Estimation of Theories, Applied to the LENR Field, and Others?

The following post has been submitted by RicalWikis

In the report about IWAHLM 2017, David J. Nagel questions LENR theoreticians about the completion of their theories.

This questioning seems excellent.
This questioning seems also valid for any other theories.
What could happen if we question present theories through the David J. Nagel questions?

1. How is your theory connected to LENR?
2. What is the key idea or concept of your theory?
3. What is (are) the foundation(s) of your concept?
4. Does your mechanism involve only one step or more than one step?
5. Are the equations that embody your concept written out?
6. If the equations are available, have they been evaluated, that is, reduced to numbers?
7. What time histories and reaction rates are (quantitatively) predicted?
8. How does your mechanism involve or relate to experimental observations?

Electromagnetic theory and relativity seem to answer all questions.

But the current Quantic theory, which classifies particles and calculates their energies, does not respond to the characteristics of the impulse in local systems, initial and final, when a jump occurs. On this point, Randell Mills’s GUT-CP theory seems to be better.

Perhaps, GUT-CP theory could help LENR partial theories, or even the future LENR theory.

See the report about IWAHLM 2017, p 44, at http://www.iscmns.org/work12/

PDF of Nagel’s Presentation is below:
NagelDexpectationsof

  • Zephir
  • Axil Axil

    Polaritons are not active in LENR unless they are transformed using the KERR effect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect

    The polariton has a finite lifetime. Without constant reactivation, the LENR reaction that the polariton generates will stop.

    Fulvio Fabiani, Rossi’s assistant states:

    “We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive.”

    Those balls of light are polariton BECs that are the active agent in the Rossi LENR reaction. Here is how those balls are created and how they are destroyed. The first aspect of the proposed explanation comes from Rossi’s patent, where he describes a set of electrodes that produce an electric field of between 50,000 and 100,000 volts. Rossi is placing his reaction under the influence of a very high electric field. The idea is that an electrostatic field activates these balls of light. The EMF field changes the nature of the magnetism produced by the polaritons into an anisotropic magnetic field. This type of magnetic field is the key to the LENR reaction.

    The polariton condensate must be under the influence of a constant high potential electrostatic field (KERR effect) to be LENR capable over the long term. When this EMF field is removed, the LENR reaction stops.

    In certain systems, this activating EMF field is self-generating. The SunCell for example produces a self-sustaining plasma that can maintain itself using a self-generated plasma based EMF field that lasts for minutes on end, without the need for a controlling externally powered EMF field. Rossi’s reactors have gone into the plasma state during a meltdown and the self-generating plasma based EMF field maintains the meltdown until the hydrogen is vented.

  • Axil Axil

    Hi Pie

    I have revised and extended my ideas on the details of the LENR reaction, the ideas a not all fit together the way I would like: but see as follows:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/14/the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr-axil-axil/

    Also

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.05264

    Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates

    There is a kind of Bose condensation that can exist at any temperature and applies to polaritons.

    To draw an analogy, consider an array of funnels that are each being filled at a different rate. But the funnels are entangled in a condensate. These funnels are losing liquid at the same rate but are being filled at different rates. We would expect that there would be some funnels that would overflow, but all the funnels maintain the same liquid level. All the funnels share liquid between each other to maintain the same level of fluid. The liquid that would have overflowed is shared between the funnels through and entangled liquid transfer interface. Any funnel that has a low level of liquid input would maintain its level through the additional entangled transfer of liquid with and between other funnels with a more that average liquid filling rates.

    This is how a collection of “N” polaritons act like one huge single polariton with N members. This huge single polariton can store a huge amount of energy in its condensate. It can absorb a huge amount of energy (super-absorption) but most importantly, any single polariton can access all the energy stored in the condensate (super-radiance) and can use that energy to disrupt nuclear functions in a single nucleus.

    This Bose condensate condition can exist at ANY temperature and depends only on the special nature of polaritons to exist.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The table is so precise it never sees the cellotape

    We did use carbon tape for Parkhomov testing which will be the subject of a different post.

  • Axil Axil

    Loading palladium with hydrogen trapped in the lattice near the surface induces high pressure conditions in the hydrogen aggregation.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Holmlid/publication/228623342/figure/fig1/AS:302067659886592@1449029950157/Fig-1-Color-online-Cluster-with-more-than-100-hydrogen-atoms-squeezed-in-palladium.png

    The palladium lattice compresses the hydrogen to such a high degree that the hydrogen becomes metallic. Metallic hydrogen is superconductive as a result of HOLE superconductivity as per the theory of Jorge Eduardo Hirsch. Dr George Miley has shown in experiments via direct measurement that these hydrogen inclusions are superconductive.

    In siting Dr Hirsch, Dr Leif Holmlid has shown that the outer electron shell that coats the positively charged core of the metallic hydrogen nanoparticle forms a spin wave where polaritons readily form due to the superconductive nature of the structure of the metallic hydrogen.

    These metallic hydrogen nanoparticles are expelled from the surface of the palladium and act to catalyze the LENR reaction in the same fashion as has been observed by Holmlid.

  • Axil Axil

    https://phys.org/news/2016-05-scanning-skyrmions-scientists-image-skyrmion.html

    Scanning for skyrmions: Scientists directly image skyrmion cluster state transitions in iron-germanium nanodisks

    https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/variationsof.jpg

    The key to LENR is twisting magnetic field lines to form magnetic knots. This magnetic field line twisting produces magnetic particles called instantons that cause particles to decay. A material called a cubic helimagnet can do this trick.

  • cashmemorz

    Imagine what we would have if we had theory that is all correct instead of 10 percent correct.

  • Axil Axil

    Accelerated transmutations applies only in the LENR environment where Bose condinsation markedly changes the action of the weak force. This never occurs in the ordinary course of events.

  • LION
  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi all, need some weaponised autism on our ECCO sample MALDI data

    https://steemit.com/blog/@mfmp/ecco-analysis-of-reactor-and-fuel-components-showing-unexpected-elements

    Particularly on figuring out how to simulate the observed data with waited adducts, something that I have yet to be able to do in mMass.

