RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
Good time to inject again the 2005 Jan Naudts paper re relativistic hydrogen which if correct means the redundant state is a relativistic perspective induced by surrounding Casimir geometry that restricts the vacuum density. Locally there is no redundant state just Lorentzian contraction and time dilation via warping instead of near C displacement. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere. From: Jeff Driscoll Ø I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth… Well – if you want to believe that Mills got everything right – then that might be true, but I do not buy it due to the litany of failures, glossed over as if they never happened. Another valid perspective is that “America’s genius” missed quite a very of the more important details which explain anomalous heat from hydrogen, and that he did not get everything right. If he had, BLP would not have suffered through the dozens of disappointments over the last 24 years in getting a product to market. He is further away now than ever. An immediate commercial product is something that Parkhamov’s experiment could stimulate this year, assuming it will be quickly replicated… and why not assume that, since it took him only weeks to pull it off. But the main thing that Mills did foresee, and perhaps he deserves the “big prize” for it (once it is proved beyond doubt) - is simply that the electron of a hydrogen atom can become stable in a redundant ground state. Once that is accepted – it implies that ONLY the lowest of these redundant states is going to be the stable end-point, and since this ultimate stable state corresponds to the recent cosmological findings of dark matter – DDL, it all adds up to the possibility that Mills is partly right and partly wrong. Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
I searched a little in the literature about these hydrinos, They seams to originate from the wave operator, people have found them in simple wave equations. Both Maxwell's equations, the Dirac equation etc contains the wave operator. What is interesting is that if you assume that the proton have a spatial distribution, these hydrino states goes away, showing that the DIrac equation does not handle the local area of the protón especially well or is sensitive. I don't know if this result is correct math, but this could indicate that Maxwells equations + nonradiativity is the king because I don't expect the solutions for this system to brake that easy e.g. Mills hydrinos would prevail. This indicates the difference between Dirac and QED compared to Mills and GUTCP. Regards On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Good time to inject again the 2005 Jan Naudts paper re relativistic hydrogen which if correct means the redundant state is a relativistic perspective induced by surrounding Casimir geometry that restricts the vacuum density. Locally there is no redundant state just Lorentzian contraction and time dilation via warping instead of near C displacement. Fran *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 3:50 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere. *From:* Jeff Driscoll Ø I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth… Well – if you want to believe that Mills got everything right – then that might be true, but I do not buy it due to the litany of failures, glossed over as if they never happened. Another valid perspective is that “America’s genius” missed quite a very of the more important details which explain anomalous heat from hydrogen, and that he did not get everything right. If he had, BLP would not have suffered through the dozens of disappointments over the last 24 years in getting a product to market. He is further away now than ever. An immediate commercial product is something that Parkhamov’s experiment could stimulate this year, assuming it will be quickly replicated… and why not assume that, since it took him only weeks to pull it off. But the main thing that Mills did foresee, and perhaps he deserves the “big prize” for it (once it is proved beyond doubt) - is simply that the electron of a hydrogen atom can become stable in a redundant ground state. Once that is accepted – it implies that ONLY the lowest of these redundant states is going to be the stable end-point, and since this ultimate stable state corresponds to the recent cosmological findings of dark matter – DDL, it all adds up to the possibility that Mills is partly right and partly wrong. Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
I searched a little in the litterature about thise hydrinos, They seams to originate from the wave operatores, people have found them in simple wave equations. Both Maxwell's equations, the Dirac equation etc contains it. What is interesting is that if you assume that the proton have a spatial distribution, these hydrino states dissapears, showing that the DIrac equation does not handle the local area of the protón especially well. I don't if this result is correct math, but this shows light on that Maxwells equations are the king if you go close to the proton e.g.. hydrinos On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Good time to inject again the 2005 Jan Naudts paper re relativistic hydrogen which if correct means the redundant state is a relativistic perspective induced by surrounding Casimir geometry that restricts the vacuum density. Locally there is no redundant state just Lorentzian contraction and time dilation via warping instead of near C displacement. Fran *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 3:50 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere. *From:* Jeff Driscoll Ø I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth… Well – if you want to believe that Mills got everything right – then that might be true, but I do not buy it due to the litany of failures, glossed over as if they never happened. Another valid perspective is that “America’s genius” missed quite a very of the more important details which explain anomalous heat from hydrogen, and that he did not get everything right. If he had, BLP would not have suffered through the dozens of disappointments over the last 24 years in getting a product to market. He is further away now than ever. An immediate commercial product is something that Parkhamov’s experiment could stimulate this year, assuming it will be quickly replicated… and why not assume that, since it took him only weeks to pull it off. But the main thing that Mills did foresee, and perhaps he deserves the “big prize” for it (once it is proved beyond doubt) - is simply that the electron of a hydrogen atom can become stable in a redundant ground state. Once that is accepted – it implies that ONLY the lowest of these redundant states is going to be the stable end-point, and since this ultimate stable state corresponds to the recent cosmological findings of dark matter – DDL, it all adds up to the possibility that Mills is partly right and partly wrong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
