Posts by Wyttenbach

Quote from Eric Walker

Electron capture is made more mysterious, not less, in Mills's model. Mills's model does not fit what we already know in this instance, unless we are also to abandon our understanding of how the weak interaction works.

According to Mills logic there is no weak force, at least not in the sense of a primary (force) phenomen. Mills did a huge task and I will not blame him for not covering everything to the deepest possible level. K-Shell captures according Mills should be modeled as an effect of multi pol forces & energy transitions. (39.52 for transition possibilities).

For the alpha-decay he has some beefed up formulas in the 2016 version, showing that his first guess is in line with the expected decay rates. Whether it is better than the standard, has to be answered by the literature.

Quote from stefan

The dirac fields couples with electromagnets, I think you need to give me some background on why you don't think that a resonant coupling can't ork. What I mean with this is just as with resonant couplings you see nada when there is no resonanse e.g. it is only for special setups of the EM fields that you will get a measurable effect so it is quite possible that we missed it. Allso Mills model is an attractive idea due to it's simplicity, everything is electromagnetic theory and also the weak forces and strong forces are actually a special electromagnetic phenomena.

On nuclear level, we seem to have only resonances = ratios of energies/frequencies. There is a lot of ongoing work (- not using the classical standard assumption, that never had success). Mills theory ends (fails = needs extensions) as soon as we go to the first true nucleus. The adding of a neutron to a proton still can be calculated (=> correct deuterium mass) but for higher compounds the model breaks = less accurate. This is no surprise as also Maxwell needs some strict assumptions, which are no longer given in a soup of protons & neutrons. (E.g. We live once in a light-like field, where some masses move at light speed if we assume they are masses - e.g. the electron of a neutron and in other cases - proton it is - mechanically non-kinetic.) In Mills model you have to carefully separate the light-like frame parts from the others, because for each (nested) frame of reference you have to use different measures. There are nested relativistic frames.. and who knows where they exactly sit.

Regarding the proof of Mills convolution formulas: I did once a different approach based on a more logical reasoning: What we know is, that in a synchronized system waves must interfere in the turning point of the second derivation, if we want a perfect non resonance (No added curvature => no added momentum). This implies that the waves must meet orthogonally, in phase, in all intersection points. The two great circles are per definition orthogonal, different Legendre polynoms are orthogonal too, thus their convolution always holds this criteria. In the case of a locked in photon the third circle alway violates the first criteria. Thus the proof is only challenging for outer non S-orbits.

Quote from Eric Walker

I would put it differently. It is hard to follow several volumes of word salad, because the individual details are disjoint and do not provide an actual mathematical argument.

Eric: Can you give us a specific example of word salad? I agree, if you are use to standard terminology, then you expect other words.

Quote from Eric Walker

For an alpha particle scattering off of lead, at ~ 25 MeV the scattering angle starts to depart significantly from the Rutherford prediction as a result of the nuclear interaction. There are probably tens of thousands other such experimental phenomena that will also need to be examined anew if we're to set aside the nuclear and weak interactions and attempt to explain them as being derivative of the electromagnetic force.

Another example: if the electromagnetic force is infinite in range, and the weak interaction is derivative, why does the weak interaction work at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?

@Why is QUED not able to calculate the proton charge radius? The measured deviation is larger than your 1%...

Quote from axil

This statement does not hold up under experimental determination

axil : Learn to interpret experiments: Protons are nearly perfect dense matter. More than 80% of the "mass-energy" is stored in the so claimed quark-fields. - In Mills terminology captured photons inside the orbitsphere. You must first pump in this energy to free the particles!!

If Holmlid sees excess energy, it is not coming from proton decay. It comes from muon induced secondary fusion and hydrogen LENR reactions. Whether at all protons are cracked or not is only important to understand, what drives the follow up reactions.

Quote from joshg

do you even understand what the "5nm technique" is for chip making?

The simple explanation what 5nm technique means : "5 nm is the finest structure used in the process. Usually 5nm is the thickness of a conduction/signal line

Quote from joshg

I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete. I say incomplete rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level.

Gravity is expressed as curvature of space. Just read R.Mills 4D metric, which replaces Minkovski space and you will understand how curvature works. But... Whether gravity is a primary or a residual force is not yet fully understood. In Mills theory it works as a constant, that relates mater and energy and spacetime! If you model relativity the correct may, then time itself expands, what is not equivalent to time dilation. The measure of time expands if mass is converted to energy (photons do not gravitate!!).

Quote from joshg

I fail to see how this theory counts as classical. And by that I mean mechanical. If the electron is a particle, how can it exist as a sphere or geodisic or loop or whatever? How can a loop have an angular momentum or velocity?

Any magnetic field can carry momentum and hence velocity. This is basic to Maxwell theory.

Mills model is not very different from the QM model, because he uses the spherical harmonics and the radial Green function(s) too. This leads more or less to the same quantization rules. But Mills model does directly relate all forces & densities with the naturally occurring phenomenas like spin, spin (orbit)-coupling, splitting, electric, potential and magnetic energy chances and finally mechanical recoil of a photon emission.