  • cashmemorz

    I don’t want to sound like a wet blanket, but there are many things to say of how physics is conducted lately. In support of quantum mechanics there are many phenomena that are used. I will take an easy to do experiment that a high schooler can do. The double slit and its production of a pattern of dark and light bars. When first looked at, one tries to use the Standard Model of how matter and waves behave. That is understandable, since that is a main tool that is seen as being available for interpreting phenomena. Accordingly, those bars seem to imply an interference pattern caused by waves. What few take into consideration is that similar patterns can be understood as fringes. Similar to what is seen on a CD, when light reflects off the tracks laid down on the surface as data for reading by a light sensor. The colored pattern seen there is a fringe pattern. No interference just bands of different frequencies of light. The same thing happens in the DS experiment. The size of the slit width have to be on a comparable scale with that of waves or particles of light. It is the scale of the slits that allows the pattern of fringes to be produced. As a photon enters a slit, by being on a small enough scale, the material of the slit is excited by the entering photon. The excitment occurs on the atomic level to produce a secondary photon that travels to the surface where the fringes develope. Depending on the momentum of the produced photon, it preferentially travels in a direction that is a complementary angle to the direction of the second slit’s secondary photon. The complementary angle is a natural product of the original photon source being halfway between the two slits. The momentum of the photon excited by the original photon is what decides the direction the secondary photon goes in order to preserve momentum. Over a large number of photons, the momentum and direction of travel averages out to be similar from both slits as complentary to each other in conservation of momentum and angle. The point of preserving momentum is not as easily considered as the wave nature of light and its ability to interefere with similar sized waves. That is why quantum physics has been used so long. QM seems to be the easier way of starting out to make an interpretation. But in the long run it just makes things too complicated. Then the difficulties compound as attempts to answer why there are difficulties with QM. So we end up with particles being in many places at once, many worlds to take care of that and on and on in ever more compex explanations similar to what happens when one starts off with a lie. The next explanation has to cover ones tracks in ever more compounding errors or lies. It is better to look for the better, not easier or accepted expalantion at the beginning, rather than try to fix the compounded errors later on, when everyone loses track of what exactly led to the predicament.

  • Axil Axil

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184

    Topological, non-topological and instanton droplets driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction

    This article explains how a unbalanced magnetic field can produce an instanton.

  • Axil Axil

    The experiment presented below shows that an anisotropic magnetic field generated by a rare earth magnet produces a vortex configuration that tends to kink. This kinking will result in the formation of an instanton(s) or physioparticle(s) inside the proton that will add fractional charge to the quarks inside the proton.

    LENR experiments using rare earth magnetic particles have been shown to produce excess heat as follows.

    See post: “Anisotropic Magnets Produce the LENR Reaction”

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/09/anisotropic-magnets-produce-the-lenr-reaction-axil-axil/

    https://youtu.be/UIlijUSJMmg

  • Axil Axil

    The Standard model (SM) has predictions that have not been realized. Since matter in the universe exists, conservation of Byron number(B) and lepton number(L) must not have applies at some point in the evolution of the universe. If B and L were always conserved, than matter and antimatter would have canceled themselves out into energy thereby destroying all matter in the universe. But in the latest epoch of the universe, these two conservation laws seem to apply absolutely. The conclusion is that something is wrong with the SM and the universe in general.

    There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.
    GUT Baryogenesis under Sakharov conditions

    In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries of the cosmic background radiation and CP-violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary “Sakharov conditions” are:

    • Baryon number B violation.
    • C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.
    • Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.

    Baryon number violation is obviously a necessary condition to produce an excess of baryons over anti-baryons. But C-symmetry violation is also needed so that the interactions which produce more baryons than anti-baryons will not be counterbalanced by interactions which produce more anti-baryons than baryons. CP-symmetry violation is similarly required because otherwise equal numbers of left-handed baryons and right-handed anti-baryons would be produced, as well as equal numbers of left-handed anti-baryons and right-handed baryons. Finally, the interactions must be out of thermal equilibrium, since otherwise CPT symmetry would assure compensation between processes increasing and decreasing the baryon number.

    There is a condition where CPT symmetry can be violated so that B and L conservation is violates. These are called the electroweak sphaleron anomaly at high energies and temperatures.

    A sphaleron is similar to the midpoint of the instanton, so it is non-perturbative. An instanton is a tangling of force lines that resolve into a creation of a pseudoparticle. This means that under normal conditions sphalerons are unobservably rare. However, they would have been more common when unusual conditions appear in the forces that existed during matter formation in the early universe.

    Such instantons have appeared in during the Factional Quantum Hall Effect where a magnetic field creates two fractionally charged pseudoparticles.

    To simplify things, there are conditions where a magnetic field can get tangled up inside a proton so that it decays into kaons.

    I produced a post to explain how this happens here.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/14/the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr-axil-axil/

    • Chapman

      I believe the Baryon Symmetry issue will be resolved when we further unravel the Preon hierarchy.

      The most logical solution is that there is a physical attribute that makes those Planck particles that have a “positive” fundamental charge the ones that serve as seeds for larger particle accretion, while solitary “negative” Planck particles remain isolated, and manifest as electrons.

      It only requires this single property to account for the apparent disparity between the populations of Matter and Anti-matter we observe. At the lowest level, the universe would always contain the exact same number of electrons and positrons, but the disproportionate majority of the positrons are locked in the heart of quarks.

      All speculation about on the matter is pointless, and all theories regarding it are nothing more than thoughtful daydreams, until we learn more about what lies beneath the Quark. But fixating on obviously flawed QM and SM dogmas will only hinder the next generation of discoveries we are seeking.

      • Axil Axil

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/14/the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr-axil-axil/
        You should have read my post on complex number based quantum mechanics. This type of QM is what describes how LENR works in an open system.

        • Chapman

          I did.
          That is why I have this pounding migraine.

