Simon Brink Verified User
  • Male
  • 45
  • from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Member since Mar 13th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Simon Brink

    I had a look at the basics of this method to derive transition energies a couple of years back. Refer to the paper ‘LENR catalyst identification model’ on the Subtle Atomics website.

    In recent times I have become more concerned about the discontinuity around n=1 that this theory requires. Calculate the ratio of differences between adjacent states and you will understand. Either n=1 is a very special state (which it may be), or below ground state atomic states don’t make sense.

    Between 2015 and 2020 around 250 experiments were conducted looking at the validity of the inverse Rydberg relationship for catalyst identification based on augur energies. No particular strong correlations were identified for all calculated catalysts, but there were some positive (excess energy) results with Ni, Cu, Sn, Sr(?) and one alloy. Transmutations were also recorded with Ti (CSIRO validated), not explainable by inverse Rydberg theory.

    Based on these results I am now exploring other types of dense hydrogen, i.e. metallic, which can be described as m<1.

    Not a lot data points to work with, but possibly another method to identify catalysts (and dark matter...).

    The main point I’m making is that it is worth keeping in mind a broader range of calculation methods for identifying potential catalysts for dense H formation...

    Cherepanov2020 started this thread, so on this basis is entitled to express his ideas.

    However if the intention here is disinformation and disruption of good ongoing discussions and research, this is not appropriate, and may be more about geopolitics not science.

    Most of us are aware that there are some issues with existing theory which require careful critique to resolve. I’m not yet convinced this dialogue is adding to a resolution of this.

    Ups and Down


    Subtle Atomics research has largely been focused on pathways to dense hydrogen as a starting point to new energy systems.


    We have now reached a point where we can identify theoretically and experimentally that going below ground state for atomic H(n) hydrogen (BrLP model) and molecular states H2(n) is not actually possible.


    The good news however is that the ground state limit does not apply to metallic hydrogen states (m), consistent with the Holmlid model. The Subtle Atomic model also offers the additional development that at least 12 dense H metallic (m) states are identified, in addition to 32 expanded states.


    Atomic H models were not predicting known catalysts, particularly Fe, but the new dense metallic H model is demonstrating why Fe works, but more importantly is also enabling complex catalytic alloys to be engineered, produced and tested.


    And as a bonus, we can now explain BOTH dark matter and the likely chemical composition of the galactic black hole...


    Stay tuned

    Any thoughts about how such a large state is structured?

    Yes, size is definitely huge compared to “normal” matter.

    The second article presents a case for an n=29 metallic structure. (Link posted by others in this thread)

    I tend to subscribe to the idea that the electron is the entire electron orbit field (likely toroidal) not a point rotating in a field.

    The simplest explanation for the structure of dark matter (as proposed) is that electrons can exist in a wide range of size states. Ground state is not particularly special, except that it is the most stable state for solids and liquids on the Earth’s surface (not so sure about gases though...).

    There does however seem to be certain states that are more stable, characterised by a +7 relationship, i.e. n=1/15 (nuclear electrons) n=1/8 (small hydrogen) n=1 (ground state) and now n=29 (dark matter).

    From this you can probably work out what my guess might be for the structure of the intergalactic medium.

    A metallic structure is proposed based on the form of radiation emitted (blackbody/CMB), noting that a molecular or atomic structure would be expected to emit discrete radiation...

    We definitely have more to do to really understand our universe!!!

    I hope you can comment here further. As you may know Leif Holmlid has a similar, or better said, parallel stance on the identification of Dark Matter as what he calls UDH.

    There are quite a few dense hydrogen and cold hydrogen dark matter theories coming through at present, but non offer a quantitative match to the calculated mass of dark matter, nor do they provide insight into the spatial distribution of celestial bodies.

    I’m personally convinced that my theory has more merits that ground state or dense hydrogen models as it explains: the density of galactic space, the gaps between stars in a galaxy, the calculated mass of dark matter, the origin of Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the electrical conductivity of space, stellar growth, what black holes are made of, etc.

    I would encourage everyone who is interested in astrophysics to read the paper and offer comments on the proposal.

    Methods of production[edit]

    The only truly stable state of a hydrogen-like atom is the ground state with n = 1.

