is the 3D--> 2D/3D converted formula 38.6)

    And please stop the Mills = hydrino-FUD.

    This is just the least important and speculative only part of his work. I do also not say Einstein = cosmological constant...

    There are far more outstanding (than hydrinos) blunders in the standard model. In 50 years people will laugh about some nobels given for bare bullshit theories, without any physical background.

    After this general question I would like to know your opinion about eric walkers objections against BLP. He says that it is known that the math in GUTCP is wrong - and so say many physicists on the internet.

    I explain it once more:

    The QM formalism works pretty good as long as there are no – non linear - interaction energies. Unluckily for QM, in deeper orbits, below Bohr level, these interaction energies grow with 1/r3. Thus QM terribly fails already with the ionization energy of Helium.

    Mills formalism takes into account all interaction energies, what works fine, as long as they are not nested and need a kind of balancing we find in QM.

    Because general QM calculations are rarely better than 0.5% accurate, the physicists using it, never detected some other flaws, that also survive in Mills reasoning.

    For me, current standard physics is nothing more than a crude first choice engineering approach. For our field of interest, CNMNS, the standard model has nothing available we can use to explain the phenomena we see.

    In the post Mills model I currently work on, I disregard all solutions with less than 5 digits (99.999%) agreement. Thus there is only one evolution path.

    Mills → post Mills physics

    And please don't listen to our FUD'rs and noisy kitchen wo"mens". Mills physics is far better than anything else!

    With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.

    We all should thank Stefan that he still is willing to discuss about serious math with people arguing on kitchen-woman level.

    During the last halve year I worked through GUT-CP, in special through the particle physics part.

    There was never ever any doubt that using Mills math, delivers far more superior results that any known QM/QED approach. Just look at the helium model the cornerstone where QM badly fails. (The explanation of the QM failure is more easy than understanding Mills math...)

    A more serious discussion is needed to understand Mills particle modelling. I extend Mills math to general 4 (6)-(time-less) dimensions, what is needed to understand the basic properties even of a simple particle like the proton.

    As a summary I can tell you: Mills delivers the best that is possible with the classic 3D+T approach. To get better result we need an other math, that has not been used in physics so far. This new math delivers the correct nuclear orbit numbers and also allows to calculate/explain the nuclear spectra.

    Under this new viewpoint Mills misses some crucial points:

    - Charge behaves different that known- certainly not the way he assumes in hydrino theory.

    - 4D energies explain the neutron mass and halve live and also define a 4D radius, which currently is discussed as magnetic radius for proton experiments.

    - The SUN-CELL produces the first real hydrogen only fusion. The only question is what are the products - certainly not long time stable hydrinos.

    - If Mills ignores this fact, then his company will fail.


    Just forget that standard physics ever will explain anything below Bohr level. Start to study Mills GUT-CP and wait for a consent about new and better models.

    A recent poll of Trump supporters had the result that 62% of them said they would not change their opinion of him "no matter what he said or did." While that was one of the most astonishing things I have ever heard, I believe that a poll of Rossi supporters would yield an even higher number.

    @IO: Did you ever ask a Rhino to become a tiger?? .. And Trump will also deny your conclusion. He is always best...For sure better that AR.

    Moved from the Rossi/Gullstrom thread - we have zero politics and zero dicussion of politicians in this forum. It leads to fruitless and OT arguments. Alan.

    I always use de-gassed water for this kind of thing, simply bringing it to the boil is usially enough for routine investigation purposes.

    Alan Smith : Do you also have a foto from the desk, where you brew the Whiskey?

    BDW: I think experiments without measurements of (sometimes dangerous..) radiation (& COP) are just a waste of time. Even Rossi is on the direct path to win the Darwin award...

    The total cost for the null result so far of the Higgs boson

    is btw 1 and 16 billion $ . Perhaps it will be found today??

    bocijn : To mention it again: Most particles are simply resonances of p,e,neutrino,photon. But for people living and dreaming in SU(3,1) everything is a new particle because they do not understand the relation between the different bindings of magnetic energies...It also looks like quarks are simply an aspect of p,n (p+e+..) and their movement in 4D space.

    May be the end of this dream will happen sooner than some people expect!

    The fundamental particles:

    axil : The big error of standard physics is SU(3,1) and the rules of symmetry based on this math.

    According to 4D pure Maxwell based physics, there is no longer any symmetry and the muon & tau shows up as a resonance of the electron and thus is no longer fundamental.

    This can be calculated with close to 7 digits precision far better than any theories based on weird S(3,1)...