          And yet I still do not get what the Riemann hypothesis has to do with Proton Decay.

          I think one of the reasons I have always given you a hard time, aside from the “BEC-under-every-bed thing”, is that your writing seems almost INTENTIONALLY convoluted. I respect the fact that you are well informed, and likely posses a deeper understanding of things physical than myself, but your posts are so jamb packed full of every imaginable jargon, catch phrase, and abstract reference, that I can not actually connect the dots most of the time to see the picture you are trying to draw.

          That Proton Decay article is a prime example. Ditch all the jargon and babbling gobbledygook, and just say what you are thinking in simple, clear language. I suspect that most of the things you have TRIED to say would have impressed the heck out of me, and left me in awe of your superior intellect, but even when I see a shadow of a really good idea you are trying to convey, it is most often lost in a cacophony of static noise.

          Please – Please – Please, do not think I am trying to insult you. I really WANT to get what you are saying. I fully acknowledge the value of your insights, and I want to absorb that knowledge for totally selfish reasons.

          Now, I am not a professional physicist. Heck, I am just a cemetery grounds-keeper with a GED and a correspondence certificate in Urbane Gardening, but I am intelligent enough to follow the writings of Einstein and Hawking with some understanding, so I am not a total illiterate.

          If Hawking, confined to his wheelchair and using a see-and-say to communicate, can write “A Brief History of Time” and explain General Relativity, Space Warping, and Black Holes in simple enough language for junior high school kids to master, then why can’t you find a way to explain your idea about protons decaying in language I can follow?

          • Axil Axil

            The key concept behind how a proton breaks apart is symmetry breaking. Symmetry breaking happens when water turns to ice or to steam. Magnetism can change its nature through symmetry breaking. Magnetism has two poles, north and south. But when symmetry breaking happen in magnetism, that magnetism becomes special. When Rossi or ME356 applies the “stimulus” to the LENR reaction, magnetism becomes that special kind that can break the proton apart.

            The math behind the Riemann hypothesis as applied to quantum mechanics produces a special kind of quantum mechanics that can produce this symmetry breaking in magnetism. The process is similar to how the Higgs field gives mass to matter and involves the Mexican hat potential.

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Halo_Abdulkhalaq/publication/268981897/figure/download/fig4/AS:295526324031492@1447470374623/Fig-5-Higgs-potential-and-its-non-zero-vacuum-expectation-value.png

            You will see the Mexican hat potential at 20 into this video about symmetry breaking

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bSFj2vwPOQ

            • Chapman

              OK, we are definitely getting closer.

              I will make one general comment, and ask one follow up question.

              Comment:
              I am not an advanced mathematician. But I do know that many of the existing publicized math challenges are strictly disciplinary issues within mathematics, that have NO relative application in the real world.

              For instance, many presented anomalous or fantastic relationships are ONLY present in a base 10 system. When re-interpreted in, say, octal, binary, or even our old friend hexadecimal, the issues disappear. This is a dead give away that it is not a view into some hidden secret of the universe, but just a quark of math itself.

              In addition, many OTHER bizarre mathematical outcomes are clearly due to limitations of MATH, as a human construction. Specifically, it is well understood that our current evolution of mathematics is simply unable to cope effectively with infinities. This issue closely resembles the problems Newton faced with the evolution at HIS time, in that there was no way for math to handle certain functions necessary to handle instantaneous values on a curve. An object falling 100 feet CLEARLY has some level of velocity at all points during its fall, but since speed is a function of distance over time, and at any precise point in that fall the speed must be zero because that point has no length… well, Newton said “oh bother” and invented calculus just to answer the issue. We, today, are plagued with such nonsense as “the sum of all positive integers is -1/12th” as a direct result of MATH being unable to handle absolutely nothing, or absolutely everything. This is not a real solution to a real question. It merely points to a failure of our tools to HANDLE the problem, rather than a deep insight into the workings of the universe.

              I am loathe to incorporate abstract mathematics into basic physics, as the truth of things invariably shows us that correct answers are fundamentally simple. It is true that some of the math describing the geometry of reality can get a little complicated, but it is all straightforward math rather than some tortured mathematical game.

              We must keep in mind that most of these conjectures, paradoxes, and hypothesis are abstract puzzles presented within the mathematical community as an opportunity to expose shortcomings of theory, or to sharpen their tools and analysis techniques, but are NOT intended to be taken literally by academic physicists and incorporated into our working model of how the physical world around us actually works. That is the idiocy that leads to things like String Theory.

              Follow up question:
              So, how does symmetry breaking lead to proton decay?
              How does magnetism become “special”?

              The statements you made look nice, and appear authoritative and “sciencey” enough, but they still tell me nothing about the decay of protons.

              Diagrams of Mexican sombreros with references to higgs tell me nothing about the decay of protons.

              Videos of green and blue blobs give me fond recollections of the sixties, and Lava Lamps, but tell me nothing about the decay of protons.

              • Axil Axil

                Magnetism usually produces photons that travel from one pole to another symmetrically.

                http://www.ece.neu.edu/fac-ece/nian/mom/img/How%20Magnets%20Work/magneticFieldLines1.gif

                Magnetism becomes special when those photons don’t make it back from the pole that it came from to the other pole. This type of magnetic field is called anisotropic or unbalanced. This type of magnetism produces particles inside the proton that messes up the inner working of the proton that keep it together.

                I cover this process of how the magnetic fields produced by heat become anisotropic in this post

                http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/14/the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr-axil-axil/#comment-3276572289

                When symmetries are broken, this process disrupts the physical laws that keep things working.

                But there are many other ways in which this special magnetic field can form including through rare earth magnets.

                See
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anisotropy

                • Axil Axil

                  An understandable video about the connection between physical laws and symmetry as follows:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MpQG2xXVo

                • Chapman

                  We are so close now I can almost see the finish line!

