RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
I do not doubt that when a commercial BLP device emerges, there will be a firestorm of criticism that may be greater than what followed the FP Effect. Among others, Underwriters Laboratories will be involved, and they will demand a full understanding of anything as radical as BLP. The LENR community can produce modest excess heat but has not yet compiled a coherent understanding comparable to Mills' GUTCP. Nothing of benefit to mankind will happen until a new energy source is replicated a million fold. Such will require corporate muscle on a large scale. The first CEO to sign up will be a brave man. *It is essential that investors and management trust that BLP can bail them out if things go sour, which is likely* It is not a game for enthusiasts. Only history will sort out the pieces of the new reality which is emerging Mike Carrell From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino From: Mike Carrell First, BLP is *chemistry*, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. This is Mike's opinion, and he has followed BLP as long as any of us. However, it is not fact. Remember that early on, Mills himself reported tritium. For many of us - it is illogical to think that similar experiments done with hydrogen, one done by Mills and another by Piantelli - will not have similar results; and/or that Mills can magically ordain that LENR and low level transmutation or tritium will not happen in circumstance where it is known to happen. Personally, it is my belief that BLP will eventually be shown to be chemistry which precedes and sets the stage for LENR . aka CANR and that most of the energy comes from LENR. Now that cell phones can be equipped as radiation monitors, it will be almost impossible for Mills to continue to hide the fact that his devices can produce nuclear reactions, even if the rate is tiny. Will guards check every cell phone on the 28th? At some point, when an actual product is near - even industrial customers (or their liability insurer) will demand to know the complete truth. The longer BLP waits to come clean with the facts, the worse will be the repercussions. I guess you can that this will be when the CIHT hits the fan J Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
I agree Mike, and what you say also applies to LENR. The difference is that BLP has kept the study localized in his company while LENR is the wild West, where all kinds of crazy claims are being made about what can be achieved and how the process can be explained. Mills has raised money to study the basic process while money for LENR goes to making a working device. I see no hope for LENR as long as this approach is taken. Meanwhile, I think Mills has actually initiated nuclear reactions he is keeping secret for obvious reasons. Ed Storms On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Mike Carrell wrote: I do not doubt that when a commercial BLP device emerges, there will be a firestorm of criticism that may be greater than what followed the FP Effect. Among others, Underwriters Laboratories will be involved, and they will demand a full understanding of anything as radical as BLP. The LENR community can produce modest excess heat but has not yet compiled a coherent understanding comparable to Mills’ GUTCP. Nothing of benefit to mankind will happen until a new energy source is replicated a million fold. Such will require corporate muscle on a large scale. The first CEO to sign up will be a brave man. *It is essential that investors and management trust that BLP can bail them out if things go sour, which is likely* It is not a game for enthusiasts. Only history will sort out the pieces of the new reality which is emerging Mike Carrell From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino From: Mike Carrell First, BLP is *chemistry*, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. This is Mike’s opinion, and he has followed BLP as long as any of us. However, it is not fact. Remember that early on, Mills himself reported tritium. For many of us - it is illogical to think that similar experiments done with hydrogen, one done by Mills and another by Piantelli - will not have similar results; and/or that Mills can magically ordain that LENR and low level transmutation or tritium will not happen in circumstance where it is known to happen. Personally, it is my belief that BLP will eventually be shown to be “chemistry which precedes and sets the stage for LENR” … aka CANR and that most of the energy comes from LENR. Now that cell phones can be equipped as radiation monitors, it will be almost impossible for Mills to continue to hide the fact that his devices can produce nuclear reactions, even if the rate is tiny. Will guards check every cell phone on the 28th? At some point, when an actual product is near – even industrial customers (or their liability insurer) will demand to know the complete truth. The longer BLP waits to come clean with the facts, the worse will be the repercussions. I guess you can that this will be when the CIHT hits the fan J Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