To calculate all Helium level you simply need a spreadsheet and if you do second level fittings, then the accuracy goes up again.

My conclusion is the same as that of any experimenter: With Mills I get 3 digits more precision - simply, if I use his rules. Thus: It's not up to me to prove that he is right. The other have to (dis-) prove it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Better first understand existing physics before you claim new physics is needed.

@THH: The Dirac equation does not include the magnetic energy stored in the field. May be you should ask somebody competent in Maxwell physics to get a better judgement. If QM would include the magnetic energy, the equation are no longer separable, because there is no symmetry between electric forces and magnetic forces.

The even more severe mistake of nuclear physicists is the use of Minkovski space for nuclear models. But that needs an even a more deep understanding of mathematical structures ...

To make is clear: There are some Mathematicians out there, that simply laugh about the math physicists use. But that is unfair, because as an engineering model it often works quite well.

Quote from Eric Walker

That is a lot of matter to be converted from one element to another. Consider the reaction:

p + 56Fe → ɣ + 57Co + 6027 keV

Eric Walker : In fact he didn't report 57Co. He got something like 57Fe but in the form of 56Fe+H* very close to the nucleus. He claims that 56Fe+H* are bound magnetically, what will work according to the newest calculations.

Of course this is only an assumption and may be Hagelstein & others will try to do further analysis. At Asti he presented a spectrum, which shows a 57Fe like response, with some, yet unexplained deviations, that are interesting. The next step will be to do a k-shell spectrum, because a close to the nucleus bound H* will induce/show up as a perturbation of the orbit.

Quote from axil

Could you be kind enough to expand your thinking on this concept...its priorities and purpose and other factors of importance

axil: If you can find a process/mechanism to accumulate about 105MeV inside the orbitsphere (Plank mass equivalent radius) of a muon, the you can promote an electron to a muon.

May be you find a way to do it...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This is just what the orbital definition is all about. Mills considers, that the orbitals aren't fuzzy probability blobs (actually standing deBroglie waves of electrons) but thin hollow shells of spherical or oval shape.

@Zephir: Mills in fact calculates only the relevant forces needed for stability, charge density and momentum density. To understand the basic properties of a molecule, you dont need a fuzzy random picture of the orbits.

All QM formulas completely neglet the internal magnetic energies/forces. This is not that severe for chemical orbits. But the farther (deeper) you move away from the equilibrium position (Bohr level), the more off QM will be.

QM is an engineering approach to Physics and not a basic method to understand the behavior of molecules/atoms.

To understand the pictures you showed, made by the atomic force microscope, you must know, that the sensor is a single atom on the top of a needle. You can't get between the atoms if the distance is of the same size. Normally you basically scan a surface with equal force. (Or forces at equal distance, what is much trickier.) The pictured values of the gaps can only be estimated by an approximation. May be we should also know the physical parameters of the measurement, which might influence the measurements. Thus next time you should add these too.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

@Nozin: I linked it here myself. You can find also find some info here

Zephir_AWT : I mentionned it already once before: The cavity sice of molecular sieves /reverse osmosis membranes is <0.55 nm. This is exactly the optimal size we need to get the LENR effect.

Quote from Epimetheus

Thanks. With your current theory in mind do you see any show stoppers for Mills to run his suncell for 24 hours?

Epimetheus : Only careful experiments will show if a 24 hour runtime is possible. Mills lack of engineering knowledge did cost him already one or two years. The idea of direct current generation was nice to gain some investors, but given current technology completely unrealistic. Here some more, deep engineering steps are needed.

The other problem he will face, is that with an incorrect process model, he will no be able to optimize the self-sustain mode.

QM-frameworks are only valuable in ranges, where the deviation of the magnetic energy can be neglected. I believe that in twenty years current QM is only taught as an engineering model, no longer as basic physical theory.

For me its enigmatic why Physicists ever could believe, that the relativistic Dirac equation correctly models orbital states.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

after all some gold and silver production has been reported in original Energoniva experiments too.

Zephir_AWT : In the picture above the sum of all bar's is >100%. Is that a sign of spontaneous matter creation...

Quote from axil

The Proton 21 experiment has shown that a spark interacting with a metal (pure copper) will produce transmutation. I will guaranty that the silver in the SunCell will show transmutation of silver into other elements. When this transmutation assay is performed on the silver in the SunCell, what will Mills say about his dogma?

axil: The Proton 21 experiment can be explained by the general LENR model. No mystery.

I guess Mills will tell nobody about the Ag isopic evolution in the SUN-CELL...

But the silver isotopic shift should only happen under certain rare conditions. May be you should ask him!

Quote from Epimetheus

If you think hydrinos are not real what do you think is he measuring with the Raman spectroscope? He thinks he is bringing H to the hydrino state with his experiment and so he is expecting dihydrino gas.

Epimetheus : I recently compared older Mills Hydrino spectra with other low-orbit models and they seemed to fit better. For me "Hydrino-resonances" are a reality, but the only long time stable low orbit Hydrogen model I trust, is the toroidal configuration calculated by Aringazin. In Mills Hydrino model there is no equation for the needed (added) photon central force. Mills assumption, that the central charge increases, needs a completely new model for the nucleus, that might work, but is not given by Mills. Otherwise it's a complete contradiction to his other assumption, that the charge and the Bohr-magneton are invariant.