    If you look at the Mizuno paper, then you will notice that he gets a nice blue plasma too. (Bdw. most plasmas are blue because of near uv radiation .. ) Mizuno needs less than 500V to generate a plasma. Its as usual just a matter of pressure...

    But may be I'm already off topic.. because Eric handles this thread as a kind of new place to bash/ash Rossi & friends & .. .

    Moved from the E-Cat QX thread. Eric

    The polariton is an example of how a hard to understand and detect particle was first detected

    The polariton is a quasi particle. For our discussion we should clearly distinguish real physical particles and quasiparticles, which are an aspect of matter rather than matter itself.

    Before Mills got so involved in all that writing, he should have come up with a way to detect and characterize these hydrinos through experiment in such a way that these experiments are convincing and self evident.

    Mills writing about hydrinos is premature. He himself does not include the stored magnetic energy as all other users of the relativistic Dirac Equation do too. He also gives no force-equation of the trapped photon, which should act as a magnetic force provide to increase the central force.

    Nevertheless, there are other models and explanations, which can deliver similar results. May be he knows this too, but is not allowed to publish it...

    The idea that it's a gas lighter than air that escapes any container and eventually goes into space after it forms seems to dodge this issue, but in the excerpt below from a 1998 interview from Infinite Energy with Randell Mills there's a clear suggestion that it's not intangible matter.

    This is nonsense. The difference in weight between a "hydrino" and plain vanilla Hydrogen is a few eV, thus it's slightly lighter than Hydrogen. But as the radius shrinks, the stored magnetic energy and the density of the field increases with n2. A Hydrino is a strong dipole, which will glue to any magnetic matter.

    Jacques Dufour presented in Asti a paper of Iron plus pico-H = magnetic "to iron bound hydrogen".

    I would say that a free hydrino is more dangerous than anything else. This follows from the discussion/presentation with Jacques Dufour. Thus there is an urgent need to keep them back!

    The hydrino does not react to EMF but it has mass because it is purported to produce gravitational effects.

    axil : Physics is slightly more complex that mind-shredering papers. Of course do Hydrinos react with EMF. But the zone of interaction is very narrow. The spin-flip transition is always allowed as other non orbital changes too.

    One of the papers mentions "deformed space-time.."

    Again classical educated physicists conduct interesting experiments, but fail because of their (miss-) education. Classical ART can't be used in dense matter/space.

    Space time is not deformed - these guys just don't know how to use it.

    Lack of expected reaction products

    Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[text 6] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:

    D + D → 4He* + 24 MeV

    Experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate follows a particular pathway.[text 6] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

    4He* → n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (ratio=50%)4He* → p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (ratio=50%)4He* → 4He + γ + 24 MeV (ratio=10−6)

    @LINR: This is the result of century long misconception of experiments. In CMS LENR there is almost no collision momentum other than in all classical experiments, where there is always collision momentum.

    Takahashi used the classical code to simulate the momentum free (symmetric) collision of DD and at the end there is a long lasting oscillation! No emission of particles...

    There are other issues, that could be discussed in a technical thread...

    Your thinking involving hydrinos as dark matter does not make sense. Dark matter is suppose to be a fundamental particle.

    axil : This is classical main-stream thinking. If we can't explain it, let's assume a new particle.

    The hydrino/UDH form of hydrogen is stable and not a quasi particle. The corresponding build-up frequencies can be measured in the solar corona and lower band emission frequencies coming from doppler coupling or spin flip have also been measured from so called "dark matter". "Dark matter" initially got this name because we (humans with our eyes) can't see it - it's radiating in different bands.

    There is so far no prove/evidence for any dark matter costing of strange new particles. May be for you UDH is "strange".

    If the hydrino particle existed, the LHC would have detected it by now.

    axil : May be you can teach CERN how to produce hydrinos first, before they can detect them...

    But their energies will certainly not match Mills calculations... - what not proves that "they" don't exist.

    The other proposal is to ask CERN to analyze Holmlids UDH which has virtually the same energy levels...

    The only guys that look at Holmlid are the Livermore top shots with clear military intensions.

    J.G. Williamson, Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22 (2),133 (1997)Electron as a toroidal [email protected]

    JulianBianchi   can : This approach is pointing into the right direction as many others too. Keep in mind that a toroidal orbit has an interesting projection to 4D space! Just forget SU(3,1)...

    Don't blame Axil. He is just collecting interesting papers - not more. He has not yet posted even the simplest "new" (self derived) formula to discuss about.

