Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield wrote: To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. I have > yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by > them. > Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to make sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing. My strong hunch: it is not possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from them. But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by them. Rossi had it right years ago when he stated the skeptics will never believe an experiment but only the sale of working commercial units. AA On 3/25/2017 3:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Eric Walker wrote: The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going. But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes of hand waving. Is it because these books seem impressive to some people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on their own? It could well be more a case of an arrogant "genius" inventor who thinks a guaranteed way to win a Nobel prize is to produce an earth-shaking theory that ditches parts of QM, to explain anomalous energy producing experiments. He may have had a modest amount of real gain for a long time, in less than ideal form. The more hand-waving the better, to cover up the shortfall. Sound familiar? So far, Mills has come close to the goal of having it all, and would probably have succeeded had he embraced the Thermacore work... way back then - especially if Chuck Haldeman had been allowed to publish. Too bad he could not bring himself to share the honors with others, since he is probably further away today from the big prize than in 1995, even if the SunCell is gainful. Thermacore had solid gains of at least 150% over input, but that was not enough, apparently. Since then, Mills has alienated many scientists, seeing them all as jealous competitors. Dufour and Mayer and others like Holmlid and Meulenberg may have saved the day for Ni-H ... in both theory and experiment, but their work contradicts Mills in important ways. Mills may be intellectually superior to any one of them alone, but may fail miserably in the end -- since he is locked into a fundamental error which they dodged. You can look up the reviews of his Millsian software package and see why that too has been a huge disappointment.
[Vo]:GSVIT review skeptically Report 41 (DeNinno)
In Italian, their report https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/enea-rapporto-41-analisi-e-critica-tecnica-del-contenuto/ I imagine a translation, and some answers will be interesting.
[Vo]:Vital Dust
It turns out that universal chemistry has produced some entirely unexpected dusty trails to explaining the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything… http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/03/25/3788/
RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Is it well known based on real data that the charge of the electron remains constant at short distances from another charge-- positive or negative? An interesting recent paper addresses this question. “ Understanding the discrete nature of angular momentum of electron in hydrogen atom with (3G,2e) model of final unification” at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=962 High energy electron scattering experiments may provide data to address this question of charge changing at short distances. I am not sure what special relativity would indicate about high energy electron’s apparent charge, however. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of the larger parent atom being taken into a sub-ground hydrino state. In which case, each of the electrons in such a state would screen a proton and make those protons appear like neutrons. For example, say one of the S orbital electrons of 55Co went into a sub-ground state orbital screening one if the proton charges. The atom would appear chemically to have one less proton and one more neutron - becoming 55Fe. From a nuclear stability standpoint, though it would still appear as 55Co presumably (but this is also unstable in this case). A pico-hydride implies that the hydrino hydrogen would be able to form a shared chemical (electron) bond with the low abundance stable 54Fe. I just can't imagine a hydrino being able to share an electronic state with another atom because the hydrino's electron is so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond for sure. In a high resolution mass spectrometer, the 54Fe+picohydride would weigh more than a 55Fe and that should be observable. They have such a spectrometer at Purdue. On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Bob Higgins wrote: The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen suggest that it will be really hard to detect... It must be detected by proxy. Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require new, inventive techniques Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I brought up Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride. It is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen. The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive. This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the smoking gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory so he will never agree.