                  Just one thing:
                  I am sure it is an innocent mistake, and I hate to nitpick, but magnetic field lines are not composed of constant rivers of photons flowing from one magnetic pole to the other. Field lines are static orientations of the dipoles that constitute the fabric of space itself. No energy is expended, no flow is taking place. Magnetic field lines merely CAUSE the emission of photons from mobile charged particles cutting across their grain because the field lines, being held in their orientation due to the influence of a conflicting local dominant charge, effect the velocity and direction of those mobile charged particles, and any Delta-V either requires applied energy, or stimulates the dumping OF energy (yep, it’s rocket science).

                  So, magnetic fields are not photons, but do stimulate photons to be released by charged particles that pass through them.

                  Now, you are proposing that those magnetic field lines actually pass through the source, and connect internally the same as they do externally. On this we can agree.

                  You further propose that something about the LENR stimulation energy, or an energy created BY LENR itself AFTER stimulation triggers the primary reaction, is causing a disruption of the internal magnetic coupling that composes those field lines, and THAT disruption somehow interferes with the strong nuclear force that binds the Protons together, thereby causes the decay of the Proton and reducing it to either its Quark constituents, or disassembles it even further down the Preon Hierarchy.

                  This seems almost possible, if we reflect upon the fact that any GUT is proposing that each of the fundamental forces ARE just variations of a fundamental force manifesting with different attributes at different scales, then a hypothesis that EM disruption to the localized EM field lines internal to a Proton compromises the integrity of the overall Proton structure due to the interference with the Strong force binding its constituent parts together seems mechanically reasonable.

                  Having waded through the babble, to uncover the pearl of wisdom hidden beneath, I am still dubious as to whether or not the idea is FACTUAL. Is there any evidence that Protons decay so easily? I mean, outside of LENR reports and theories. Are there any mechanisms routinely discussed at MIT or Princeton regarding the observed decay rate and decay mechanics of Protons, other than high energy events such as cosmic rays?

                  Finally,
                  If THIS is what you were trying to say, why invoke rainman mathematics and convoluted foreign theories and conjectures? Why not just say it.

                  A good idea stands on its own, without the need for window dressing and embellishment. There is no need to sprinkle glitter on a bar of gold, or even (gasp!) to pour ketchup on a filet-mignon. 🙂

                • Axil Axil

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0

                  Magnetism is moving charge. So like charge, magnetism is carried by photons.

                • Chapman

                  I am officially calling BS on that one!

                  I like Veritasium as much as the next guy, but that is as contorted and bastardized an explanation for magnetism as I have ever seen.

                  Magnetism is not a perceptual aberration caused by special relativity. What you see there is a guy trying to be too clever for his own good.

                  And so I stand by my assertion: Magnetic field lines are not flowing rivers of photons. That is an absurd proposition.

                  Magnetism is NOT moving charge. ELECTROMAGNETISM is a magnetic field generated by a moving charge. Two totally different animals.

                • Chapman

                  If magnetic field lines were a flowing rivers of photons rushing from one pole of a magnet to the other, that would be an electromagnetic emission which would set off a secondary current in a stationary parasitic conductor that intersects that flow.

                  We would not need LENR, because we could just wrap some bell wire around a chunk of load-stone and power our houses. Forever!

                  Basic Radio science stuff. Put aside the QM studies and read Maxwell’s work instead. It is foundational.

                • LION

                  Hi Chapman,
                  here is a short video that may be of some use. There is a much more important one of Floyd and Tom working together which I will post when I find it, and some important documents.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYpi4VPJjA

                • Chapman

                  ZPE is a term that has been used to cover a lot of totally unrelated things. Do you have any documentation as to WHAT this device was, how it worked, and how it was built?

                • LION

                  Hi Chapman, as I said when I find what I believe will be useful I will post, should be within 10 days, but I assure you I will not forget.

                • Chapman

                  Thanks!

                  I know that most of that most of the stories of garage geniuses creating over-unity machines are just bunk, but I am really interested in the topic, and exactly WHAT approach each mad scientist took. A lot of times there is no THERE there, and it is all just a scam, but sometimes you see really inventive ideas.

                  I am a die-hard tinkerer, and I always make time to admire another’s work! 🙂

                • Axil Axil

                  http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html

                  Here is the same information with math.

                • Chapman

                  And here is my same reply in Polish: (seems appropriate)

                  Oficjalnie dzwonię BS na jednym!

                  Lubię Veritasium, jak następny facet, ale to jak wykrzywioną i bastardized wyjaśnienie dla magnetyzmu, jak kiedykolwiek widziałem.

                  Magnetyzm nie jest percepcyjne aberracji, spowodowane przez szczególnej teorii względności. To, co widzisz jest facet stara się być za mądry, dla jego własnego dobra.

                  I tak stoję przez moje twierdzenia: linii pola magnetycznego nie płyną rzeki fotonów. To jest absurdalne tezy.

                  Magnetyzm nie porusza się bezpłatnie. ELEKTROMAGNETYZMU jest pole magnetyczne generowane przez ruchome bezpłatnie. Dwa całkowicie różne zwierzęta.

                • Chapman

                  You can dress a flawed idea up with lots of math, but that still does not change the fact that a theory is so flawed and fundamentally WRONG that it assails the senses, and leaves me dumbfounded that anyone purporting to have even the slightest understanding of Special Relativity could give it a second glance.

                  It is SO wrong, that it is comical.

                  Axil, my friend, you can not believe everything you read on the web. You kinda need to think for yourself, and exercise a little discernment when you come across such tripe. If you had actually taken the time to examine the proposition, and validate it for yourself before jumping off the bridge and believing it, you would have seen what is wrong with it. The error is rather blatant.

                  Ditto the “River of flowing Photons” thing. Come on Axil, I know YOU are smarter than that. You have displayed an impressive intellect on this site, so I know you are better than these silly mistakes. Shake the cobwebbs off the old gray-matter, and apply your gifts to re-examining these two issues. I am positive you will see your error. Live and learn.