    Not entirely true.

    Dense hydrogen is stable when trapped inside chemical structures such as fullerenes, e.g. C-60. Geological deposits are known and are currently being extracted.

    Oh, and about 80% of the mass the Universe is hydrogen with n greater than 1, i.e. H(n=29) otherwise known as dark matter. Refer to papers on the subtleatomics.com website.

    Curbina
    Although not formally confirmed, lawyers of BLP can not simply stop a researcher from doing research that has overlap with BLP's activities based on legal reasons. If true, they might have offered him an amount of money or stake in BLP to cease his research and publications. We probably never will know.

    Yes, I have received a cease and decist notice from BLP.

    BLP is never (in my opinion) going to offer $ to anyone for this sort of thing (to stop research).

    What they are/were doing (perhaps???) is positioning themselves legally so that that if a commercial technology was developed by someone else, they can claim that it utilises BLP IP and would likely attempt to negotiate significant payment for use of this IP. As a listed company, this is maximising value for shareholders...

    The actual extent of BLP IP coverage is very hard to define, noting that they attempt to cover 137 different forms of dense hydrogen and just about all elements as potential catalysts in their patents, in a wide variety of electrochemical configurations!!!

    For many of us who are really just trying to assist with developing a viable safe pathway to a clean energy future, receiving one of these legal letters is highly demoralising and has unfortunately ended the research efforts of many which is a real shame.

    The reality is that the BLP theory is not fully correct, but they do have some early publication and patent coverage on dense hydrogen. Technologies are very possible beyond the BLP ideas, but considerable care is needed in presenting ideas to avoid risks of BLP attempting claims should a technology become ready for commercialisation.

    Not easy to navigate unless you know in advance what is going on...

    SB.

    Are you following the approach descriped at the very beginning of the article? No mentioning of "catalytic alloys"

    What safety precautions have you taken?

    These experiments were done prior to reading this thread, so we’re not trying to replicate anything. The intention was to produce a 2 stage reaction, overall H(n=1) -> H(n=3) - as occurs just below the surface of the sun, refer to NASA sun emissions spectrum data - Carbon was being used simply because it is resistant to oxidation during H loading, but for the reaction the current direction was eventually reversed directing free H’s into the carbon. Safety measures were only to perform a very small number of experiments. - Didn’t feel so good afterwards, so I definitely wouldn’t recommend anyone else doing this without shielding. UDH loaded carbon is probably the best shielding available (at least 10x better than lead) but in some situations some UDH possibly annihilates producing other particle emissions, so can affect results and may need secondary shielding.

    Follow up experiments planned to try to isolate and amplify effects.

    "two new innovations to boost the kinetics" - perhaps they have they finally worked out how to calculate the catalysts!!!

    "34 times gain" - looks just about ready for commercial use. Great news!!!

    Hopefully someone can step in with a few spare billion, good ethics and political leverage can get this all happening towards the replacement of carbon energy sources rather than it all just ending up as a new military energy toy.

    Great to see progress!!!

    Wonder what the legal status is if Mills’ obsession with a transition energy of 27.2eV/c^2 proves not to be correct. (It’s pretty simple to work out that 54.4-13.6 is not 27.2eV)

    Is it legally acceptable to misrepresent the process so badly???

    I wish you lots of luck with your shop venture. I hope you aren't expecting too much customer feedback though- I gave up with the Looking For Heat shop not because of low sales, they were fine, but because it was really designed to help create a crowd of experimenters with similar equipment to screen materials and other things. That part of it failed to work, so as I am more suited to experimentation than I am to shop-keeping I gave it up


    Thanks Alan. My principle motivation has always been around facilitating the development of replacement energy systems for carbon based fuels, but there are some really interesting side developments coming out of new developments that may offer a far quicker path to the industrialisation of beneficial LENR. The LENR shop showcases some of the progress being made, and will hopefully be a stepping stone towards larger production capacity and an increased capacity to develop low carbon energy systems.

    According to 4D rules a photon makes one rotation where as the electron makes two (at light speed). A photon captured by the electron must acquire a second dimension rotation with light speed, but then we had to divide its mass/energy by alpha.