[Vo]:LENR, shorter weekend edition
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-25-2017-lenr-shorter-weekend-edition.html peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric Walker wrote: The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going. But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes of hand waving. Is it because these books seem impressive to some people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on their own? It could well be more a case of an arrogant "genius" inventor who thinks a guaranteed way to win a Nobel prize is to produce an earth-shaking theory that ditches parts of QM, to explain anomalous energy producing experiments. He may have had a modest amount of real gain for a long time, in less than ideal form. The more hand-waving the better, to cover up the shortfall. Sound familiar? So far, Mills has come close to the goal of having it all, and would probably have succeeded had he embraced the Thermacore work... way back then - especially if Chuck Haldeman had been allowed to publish. Too bad he could not bring himself to share the honors with others, since he is probably further away today from the big prize than in 1995, even if the SunCell is gainful. Thermacore had solid gains of at least 150% over input, but that was not enough, apparently. Since then, Mills has alienated many scientists, seeing them all as jealous competitors. Dufour and Mayer and others like Holmlid and Meulenberg may have saved the day for Ni-H ... in both theory and experiment, but their work contradicts Mills in important ways. Mills may be intellectually superior to any one of them alone, but may fail miserably in the end -- since he is locked into a fundamental error which they dodged. You can look up the reviews of his Millsian software package and see why that too has been a huge disappointment.
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy, and I have a hard time not concluding that this is other than intentional. I had my suspicions from the start, but they were more than borne out when we actually looked at one of the "predictions," in this case of the electron-neutron mass ratio: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4761-brilliant-light-power-dec-16-2016-uk-roadshow/?postID=45162#post45162 The mess of equations are obviously word salad, and no one who champions Mills has been willing to connect the dots. I guess I'm open to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going. But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes of hand waving. Is it because these books seem impressive to some people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on their own? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Bob Higgins wrote: I just can't imagine a hydrino being able to share an electronic state with another atom because the hydrino's electron is so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond for sure. ... a premise for this is extreme magnetic binding In a high resolution mass spectrometer, the 54Fe+picohydride would weigh more than a 55Fe and that should be observable. They have such a spectrometer at Purdue. ... Well - this is where it gets interesting. The dense hydrogen would only weigh slightly more if it was the standard hydrogen mass when bound to the iron. But... according to Mayer, the proton gives up mass in the dense (pico-hydride) state. Assuming Mayer and Dufour are talking about essentially the same species - it will probably weigh less (compared to 54Fe+P) on a high resolution MS device, but if there is any difference at all, it will be important to quantify that difference. Let's hope the results get published. They would answer a lot of questions. The pico-hydride would have a huge magnetic field due to the single electron spin at tight geometry (mega-Tesla) and that would indicate that the species would have a preference to strongly bind to iron, nickel and cobalt - the ferromagnetic elements. Since cobalt is nearly 100% single isotope at amu 59, it would be interesting to look for 60Co in a reaction, and this assumes that cobalt induces the reaction catalytically as iron, nickel and palladium are known to do. Anyway, a mix of Pd and Co under heat and hydrogen pressure could show anomalous 60Co, which would be a smoking gun of densification. The reason that Mills would not like this is simple - the Mayer/Dufour MO is highly indicative of the single reduction event -- instead of Mills' own 136 steps, for which the proof is weak to non-existent.
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of the larger parent atom being taken into a sub-ground hydrino state. In which case, each of the electrons in such a state would screen a proton and make those protons appear like neutrons. For example, say one of the S orbital electrons of 55Co went into a sub-ground state orbital screening one if the proton charges. The atom would appear chemically to have one less proton and one more neutron - becoming 55Fe. From a nuclear stability standpoint, though it would still appear as 55Co presumably (but this is also unstable in this case). A pico-hydride implies that the hydrino hydrogen would be able to form a shared chemical (electron) bond with the low abundance stable 54Fe. I just can't imagine a hydrino being able to share an electronic state with another atom because the hydrino's electron is so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond for sure. In a high resolution mass spectrometer, the 54Fe+picohydride would weigh more than a 55Fe and that should be observable. They have such a spectrometer at Purdue. On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Bob Higgins wrote: > > The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen > suggest that it will be really hard to detect... It must be detected by > proxy. Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require > new, inventive techniques > >> >> Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I brought > up Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called > pico-hydride. It is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen. > > The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a > way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT > radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive. > > This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the > smoking gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory so > he will never agree. >
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Bob Higgins wrote: The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen suggest that it will be really hard to detect... It must be detected by proxy. Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require new, inventive techniques Bob, I generally agree that new thinking is needed. This is why I brought up Dufour's ICCF20 talk and the iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride. It is a very elegant and simple way to confirm dense hydrogen. The dense hydrogen becomes attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive. This looks like a brilliant solution to detection ! and could be the smoking gun for dense hydrogen , but it does not conform to Mills theory so he will never agree.