                  No need to make a public correction. Just stop digging that hole any deeper! Figure out where you went wrong, and pick up your chain of thought just BEFORE it all went off the rails! 🙂

                  We still love you…

              • cashmemorz

                All points mentioned by you two, Axil, Chapman are either or not needed or are misinterpretations of what is actually happening, according to GUTCP. The Microwave Background Radiation, as “discovered” later, after it was predicted by GUTCP in 1989, to have the exact curve of its graph as it was compiled from the antenna on the sensor for Microwave Background Radiation sensor. Not only did GUTCP predict that curve but the curve, as predicted by GUTCP, has more details in it then that felt by the antenna. That antenna, by the way was not properly made, so that may, in part, be why it could not sense the whole signal of MBR. Anyways, the GUTCP predicts that there are not only the three strong signal peaks in the graph for MBR but three,weaker peaks further along towards the plus side of the graph, and at a similar slope at similar spacings as the larger peaks, that are to be confirmed if a better antenna is ever sent up with the sensor. What is considered by SM and Quantum physics to be the MBR of the big bang is a misinterpretation of what actually produced the MBR. It is the rebound or left over signal of the previous states of the universe’ contraction and expansion evey trillion year cycle. The energy of the previous expansions left over when universe was in its last contraction states. That is also a prediction of GUTCP that had no need of quantum physics to predict as QP is a humungous mistake. That mistake was admitted to by Einstein and Schrodeinger both. Nobody wanted to admit that mistake so that is why the two scales of physics, atomic level and smaller cannot be reconciled with the larger scale in the SM. String theory is an added attempt to reconcile that problem and others with no possible success to attain this. Please read the GUTCP before you get al tangled up with entanglement and those other unphysical things that are all explained by GUTCP in much more real world interpretaions of the cosmos.

                • Chapman

                  When did I mention MBR?

                • cashmemorz

                  Your discussion with AXil contained big bang.

                  To confirm that the MBR enters the discussion as a supporting data point. My take on the MBR is that, as derived by the GUTCP, the MBR supports another theory of how the universe exist, that of an oscillating system according to GUTCP in comparison to a one time beginning per SM.

                • Chapman

                  I do see where Axil cites the term “early universe”, but I was only discussing the balance between matter and anti-matter as being a constant, not referring to any big bang. You see, I too have doubts about the big bang, and would not have been in a discussion validating it, or using it as a cornerstone for an argument! 🙂

                • cashmemorz

                  I have a fixation on arguing against quantum theory. I irks me til I can’t see straight. I’ll have to turn down my throttle on seeing things that aren’t there. But when I do, POW.

                • Chapman

                  Hey, This is CHAPMAN you are talking to! No need to apologize on THAT score!! HA!

                  I am going broke over the cost of replacement keyboards I keep slamming on my desktop when trying to get some folks to just stop and THINK about some of the nonsense they recite.

                  Have you noticed the fact that all those hippies from the sixties who were preaching to everyone on campus that everyone should defy all authority, drop a hit of acid and drop out, and that everyone should discover their own truths, are now the IDIOTS on staff at the universities telling students that they MUST conform their opinions to the consensus, and that to question the opinion of the 97% is a criminal act of anti-social behavior?

                  Pisses me off so bad I sometimes lose my gentlemanly demeanor!

                  You just keep on asking the hard questions, my friend. And don’t let anyone make you question your doubts.

                • Micrwave Background Radiation was discovered 35 years before 1989.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

                • cashmemorz

                  I’m referring to the graph of the MBR as a proof of the MBR existing in a form that supports the theory preceding the recording of the graph. GUTCP derives the graph from first principles before the recording of its details. That shows the power and validity of the GUTCP. GUTCP, by deriving ithe MBR is an act of prediction. In other words GUTCP still had the power to show that the MBR existed even if it were not discovered before GUTCP had derived it.

  • cashmemorz

    Without a complete and detailed theory, we have no real control. To have a theory, the best that we know, first must be a sufficient physics framework in which a theory can be formulated/derived. Quantum physics has too many ad hoc, although seemingly working, postulates, via curve fitting. When a theory that uses zero postulates comes up, answers all question that quantum does not, predicts many phenomena that are much later shown to exist, with smaller error bars than the system “discovering” the “new” phenomenon, and has, to date, six devices and methods that all work better than the SM versions, within its short history then QP has put together in such a short space, while leaving no questions unanswered regarding those six, in its short history, we have to ask why the underpinnings and results are not incorporated into the Standard Model. The only answer I see is “turf war”. Each group upholding its tenets wants the power of being allowed to say,”We” have the power. Not answers. If the SM is to progress, new info must be incorporated, no matter the effect on egos. Then we just might have a fighting chance to get THE theory of LENR, instead of sixty. Sure, this approach will open the flood gates to all kinds of alternate physics, each clamoring for attention. The merits of each have to be compared against what each system answers, predicts, has produced physically, how easily it produces said devices as compared to SM and other qualities. When the tally is more in favour of one system over another than that system wins And is incorporated into SM. If that disqualifies previous theory, we have to admit to it and use the power of the new theory. All previous experience and status must not get in the way of something that works much better than what had been accepted.

    • Axil Axil

      I answered this post in my post above about the standard model.

    • Chapman

      Hi Cash,

      I have watched Mills’ Fresno presentation three times, but I am still struggling with the specific details of the Hydrino. I understand the “big picture” he outlines. I heartily support his observations about the state of the academic science community. I understand much of his presentation regarding his device and the evolution and testing of it. But I am still missing the heart of the actual Hydrino stuff.

      From your understanding, can you help me generally with the following:

      1. If the Hydrino is just a hydrogen atom with the electron in a previously unidentified energy state that is LOWER than we are used to seeing, how does that effect the chemical reactions this modified hydrogen atom engages in?

      2. If the Hydrino has a smaller cross section, due to the lower energy state of it’s electron, does this result in the same fusion behavior we see with Muon Catalyzed Fusion? Is that part of what Mills is thinking, that the hydrino allows a closer proximity to neighboring hydrogen, such that the strong nuclear force can bridge the gap and cause the two nuclei to fuse?

