Posts by Wyttenbach

    Proton oscillations due to neutrinos create a standing wave of gamma rays.


    Can you present us the physics of the neutrino particle & how it connects to the SO(4) magnetic flux structure of the proton?


    One approach to interpret neutrinos is to associate them with the relativistic flux "nodes" inside a proton. A change in node numbers can possibly free neutrinos.


    But for this we need your neutrino particle structure. (check Mills 39.12 ! )

    W - I await your comment on the (many) experiments with quantum entanglement I referenced, and how your "better-than-QM" theory predicts those experimental results?


    As a spin doctor you always distort the arguments. I said QM can be a great engineering tool - but not more.


    You failed to remember that you posted QM papers based on measurements not on basic models and thus still claim QM being fundamental ( - nonsense!)

    The definition of anything of importance to be a 0.001% subset of all possible experimental data is surely what a religion does?


    LENR will be the dominant part of nuclear physics for the next 100 years. Predictions by SM:0 contradictions by SM 1000% worse is not possible.



    And in 2018 we got multiple confirmations of the 125Gev Higgs particle discovery.



    Sorry CERN did find two distinct proton resonances - not one particle! Now they try to hide one resonance below the carpet.... (Ohh sorry: Dear Mr.Higgs predicted 2 particles - may be after 6 beers and 2 bottles of wine = SM tranquilizer...

    I think the rejectionist arguments here are true pseudoskepticism - not even looking at the stuff they reject!


    You are showing sign of desperation: You post so called "great SM/QM stuff" giving high precision calculations of 4-He orbits based on a precise measurement of the S2 orbit. Later you say QM is fundamental and claim it's not based on measurement.


    THH: It's time to restart with open mind and try to explore the fundaments of SM/QED/QFTQCD for finding your own judgement why such desperate argumentation is needed all the way, to justify an obviously fringe model.

    That is much more information predicted than a single real number, it is a whole load of parametric relations on amplitudes of particle accelerator counts. And the prediction, a new boson with specific characteristics, is strong.


    The kind of prediction you like are religious ones like spin - 50% chance - scattering - mostly a function of the input energy of the accelerator - and oh yes there must be a particle....(mass unknown, live time unknown, radius why? ...)


    SM is a religion that declares complex fluctuations in strongly stressed fields being particles, what until SM was something real. A fart is something real as you can hear it and sometimes smell it, despite you can't see it most of the time. But SM, to a great extent, is a brain fart - no smell nothing - just something for believers that like a decent headache.

    QM - and its elaborations all of which depend on the basic ideas - have proven correct over tens of thousands of measurements, and made many many correct predictions.


    You obviously don't understand QM. It has always, since Schrödingers time, been used based on measurements. And it noway is exact as it cannot predict the energies of e.g. hydrogen lower states.


    Your weird claims are based on high level orbits, that are not influenced by magnetic perturbations.


    As said: QM is an engineering method - approximative only - the lower the potential the better the result!

    I've argued elsewhere that I see that is an anthropomorphic lack of imagination.


    That's exactly what believing in a religion needs...


    Having said all that - I and most others hope for something new and better. But you are doomed, looking for something better, unless you can replicate the enormous success of SM/QFT.


    This is catholic logic: As long as SM has no success in deriving anything of importance e.g. gamma radiation, magnetic moments from, radius etc.. it is just a religion with a virtual mass, field based particle logic only.


    Unluckily for SM we live in a real mass universe and want to understand real physics processes like LENR.

    There are more than enough attempts to vary current theory - many alternative QFTs, other approaches, which obey this simple rule of replicating the successful predictions of current theory.


    THHuxleynew : A prediction is something "real=number" you can measure. SM has made no prediction since it exists, except that there should be some permutation in the measurement of pseudo particle coupling. This prediction did add 1 bit of information.


    What you claim to be high precision is based on high order polynomial fittings of a pseudo QED/QFD-like derived Hamiltonians based on millions of measurements that oh "luck" agree with the 1000000+1 measurements with e.g. 4. digits....