The speed and quality of system's development of the nascent competing LENR (Mills included) reactor designs will be intimately related to the amount of validity inherent in the content of the underlying theory the underpins each reaction. So let the completion of ideas begin. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I do not doubt that when a commercial BLP device emerges, there will be a firestorm of criticism that may be greater than what followed the FP Effect. Among others, Underwriters Laboratories will be involved, and they will demand a full understanding of anything as radical as BLP. The LENR community can produce modest excess heat but has not yet compiled a coherent understanding comparable to Mills’ GUTCP. Nothing of benefit to mankind will happen until a new energy source is replicated a million fold. Such will require corporate muscle on a large scale. The first CEO to sign up will be a brave man. **It is essential that investors and management trust that BLP can bail them out if things go sour, which is likely** It is not a game for enthusiasts. Only history will sort out the pieces of the new reality which is emerging Mike Carrell *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:21 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino *From:* Mike Carrell First, BLP is **chemistry**, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. This is Mike’s opinion, and he has followed BLP as long as any of us. However, it is not fact. Remember that early on, Mills himself reported tritium. For many of us - it is illogical to think that similar experiments done with hydrogen, one done by Mills and another by Piantelli - will not have similar results; and/or that Mills can magically ordain that LENR and low level transmutation or tritium will not happen in circumstance where it is known to happen. Personally, it is my belief that BLP will eventually be shown to be “chemistry which precedes and sets the stage for LENR” … aka CANR and that most of the energy comes from LENR. Now that cell phones can be equipped as radiation monitors, it will be almost impossible for Mills to continue to hide the fact that his devices can produce nuclear reactions, even if the rate is tiny. Will guards check every cell phone on the 28th? At some point, when an actual product is near – even industrial customers (or their liability insurer) will demand to know the complete truth. The longer BLP waits to come clean with the facts, the worse will be the repercussions. I guess you can that this will be when the CIHT hits the fan J Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
Agreed the important thing is getting enough control of the phenomenon -- at whatever level of economic viability -- that one can conduct controlled experiments to put to the test the infinite variety of confabulated theories to which we have been subjected by the know-it-alls be they in the skeptopath community with their confabulated experimental errors or the cold fusion community with their asserted-as-fact physics-babble. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I agree Mike, and what you say also applies to LENR. The difference is that BLP has kept the study localized in his company while LENR is the wild West, where all kinds of crazy claims are being made about what can be achieved and how the process can be explained. Mills has raised money to study the basic process while money for LENR goes to making a working device. I see no hope for LENR as long as this approach is taken. Meanwhile, I think Mills has actually initiated nuclear reactions he is keeping secret for obvious reasons. Ed Storms On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Mike Carrell wrote: I do not doubt that when a commercial BLP device emerges, there will be a firestorm of criticism that may be greater than what followed the FP Effect. Among others, Underwriters Laboratories will be involved, and they will demand a full understanding of anything as radical as BLP. The LENR community can produce modest excess heat but has not yet compiled a coherent understanding comparable to Mills' GUTCP. Nothing of benefit to mankind will happen until a new energy source is replicated a million fold. Such will require corporate muscle on a large scale. The first CEO to sign up will be a brave man. **It is essential that investors and management trust that BLP can bail them out if things go sour, which is likely** It is not a game for enthusiasts. Only history will sort out the pieces of the new reality which is emerging Mike Carrell *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:21 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino *From:* Mike Carrell First, BLP is **chemistry**, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. This is Mike's opinion, and he has followed BLP as long as any of us. However, it is not fact. Remember that early on, Mills himself reported tritium. For many of us - it is illogical to think that similar experiments done with hydrogen, one done by Mills and another by Piantelli - will not have similar results; and/or that Mills can magically ordain that LENR and low level transmutation or tritium will not happen in circumstance where it is known to happen. Personally, it is my belief that BLP will eventually be shown to be chemistry which precedes and sets the stage for LENR ... aka CANR and that most of the energy comes from LENR. Now that cell phones can be equipped as radiation monitors, it will be almost impossible for Mills to continue to hide the fact that his devices can produce nuclear reactions, even if the rate is tiny. Will guards check every cell phone on the 28th? At some point, when an actual product is near - even industrial customers (or their liability insurer) will demand to know the complete truth. The longer BLP waits to come clean with the facts, the worse will be the repercussions. I guess you can that this will be when the CIHT hits the fan J Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
