optiongeek New Member
  • Member since Nov 7th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by optiongeek

    This is fantasy. Hydrogen can exist without spin pairing. And so far Mills did not show any measurement of single H(1/4) and H(1/17). Physics is not just postulation of a possible idea. Only measurement counts.


    H* has been first found and measured by Santilli. So he is the one who discovered it. Further Holmlid has measured various forms of H*/D* clusters, but with unreliable methods and his claims (about bond energy) seem to be as wrong as Mills ones.


    We should continue to talk when Mills delivers a first reliable measurement of a single (1/x) hydrino or an other (> 1/4) dihydrino that in fact can exists as the quantization of the proton magnetic moment allows higher states in combination with other nuclei.

    There have been almost two dozen analytical techniques showing hydrino, including atomic hydrino and various hydrino levels. See attached images.

    \" This crap - "by fractional quantum numbers" - this is fantasy and cheating - and this is not physics - this is the reasoning of mathematicians - a physicist should not do this!

    Then how do you explain Hagen's results? How do you explain the same results on multiple apparatus?

    Mills should explain why no single hydrinos exist and only one (1/4) dihydrino is stable.

    Two hydrinos will spin pair to form molecular hydrino, just as hydrogen atoms spin pair to form molecular hydrogen. And H(/4) is not the only stable hydrino. He also describes H(1/17). The hydrino product depends on the catalyst. When the catalyst is H-O-H (nascent water), then because it accepts 3 x 27.2eV, it will require the H atom to give up 3 x 27eV in the resonant transfer and therefore transition from H to H(1/4)

    To honor some work of Mills:


    ...


    May be one day he also will understand that H*-H* (His name dihydrino (1/4)..) is a weak nuclear bond between protons and that hydrinos are a mathematical fantasy or as many times said already: Known plasma resonances.

    So how do you explain the absolutely stunning results from Hagen (and others)? Hagen shows that H2(1/4) exhibits paramagnetism, precisely as predicted over a decade ago by GUTC. The match to H2(1/4) is exact across multiple dimensions and frequencies. Other interpretations are ruled out based on Hagen's methodical approach. The measurements have been replicated independently on multiple apparatus in multiple labs.


    The paramagnetism from the hydrino analog to H2 is mind-blowing. It means that for two electrons, sharing an orbit, one is paired and the other is unpaired. An orbit with an even number of electrons produce one that is unpaired, but only in di-hydrino. Please explain how nuclear bonds can produce that effect.

    How does a neutral charge attract?????? Please show force equation!

    I'm perfectly satisfied with the force balance equations for the hydrino states. If you think you have found a flaw then I encourage you to publish. The last person who tried that was Rathke and he was forced to issue a "corrigendum" after Mills pointed out he had badly erred by basing his entire argument on a wave equation in which he had inverted a sign. I would be happy to review such a paper for you before publication.

    "Effective" nuclear charge is simply the impact that the electric field of the trapped photon exerts on the electron. As Mills points out in at the beginning of Chapter 2, both the atom and the trapped photon have neutral "actual" charge.

    Unluckily Mills has forgotten to show the force equation.

    Let's stick with your original claim that Mills' trapped photon somehow unbalances the charge of the atom. I showed you the text that disproves that, with Mills explicitly stating the opposite. Will you admit that you made a claim about Mills' model that is nowhere supported by the theory?

    He gives no physics that explains this fantastic effect. This fantastic effect also has never been measured. So it's plain nonsense.

    The derivation for interaction of the trapped photon's electric field within a bound electron is provided starting around Equation 2.10 in GUTCP.


    (edit) I found the following in the text near the start of Chapter 2:


    Quote


    The atom and the "trapped photon" caused by a transition to a resonant state other than the n=1 state have neutral charge.

    Mills assumes a locked in photon generates charge. This only happens inside nuclei where charge conservation does not hold. But Mills uses it for electron orbit relations.

    Not true - absolutely nowhere does Mills say that a photon "generates charge". He says that the electric field of the photon will either detract from or augment the electric field of the central charge as felt by the electron. The net charge of the hydrogen atom remains in balance at all times. However, the field of the photon is responsible - by force balance - for the electron's orbital radius increasing or decreasing. Please read up on this.

    Piping in the demo would suggest fraud. Any investment bank involved in marketing registered securities via subterfuge like that would be liable for damages. However, when I look at the background of the principals at Height Capital on the FINRA Brokercheck website, I see 20+ year careers with zero disclosable incidents. I think you need some evidence before making an accusation like that.

    Brilliant Light Power appears to have integrated a control assembly into a SunCell, enabling them to operate the alpha prototype in closed mode for the first time and at a commercial operating temperature of 3000C.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    It's the other way around: those who claim to understand the derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio will need to step up and walk us through it. Thankfully Stefan is helping out with this. We will either derive that final equation, or fail trying.


    After having spent the better part of ten years going through Mills' derivations, I can tell you that it is unlikely that someone can get much from them unless they do the work necessary to understand them from first principles. In this case, first principles means beginning with the non-radiation condition as expressed in Appendix A (aside: Stefan claims Mills has an error in the convolution, an error which I don't see, but I think Stefan nonetheless has an alternate form that he thinks will work. In addition, Mills asserts that Haus himself reviewed his derivation while he was still alive). Once you accept the non-radiation condition is true, then it becomes easy to see how Mills uses the boundary condition of i) the stability of the hydrogen ground state to radiation together with, ii) the immutability of h_bar of angular momentum in fundamental particles and then develops the classical force balance equations that describe the electron as an orbitsphere. Once you believe the orbitsphere is correct, then all of the other applications of electric and magnetic dynamics fall out directly from that. If you don't understand this aspect of the theory then you can't possibly understand how his equations are derived from first principles as claimed.

    The fudge factor in this case would be the use of non-sequitors. But we have not delved in deep enough to know for sure that these are being used, so let us continue to explore the neutron-electron mass ratio.


    I'm certainly willing to be convinced that Mills' theory is incomplete. Perhaps the areas identified so far are, in fact, fudge factors. However, are they truly fudge factors that have no basis in physical reality? Or are they true but represent something other than what Mills has described them? Or is Mills correct and we simply don't understand them due to the difficulty of the material and poor presentation? It's been my experience that Mills has been challenged on a variety of occasions and I don't recall him ever needing to issue a revision to the theory. If the last case is true then perhaps a good editor with close access to Mills and a deep understanding of the material would perhaps be the way forward.


    However, my sense is that between the two, QM/Standard model & GUTCP, that the latter is perhaps closer to providing consistent analytical results. But, yes, let continue to explore the faults (if they are faults) and find what is left to find.

    I very much appreciate the discussion ongoing regarding the fundamental particle mass ratios. It's something I've worked through on my own some time back but struggled in the same areas folks here are raising. For what it's worth, a similar exercise can be done with the calculation of the ionization energies for 1 through 20-electron ions.


    However I would like to assert (but stand willing to be corrected) that despite the issues raised, there is simply no alternate derivation based on the physics accepted under the QM/Standard Model that comes even close. It's my understanding that these results, assuming no as yet undiscovered "fudge factor" is revealed, are unique in the field. Can this statement be refuted?

    if a plasma physicist who worked with plasmas for 40 years does not find an explanation for UV radiation in a simple hydrogen plasma + catalyst within a year then I think this should be further studied.


    Do you think Dr. Wrubel would feel confident to express an opinion on the novelty of a "self-sustaining" plasma? I've seen assertions elsewhere that a terrestrial plasma has never been shown to sustain itself in the absence of a source of charged particles, such as a electric current. Surely he's seen the "self-sustaining" mode in the SunCell videos. Can he confirm that, if genuine, it would indeed represent new physics to his understanding?

    Yet, 20 years of resesearch sound nice... yet, "matches the spectrocharacteristics" of dark matter.... WTF ?


    .... did we ever have any ? I think, DM has not even predicted spectrocharactersitics, simply because no one can imagine how it reacts with matter, besides the gravity... and gravity has , directly, nothing to do with spectral characteristics...


    Hydrinos do not radiate except during the (rare) event when they transition to a different state through catalytic reactions. This radiation is characterized by high energy continuum radiation and will ionize hydrogen but is absorbed quickly and not easy to spot. Interestingly, a recent paper (from 2014) claims that there is about 4 times more ionized hydrogen in the universe than can be accounted for by known sources of ionizing radiation. A perfect fit for Mills' theory.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_underproduction_crisis


    (edit: changed link to the Wikipedia page that summarizes the findings with links to original paper and critiques)

    You don't have to see the Standard model as the only thing - but over a wide range of observations it has predictive power and so you can't just arbitrarily switch it off when calculation gS because your name is Mills and you'd like everything to be a classically-derived number...


    What does "predictive power" mean when a model has 23? 27? (who knows?) non-physical adjustable parameters that are determined by physical observation. What is the methodological barrier to use when deciding whether yet another adjustable parameter can be added to the theory because a new observation has been made?

    The basic nickel-hydrogen system is much simpler in my opinion. Although they may not produce quite the same level of output, they can heat up reactor cores to over a thousand degrees in self sustaining mode. This is enough to change our world forever.


    Yes, Ni-H is a simpler set up. However, as you say above, no one seems to have a reliable way to get these devices running. But the one researcher I know of who tried on his own to get Mills' Cu(OH_2) and CuBr_2 set-up running on a completely independent basis *was* successful on his first try. Prof. Gil Crouse of Auburn read one of Mills' paper, decided to replicate, and was successful. Prof. Crouse was quite happy to describe his experience. If you want a reliable way to produce excess heat, why not try Mills' recipe?


    http://brilliantlightpower.com…/CrouseDSCReplication.pdf