Hi Lane. It's good to see you are still kicking. I have not done much since the publication of my book. Occasionally I update it, but I consider my work to be done. For sure, there is no money in it. Even with the help of your web page, that attracted thousands of viewers, I still did not sell many books. In economic terms a continuing effort in this area, for me, is fully diminished. I believe we are all there. My latest effort is in writing apps. They can sell them for 99 cents. It has not been easy. I first downloaded the programming module, Ellipse. It was obsolete. Now I upgraded to Android Studio. My computer would not run Android Studio and I had to load a software hardware accelerator. This required getting into the computer's BIOS and manually changing it. Finally, gasp, Android Studio and the cell phone emulator were running on my computer. The next steps proved equally confounding. The Java operating system confuses me. If you want to make something simple like draw circle of radius r; you have to make a code that looks like this: @ overide mycircile extends package In short, I could not get the Java to draw even a simple circle. So then I tried to download the C++ Andriod compiler NDK. Nothing happened to the Android Studio operator's page after the download. C++ is sure not compiling. Darn, I know how to draw a circle in C++. Its involves only one line of code. The Android code comes bundled in several packages. One of them is XML. Yes, you got to do them all to draw a simple circle. It requires about 6 programs and 40 lines of code. XML was a way to encapsulate data. For example, if you had web page that was static and you wanted to add something dynamic like today's temperate; you would have the server send the temperature to the web page bundled in an XML data file. A Java Script in the HTML page would pull in the XML data and display it within the static web page. Android XML does not carry data. It displays a static view similar to HTML. There is not way to send data to the android XML. I am so confounded that I am ready to give up. The next time I see those little Androids riding on the buss, I will know that they are crazy mad. Good work Lane and commend you for your perseverance. For now, I gave up. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Lane Davis seattle.tr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 11:02 pm Subject: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere. I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane
RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
Nice work Jeff, You have made Mills more accessible, but I’m not sure he would agree with everything that you have done here, due to the implications. This is also very similar to what Michaud is showing – with the huge emphasis on 511 keV value, which permeates the entire field of LENR… kinda’ like the smile of the Cheshire cat… and it is all tied into Hotson/Dirac and the epo field. And although you state: the “Transition State Orbitsphere” (TSO) is created at orbit state n= alpha = 1/137.036 (i.e. FSC or fine structure constant … where matter and energy are indistinguishable by any physical property” according to [Mills] … yet, for some strange reason you stop there, instead of actually identifying and analyzing that precise mass-energy state as being relevant in itself – such as the end product of “shrinkage”. To cut to the chase, when you multiply this fundamental value of electron or positron mass (511 keV) by alpha (along with a relativistic correction) the result is essentially the same as the mass-energy signature of the DDL – which is equivalent to dark matter (and is unlike Mills’ actual prediction). The actual value as it is showing in dozens of cosmological papers, appears to be 3.56 keV as opposed to 3.73 keV, which difference is the relativistic correction. Are you unaware of the cosmology papers behind this? They can only serve to boost your case. If this 3.56 keV value is indeed the end of the road for ground state hydrogen redundancy, then it should be the most important value in all of physics, since it would explain dark matter as an isomer of hydrogen – which is most of the mass of the visible Universe, so why not most of the mass of the invisible? … yet everyone in LENR appears to be avoiding cosmology like the plague. I hope that is not because it goes back to Dirac and not to Mills, but of course – the similarity could all be a “coincidence”. Yet, since this particular value is the hottest topic in cosmology these days, it is a mystery why observers here on vortex avoid connecting real observation in another field with theory - to explain LENR as the energetic creation of dark matter, and not a nuclear reaction. In the eyes of the mainstream, if the 3.56 keV x-ray is verified in experiment, the field could change almost overnight from “pathological” to “cutting edge”… From: Jeff Driscoll take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar to what you did: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf this comes from the summary of pair production on this page http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production the website is a wikia for Blacklight Power's theory, On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Lane Davis seattle.tr...