The Hydrino Study Group was a group of Mills supporters who spent many years trying to understand his math and eventually closed down without reaching any sort of resolution (except converting most of them to skeptics). BLP spun out a separate company to license Mills revolutionary molecular modelling software (http://www.millsian.com/) but that also closed down. And how is Mills doing with the cure for cancer that he published in 1988? (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v336/n6201/abs/336787a0.html) BLP is the scientific equivalent of the Oak Island Money Pit. On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
have you looked at my website? I describe many details of Mills's theory: http://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. He is a brilliant thinker, yet the great disappointment in Mills (from most of us on this forum) has been in is his failure to deliver, as an experimentalist. He has not lived up to his claims and there is a level of dishonesty which shows through. IOW his theory does not make predictions which have led to real devices, at least not in the past but he insists that they have. For instance, there was an early charge of plagiarism in the first versions of the theory, but it was in details which were not greatly relevant. In fact, it was bulk plagiarism of the cut-and-paste variety - and it was quickly removed from later versions. However, the most telling historical issue for me in the Mills story is that several of his early co-authors, all PhDs - moved on to other jobs, often lesser paying jobs in Academia. That would be unheard of in a situation where the staff really thought that a major breakthrough in Physics was eminent. I think that they were disillusioned about the growing gap between what was on paper in the theory - and what was turning up in the Laboratory. I have not the least doubt that Mills experiments have resulted in radioactive ash, and that he has hidden this from the public, and the RD staff was sworn to silence. Finding even tiny amounts of radioactive ash is absolutely devastating to Mills in the IP arena. It can, and will, cost him millions, possibly billions . and he has dug himself into a hole on the issue - since it keeps him from actual 3rd party independent testing without incredible NDAs. There is not a single true replication of his work without these restrictions. The fractional hydrogen redundancy reaction can be described as one which is a predecessor state to LENR, in my estimation - and Mills is powerless to do anything to change that basic fact - other than to hide it, since it kills his IP. This kind of thing really turns off young PhDs who want to dig for the whole truth. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it’s that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
I think Axil is correct, it is the initial energy burst energizing the surrounding vacuum component. I perceive dark/vacuum energy to ionize oxygen in the atmosphere to (O--) (or dissolved in water) and as dark energy decays to protons (2H+) it forms nascent H2O. It appears to me 3-5 megawatts of pulsed microwave radar power from 4-7 Doppler microwave radar towers is enough to trigger shallow Earthquakes, many of which sound like sonic booms to observers around Oklahoma City where they have had over 1000 small seismic events over the past 3 years and they have 7-9 overlapping Doppler weather radars(most anywhere I have seen in the US) On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it’s that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
Hmm, Actually I'm not entirely after hydrinos, it's the mathematical tool that Mill's developed that interests me. What if you can use that math to prove LENR? He does use an elegant way to calculate a lot of chemestry, why not apply it to condensed matter? /Stefan On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it’s that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
Have you considered setting up a sage calculation sheet on a webserver with formulas and equations easy verifiable in the sheet, that would be impressive way to show that the math works and could be a nice companion to the actual textbook. /Stefan On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: have you looked at my website? I describe many details of Mills's theory: http://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
The correct approach to Mills' work is t download a free copy of Vol.1, put on your student hat, and dig in. As Tampe wrote, it is amazing. There is a good introduction, and an orderly development of his theoretical work. Hydrinos are a useful application, but not the core of his work. Dark Matter is a puzzle to cosmology to which hydrino production in nature may hold a clue. The key chemistry of SF-CIHT is spelled out in the paper Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst on the website. Study that. Mike Carrell From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino I think Axil is correct, it is the initial energy burst energizing the surrounding vacuum component. I perceive dark/vacuum energy to ionize oxygen in the atmosphere to (O--) (or dissolved in water) and as dark energy decays to protons (2H+) it forms nascent H2O. It appears to me 3-5 megawatts of pulsed microwave radar power from 4-7 Doppler microwave radar towers is enough to trigger shallow Earthquakes, many of which sound like sonic booms to observers around Oklahoma City where they have had over 1000 small seismic events over the past 3 years and they have 7-9 overlapping Doppler weather radars(most anywhere I have seen in the US) On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it's that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
