Posts by Simon Brink

Thanks for the comments.

Josh G - Firstly to clarify, the model is based on a "background energy" view of the universe with waves (and particles) as "fluctuations" in background energy. There is a separate page on the website covering some discussion on background energy theory. If you start at a fundamental particle assumption you will likely end up with slightly different conclusions. I'm looking forward to reading more of Miles' work. From what I have read he definitely has a lot to offer, so it will be great to compare our ideas.

Robert B - Thanks for some really open minded feedback and comments. You have picked up on some interest potentials of the model. In terms of further validation, there is a lot of ongoing R&D that fits with the model, such as identifying proton sub shells (incorporated in to the model today). Often there is a lot to be learnt from reinterpreting existing data rather than needing to do massive new experiments. I'm going to continue validation work, and make improvements where appropriate, but being able to produce potentially valid structures for nuclei, consistent with isotope stability patterns and chemical bonding, must be the biggest plus for the model. A good starting point for this and any other atomic model. Thanks for the tip on the naming of "Noble" gases. Alfred Nobel has probably got enough recognition already...

SB

A new meson based atomic model has been developed. The model offers significant new insights into atomic physics including:

- Atomic nuclei structures resolved,

- Link between chemistry and nucleus structures demonstrated,

- Consistent with LENR observations and de-excited electron theory,

The model is based on electrodynamic flux flow and "wave-particle equivalence", offering a replacement to Rutherford electrostatics, the standard model, Einstein's relativity and most of the last 100 years of theoretical atomic physics.

The model is published at:

http://www.subtleatomics.com/new-atomic-model

Please let me know your thoughts!!!

Quote from optiongeek

Thanks for succinctly outlining your concerns regarding the GUTCP model. I think having a thoughtful critique of the model is always a good thing.

I agree in part. I certainly would like to see a more definitive proof for the double-slit one way or…

Yes, agreed. The Mills calculations appear pretty compelling for the ionisation energies for elements 1-20. You've also done very well, and a lot better than me, if you can replicate them.
I generally think most of it is likely to be correct, but there will still be a few things to be more fully developed including: are de-excited electrons bigger or smaller? why are bonding orbitals configured as they are? what are force relationship between the nucleus and bonding orbitals? energy basis for inverse Rydberg, etc.
GUToCP is clearly a hugely important document, but I encourage all to see it as a basis for continuing innovation, rather than as a complete all encompassing theory as the title suggests.
subtleatomics.com

Quote from MikeFid

By R.C. JENNISON

Nice find. Definitely some similarities.

Quote from Epimetheus

I am not quite sure what you are implying. Are you saying that Mills presents his results in the best looking way to secure funding? In my eyes this is a necessity if you cannot finance yourself. I am presenting my work results in the best possible way,…

Having been previously actively involved in discussions on the Mills theory via the yahoo "Society for Classical Physics", managed by BrLP (Mills), there were many examples of information control of differing views, particularly in relation to a complete denial of low energy fusion. There is also an ongoing history of legal responses to differing views, and over-claiming on commercial potential.
Much of the ideas presented by Mills may be eventually accepted, but there are also some quite significant issues. Maths is great, but to be valid, must accurately match reality.

I don't have a problem with any theorist not being entirely correct, but when a researcher threatens legal action to defend theory that is best only partly correct, I do have significant concerns, particularly when the researcher is trying to claim IP ownership over the whole LENR sector based on at best partly flawed theory.

AlainCo: duplicate post removed. I hope this latest is the best

Quote from padam73

Quote from Simon Brink: “Electrons themselves (and nucleons) are considered to be photons trapped in a circular orbit.”

This is interesting. AFAIK models of photons trapped in closed orbits have until now been limited to the electron following the…

Nothing further published yet.

Quote from optiongeek

Thanks for succinctly outlining your concerns regarding the GUTCP model. I think having a thoughtful critique of the model is always a good thing.

I agree in part. I certainly would like to see a more definitive proof for the double-slit one way or…

Early papers by Mills show resonances that were integer multiples of 13.6eV, but not necessarily in accordance with inverse Rydberg multiples. A subtle difference, but it may well be quite significant. My thinking on a different electron model are described on the atomics page of subtleatomics.com
The Mills model is also not fully consistent with fission observations.