    The "two rotations" concept is consistent with experimental pion data.


    Mass (pion+) = 139.6 MeV/c2.

    Compton wavelength = h/(mc^2) = 8.8fm

    Reduced Compton wavelength = Compton wavelength / (2 PI) = 1.4fm

    Half the Reduced Compton wavelength is = 0.7fm


    The experimental pion mean charge radius is around 0.68fm.

    Isn't what you describe a Neutron Star?


    According to the theory, probably quite similar, except that a black hole is spinning much faster, so is more like a solenoid, whereas a neutron star does not have the same angular momentum, so remains more spherical. Unclear whether the masses are neutrons, nucleons or atoms with highly contracted electrons. Potentially the neutron star is more neutral and the black hole is more charged, with greater separation of positive and negative components.

    If anyone is in communication with Simon Brink, please ask him to participate in this thread.


    I have a load of questions I'd like to ask.


    In response:


    1) Is platinum a catalyst according to his theory and where should it be on his chart? Yes, it does appear as an excellent catalyst (~0.14% match) for an n=1 to n=1/14 (sub-primary) transition. Note that the proposed size of n=1/14 would be around 6fm.


    2) What does he think is the lifetime of the different states of shrunken hydrogen before they go back to the ground state? If you go by the spacetime to mass conversion rate, it could take a very long time, but more likely shrunken H can absorb other locally available energy. As such return to ground state may be very dependent on local conditions (i.e. temperature, ppm, density, EM radiation, etc.).


    3) What does he think is required to make a "small hydrogen" atom undergo a nuclear reaction with another atom? For example, is there a special type of stimulation required that is different than what is required to produce the "small hydrogen" atom? Depends on which small hydrogen you have.


    4) Does he agree with Mills that an arc discharge accelerates the reaction rate due to the elimination of the space charge problem? Not sure what the Mills explanation is. My view is that it's more about creating flow conditions that produce a high pressure stationary electron zone which can cause electron shrinkage in the presence of a suitable catalyst.


    5) Does he think shrunken electrons could be repeatedly pumped to extract energy from the aether? The atomic reserve cycle. Why not!!! The problem is that you are going to end up with all these annoying LENR reactions!!!


    6) During any of his experiments, has he observed "strange radiation" track marks? Photographic reaction morphologies are highly variable and very interesting, particularly around secondary and tertiary reactions, and also halo effects around certain reactions. Secondary reactions are indicative of particles rather than strange radiation. Halos and shock waves may be more relevant to "strange radiation", but data is inadequate to come to any conclusions. There are quite a few photos on the website to explore.


    7) What is his plans to take his research to the next level? Research will mostly like continue on an as-time-permits basis, generally in the public domain, until such time as there is interest from a serious investor in IP ownership and a rapid progression towards commercial products and services.

    Personally I like the super nuclei explanation for black holes which avoids a hole lot of nonsense about a "singularity" which is really trying to say that you can cram an infinite mass into an infinitely small point. - Personally I don't buy it. - If you simply remove the electrons (or shrink the orbits) and stick a hell of a lot of neutrons together, you are going to get something that looks a lot like a black hole.


    As for Hawking Radiation, based on this new model, does this black hole really need to mysteriously shrink and loose mass? Black holes are known to have ejection jets on each side of the plane of rotation which "spew out" matter at very high velocity. X-ray emissions from the wavefronts of ejection jets are observable and have been documented. Refer to: subtleatomics.com/black-holes There may well be a reverse spacetime-> mass process occurring inside the core of blackholes, i.e. mass-> spacetime. Spacetime is then ejected axially as jets as part of the larger galactic scale mass/spacetime solenoidal flux flow.


    As such, so called "Hawking" black hole radiation has already been identified, but the mechanism and dynamics are quite different from existing models.

    Sorry you're having issues Alan.

    Website doesn't have the full security key (doesn't actually less secure, just that I haven't paid the extra $$$'s to get the key), so if your google browser is on the highest security settings, it may block the site.

    More likely sometimes after a website error you need to clear your browser data because your browser remembers the error page rather than looking for the current page.

    Alternatively to avoid this issue use: subtleatomics.com/index This seems to go around the problem. (Don't ask me why this works???)