[Vo]:The new Rossi theory paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf In the new Rossi theory paper, a tunneling current is seen to flow between the nickel electrodes. The tunneling current flow of R = 1 Ohm , U = 0.105 Volt may be caused by nanoscale superconductivity were the plasma is an imperfect superconductor and the current flow is caused by a pseudogap. High-temperature superconductivity doesn't happen all at once. As doping increases, superconductivity starts in isolated nanoscale patches that gradually expand until they take over. In this case, superconductive quasiparticles develop in the plasma so that electrons tunnel between the patches of superconductivity resulting in a pseudogap. Does this mean that this level of current flow is caused by Crossed Andreev reflection between two normal electrodes separated by an imperfectly developing superconductive plasma? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_reflection
Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen suggest that it will be really hard to detect. According to Meulenberg, these states lack sufficient angular momentum to have a photon transaction. Thus, the hydrino hydrogen would not have telltale absorption spectra of any kind. It must be detected by proxy. Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the hydrino will require new, inventive techniques and custom (probably expensive) equipment. Mills probably doesn't care as long as his SunCell works based on his insight from the hydrino hypothesis. Once I was visiting a university professor friend who had developed a nifty hydrogen sensor based on a metal film that was so thin it could not be seen even under the SEM. I commented that having an invisible technology is wonderful for being able to safely share your device for testing. On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > One of the better articles to appear on the subject of LENR in the context > of a valid commercial effort appeared recently in C&EN (which is becoming a > top flight science journal) and was picked up by SciAm. > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion- > lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/ > > Stephen Ritter, the author, relies a lot on his expert Howard J. Wilk , > who is an organic chemist, obsessed with Randy Mills’s progress, still > trying to decide if the SunCell commercialization effort is real or scam. > The situation with Rossi is a little clearer on the negative side, and > should be resolved in a few months, at least in its legal aspects, but the > idea that Mills could be a more sophisticated con-artist is hard for many > to digest. RM has real and impressive academic credentials and other > business accomplishments (software)... and "no priors", as Harry Bosch > would say. Much of the following is quoted or paraphrased from Ritter's > fine article. > > In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had ever isolated hydrinos, and although > Mills had previously written in research papers and patents that he had, > Mills replied that he had not. Moreover, it would be “a really, really huge > task.” Side note: This is an outright cop-out by Mills - since he was > actually showing vials of hydrino compounds as far back as 15 years ago. No > matter what his credentials are, Mills has the habit of spreading blatant > falsehoods, to a lesser degree than Andrea Rossi, but enough to make one > wonder if the same character flaws are not deeply embedded. > > Almost everyone who has closely followed Mills agrees: If the SunCell > generates hydrinos and megawatts, then there has to be demonstrable hard > evidence: “Show us the hydrino!” Wilk mentions four possible explanations: > Mills’s science is actually correct, [but harder to tame than it should be, > possibly missing a single piece of understanding], it’s a complete fraud by > a genius with no morals [this could be closer to Rossi], or it’s just > simply bad science [providing a lavish livelihood at investor's expense], > or it’s what Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called "pathological > science"... which is a kind of logical delusion that Langmuir himself > suffered from, at times. We could add that a mix of several of these is > more likely. Even so, even the skeptics hope that there is some grain of > truth involved in the claims. > > “I hope they’re right,” Wilk says but he has never been a true believer. > “I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been detected by others in > laboratories or in nature years ago and would be used by now.” As an > wanna-be-believer, I would add that the "solar wind" should be an > undeniable source of hydrinos and should have shown the needed hard > evidence, based on Mills theory, since it has been studied since 1859. You > have to imagine that in the past 27 years, Mills has spent millions on > finding real particles. If not, why not? > > We on this forum have for years been coming to same conclusion as Ritter: > "All the discussions about cold fusion and LENR end this way: They always > come