Quote from stefan

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1868-Simon/">@Simon</a>

So you try to explain everything with EM. DO you have source terms as well? As far as I understand there is photons in the Mills model as well (behind the seen and sometimes shows up). Have you done
and analysis combining the photon and the…

Modelling is based on circular current flows, but different to Mills, oscillations in current flow are recognised, similar to waveform oscillations in photons.
Electrons themselves (and nucleons) are considered to be photons trapped in a circular orbit. (No additional trapped photons necessary)
Stable states (nucleons) are "full", so there is no source or sink terms, but lower energy states (dark matter) will be absorbing energy, so a sink term can be used in modelling.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from gameover: “If hydrinos or other forms of novel dense hydrogen matter easily produced in the laboratory exist, they must be quite abundant in the Universe even though they have not been directly observed yet. Do you agree with this…

On the question about experimental vs theoretical:
Issues include:
- early data matches 13.6ev multiples, by not inverse Rydberg patterns
- spectroscopy shows 13.6ev cutoffs, rather than peaks
- not consistent with electron fission data
- no validation that de-excited states should be smaller rather than bigger than ground state
- no match between inverse Rydberg and electrodynamic equations
- theory doesn't identify a valud fusion mechanism, but LENR research clearly shows transmutation.

On the quote above, as identified, according to the Mills theory perhaps there should be lots of hydrinos, but there aren't. In my view ground state is the highest energy stable state. De-excited states (similar to hydrinos, but larger, not smaller, than ground state) should continually absorb background energy and return to ground state. De-excited states will actually have a half life, and probably quite a short one, so won't be that common in high density regions, (like on earth) but can be observed in low density inter-stellar regions.

In my view Mills has done very well so far and theory is close enough to develop successful commercial systems, but there are still some theory details that still need a fair bit more work.

Quote from Epimetheus

Hi Simon,

I am interested in this:
Quote: “The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.”

How is this stability achieved? Is it some kind of nonradiation condition…

Looking at 3D wave structures which hold themselves together. A photon doesn't radiate part of itself. Definitely different to Mills. Electromagnetics define forces between nucleons and electrons. - Look at the website.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Simon Brinks,

Here are a few questions about your theory.

1) Does it include an aether(s) and if so what is the aether according to your theory?
2) What produces gravity according to your theory? Can it be manipulated?
3) What limits the velocity of an object traveling in space to the speed of light according to your theory?
4) Does your theory predict that in deep space, far away from solar systems between stars, the speed of light may vary?
5) Does your theory propose a method of reactionless or "warp" propulsion by modifying the aether or via some other means?
6) According to your theory, what is the nature of the "magnetic vector potential"?

Display More

There is a background energy page covering some of this. Click on the links.
Current thoughts:
1- aether, yes- probably electromagnetic energy travelling at slow speeds
2 - gravity is from aether shielding. You would have to produce a lot of aether to offset the gravity force. Possible, but unlikely to be practical.
3- I don't support relativity without some type of aether. Otherwise it is 'relative to what? Beyond the speed of light, there might be a destabilising 'optic boom', or similar. Possibly the speed of light relates to conditions at the observer, but frequency relates to conditions at the source.
4- probably would vary if background energy frequency and/or density vary.
5- interaction with matter is minimal, not practical.
6 - Sorry, not familiar with this.

SB

There is a big difference between "peer reviewed" and "to a level to secure funding".
There is also a big difference between research "with no necessary measurable benefits" and "must clearly demonstrate practical results to get funding".
I suggest that both methods have their flaws, as do both current theories.

Progress in the development of LENR, hot fusion and other emerging energy systems will be greatly assisted by further improvements in theoretical models.

One set of data that is often overlooked in model development is isotope data. Since the identification if the atomic structure by Rutherford in 1911, stability of hundreds of isotopes have been very well described, but no existing models are able to demonstrate structures consistent with isotope stability observations.

A new atomic model has been developed based on an extension of the "wave particle equivalence", as originally proposed by De Broglie. The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.

Validation of structures includes:
- consistent with isotope
stability,
- consistent with atomic mass data,
- unifies chemistry with the nucleus,
- consistent with bond angles,
- consistency with packing configurations.

The model may have significant potential for better understanding LENR observations and for the development of viable new energy systems.

For more information, go to www.subtleatomics.com

Great to read everyone's views.

The story behind the Cease and Desist notice I received from Mills has some interesting complexities. At the time I was involved in discussions of the yahoo "Society for Classical Physics" Group, which appears neutral but is actually run by Brilliant Light Power. Content is actively managed such that nothing passes censorship that references to "cold fusion", "LENR" or similar. At the same time the group is used by BLP to harvest ideas from loyalist to further develop the GUToCP theory and technology. (I am band from post on the group now).