      3. Isn’t the Hydrino basically just half way between a hydrogen atom and a neutron? And how can a Hydino behave in a manner consistent with Dark Matter, any more than a neutron itself. Neutrons are not dark matter, just because they are neutral. Why would mills make any assertion regarding a link between Hydrinos and Dark Matter?

    • Chapman

      Cash…

      Please review this document
      http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html
      and tell me what is missing with regards to the Hydrino.

      I know Mills’ work extends far beyond the Hydrino, but it is the Hydrino that keeps popping up in LENR discussions, so it is my primary interest.

      And, if this document IS accurate, can you explain the exact mechanism whereby hydrogen electrons surrender energy to catalyst atoms during high temperature collisions? Why do the normal laws governing the distribution of energy during a collision between two objects/particles/bodies/cheerleaders NOT apply?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Study the simplest system. Less Chase’s “football” was just deuterium gas and palladium on carbon. The creation of helium-4 was seen by mass spectroscopy (at 36:35 min. in video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
    My two cents: the pairs of electrons, ~, in the palladium deuteride bonds, D~Pd~D, lower the coulomb barrier allowing palladium to absorb two deuterons when heated (heat = infrared stretching of the covalent deuteride bonds) to form cadmium in an excited state, Cd*, which in turn fissions back into palladium, Pd, and helium-4, He. Therefore, a fusion-fission reaction with 24 MeV of kinetic energy without a gamma ray.
    D~Pd~D > Cd* > Pd + He + 24 MeV of kinetic energy (with no gamma ray)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Could energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) be used to look for any transient cadmium that might be created as an intermediate in this proposed mechanism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

    • Then how do you explain the Hydrogen-Nickel interaction?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        H~Ni(64)~H > Zn((66)* > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV (no gamma rays)

        • From what I have read there isn’t nearly enough Ni(62) nor He(4) found in these cells to account for so much long term heat.

          • Axil Axil

            Most energy produced by LENR goes into the creation of muons and electrons. This energy comes from the decay of protons and neutrons. See my post above for an explanation of how this happens.

            • Is there an experiment that would verify your hypothesis?

              • Axil Axil

                http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

                SNIP

                “The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state s = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to s = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2]. The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.”

              • Axil Axil

                If you read Rossi;s latest theory paper:

                Nucleon polarizability and long range strong
                force from I=2 meson exchange potential
                Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi
                9 March 2017

                You will see that Rossi defines mesons are the cause of the LENR reaction and that magnetic fields are involved in their generation…see post below for the link to that paper.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I really don’t know. At the time, I was just thinking about the disappearance of Ni(64).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Think about the Mitsubishi transmutations. Pairs of deuterons are reacting with metals. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNy47-PKxoQ/T2ziOYJ2RvI/AAAAAAAASLo/OcvAZx1OnVo/s1600/LENRJapantransmute.png

  • Zephir

    BTW Direct link to the Nagel’s presentation is here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NagelDexpectationsof.pdf

  • Zephir

    /* On this point, Randell Mills’s GUT-CP theory seems to be better. */

    Ironically just R. Mills is the greatest opponent of cold fusion as he pushes his hydrino explanation for it. IMO he is wrong with it.

  • Zephir

    Cold fusion is complex mixture of phenomena with many factors applying at the single moment. We can only talk about theory of particular system or reaction. Their general aspect is, the low-dimensional collisions enable the large concentration of energy at single place.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/4rzwp4/the_general_cold_fusion_theory_aka_the_broad_view

    • I’m glad there’s a list of 66 LENR theories. Is there a list of LENR replications in peer reviewed journals? How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect been replicated, and where can I send inquiring minds to read up on these replications?

      • Zephir

        Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect is already replicated with 100% reliability in ENEA lab (Bill Gates supports this research reportedly)

        http://old.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/pdf_brief/Violante_ExcessPower.pdf

        LENR is systematically and intentionaly ignored with mainstream physics, so you cannot find any LENR publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Many LENR publications are peer-reviewed though – but it’s rather exception than rule.

        http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/

        • On your ENEA link there is only one study listed, which mentions 2 replications: Violante “Replication of Condensed Matter Heat Production” .

          Others like Jed Rothwell like to say it’s been replicated hundreds of times but there is no listing of peer-reviewed replications as far as I can tell, anywhere. Replication of others’ work is considered scientific janitorial work.

          Even MFMP have visited 4 or 5 labs now, and each time they’ve produced a dud. Zero for 5 in terms of replications. You’d think after 28 years someone would figure out that they could get a replication published in a journal like Nature or something.

        • That link you provided says it is actually very difficult to replicate, nowhere near 100% reliability.

  • Axil Axil

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.05264

    Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates

    There is a kind of Bose condensation that can exist at ANY temperature and applies to polaritons.

    To draw an analogy, consider an array of funnels that are each being filled at a different rate. But the funnels are entangled in a condensate. These funnels are losing liquid at the same rate but are being filled at different rates. We would expect that there would be some funnels that would overflow, but all the funnels maintain the same liquid level. All the funnels share liquid between each other to maintain the same level of fluid. The liquid that would have overflowed is shared between the funnels through and entangled liquid transfer interface. Any funnel that has a low level of liquid input would maintain its level through the additional entangled transfer of liquid with and between other funnels with a more that average liquid filling rates.

    This is how a collection of “N” polaritons act like one huge single polariton with N members. This huge single polariton can store a huge amount of energy in its condensate. It can absorb a huge amount of energy (super-absorption) but most importantly, any single polariton can access all the energy stored in the condensate (super-radiance) and can use that energy to disrupt nuclear functions in a single nucleus.

    This Bose condensate condition can exist at ANY temperature and depends only on the special nature of polaritons to exist.

    Bose condensation of polaritons is what thermalized gamma radiation (super absorption) produced by LENR based nuclear reactions.

    Before a BEC of polaritons is established in the LENR reaction, the LENR reaction lets gamma radiation pass through the individual polaritons.

    But after the BEC of polaritons is established, a state change occurs and a Bremsstrahlung signal is generated in a polariton synchronization process where the polaritons synchronize the energy between each other.