    This we call engineering not basic physics.


    We can agree that SM as QM too is a suitable engineering method to allow reasonable predictions based on a large number of measurements.


    SO(4) physics predicts that dense Hydrogen is a weak nuclear bond. Much more than SM could ever do...

    I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, but perhaps it will help to say that I'm currently using hydrogen and nickel and palladium.


    Pd converts to Ag (later Cd too) and also contains a small fraction of Ag. Ag shows some strange behavior as it owns long living magnetic moments. Whether this directly disturbs the TC current or induces local cooling/heating needs better experiments.

    If your TC shows strange jumps then do a null run (without fuel and clean reactor & cleaned TC ) If it now works according specs then the cause is obvious.

    This thread has been named church of SM (Standard Model) physics because of an unlucky coincidence that fooled a world wide - self elected – elite. After the success of the famous Bohr electron model with the reduced mass correction and the elegant fitting of the Schrödinger equation with arbitrary measurements of the Hydrogen nucleus energy /frequency levels, a large number of physicists developed a well known disease called the all mighty syndrome. As a reaction, the famous Swiss writer Dürrenmatt wrote a piece called the physicists. The entire action of the stage play runs inside a so called mental Hospital.

    Unluckily this all mighty disease got worse and worse as the physicists started to believe that they found the fundamental law(s) of nature. A well known story centered around this madness is the discussion about Schrödinger's cat, that emerged out of a mathematical paradox, that simply shows that the QM model is incomplete. But goods can never fail and the discussion about the famous cat is still ongoing inside circles of severely damaged minds.



    Today, if we look back, we know that the experimental limitations of the years between 1940..1980, were the sole origin of this disease. The precision of the Schrödinger approximation for chemical orbits is now reduced to higher quantum numbers only, where the magnetic force can be neglected in relation to other perturbations. The old famous solution todays is wider off than on the measurement point.



    The biggest damage left behind of the “unlucky” 1940..1980 period is SM-QED/QCD/QFT. There was never, at any time shown a physical reason why QM like math should be able to explain the behavior of dense matter. From a todays perspective we only can diagnose a collective madness that disturbs the brains of most nuclear-and-particle-physicists that finally has converted into sect like religious behavior.



    Modern physics around 1910 has been defined around the magnetic mass formula of the electron. May be the second all mighty madness, the nuclear bomb, definitely damaged the whole physics system, that now is unable to restart even the simplest basics thinking.


    SO(4) physics is simple and explains what we daily see: LENR!, something damaged brains are not even able to think about and, like junkies, try to deny.

    SM-QED/QCD/QFT are not able to give any half way exact connection to basic Maxwell & Newton physics something, last time, was possible with Einsteins “GR”.

    Be aware of people like THH that defend the sharia of the SM religion's church without explaining the missing links or doing it like other fringe theorist. “Oh why talking about mass? – its the only deficit of SM....


    Amen.

    The idea that a semi-classical explanation of quantum physics is "more real" than a quantum explanation is, in my view and that of most who have ever properly worked with QM and GR, profoundly reactionary and anthropomorphic. why should the fundamental physics of the world be familiar from the human-scale physics that we learn from playing cricket (er, for some, baseball) when young?


    THH still spreads his QM phantasies as a believer that QM is somehow a fundamental theory.


    Fact is that QM only works together with a good base measurement and only for e.g. orbits states n >1. Thus QM is not basic and explains nothing fundamental about physics. It's a good math. engineering tool not more.


    Using QM like formalism for dense matter is a flat earth approach as it ignores the fundamental magnetic force of physics.


    The real sad story about this: Countless Students are forced to learn an obvious fringe model for dense matter physics. People like THH sound like advocates of the current physics system sharia.


    On the other side: Any discussion about a rest mass for photons has the same intellectual level as a discussion about the color of an angels hair. Even it would exist, it had no influence on nothing of importance for us. We should first start to understand how the EM-force called gravity really works.