What seemed to be the biggest concern that Mills had about me was that I was actively questioning the GUToCP theory, including giving public talks that covered GUToCP, quantum, LENR and new atomic theory I have been working on.

Mills is definitely bringing together some of the most significant insights into physics of the past 100 years, but is clear that currently GUToCP is still 'The truth, the part truth, and nothing but the part truth', so read with care. For example issues I can see include:
- often maths before logic
-no link between Maxwell equations and inverse Rydberg
-nucleus structures not identified
- nucleon structures unconvincing
- poor explanation of double slit observations
- minimal linkage between nucleus and electrons
- Inverse Rydberg theory not fully consistent with original experimentation by Mills
- theory keeps changing

My recommendation for researchers is to look first at the original Mills experimental papers, rather than GUToCP.

Hopefully with improved understanding, commercial systems can be developed by many that can contribute to mitigating agro-economic collapse at 4 degrees above pre-industrial, as per the reality of Paris commitments.

For information on the new atomic model I am developing, go to: www.subtleatomics.com

Zavier Borg from Blaze Labs did some fantastic work on EM lifters in the early 2000's.
This link has photos and working videos of many of the prototypes.
http://blazelabs.com/l-c-intro.asp

Nonsense.

With Integral Fast Reactor technology there is enough energy for a very long time, perhaps 10,000++ years, and more if you include the natural production of uranium and thorium in sea water. By then we should have worked fusion out (hot and cold). Sure there are some issues with safety and proliferation from IFR technology which will need to be solved, but the main point is we are not going to run out of energy for a long time.

Issues likely to cause major problems for society are far more likely to come from over-population, conflict, climate induced ecosystem collapse, solar flare induced collapse of electrical/IT systems, infectious diseases, something that we never even thought of, or most likely a combination of a few of these.

Come to think of it, the biggest problem is our inability to successfully organise ourselves in a co-operative way...

There seems to be a strong correlation between the need for additional funding and media releases in mid 2014. Even though there was all this talk about a commercial prototype in 6 months, I suspect that we are unlikely to hear much at all until either the product is close to commercial release, or funds are running out and existing backers are looking like they aren't going to provide more funding. There is no commercial advantage of releasing any more info now as this is only likely to encourage potential competitors. I would not be surprised if we don't hear anything more until next year at least, if it proves to be viable.. .

Quote from nickec

Simon Brink

Have you performed the experiment you outlined? How many trials have you run? Can you provide links to other people's runs of this experiment?

Thanks Simon.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has done the experiment. I did about 10 trials using a few different electrolytes, KOH, NaOH, CaOH, different periods of electrolysis, new and reusing previously used plates, etc. In just about all runs there was a noticeable temperature difference, typically 15-30 deg C during heating, and slightly less at peak. From my understanding, the chemical composition of 316ss is a key part of the story.

For anyone wanting to put together a simple and low cost demonstration in the back shed that demonstrates the LENR effect, this is a simple experiment you can do for a few hundred US$'s.

Materials: 4 316SS lighting cover plates (100mm x50mm approx.), 1 TDP far infrared heat lamp, distilled water, a 200deg C thermometer (laser type preferably, or an oven thermometer will do), 250mA 12V power source (preferably a transformer), a hydroxide such as KOH, Ca(OH)2 or NaOH,

Method: Place 3 plates in an OH(aq) solution (say 2% by mass). Connect 1 plate to the 12v positive terminal, the other to the negative terminal. The third plate is a control. The fourth plate is let out of the solution and is a second control. Allow electrolysis to take place for 2 or 3 days. Remove plates from the solution, allow to wire dry and place all plates evenly spaced under the TDP heat lamp. Expose plates to far infrared radiation and track temperature VS time for each plate.

Results: The plate connected to the negative terminal heats up much quicker that the other 3 plates.

Discussion: Observations are expected to be due to an exothermic reaction triggered by far infrared stimulation of atomic hydrogen atoms embedded into the surface layers of this 316SS plate by electrolysis. Observations could potentially be explained by either the Mills Hydrino theory or by H/Ni fusion type reaction. Given the observed consistency of increased temperature, electron orbital resizing seems a more likely mechanism rather than a fusion type reaction.