First, BLP is *chemistry*, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. Work in both fields centers on energy production from reactions which are not mainstream science. Hydrino 'little hydrogen' is a term coined by Mills to designate hydrogen atoms where the electron orbital radius has been reduced by a catalytic reaction predicted and confirmed by Mills. The physical existence of the hydrino state has been confirmed by many tests. LENR research has centered on deuterium, which is chemically hydrogen, with a neutron+proton in the nucleus. The FP Effect produced 'excess heat' of a magnitude the Fleishmann suggested must be of nuclear origin. It happens that Mills has found that hydrogen itself can autocatalyze, producing hydrinos and releasing anomalous energy, under certain conditions which can be found in electrolytic cells. [this is my personal conclusion, not claimed by Mills]. Thus there can be confusion,, but LENR and BLP are distinctly separate fields. In a larger sense, the subject of physics is due for a major overhaul, with LENR chewing on one side and BLP chewing on another. Mills' GUTCP is a monumental work whichmay be a landmark on the path forward. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:33 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it's that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
From: Mike Carrell First, BLP is *chemistry*, dealing with electrons, not nuclei, which is the province of LENR. This is Mike's opinion, and he has followed BLP as long as any of us. However, it is not fact. Remember that early on, Mills himself reported tritium. For many of us - it is illogical to think that similar experiments done with hydrogen, one done by Mills and another by Piantelli - will not have similar results; and/or that Mills can magically ordain that LENR and low level transmutation or tritium will not happen in circumstance where it is known to happen. Personally, it is my belief that BLP will eventually be shown to be chemistry which precedes and sets the stage for LENR . aka CANR and that most of the energy comes from LENR. Now that cell phones can be equipped as radiation monitors, it will be almost impossible for Mills to continue to hide the fact that his devices can produce nuclear reactions, even if the rate is tiny. Will guards check every cell phone on the 28th? At some point, when an actual product is near - even industrial customers (or their liability insurer) will demand to know the complete truth. The longer BLP waits to come clean with the facts, the worse will be the repercussions. I guess you can that this will be when the CIHT hits the fan :-) Jones
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
A very good question. Realize that Mills magnum opus, GUTCP is *classical physics*, not quantum physics now fashionable in physics circles. He claims a consistent system of mathematics over 85 orders of magnitude. He has applied the 'orbitsphere' reasoning to nuclei, but has not published much in that direction. Read carefully the introductory pages of Vol.1, where he discussed quantum mechanics in relation to GUTCP. For many reasons, Mills wants no association with LENR at the present time even as some members of the LENR community insist that BLP is really LENR, which it not. Mike Carrell From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino Hmm, Actually I'm not entirely after hydrinos, it's the mathematical tool that Mill's developed that interests me. What if you can use that math to prove LENR? He does use an elegant way to calculate a lot of chemestry, why not apply it to condensed matter? /Stefan On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser. So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not is some special form of hydrogen. I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed. This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only the spark, it's that plain and simple. A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino
The proper study of Mills is Mills. Jeff has done notable homework, but in the Technical Presentation found on the website there are summary tables of atomic constants calculated by Mills using classical physics, compared with accepted laboratory measurements. Mills' calculations are accurate to the limits of measurement. Such is a stunning achievement. Mills' calculations use only known, measured physical constants, unlike QM, which is b basically a method of calculation with parameters adjusted for each case [in college, this was called fudging]. Mills does not give derivations for each case, just the result. His calculations are verified by an external mathematician. Mike Carrell From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino Have you considered setting up a sage calculation sheet on a webserver with formulas and equations easy verifiable in the sheet, that would be impressive way to show that the math works and could be a nice companion to the actual textbook. /Stefan On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: have you looked at my website? I describe many details of Mills's theory: http://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty amazed. Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more elegant. One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not integrable in QED although probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close together and act in a precise way in order to mediate the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry. In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes. They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors. Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino. /Stefan -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