back to the fact that no one has a commercial device on the market > yet, and none of the prototypes seem workable on a commercial scale in the > near future." Plus, the inventors always follow one failed effort with what > looks like a serial scam, a next big disappointment and never let 3rd > parties test any device independently. > > A real product, even if only micro scale or a toy - not a legal proceeding > or massive fund-raising effort, will be the ultimate arbiter of truth... > but isolating dense hydrogen in the solar wind, with the agreement of NASA, > would help immensely. > > Another possible way to confirm - from Dufour's ICCF20 paper is the > iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride. > > This is dense hydrogen, which is attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in > such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT > radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strong
[Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
One of the better articles to appear on the subject of LENR in the context of a valid commercial effort appeared recently in C&EN (which is becoming a top flight science journal) and was picked up by SciAm. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/ Stephen Ritter, the author, relies a lot on his expert Howard J. Wilk , who is an organic chemist, obsessed with Randy Mills’s progress, still trying to decide if the SunCell commercialization effort is real or scam. The situation with Rossi is a little clearer on the negative side, and should be resolved in a few months, at least in its legal aspects, but the idea that Mills could be a more sophisticated con-artist is hard for many to digest. RM has real and impressive academic credentials and other business accomplishments (software)... and "no priors", as Harry Bosch would say. Much of the following is quoted or paraphrased from Ritter's fine article. In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had ever isolated hydrinos, and although Mills had previously written in research papers and patents that he had, Mills replied that he had not. Moreover, it would be “a really, really huge task.” Side note: This is an outright cop-out by Mills - since he was actually showing vials of hydrino compounds as far back as 15 years ago. No matter what his credentials are, Mills has the habit of spreading blatant falsehoods, to a lesser degree than Andrea Rossi, but enough to make one wonder if the same character flaws are not deeply embedded. Almost everyone who has closely followed Mills agrees: If the SunCell generates hydrinos and megawatts, then there has to be demonstrable hard evidence: “Show us the hydrino!” Wilk mentions four possible explanations: Mills’s science is actually correct, [but harder to tame than it should be, possibly missing a single piece of understanding], it’s a complete fraud by a genius with no morals [this could be closer to Rossi], or it’s just simply bad science [providing a lavish livelihood at investor's expense], or it’s what Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called "pathological science"... which is a kind of logical delusion that Langmuir himself suffered from, at times. We could add that a mix of several of these is more likely. Even so, even the skeptics hope that there is some grain of truth involved in the claims. “I hope they’re right,” Wilk says but he has never been a true believer. “I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been detected by others in laboratories or in nature years ago and would be used by now.” As an wanna-be-believer, I would add that the "solar wind" should be an undeniable source of hydrinos and should have shown the needed hard evidence, based on Mills theory, since it has been studied since 1859. You have to imagine that in the past 27 years, Mills has spent millions on finding real particles. If not, why not? We on this forum have for years been coming to same conclusion as Ritter: "All the discussions about cold fusion and LENR end this way: They always come back to the fact that no one has a commercial device on the market yet, and none of the prototypes seem workable on a commercial scale in the near future." Plus, the inventors always follow one failed effort with what looks like a serial scam, a next big disappointment and never let 3rd parties test any device independently. A real product, even if only micro scale or a toy - not a legal proceeding or massive fund-raising effort, will be the ultimate arbiter of truth... but isolating dense hydrogen in the solar wind, with the agreement of NASA, would help immensely. Another possible way to confirm - from Dufour's ICCF20 paper is the iron-55 evidence, the so-called pico-hydride. This is dense hydrogen, which is attached (magnetically?) to iron 54 in such a way that on mass-spec analysis, it looks like 55Fe - but is NOT radioactive. Normal 55Fe is strongly radioactive. This is brilliant ! and could be the smoking gun for dense hydrogen reality, but it does not come from Mills and has a different lineage, so to speak.