What do his experiments show (just strongly simplifying the situation): As soon as you introduce high currents, Hydrogen will split into H3+ and H-. This happens much earlier than splitting Hydrogen into a monatomic form, because it's exo-thermic!! After that we live in a strict plasma regime, where part of the plasma is contained within a strong local H-field (that is more or less completly screened) . The disproportion into H3+ already explains the unexplained line in his paper.

The structure and the build up of the field needs a long explication, but at the end you can explain how the SUN-CELL works.

For me it's kind of tragedy that Mills, who did famous work with calculating in all magnetic effects, in his orbital model, finally fails to do the same with his experiments.

(You must understand, that I will not go further with discussing any details, because this might have impact on his IP.)

Toroidal Hydrogen seems to be long time stable, if it can attach to other molecules in the form of a magnetic bond.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Dense hydrogen of Holmlid is definitely more physically realistic hypothesis than the hydrino of Mills. But I don't see the way, in which they could generate energy in both cases.

Zephir_AWT : They both do experiments with no fitting model that explains what happens. Holmlid fuels dense hydrogen with an optical wave field, Mills uses high current.

In dense Hydrogen the stored magnetic energy is already high enough to play its role as a resonator. In Mills case he has to generate the dense field first. But as already said Mills completely misunderstands how this field is generated. This will possibly be one of the reasons, why he will not progress fast enough with design improvements.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

It is provided only for research purposes! The first experiments: Video

Zephir_AWT : May be Rossi should use some sparks too, like old Buck-Rodgers (around 1940) already did in his wash-kitchen Space-ship ...

Quote from JedRothwell

Why did you invite the MFMP people to come if it was not ready? Why didn't you wait? They told me that you said it was ready weeks ago. Or, if you have a machine that works, you should have tested that one instead.

@JED: Isn't it obvious what happened? Me356 didn't want to show his reactor to people (at least some of them) that seemed to have a relation with IH. Thus he had to build up a blackboxed device.

May be you should ask some questions, about your relation to IH and the role you seem to play in the LENR field.

I can only gratulate Me356, that he at least tried not to disappoint the members of mfp, that are not related to IH...

Quote from David Fojt

Few months ago, i was contacted by a russian team which promised also revolutionary technology !

@David Fojt : The best thing one can do to convince an investor is to file a patent, that will stay unexplained for years.

Regarding the patent I can only use my simple logic. If you have a reactor that only runs in a very, very narrow range of (P,T), then it is easy to understand that any energy gain will distroy the "so called" narrow range condition.

Using higher dimensional math is an other way to confuse an investor. Even I have to struggle with 4 Dimensions (not the separable 3,1..) and using 6 will restrict the number of people that really understand it to a few ones world wide...

As many might know, three dimensional rotations are a piece of cake, if you use 4 dimensional space, what is heavily used in graphics algorithms. But if somebody introduces 3 time dimensions, then he has misunderstood some basic concepts of math related to physics. As I mentioned long ago. Time is an abstraction of a "continuous physical event", a contradiction in itself. Time can only be use in macroscopic physics, if the synchronization points of the "continuous physical event" are narrow enough.

In reality even physics simulates time by counting the oscillations of a shell electron e.g. of Cs. Thus real physical time is alway discrete time.

Conclusion: This guy has first to explain how a wave/electron evolves in three time dimension and what added value such a concept will bring to physics.

I can only recommend to study Mills ART metric, which is a "timeless" (or uniform timed by c²) 4D metric.

Did you ask the Russians for a demo?

First papers/presentations appear now:

Here a proposal for a Russian E-cat : http://iscmns.org/work12/GoriachevIroadmapfor.ppt

It looks like they have the SUN_CELL plasma inside a larger containment!

Quote from Henry

As regular reader if you like you can continue reading of that blog and to believe to that hoax. It's not forbidd

@Henry : Because you are so familiar with JOMP (You mention it in every post!) can you give, for us dummy's, a link to it? So we too will be able check your news source!

Quote from Eric Walker

Rends appears to be saying that in the Aura experiment with a non-functioning reactor there was a COP of 10 at times.

Eric Walker : If he saw a 10 (I never noticed it - do you have a print out- ref? ..) then the mfp sofware urgently needs a correction! They have to measure and correctly apply the thermic signal delay!! If it takes e.g. 2 minutes to ramp up a heater, then any averaging period shorter than 2 minutes is useless. If they count in the exponnetial sink time, then an useful averaging period must even be much longer.

Quote from Eric Walker

The context of Forty-Two's statement was a claim by Rends of a COP of 10. Can you point to a place where the overall COP was nominally 10 during the Aura test? It will have had to be the "instantaneous" COP, which, as most of us know, is not a reliable measure.

Eric Walker : 42 intentionally misunderstood Rends post. Rends pointed to Me's earlier communication not related to mfp. Me's recator was broken ==> COP =1 nothing else has been claimed by anybody, except by weird posters.