    This Bremsstrahlung has been detected in MFMP tests just before excess heat was produced in the LENR reaction. It has been called “the Signal” by MFMP.

    After the polariton BEC is established a single radiation frequency is produced by the BEC. That frequency is a function of the density of polaritons in the BEC. This frequency can change second to second as the density of polaritons in the BEC varies.

    “They tackled this problem by highly exciting exciton-polaritons, which are particle-like excitations in a semiconductor systems and formed by strong coupling between electron-hole pairs and photons. They observed high-energy side-peak emission that cannot be explained by two mechanisms known to date: Bose-Einstein condensation of exciton-polaritons, nor conventional semiconductor lasing driven by the optical gain from unbound electron hole plasma.”

    Marrying superconductors, lasers, and Bose-Einstein condensates

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-superconductors-lasers-bose-einstein-condensates.html#jCp

    This polariton based emission of light is where the XUV light emissions come from in the SunCell.

    • Chapman

      Pouvez-vous au moins reconnaître la lutte d’Hercule je fais face à s’abstenir de commenter à ce sujet?

      Je vais être à la recherche de vos conseils bientôt concernant hydrinos, et je ne veux pas vous énerver.

      Est-ce que je reçois un crédit du tout pour un tel étalage de retenue?

      Je t’aime, Axil!

  • Axil Axil

    Nucleon polarizability and long range strong
    force from I=2 meson exchange potential
    Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi
    9 March 2017

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwicuN6q167UAhWM44MKHa0mDgwQFggkMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1703.05249&usg=AFQjCNFZTSXL6te-29yQLh8gvaajTgB9xw&sig2=JsbGcij47P9dwzz5_y8MuA

    Rossi et al shoud have an important place in the ranks of LENR theories, but nobody says much about what he is thinking is that regard.

    Has anybody understood what the ‘meson exchange potential’ means and has applied it to the field of LENR theory in general?

  • hunfgerh

    Theory and Practice

    1. Starting point: P @ F – electrolysis experiments:

    Observed anomalies:
    A) Deposition of lithium on Pd / H electrode after a long electrolysis time,
    B) More energy out than energy in
    C) Heat after Death

    2. Investigation of the anomaly (a):
    Reproduction of the deposition of lithium
    on Pd / H electrode in http://www.google.com/patents/EN102008047334B4?cl=en

    Measurement of the resistance after deposition brought the new finding: Pd / Li
    / H layer is a superconductor at RT.

    3. Why is superconducting in the P @ F electrolysis experiment the basis for :
    B) More energy out than in
    C) Heat after Death

    4. Reasons for (3):
    Already in http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EN10109973A1.html it was postulated
    that current densities> 10exp6A / cm2 lead to e-capture reactions, which can
    be generated by small currents in nanoscallated superconductors,
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/11/15/high-current-densities-environmental-conditions-for-cold-fusion-gerhard-hunf/

    5. Possible follow-up of e-capture:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/11/28/the-final-result-of-e-capture-gerhard-hunf/

    -n-capture (More Energy out than in)
    -Isotopic Failure (Heat after Death)

  • cashmemorz

    As someone who has read a part of Randell Mills’ theory and other theories, especially the Basic Structures of Matter: Supergravitation Unified Theory of Stoyan Sarg, I find that what Randell Mills has is something that hits home in terms of its very straight forward development. Other theories sound convoluted by comparison. This problem is mostly caused by those other theories assuming that what quantum theory says is correct and then go from there. Randell Mills stepped back all the way to what Newton and Maxwell provided and used that as the base from which to start. The other point in favor of Mills is the primary reason of how and why he started on the road to his thesis. It was a purely utilitarian need to understand the electron in order to be able to make a laser for the US military. He, and Haus, the professor given the job of designing the laser saw no way to fullfill the requirements of the job if they used the understanding about the electron based on then, 1988, quantum theory based structure of the electron.So they set out to find out what Newton and Maxwell, as well as Lorentz and a few other old school figures would lead them to. And lead them they did, to a view of the electron, and everything else for that matter, that is quite different from what the Standard Model, which is largely based on quantum physics had to say. What Mills thesis ends up saying is more than enough, if I understand the theory, to not only explain LENR, but any other question in physics that is out there. Other theories are limited to a small subset of physics, such as the geometry of particles and how molecules are built up. Mills’ GUT-CP goes into great depth and detail about all aspects of all levels of physics from deriving and explaining fully, what I see as excruciating detail about every aspect of said particles and from there to larger structures on through the whole of the Universe and beyond in terms of time as it pertains to the universe. I have compiled a list of sites regarding Mills’ theory, his university lectures, his several devices based on his theory, and what others have to say.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00
    http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet
    https://www.scribd.com/book/322776015/Randell-Mills-and-the-Search-for-Hydrino-Energy

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/futurist-dr-randell-mills-talks-suncell-off-grid_us_592ec431e4b07c4c73138706

    http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf

    http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

    http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

    https://brilliantlightpower.com/

    Rowan University’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chary%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    Rowan University’s report II http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Jansson%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    UNC Asheville’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Dr.%20Booker%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    University of Illinois report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf

    http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/EUV-Mechanism-051817.pdf

    https://www.libertariannews.org/2016/07/12/randell-l-mills-a-living-legend-greater-than-einstein-and-tesla-combined/

    https://innercircle.engineering.asu.edu/2017/02/23/attend-powering-the-future-
    talk-with-randell-mills-march-1/

    • Axil Axil

      How does Mills theory produce transmutation?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        As you know, he carefully avoids the „N“ theme. Nonetheless, some of the existing explanations for apparent transmutations might work as good (or even better) with hydrinos, compared to ‘ordinary’ hydrogen.

        • Axil Axil

          Transmutation involves adding protons to an element to make it into a new element. How does a hydrino become a proton?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It contains both a proton and an electron, as normal hydrogen atoms do. I agree that it would have to be split for a proton-based reaction, and that’s (if I recall it correctly) not intended in Mills’ theory. Besides, this process would require more energy than a ‘normal’ ionization. On the other hand, higher ionization energy would have its advantages if one expects electron capture to happen (again a point that Mills would probably not agree with). So yes, there are open questions, but what do we actually know? Reality could be more complicated than theorists might wish.

      • Gerard McEk

        The question is: How does the Hydrino interact with other atoms. I would suggest it may behave like a (ultra slow?) neutron. But once it hits a nucleus the reaction is like a fusion reaction with lower excess energy. As Andreas says Mills avoids any hint to nuclear reactions. He may have investigated it but has never published it, to avoid opposition to his invention the SunCell.

        • Axil Axil

          Mills states that the hydrino becomes dark matter that does not react with other matter, This dark matter cannot be confined and immediately exits from the SunCell after the hydrino is created.

          • Gerard McEk

            The mass of the hydrino will still be more or less equal to a proton. Once it comes in less than 1 pm of another nucleus the strong force will act and incorporate the hydrino. I would not know why that would not happen, do you?

            • Axil Axil

              Your opinion makes sense, but that opinion totally undercuts R.Mills theory of the way that the SunCell works. These hydrinos interaction with other matter would produce nuclear effects in that matter which Mills denies. These interactions would contravene the assertion that hydrinos escape the SunCell and cannot be confined by any form of matter as a reason for the failure to detect and characterize them. In other words, hydrinos are generally speaking malarkey.

              • US_Citizen71

                I made a post on the SunCell Thermal Energy post about 3 days ago with some hope of getting an opinion from someone with more knowledge of nuclear physics than myself. http://disq.us/p/1ja268k My basic question was what is the possibility that the SunCell is actually creating muons and therefore muonic hydrogen and muonic heavy hydrogen. The description of muonic hydrogen is very close to the description of a hydrino, a smaller orbital that is closer to the nucleus. You appear to have the needed knowledge, what are your thoughts?

                • Axil Axil

                  Muons will catalyze nuclear energy through fusion when the muon is captured by a light element like hydrogen, or like neutrons, fission when the muon is captured by a heavy element like thorium. Captured muons spend a lot of time inside the nucleus of atoms and because of this, these muons oftentimes turn protons into neutrons.

                  One of the sure indicators that muons are producing nuclear effects in the LENR reaction is that the list of transmuted elements that appear in the ash assay of LENR reactors show the effects of both fusion of light elements and fission of heavy elements going on simultaneously in that ash of LENR reactors,

              • Chapman

                I must admit I am confused at the evolution of thought going on.

                I thought I understood the point of the Hydrino hypothesis, and how such a formation could serve as a Trojan Horse in overcoming the coulomb barrier potential, and thus stimulating transmutations at low energy levels. But the introduction of the idea that they are DM particles utterly destroys that entire line of thinking, does it not?

                Either the Hydrinos are HIGHLY reactive, or totally inert. They can not be the cause of LENR, and also be DM particles. The two are mutually exclusive as far as I can tell.

                Help me out Axil. What am I missing? You are up on all the conflicting theories, so which one is Mills, and which is confused?

                • Axil Axil

                  R Mills theory has nothing to do with overcoming the coulomb barrier. Fusion does not produce energy in Mills world. All the energy that is derived from hydrinos is chemical energy that is extracted by a catalyst.

                • Chapman

                  I am thinking back to when we were all having discussions about the Li6/Li7 population changes, and exactly what transmutations were taking place in an E-Cat.

                  The issue at the time was whether the Hydrogen loading was causing Hydrogen Anions to be accepted through the Nickel Electron Shell, or that Hydrogen was being “compressed” (sorry, I know that is a sloppy term for it) into hydrinos that were drifting into the nucleus and generally behaving like the proposed super-low-energy neutrons.

                  I understand that Mills has a different approach as far as devices, but I was saying that I think my understanding of the hydrino structure, derived from those previous discussions, must be off the mark. Especially once I start hearing speculation that they may be DM.

                  Cash has inspired me to look more closely at Mills own work, rather than just follow what is discussed ABOUT his work, and that is mostly due to the realization that I was not getting the whole picture of what Mills is proposing.

                  Thank you for taking the time to help point me in the right direction.

                  Please chime in whenever you see I have a blind-spot or fundamental misunderstanding of one of these new theories. I know you spend a lot more time tracking the latest breaking news than I do.

                  (Yes, that IS a compliment! So BASK in the GLORY of it!!!)

    • gdaigle

      One aspect of Randell Mills’ theory that could be tested is his suggestion that the hydrino is the dark matter particle. How does this compare to other studies to find dark matter (DM)?

      Recent high energy experiments from XENON1T and the ATLAS experiment up to 13 TeV still find no signs of DM particles, yet the hydrino is projected to have a low mass (27.2 eV?). Recent antiproton, proton and helium cosmic-ray detection rates by the AMS instrument on the ISS suggest that the DM particle mass is near 80 GeV.

      Three questions come to mind:

      1. With a mass that low, why has evidence of the hydrino not been already detected in the LHC or other facilities?

      2. If an experiment could be conducted by the LHC or other facilities to detect the hydrino, what would the design of that experiment be?

      3. If not a higher mass such as 80 GeV, how might the mass of the hydrino be detected through space-based instrumentation?

      • cashmemorz

        Mills explains the several ways his group has tested for validity of the hydrino. This can be heard in his lecture at minute 35 in the video:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00 At minute 38 Mills mentions the work Princeton University did in detecting hydrinos. He also has incorporated it into materials that are inert to everything that you can throw at it. This is just one more reason I see for the validity of his theory.

        • Axil Axil

          There are other ways to explain the production of XUV light besides electron orbital theory. Nano-optics can produce XUV light using nanoparticles and other nanostructures using quantum mechanics. I can understand how R. Mills has not considered this nanoplasmonic field because of his rejection of QM. In other words, just because 10 mm wavelength light is detected in experiment does not mean that chemistry based electron orbit theory is the only way to explain those experimental findings.