Posts by Wyttenbach

    Consider the fact that alpha decay occurs differentially at the poles and at the waste of oblong deformed heavy nuclei, showing how sensitive the decay rate is to a change in the width of the coulomb barrier.

    Consider this 1987 patent:

    Eric Walker : Thanks for the pre LENR-time patent. It is interesting that the theoretical agreement is best around 32-33keV what is the 4D resonance line of the de Broglie radius change from Neutron --> proton.

    What surprises me is that this did not get some coverage from the science media at the time.

    I mentionned it once before:

     Feb 23rd 2016

    Today NZZ the world wide known Swiss newspaper developed a story about the renewal of the strategic US submarine fleet. They cited a marine press statement, where it is claimed, that the new submarines will have no need to undergo the costly fuel changes of a classical nuclear reactor...

    I have occasionally played with the idea that the "Universe" we live in is really a simulation in some enormous computing system.

    This idea is common to people that do not understand the different levels of computabilty. The idea, live is a simulation, can be easily disproved.

    But the philosophical question that atoms are quantum computers and good runs the univers and can conduct the game may be one reality...

    Please this is a thread about the verification of GUT-CP. If you want to discuss BLP and Mills behavior open an other thread ---> Mods please create a new thread!

    Ah, then there's the assertion that QM can't calculate ionization energies. Since when? It simply can.

    QM, by definition cannot calculate Ionization energies of all electron levels that have a magnetic bond part, because there simply is no a single equation with an r^3 dependent internal Magnet (H) field.

    Don't be fooled by hydrogen that works because of an error that corrects a conceptual error...

    Hevhas built up a grand unified theory that he projects as absolutecreality. Yet, his best evidence, colorful and mysterious hydrino hydrides that he very early on showed off and made countless claims about, are rarely mentioned.

    Mills did a tremendous amount of work. Large parts of GUT-CP are outstanding. Some parts are speculative and some are damn wrong! Further he has not explored dense space and thus his theory just stoped before the finishing line.

    The problem Mills faced is: Nobody did seriously review his work. Thus he got no critics hence no chance to improve his work.

    Nobody can say his model is a replacement of an old, partly successful model. This is bare marketing. The buildup of theories is most of the time evolutionary. There will be extensions to Mills model too, as there will be further extensions to QM.

    But QM cannot quantitatively explain electron capture. To explain an effect you must be able to make predictions of the kind .. such is the capture rate of Isotope XY; Under this aspect QM too is just a proposal and not a theory.

    Even if you overlay the spherical harmonics on top of an actual sphere and get some of the same results mathematically, the geometry of the shell can't account for things like electron capture, which requires that electrons spend some time in the nuclear volume (unless we discard our understanding of the weak interaction). A spherical shell (i.e., the orbitsphere) does not intersect with the nucleus.

    This -electron capture - is a different aspect, that certainly is not covered by Mills model. I would even state, that Mills has no model for the nucleus - just for the proton, that is, by no way a nucleus, it is a basic particle.

    One of the crucial points of Mills model is the correct treatment of relativistic flux. His model also holds for the nuclear level(s), but needs one additional step to be successful.

    I would discard all (-most all) standard model nuclear theories anyway...

    What do you think about the Higgs field and it's relation to gravity?


    - Mass/energy do bend spacetime.

    - Bending spacetime causes the effect of gravity

    In dense space (nucleus) there is no such thing as (a free parameter) time. All dimension are homogenous. At least until now the math looks that way.

    From a logical point of view it is absurd to think that gravity (an extereemly weak force) should be able to curve the space, where nuclear mass stays in...

    Thus any standard model theory based on space-time is a kind of fringe science if it is used at nuclear level.

    Further on the mathematical space for dense space is SO(4). This is a group most physicists are not used to. Until now the fit with experimental data is excellent, the modell is tricky and fairly new stuff... Just wait...

    The orbitsphere is a step backwards for no benefit.

    This half knowledge as we say in German. The Orbitsphere is just the layer behind the spherical harmonics explaining the surface excitation of the nucleus/electron etc...

    Mills uses the same spherical harmonics - green function - as QM. There is no difference in the orbit structure.

    Thus Mills is more like stable base + a non QM interpretation of the result. As a mathematician I would say: 1 x 2 = ? ;) ? = 2 x 1? .....

    Do you have a clue/explaination/theory how these massless photons can gain mass? Interaction with the Higgs field?

    To acquire gravitational mass the particle "charge/mass density funtion" must make at least two rotations. Whether two photons can be combined that way is an interesting /unsolved question.