    Below are depicted three separate "building blocks" of ultra-dense hydrogen in various different spin states (s=1, 2, 3) that I tried to reproduce in a 3d program with correct relative orbit sizes and motion. Other features are drawn exaggerated for the sake of clarity. Note that in reality UDH atoms aren't supposed to be stable on their own.

    can : I'm working on it. But it's new ground. 4D matter looks quite different and the energies do certainly not correspond to a guessed 3D Bohr or QM like approximation.

    Thus what Holmlid measures and the conclusions thereof are two different things. As Julian mentioned: The explanation includes the reason for the Zitterbewegung, which is by far not obvious. I hope I can soon tell much more.

    But I can't find (free) lead and muon fission datas to study.


    You can also try at :

    Muons do have at least 105 MeV of energy, but what counts is what is on top of that 105 MeV and whether they are polarized. You will noticed that lead is very bad for stopping, as mostly neutrons are produced, what you really don't like. Any material with a low Z is preferred!!

    If you have a giger counter, then just use a copper plate between the reactor and the Giger. If counts increase, then you see muons if not, then they are not dominant.


    Muons are slowed then captured in the atomic K shell orbit of a nucleus. Various electromagnetic processes occur in this orbit such as Bremsstrahlung allowing the muon to drop down to the inner orbital 1s, then the muon either decays or undergoes nuclear capture. At low atomic number (Z < 11) the muon capture process dominates, whereas around (Z = 11), the probabilities of capture and decay are approximately equal, however, for high Z nuclei (e.g. Lead) the muon capture processes again dominate [48]. After capture the nucleus de-excites by the emission of a neutron and neutrino from the nucleus [18]. The resulting atom is known as a muonic atom.

    This process is the dominant source of tertiary neutron production at shallow to moderate rock depth. With a high Z material such as lead, the probability of muon capture is proportional to Z4 [13].

    The second process is direct muon induced spallation where a heavy nucleus ejects large numbers of nucleons (neutrons in this case) resulting from collisions by protons from cosmic rays. In addition there is photon induced spallation of muons whereby photons produced in muon showers cause the spallation of the neutron [49, 50].

    Incidentally, Holmlid calls the "building blocks" composing the long H(0) chain clusters "quasi-neutrons" (with protium) and "quasi-dineutrons" (with deuterium). In the processes (also spontaneous) that apparently eventually cause the production of mesons and muons, small picometer-scale fragments of the ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium material can get ejected from it with MeV velocities, remaining neutral.

    Short excerpt from (open access) where they are cited:

    I just want to remind everybody that the famous Bohr coulomb formula for the potential is just OK for calculating the electric energy. All other Energies( kinetic & magnetic) of the electron are neglected. This is also the main reason why also the relativistic Dirac equation is wrong at the nuclear level.

    Further on the model for relativity used in mainstream physics breaks down in strongly curved (dense matter) space.

    The "strange" idea that a proton (deuteron) is orbiting a spinning electron can only be understood, when a new model for nuclear matter is used.

    I will not expand on this here, because people are mentally stressed, when I try to explain that there is no "free time variable" at small distances an the math looks quite different. But if you dig deep into Mills approach, then you will be able to understand, that there are different states (forms of) matter, which I call 2/3D matter 3/4D matter and 4D matter. At least the 4D matter behaves like a liquid! 3/4D is in between.

    Conclusion: There yet is no sound explanation for Holmlid's findings.

    Why not muons can't explain long range fission/transmutations? I have seen radiation increase from thick iron from ~5m reactor.

    eros : Muons do in fact explain the increase in radiation after a shield. But you see a decrease. Muons are stop by light nuclei. Polystyrene > Aluminum> iron > lead. But tables often listen values in densities where lead seems to work better...

    Muons pass any metallic foil, beta not. Neutrons pass too if they are not slowed down. Slow H* will be captured by a foil or any material.

    Thus please tell us whether you are interested in the bulk of the radiation (you are able to shield) or the remaining part that you cannot shield.

    Foil wrapped SBM20 taped to glass plate 58c/min. (plate have got some fission products. Normal clean readings should be ~20c/min BG).

    And on reactor with wet towel 10min average 127c/min.

    After test plate give ~60c/min.

    Glass plate have low uranium content maybe 0.5-1%.

    eros : Muons can be excluded, at least for the main effect. Uranium is a very good gamma shield and the decay of U238 gives a well defined spectrum. In a first step I would measure the energy of the U238 decay reaction, what should give a hint of the induced process.

    Because the foil shields most of the radiation, it must be Beta or much less likely alpha. Neutrons will not be significantly shielded with a thin layer of water.

    If you produce "strange matter" like H* this would also be shielded by a foil and could be an explanation for activating U238.