    I am open to understanding the chemistry of how you get this high energy light.


    Its not classical chemistry. Is a resonance of the full orbit. You quasi blow up the full orbit and due to containment it recombinates. Resonant orbits work like an antenna. We see the same in LENR but with much, much higher energies.


    In your place/situation I would ask Mills where all the other "Hydrino" resonances can be found he predicted... And if you are really nasty, then why they are always 1-2% off... and based on di-hydrino's only ..

    Argon is a catalyst. It is not a product or consumed or bound up in hydrino catalysis. I'm not sure what you are proposing.


    May be you should first read before you write. There are only a few people that know that rare gases undergo chemical reactions. In Mills case as in most glow discharge reactions H3+ is responsible for the back-current.


    As said week's ago. May be Mills should start to understand the swirl flow before he tries an other wired approach. He can also ask the Russians (Klimov).

    Looking at Matt's graph, it seems to me that hydrogen was inserted before the "baseline" got stabilized... Doesn't that just void the whole experiment?


    The pressure is also missing in the graph. We don't know what was in the reactor before hydrogen H/D ?? was added. Of course the hydrogen atmosphere behaves quite different from a regular atmosphere as hydrogen is not a "normal" gas!

    Ar is a hydrino catalyst. Xe is not a hydrino catalyst. When you run one Ar gas with hydrogen you get 30eV hydrogen. When you run Xe gas with hydrogen you get 3ev hydrogen. That looks like the catalyst concept is correct - and both are noble gases.


    Argon only combines with H3+ and forms ArH3+ .

    pectroscopy doesn't PROVE hydrino but if a H[1/4] hydrino can give off up to 122.4ev = 10.1nm light and you see a cutoff at 10.1nm that is a pretty good match


    Unluckily 122.4 eV does not reflect the lost binding energy of the ArH3+ molecule . H3+ has a total potential of 126 eV what is well in the range of the combined potentials. Just looking at a spectrum and hoping what you see is what you want to have (free singlet hydrino .. ) without giving any deeper reason is not a sign of competent science.


    If you are interested in chemistry and physics then read Electron Ion Recombination in Low Temperature Plasma something Mills should do too...

    Considering the neutrino oscillation that neutrino has mass, the muon neutrino that has passed through the earth is damped.

    This can be interpreted as passing a charge through the earth.


    Charge reacts with fields not so the neutrino. Do not believe any conclusions made based on SM models for dense matter. SM is a fringe approach and only deals with potentials generated by moving particles. SM has no power to make any conclusion about mass as it is obviously not able to give any relations between particle masses.


    The neutrino only documents the failure of SM to explain anything about dense mass.

    But also saying, something nuclear is going on too? Or sometimes? And if sometimes, when?


    H*-H* (Dihydrino) still looks like a molecule as the nuclear bond just is responsible for the deeper orbit. (See Assisi poster)


    H*-H* is the basis for Rydberg matter. Clusters of H*-H* can show all possible resonances as there is a lot of flexible energy e.g. the electron spin pairing inside H*-H*. In H*-H* the Coulomb potential undergoes a change and is weaker (+9eV) than in H-H something that has been measured in Rydberg spectra up to very high temperatures.


    Conclusion: Optical measurements are never a proof for a discovery. In chemistry you have to measure the energy of combustion together with the mass of produced elements. For that purpose you must be able to first isolate the claimed molecule. That is knowing the art!


    But there are of course plenty of possibilities for other solutions. The only one that physically does not work is Mills hydrino model, as he gives no explanation/mechanism how the added charge should be produced. The SO(4) nuclear model opens the door as it shows how the coulomb field is related to mass and may be we find a nuclear wave configuration that works about the same way Mills did guess and increases the charge...

    But isn't the inescapable conclusion that the Suncell generates too much power (I remember Mills quoting 400 MW in one lecture) to be accounted for by a simple chemical reaction?


    It's not chemical. It's a nuclear reaction as we have found.