    (I haven't been able to find an energy level diagram for platinum-190, the alpha emitter, but it would not be surprising if there were such states in this case.)

    Eric Walker : Some months ago I noticed that for most of the precious metals there are almost no known higher > 5 ionization levels. After some deeper research I came to the conclusion, that there might me none as in fact they stay bound to the nucleus. This binding is not of coulomb nature!

    With these assumptions, I gravitate towards the following possibilities:

    Platinum plays a role (e.g., the platinum anode in electrolytic systems).

    There is a neglected point regarding elements with large Z (like Pt): Many of the isotopes have low energy gamma levels that are below the K-electron potential. This directly points to possible resonances with the coulomb cloud! I wouldn't be surprised, if the lowest electrons (Pt) are bound to the nuclear flux function.

    Your thought experiment is correct!

    Is your understanding, THH, that the Schrodinger cat thought experiment is more than simply an analogy, and is understood by some to be a real possibility? Or am I missing your point?

    Folks! Can we switch back to Mills outstanding contributions, like the closed formula for the electron g-factor ==

    The above is based solely on Maxwell and the correct non-Einstein relativity.

    May be you also might have an idea how the fifth alpha therm looks like? There is one!

    For Cats (Schrödingers included) I can recommend Youtube. There you will find countless interesting examples...

    Thankyou. In that thread I bothered to go look at the literature. And found the new numerical techniques that allow no-fudge-factor accurate calcs. All you have to do is look at the papers, which explain methodology.

    So there was this: Opinions on BLPs molecule results

    Li ionisation levels calculated by QM 40,000X better than by Mills

    Just one more "THH try" to make people believe that some exact physics exists:

    Here the fudge factor used according THH's favorit paper:

    The contributions from relativistic, mass polarization, and QED effects to the ionization energy are subtracted, and then the accurately knownIs 1s1 2S energy of Li+ [10] is added to obtain —7.47806034(20) a. u. , in agreement with our calculation.

    This is just an engineering interpolation of higher Li excitation levels and nothing more. They calculate nothing basic!

    General relativity provides insights into physics that the Newtonian system does not.

    Sorry Eric: Please read Mills! "General relativity" (Einstein, Minkovski)cannot be used at nuclear levels since the correlation between time dilatation and mass increase breaks down. There is no single simple Lorenz factor for the radial and the azimutal treatment of waves! This is not a consequentc of Newton mechanics. It a direct consequnce of Maxwell equations.

    General relativity is only valid for empty space! Further it is based on a residual force only. That's why I call most parts of the standard modell fringe science.

    If you want to prove that there are valid subparts, then please show us a formula just based on first principles (constants, particle masses, math) that calculate a usefull quanty with more than 4 digits precision.

    This recent experiment caught my interest, in the context of Edmund Storms theory…nuclei-higher-energy.html

    It shows how electrons, via electron capture, can push nuclei into an excited state (Correct me!).

    Mo93 is an instable nucleus, that has an interesting long living (6.85 hours) gamma level at 2424.95 keV . Thus the experiment is no surprise. The good news is that external promotion of gamma levels is in fact possible. But for LENR we have to look at other nuclei, which are far more promising.

    QM is used for calculations at the nuclear and subnuclear levels. Nuclear phonons, s-wave and p-wave nuclear state, Feynman diagrams, quantum chromodynamics, etc. This is quantum mechanics. Have I misunderstood your assertion?

    QM calculations for sub-nuclear level is fringe science with no concrete results. Feynman diagrams/calcs make sense to estimate all forces/fields that are involved. But the main drawback of the standard model is it's backing by measurements and not by base constants, what makes it only a second degree theory, what means: It is engineering level not basic science.

    What, then, is the proper domain for using Mills's theory for which existing approaches are less useful or desirable?

    The main advantage of Mills calculus is the (more) exact derivation of the involved energies. What is missing is the perturbation of the statistics (temperature!). You get the exact configuration (bond angles) of molecules much faster than with any other method. But there are cases that can not be solved, because they are not stable. There is still "hand work" involved. I guess the QM guys should take some things from Mills to simplify/improve their algorithms.

    Does it account for the all of the main problems that quantum mechanics seeks to model?

    You have suggested that QM's treatment of phenomena at the nuclear level is only valid out to the Bohr radius.

    Mills formalism does not replace QM for all problems we like to solve. In all cases where we model dynamic fine structure behavior QM seems to be more adequate.

    I said: QM absolutely can't be used below de Broglie radius, what is everything regarding nuclei. QM can also not be use to calculate deep orbits, without including the correct mutual relativistic source terms for the magnet fields.

    The error you will see in QM for calculations with higher chemical 2+, 3+ ionization states is huge, because the proper magnetic terms are missing, but in a grid you can work around this.

    It is as always: You have to select the proper theory for the work you would like to complete. Or even better: Do it like Tesla and just invent!

    As I've pointed out before, Mills's calculation of the neutron-electron mass ratio diverges from the 2012 CODATA experimental value and error bounds. I suppose that is a refutation of sorts.

    You miss the point: This is a small gadget of Mills theory. I told you once before that Mills failed to understand the 4D effects and thus his work about higher dimensional particles - the neutron is a 4D particle - is not complete. There are many other points where Mills theory is not as accurate as it could be. But standard theory has no comparable alternative that calculates physical quantities just from the basic constants.

    I can give you a formula where you can match electron and proton/neutron!! by more than 6 digits, but still less than codata. Does this mean that the formula is wrong? No, its incomplete, but still way better than antything else on the market. Bdw.: The gravity constant limits all to less than 7 digits - so we even can't say it's incomplete...

    The fact that they still get investment is not surprising and due to many people intrigued by Mills' theoretical ideas, in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly refuted by experts.

    This statement is an expression of desparation. If you can't tell what has been refuted, then hang on an watch the Olympics ...

    They end up praising BLP so much that a casual reader of this site might think that BLP are in the same category as bona fide researchers who have been looking at LENR for years. That creates a breeding ground for extended consideration of wobbly and funky claims (think Rossi) and obscures what the real researchers have been doing (or failing to do, in some cases). (We can note here that Mills says that hydrinos are not LENR, but that does not change the point.)

    We must clearly distinguish between Mills scientific work and his company. Mills contributions to science are outstanding and by far the most important of the last 50 years. Who blames Einstein for all the rubbish he invented in between the final findings?

    Do not use such a harsh language. Science is always a trial and error and sometimes rubbish, like the cosmological constant, shines up again. Theory most likely has no end.

    But what Mills is doing with BRLP is more or less a kind of standard marketing terror, because he is completely over estimating his knowledge/ability as an engineer. He makes the same error as Lipinski(s) and calculates the total energy produced as integral over the full space angle, what is blatantly wrong.

    All LENR processes and the Mills one is of the same kind, have a spin structured energy production. If he would measure in direction of the self sustain spiral axes, then he would see a completely different picture. This does not imply that a high energy gain is excluded, but it shows, that he does not understand the process.

    Unluckily he stopped GUT-CP at the point where things start to completely change and he was satisfied to believe that Hydrinos have the structure he found...

    PS: For the Mills haters: Nobody refuted his treatment of the chemical bond. Nobody refuted his calculations of the Lepton masses, the anomalous electron g-factors and many other things...

    Do you disagree? If you agree, that implies that the balance of directionality for current flowing in the great circles is unequal. I.e., there are more great circles with current flowing in one direction than the other. Or there are equal numbers, but their distribution around the axis of rotation is not uniform. Why would that happen? Why would the great circles not adjust so as to minimize the dipole moment?

    The proton has a strong magnetic moment. This can only occur if the current (flow of charge or charge inducing flux!) is not balanced in all dimensions. Please keep in mind that for a central force problem you always need two rotational dimensions and one radial. The later one is not relevant for the generation of the moment, but it can perturb it!!

    Mills model is crude, as it only covers the Proton and the electron. All other nuclei have one or two more rotations and the magnetic moments may have different origins. The other problem with Mills modelling is the fact, that all charge radii in reality run on a torus surface and not on a circle/sphere. Mills does work around this with his basic BECV current that is not homogenous and a kind of simulates the torus boundaries. Mathematically you can transform the torus to a sphere but the opposit is less suitable. Nevertheless in the farfield you will see no difference for the two models!

    Interesting: Most nuclei with odd "Z" have a magnetic moment. They question is why not Hydrogen (the atom)? ..

    Ok, Stefan. In that case, since Mills is modeling not only hydrinos, but monatomic hydrogen as well, which is merely the limiting case, either he (or more likely you and Wyttenbach) must handle hydrinos and monatomic hydrogen as separate cases with no apparent justification.

    Just remind my older posts about toroidal Hydrogen referencing the Aringazin paper :

    I do not agree that Mills Hydrino model is consistent. The above model is more convincing and covers also the Holmlid case! In all my writings I reference the Arigazin model, which explains the magnetic moment etc...