@gmail.com wrote: I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Nice work Jeff, You have made Mills more accessible, but I’m not sure he would agree with everything that you have done here, due to the implications. This is also very similar to what Michaud is showing – with the huge emphasis on 511 keV value, which permeates the entire field of LENR… kinda’ like the smile of the Cheshire cat… and it is all tied into Hotson/Dirac and the epo field. And although you state: the “Transition State Orbitsphere” (TSO) is created at orbit state n= alpha = 1/137.036 (i.e. FSC or fine structure constant … where matter and energy are indistinguishable by any physical property” according to [Mills] … yet, for some strange reason you stop there, instead of actually identifying and analyzing that precise mass-energy state as being relevant in itself – such as the end product of “shrinkage”. As far as I can tell, based on GUTCP, n = 1/137 (but *not* n = 1/137.035999) would be the theoretical *stable* atom end product of hydrogen shrinkage. A hydrogen atom at orbit state n = 1/137 has an angular momentum that is exactly equal to hbar (the reduced Planck constant which has units of angular momentum). All electron stable circular orbits for a hydrogen atom have hbar of angular momentum and is a requirement of GUTCP. I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth. There is no clean neat calculation to get from say, n = 1 (or for that matter n = 1/4) to n = 1/137.035999. But there are nice neat calculations to get from n = 1 to n = 1/137 based on the same postulates and rules (at the same time there is data and experiment to back up the rules, such as conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy). The best example of this is to look at the correspondence principle write up that I put in Section 4, page 85 of http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf (if the link changes, which it does if I update the pdf, then click on summary here) http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production Every fractional orbit state drop creates a photon that perfectly follows classical rules. Dropping to n = 1/137.035999 would release a photon that didn't fit into the correspondence principle. So it's easier to think of n = 1/137.035999 as the birth of the electron - at least in terms of nice neat calculations. If an electron does shrink to n = 1/137.035999 then it needs some messy process (with no precise formula that has, for example, part per thousand of accuracy) of releasing energy to get there .. but I assume it could happen when atoms bounce around at high velocities so that it could give up this tiny remainder of energy (the portion in the decimal of 1/137.035999). To cut to the chase, when you multiply this fundamental value of electron or positron mass (511 keV) by alpha (along with a relativistic correction) the result is essentially the same as the mass-energy signature of the DDL – which is equivalent to dark matter (and is unlike Mills’ actual prediction). The actual value as it is showing in dozens of cosmological papers, appears to be 3.56 keV as opposed to 3.73 keV, which difference is the relativistic correction. Are you unaware of the cosmology papers behind this? They can only serve to boost your case. As far as I know, the 3.5 keV bump that the comologists measure is not a sharp line, and if it is real and based on hydrino shrinkage, then it is a continuum photon with a range of frequencies with a cut off of a photon having 3.5 keV. I don't focus on it because there are too many inaccuracies of measuring the cutoff frequency - it's too imprecise. If this 3.56 keV value is indeed the end of the road for ground state hydrogen redundancy, then it should be the most important value in all of physics, since it would explain dark matter as an isomer of hydrogen – which is most of the mass of the visible Universe, so why not most of the mass of the invisible? … yet everyone in LENR appears to be avoiding cosmology like the plague. I hope that is not because it goes back to Dirac and not to Mills, but of course – the similarity could all be a “coincidence”. Yet, since this particular value is the hottest topic in cosmology these days, it is a mystery why observers here on vortex avoid connecting real observation in another field with theory - to explain LENR as the energetic creation of dark matter, and not a nuclear reaction. In the eyes of the mainstream, if the 3.56 keV x-ray is verified in experiment, the field could change almost overnight from “pathological” to “cutting edge”… *From:* Jeff Driscoll take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar to what you
RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
From: Jeff Driscoll Ø I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth… Well – if you want to believe that Mills got everything right – then that might be true, but I do not buy it due to the litany of failures, glossed over as if they never happened. Another valid perspective is that “America’s genius” missed quite a very of the more important details which explain anomalous heat from hydrogen, and that he did not get everything right. If he had, BLP would not have suffered through the dozens of disappointments over the last 24 years in getting a product to market. He is further away now than ever. An immediate commercial product is something that Parkhamov’s experiment could stimulate this year, assuming it will be quickly replicated… and why not assume that, since it took him only weeks to pull it off. But the main thing that Mills did foresee, and perhaps he deserves the “big prize” for it (once it is proved beyond doubt) - is simply that the electron of a hydrogen atom can become stable in a redundant ground state. Once that is accepted – it implies that ONLY the lowest of these redundant states is going to be the stable end-point, and since this ultimate stable state corresponds to the recent cosmological findings of dark matter – DDL, it all adds up to the possibility that Mills is partly right and partly wrong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar to what you did: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf this comes from the summary of pair production on this page http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production the website is a wikia for Blacklight Power's theory, On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Lane Davis seattle.tr...@gmail.com wrote: I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
[Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane
