The following post was submitted by Gordon Docherty. (Note to readers: The author has submitted a revised version of his document which I have posted below in place of the original one. The earlier version can be found here)
Hydrinos LENR in Harmony 2 (1)
I do not know if hydrinos exists (no real proof), but I do believe that ultradense deuterium/protium exists.
This seems to be related to the guest post:
“D(-1) is a quantum material (Guénault 2003) and is both superfluid (Andersson & Holmlid 2011) and superconductive (Andersson et al. 2012). Similar experimental results of a superconductive state are known from very high density hydrogen clusters in voids (Schottky defects) measured by SQUIDS in palladium crystals (Lipson et al. 2005). The close relation between these hydrogen clusters and D(-1) has been pointed out (Holmlid et al. 2009). This may give increased fusion gains from targets with such clusters (Yang et al. 2011). This effect was discussed as due to Bose-Einstein condensation (Miley et al. 2009) or involving a Casimir effect (Hora & Miley 2007). The properties of D(-1) may be due to formation of vortices in a Cooper pair electron fluid as suggested by Winterberg (2010a, b). The structure of D(-1) observed in experiments is given by chain clusters D2N with N integer, formed by DD pairs probably rotating around the vortex (Andersson & Holmlid 2011, 2012a). To better understand the details of the processes involved in the nuclear fusion in this material, the time-of-flight signal due to charged particles ejected from D(-1) is now studied with good time resolution. The number of MeV particles formed is so large that the nanosecond-resolved time-of-flight signal at a metal collector at 64 cm distance can be observed directly on an oscilloscope. The timing is analyzed to ascertain that indeed particles with energy> 10 MeV u-1 are observed, and other signal sources like electrons and energetic photons are shown not to give the signals here assigned to MeV particles.”
Here is a very interesting discussion about hydrinos by Dr. Mills –
I have asked Randy Mills to tell what he thinks about the association
of hydrinos and LENR- globally. Obviously he has the best answer.
Gordon, if I understood you correctly you are not talking about hydrinos as Mills has described them? These hydrinos release energy when they are formed from the ground state or progress to a lower state. Converting them back to their original state would not release, but require energy. So you might perhaps consider coining a different term for your modified hydrogen atoms.
Independently of that: Regarding Mills’ hydrinos, I would expect them to penetrate through the reactor walls since they are so tiny. But Rossi has recently stated that the pressure inside the reactor remains constant even for long periods. However, we don’t know if there is an automatic refill mechanism. If not so, it would seem unlikely that hydrinos (after Mills) are produced in Rossi’s reactors.
Andreas, I rewrote the ideas – I was trying to use one sentence to say two things, as it were. Hopefully, what I intended to convey as the two alternative ideas to do with Casimir spaces is now a little clearer
An object’s mass does not change as its speed increases. “mass” is “rest mass”, which is the mass the object has in its own inertial frame. This is constant. Mass in the sense you are using it, is known as Relativistic Mass. The concept of “Relativistic Mass” should be avoided:
Title: Mass versus relativistic and rest masses
L.B. Okun Am. J. Phys. v.77, p.430 (2009).
“Unfortunately, sometimes and especially in his popular writings Einstein was careless about the subscript 0 and spoke about the equivalence of mass and energy and omitted the attribute “rest” for the energy. As a result Einstein’s equation E0=mc^2 became known in its famous but misleading form E=mc^2. One of the most unfortunate consequences is the concept that the mass of a relativistic body increases with its velocity. This velocity dependent mass is known as “relativistic mass.” Another consequence is the term “rest mass” and the corresponding symbol m0. These confusing concepts and notations prevail in such classic texts as the ones by Born and Feynman. Moreover, in these texts the dependence of mass on velocity is presented as an experimental fact predicted by relativity theory and proving its correctness.
To substantiate the formula m=E/c^2 some authors use the connection between momentum and velocity in Newtonian mechanics, p=mv, forgetting that this relation is valid only when v (is significantly less than) c and that it contradicts the basic equation m^2=(E/c^2)^2−(p/c)^2. Einstein’s tolerance of E=mc^2 is related to the fact that he never used in his writings the basic equation of relativity theory. However, in 1948 he forcefully warned against the concept of mass increasing with velocity. Unfortunately this warning was ignored. The formula E=mc^2, the concept relativistic mass, and the term rest mass are widely used even in the recent popular science literature, and thus create serious stumbling blocks for beginners in relativity.”
I thought it was interesting that prior to the publication of Einstein’s paper “Poincaré published a paper in which he said that radiation could be considered as a fictitious fluid
with an equivalent mass of mr=E/c^2″.
Even though Einstein was the first to rearrange the formula and put the E upfront, it does take away some of the awe of his discovery. It’s kind of like finding out, before Shakespeare wrote his play there already was “The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet” by Arthur Brooke in 1562, not that I think any less of Einstein.
I see what you mean. Perhaps I’m too feeble-minded to understand the reason why there wasn’t a reference to Poincaré’s work in Einstein’s paper. Poincaré was no obscure scientist.
If you can hear this over the wind
(at 24:00), Chris Busby talks about the Michelson and Morley’s interferometer being wrong and Miller’s more accurate interferometer showing that there is an Aether drifted thereby invalidate the second postulate of special relativity.
I think all his plays were based on previous work and that doesn’t diminish his stature a bit. Everyone stands on the shoulders of those who came before, plus if you compare the work he based his plays on to his work ,there is no comparison.
Aether the Theory of Relativity and LENR Energy
During an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden
A theoretical physicist once said,
“As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.
If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called — space and matter.
Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.”
Basically we have two incompatible systems EM & gravity fields. Einstein visualized gravity derived by way of a 2 dimensional “space-time fabric curved by mass. But this fabric does not exist at Planck or subatomic scale to satisfaction. Locality, unitarity and space-time will need to be left behind if a unified vision is to be found.
Two ideas come to mind in this evolution. One, is a method of visualizing all matter at atomic scale as a function of geometry. As Einstein notes matter is “condensations of the electromagnetic field” – – however these condensations occur at geometrically aligned points in infinite dimensions. Viewed in 3 dimensions alone, elementary particles (protons, neutrons, electrons become points at geometric vertices of EM energy.
The second is to view EM as a derivation of an “ether” of a virtual fluid of wave/particles requiring a vibrational disturbance for either to manifest. Such disturbance results from presence of intelligent consciousness. The frequency of vibration determines the resultant geometry and thereby energy / mass of particles.
The recent amplitudehedron discovery is a first step in visualizing such a unified geometry. http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Welcome Alan DeAngelis,
Einstein wasn’t afraid to state his ignorance or to admit inadequacies of theory. Reality is certainly not just relative… it is complete.
Thanks Ophelia – I was intending to convey energy going into the conversion of electrons into heavy electrons at the same time as increased energy went into the binding between proton an electron. Perhaps a better way of saying it – imagining the electron shell as a net around the nucleus – that the electron shell becomes more energy dense. To stretch the analogy a bit, the electron net around the proton gets finer and finer, like a fishing net with a denser weave so that the “holes” in the net get smaller. In fact, I think this analogy goes quite a long way to “getting across” how an electron – as a “wavy net” – can wrap itself around a proton, and the net weave then get denser and denser as the net collapses in (the “space energy” in the holes between the weave gets less, so to speak), while the weave gets simultaneously denser. Now, I know electrons aren’t fishing nets, and analogies have their limits, but I think this analogy helps explain what appears to be going on in terms anyone can understand. Apologies, of course, to those who prefer different ways of expressing the same thing… after all, even mathematical equations are just symbolic descriptions that can be manipulated according to well understood rules, if your brain works that way (or, has been trained to work that way), that is. As ever, whether using a pictorial analogy, such as a fishing net, or a set of equations, each is just an approximation of the underlying truth, approximations whose limitations we should always bear in mind and keep to the fore lest we fall into the trap of thinking that something we are seeing “can’t be physically so because our fishing nets (or equations) tell us it is not possible”. After all, according to Newton, we should just be able to go on travelling faster and faster without limit, yet we see this is not so – and this is precisely where new discoveries in science are to be found!
OR, my sense is as LENR shakes up most of the science mainstream, we will see new theories suggesting the quantum field is a better model for gravity. Along with this will be more open discussion of replacing the imaginary space-time “fabric” with a fluid flux of virtual energy. This in turn will allow the most verboten of thoughts to emerge — that C is just an arbitrary limit set by agreement on GR. We already have gnarly problems in astrophysics where neutrinos arrive hours ahead of photons following giant events like supernova. All together it makes for a wonderful new story line and drama. I am heavily invested in popcorn. Organic of course. 🙂
Yeah and in the meantime you still can’t boil water,which the rest of us have been doing for 100,000 years,ever since we brought a little fire back to the cave from the forest fire. You would think you would make a little progress in that time.
Oh my Bronco. You are acting very sullen these days. Try to stay positive! Remember, one powerful key to happiness is acceptance of the things we cannot change. We’re all in for a wonderful ride and everyone (except grumps) is welcome!
Things must be improving ,you spelled my name right. I’m not sullen, but I’m a little jealous for this site that LPP,which comes from even humbler origins, now has all the scientific accolades as they are not just peer reviewed but praised in the editorial pages of Science and Nature, no matter what the results that we’ve been patiently waiting for are, IH will never reach those heights. Even LPP with all the momentum they have ,I would estimate their odds for commercial success at thirty per cent at best. That just underlines how difficult it is to bring a brand new process into the mainstream. It’s funny that Lerner is just like Mills as they both have out of the box explanations for astrophysics.
TY Very well said,as we speculate about the LENR effect ,think about e=mc^2, a couple of pounds of rotten vegetables could power the Earth for a year,if all the mass was converted to energy. If we did have much more energy ,from whatever source, think of all the heat that must be rejected to space.
This is very interesting. Even if this explanation is not 100% correct, I increasingly believe Casimir effects will be key to explaining LENR/Hydrino phenomena. The fact that using nanometer-scale grain size is so important in producing LENR effects is strong evidence for it.
Skeptics should remind themselves that the Casimir effect is a proven phenomena. Vacuum (or zero-point) energy is very real – even according to mainstream science!
Some remaining questions for me include:
1. Is it really important to use nickel/palladium? How does paramagnetism fit into the Casimir geometry explanation? All that earlier talk about using particular nickel isotopes – was that a red herring?
2. Randell Mills claims his hydrino reaction produces an emission spectrum that is the same as that of the sun. If so, do we conclude that a similar reaction is taking place there? Can it explain why the corona of the sun reaches a temperature millions of degrees higher than the core? Where are the Casimir cavities to be found on the sun?
In general, even after LENR starts gaining mainstream recognition, I suspect some people will have a pretty hard time taking these ideas on board.
i.e. Try explaining to the average person who is currently worried about the price of a barrel of oil – that we are in fact surrounded by an infinite reservoir of energy – and all we need to do is put our hand out to scoop it up (via a nanoscale mesh filled with hydrogen). Indeed, a real shift in worldview is needed to process that idea.
“SiriusMan”, I rewrote the ideas – I was trying to use one sentence to say
two things, as it were. Hopefully, what I intended to convey as the two
alternative ideas to do with Casimir spaces is now a little clearer
SiriusMan, great comments. I’ll give you my uneducated take on questions 1 and 2. As for the first, it seems clear there is no elemental requirement for the Casimir effect. The key is the crystal geometry. Nickel forms in a face-centered cubic crystal geometry which Mills has experimented with in past. Nickel is inexpensive and its geometry appears to catalyze the reduction of H2 to atomic hydrogen which seems more amenable to hydrino.
2. Mills explains production of soft X-ray (UV – hence “Blacklight” Power) spectra from hydrino transitions in the preponderance of his work. The blackbody spectra present in his SunCell reaction is new. Although he does believe hydrinos are responsible for the corona heat mystery. I do not recall just how his mechanism would work, unless perhaps magnetism around the sun creates a NAE (Storms) in which the hydrino transition can take place.
As to your last para – mainstream acknowledges a vast gap in understanding our universe. We readily accept we can only see or measure 4-5% of what comprises the universe. Leaving 95% unknown. It is reasonable to believe then, our scientific body of knowledge is so small as to create a vast horizon of opportunity – like open systems accessing the quantum vacuum.
On your last point, that the average adult is worried about the price of the energy the need to live and work, think of the myriad components of the world power dynamic that pivot around the present value of energy, and how substantially perturbed those relationships will be when the first of several LENR technologies becomes commercially available.
One of those components is how many Muslims countries are funded via petrodollars (and that the Saudi family stays in power by a massive welfare system that breaks when oil drops below $75/bbl.) What would the economy of Libya be should oil drop to $20/bbl? They could not afford to import food. And then there is the enviro-left cabal in the US and Europe that imposes wind and other forms of extraordinarily expensive forms of “alternative energy” via fearmongering about the cost of oil. (Not to mention how it also fuels neocon use of military in Middle East)
The enviro left cabal– yes very nice,no matter what anyone says,wind and solar due not displace oil, at best they might displace some coal or natural gas. It is good to reduce emissions,but much better to displace foreign oil,the Keystone Pipeline does both. I know some have a hard time with nuclear power but it produces low emission, American energy to the grid.
The enviro left cabal– yes very nice,no matter what anyone says,wind and solar do not displace oil, at best they might displace some coal or natural gas. It is good to reduce emissions,but much better to displace foreign oil,the Keystone Pipeline does both. I know some have a hard time with nuclear power but it produces low emission, American energy to the grid.
Note to readers. Gordon Docherty has submitted a revised version of his document which I have posted in place of the original one. The earlier version can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/238368234/Hydrinos-LENR-in-Harmony-1
Nice work Gordon. I think however you’re trying to combine too many ideas – perhaps to accomodate the widely varied effects and products attributed to LENR. Skeptics make a valid point when asking why we see so many different products from LENR. e.g. various “cold fusion” experiments yield He4, 3H, heat, UV, blackbody, low gamma, neutrons, transmuted elements, etc.
This suggests a need to group effects and products by experiment type e.g. electrochemical, electrolytic, gas loaded metals, etc. Also, it would be helpful to clearly separate two categories of Casimir effect – 1) occurring between two parallel plates confirmed by mainstream, 2) a similar effect occurring between atomic nuclei and electrons (unconfirmed to my knowledge.)
Further, it helps to pursue these theories along the lines of Haisch and Rueda who have been in the quantum vacuum field game for many years. They have had to separate relativistic influences and non-relativistic influences. This makes visualization far easier IMO. It seems reasonable to begin by simply visualizing Casimir cavities (NAEs) in H2 loaded Ni nano-crystals; leaving aside electrochemical/electrolytic experiments. Additionally, leave aside (for the moment) relativistic influences inside and outside the cavities.
This simplified examination of LENR then need only consider how a Millsian hydrino might form in an E-Cat type environment. The key is clearly nano-particles comprised of crystal geometry able to form Casimir cavities. What is agreed by mainstream is these cavities confirm quantum vacuum energy indicated by energy “flux” of a lower “pressure” inside the cavity (making plates attract.)
At its very simplest, using SED stochastic electrodynamics it is plausible the lower energy “pressure” inside the cavity could induce an H1 (atomic hydrogen) electron to transition below the Bohr ground state creating Mills’ fractional Rydberg atoms — H(1/p) wherein n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,…1/p (p ≤ 137 is an integer). As it does, according to Mills, it non-radiatively transfers energy by resonance to a catalyst. Again, keeping it simple, on exiting the cavity this hydrino returns to the Bohr ground state by its electron acquiring energy from the vacuum outside the cavity.
Clearly there is lots more going on than this schematic operation. But at least to begin, it seems reasonable to start with a plausible base, and then add other influences e.g. relativistic acceleration, cold neutrons, radiative (heat, light) products etc… My 2(1/4) cents. 🙂
“At its very simplest, using SED stochastic electrodynamics it is
plausible the lower energy “pressure” inside the cavity could induce an
H1 (atomic hydrogen) electron to transition below the Bohr ground state
creating Mills’ fractional Rydberg atoms — H(1/p) wherein n = 1/2, 1/3,
1/4,…1/p (p ≤ 137 is an integer). As it does, according to Mills, it
non-radiatively transfers energy by resonance to a catalyst.”
Yep, this makes a lot of sense.
“Again, keeping it simple, on exiting the cavity this hydrino returns to
the Bohr ground state by its electron acquiring energy from the vacuum
outside the cavity.”
It would be nice if it did. My understanding, however, was that a hydrino, once formed, remained a hydrino and went off on it’s merry way into space… As I said, though, it would be nice if it rebounded to become a normal atom again. Perhaps someone else can provide some input as to what the current understanding is re. the longevity of hydrinos, once formed…
Still, in LENR, this is less of an issue, as the environment will continue to drive the hydrino toward becoming a slow neutron.
With a description of an idea of what is going on, though, at least we will have the basis for designing robust experiments to test out the factors at play. For example, a smaller cavity should produce a more energetic (higher frequency) EM emission, while adjusting the ratio of electrons / electron carriers to protons should directly affect how much energy is produced, allowing for some form of modelling and predictions of energy production based on:
1. Cavity Size / Nuclei size
2. Nuclei density / Electron density
3. Surface (reaction) area
4. Resonance applied – phononic
5. Resonance applied – magnonic
6. Heat applied / extracted
7. Best / Cheapest Inhibitors to apply to adjust the speed of reaction (or kill it completely) – including inert gases, liquids such as water, resonance destroying waves, mechanical decompression)
Yes. Randy says his hydrinos are highly stable, more so than H2. However if formed due to higher frequencies inside cavities, would not the lower frequencies outside the cavity affect the electron orbit? Especially elliptical or other orbital deformation?
Very much like your list of model criterion. Indeed a smaller cavity (potentially induced by phonon/plasomon and magnetic activity) should produce higher frequencies inside cavity – but how to measure directly? Perhaps simply measure strain on parallel plates – it should increase as cavity pressure decreases.
Some time ago I stumbled upon the paper „Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities“ by Dmitriyeva & Moddel:
I did not reread it yet, so excuse me if it should be irrelevant in the current context.
This paper provides rudimentary data on finding a signal from ZP when a gas flows through Casimir cavities. The authors are cautious about stating where their small IR signal comes from – but do a reasonable job of considering conventional sources. One experimental issue is their Casimir membrane contained few definitive cavities:
“The filters contain a range of nanopore sizes and shapes, as shown in Figure 2. [ with pore sizes of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4
μum.] Given that only a small fraction of the nanopores within the filter satisfy the Casimir cavity conditions, the number of atoms experiencing a large change in ZP field density was reduced substantially.”
Second is the experiment tested four gases He, Xe N2, Ar — No H2 or protium. Their highest signal came from He through a polycarbonate membrane – again with rather large pores (>0.1um) far larger than the LENR posited ideal from powders around 10nm. Unfortunately the experiment did not use H2 or protium and the cavity scale appears far too large for LENR-type energy. Still the results show anomalous IR.
Errata: blog did not display micrometer ASCII – the pore size in [brackets] should read μm.
“At its very simplest, using SED stochastic electrodynamics it is plausible the lower energy “pressure” inside the cavity could induce an H1 (atomic hydrogen) electron to transition below the Bohr ground state creating Mills’ fractional Rydberg atoms — H(1/p) wherein n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,…1/p (p ≤ 137 is an integer). As it does, according to Mills, it non-radiatively transfers energy by resonance to a catalyst.” as mentioned earlier by GreenWin. Now, in addition to H(1/p), does this also not mean for Hydrogen anions that there are two (or more?) electrons below the Bohr ground state? Such an effect would certainly encourage the collapse in of one or more of the shells onto the nucleus. If nothing else, the outer electron would occupy at least the Ground state shell, so trapping the inner electron “inside”, as it were.
So, in addition to a positively charged metal lattice (for Casimir spaces), the more free electrons are available to the denser monatomic hydrogen clusters inside the space, the better… and, if we remember back, H anions (shielded H) seem like a good candidate for bringing Hydrogen atoms into strongly positively charged Crystal lattices…
Now, a catalyst that would help prize electrons from the metal lattice and freely transfer them to monatomic Hydrogen would be very useful to have around… coincidentally, although not altogether conceptually unconnected (as it is an inverse process that uses Hydogen ions / anions to move electrons around), the electron transport chain is essential part in the generation of ATP in animal cells and the capture of energy from sunlight in photosynthesis.
Finally, Hydrogen anions are of great importance in atomic physics and astrophysics. I recommend reading the following :
Particularly noteworthy is that Hydrogen anions are very abundant in the ionized atmospheres of stars such as the Sun, and that Hydrogen anions interact very differently with Photons when compared with anion / photon interaction for larger atoms (the paper discusses this). Also, Hyrogen Anions provide the basis for neutral beam heating on ITER.
In conclusion, then the importance of Hydrogen anions in starting and energizing high-energy processes in stars and in Hot Fusion reactors, in keeping the cells in our bodies energized, in allowing plants to “harvest” sunlight, and now in Hydrino / LENR processes cannot be stressed enough, and it is clear that any LENR catalyst is going to have to provide these Hydrogen anions – also known as Hydrides in chemistry… hence the talk of Nickel Hydrides as well as Nickel lattices, and the deforming effect of hydride dissociation from a lattice, providing monatomic hydrogen, free electrons – and a Casimir gap in the lattice, especially when the lattice is put under strain (why I like the idea of flexing tubercules working on and opening up those lattice gaps…)
I will read this and comment shortly. Thanks very much Gordon.
Gordon, I have read through about a third of Rau’s paper on negative H ions and am intrigued by the idea of two electrons at different radii. From my limited view these things appear to be hydrino cousins if one of the anion electrons orbits below the Bohr radius. Anionic photoabsorption of 0.75 – 4eV photons at visible and IR
wavelengths certainly play an important role in astrophysics and may
function as a source of electron energy in hydrino formation.
However, as I have no training in this level of physics I am unable to comment on how H anions would assist the Hydrino transition. Therefore I must rely on Dr. Mills who I cannot recall mentioning anions (I have not checked.)
Going somewhat off topic I am fascinated by B. Haisch and Rueda’s latest paper that implies (in my interpretation) that ZP flux contributes to and may explain Newton’s first law of motion – inertia. The authors suggest the ZP field provides in some part the resistance to a body accelerating. They further imply that a body at rest in a gravitational field would cause the ZP field to accelerate in curved geodesics around the body – generating weight.
This suggests that a body causing less disturbance of the ZP field could exhibit less “weight.” A body causing greater disturbance (a larger mass) would exhibit greater weight. Somehow, these curved geodesic flows of ZP energy may be a better model for gravity than the 2D “fabric” analogy. Speculating now on sacred geometry, some shapes (e.g. triangle) may disturb the field so optimally as to become “lighter” than the field itself – resulting in… 🙂 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6036.pdf
Interestingly the Quant e-Sportlimousine reported by Pesn and the Daily Mail
is competitive on price with the 1MW Rossi plant. 680KW electricity on saltwater without
steam generation turbines or the car itself needed for 1 million dollars.
The nanoFLOWCELL® drive is an energy storage battery, not a power source.
But very cool, check out the video on their site.
It operates like a hydrogen fuel cell that converts water to useable electricity.
Once you store a charge in it.
Things have moved swiftly in flow batteries. They are very expensive but will drop in cost as more are sold. Aquion Energy uses a similar design but has targeted the load balance demand of the grid for its first applications. These and the Li-Ion batteries arriving from Tesla (at much lower cost) will challenge the E-Cat and SunCell for low cost energy.
But flow or Li-Ion batteries require regular charging – ideally from solar PV. The solar + storage system has caused large investment banks (e.g. Morgan Stanley) to short electric utilities in USA and EU. If Rossi’s latest E-Cat does operate at COP >6 and the thermo-electric conversion is efficient enough, it will be no economic contest. But for automobiles like the Quant beauty, batteries are the forseeable future.
BTW, I have driven the Tesla Roadster 0-60MPH in 4.3″ – – it is thrilling! The Quant doubles that acceleration at a whisper – it has to be stunning!
The practical way to create those nano-cavities is via cryogenic treatment (commercial process, liquid nitrogen, used in “tempering” of alloyed-steel tools). This is a hint for the MFMP people.
Please note that the numerous hints related to Rossi’s “LENR” process CONVERGE if the Casimir force/ZPE are considered as an explanation. The lack of post-radiation in the “LENR” is, I think, the strongest supporting fact.
If the way from the atomic hydrogen goes through hydrino to a neutron, than the neutron penetrates through nickel and undergoes a natural conversion to a hydrogen atom (takes about 9 minutes if in vacuum), and this would close the loop. The energy for these conversions, as concluded by Gordon, would be taken from the Casimir force/ZPE.
You guys cannot be talking real science like on a mainstream science site.
There every second sentence would be, the second law, impossible, beyond known science etc,
Where are you pointing out that Aristotle never preached Cold Fusion?
I think it would be better if you returned like them to discussing the belief that science ends with the steam engine.
I have no idea if hydrinos are fact or fantasy, but the topic makes interesting reading. People often talk of new inventions “breaking the laws of physics,” but, of course, there are no actual laws of physics, only commonly understood observations of how nature expresses itself. If you discover a new way that the universe can behave on the atomic or subatomic level, you have not broken any rules, only made an observation.
Ha, Chris you are talking like a real scientist, be careful that could get you into a lot of trouble if the holy priests hear you saying such things without their blessing.
some laws, few one, are linked to evident and solid symmetries…
sometime broken but rarely.
but many laws, pretended laws are just bad habits and lazy assumptions…
what is shocking for me is that most competent in a domain often start to believe those simple regularities are laws…
CoE, CoM, Lightspeed, thermodynamic laws, are linked to required basic symmetries on time and space, but even ohm law, coulomb barrier, are just regularities observed in some common context.
my bet is that basic laws (CoE,Entropy=Heisenberg,Relativity,CoM) are 100% respected by LENR and EmDrive…
however many assumption are wrong…
Il like Ed storms Theory, but it may be another, based on the same principles.
If science ended with the steam engine, did the church invent the internal combustion engine and moon rockets?
Morning Andy. Ha, my post is called being sarcastic,
Sarcasm can be very accurate in many cases.
There is some Wonderful science and scientists out there, they just need to remove the deadwood, wasters and opinion experts etc.
Remove all peer review for profit.
Remove all Dogma.
Introduce a new education system that produces open-minded, competent scientists and not closed-minded Establishment fearing drones that shake in their boots at words like Cold Fusion, UFO, Telepathy, Remote viewing, Placebo effect, NDE, Consciousness Etc. Etc. Etc.
Sarcasm. Got it!
You repeat it often enough that I thought you were being literal.
Let us keep our “eyes on the prize”, a working e-cat and not get side-tracked by these fancy theories. Leave the theories to the corrupt science. We want a working gadget!
Yes, but wacky theories are in great supply and working gadgets are not.
***Pentagon’s experimental Phantom Swift X-Plane contract secured by Boeing***
“The idea for the aircraft, which resulted from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) VTOL X-Plane competition in 2013, will eventually be powered by an *all-electric drive* and measure 13 meters nose to tail and 15 meters from wingtip to wingtip, the military blog Defense Tech reported Aug. 28. The finished product is also expected to weight between 10,000 to 12,000 pounds.”
The “all-electric drive” is being designed by DARPA and Boeing, two organizations involved in LENR research. An electric powered aircraft would be perfect for the kinds of power sources we discuss on these pages. As you know, NASA is working with Boeing on LENR aircraft designs.
Looks like a cool design. I’m pretty sure there will be no LENR tech in this aircraft. It uses electricity, so if you had electricity to run the reactor you wouldn’t run the reactor! Why would you? To produce heat? In an aircraft? If you had electricity you would power the aircraft as it is all electric. There are lots of ways to store electric power without batteries,like fuel cells,or other chemical energy.
It could be fuel cell driven at first. I suspect the big semi-secret triangle shaped dirigibles they have flying around are fuel cell driven. But, I also suspect they are preparing for future LENR power. We do not know how advanced NASA is in their work with LENR. They complain when Rossi is secretive, but they are far more secretive that Rossi. Their method is very different than Rossi’s and we do not know what it can do at this point in time.
Rossi is open compared to serious big business…
I would not be surprised in the first LENR revolution will start in planes, which show the hardest problems, because it is funny, it is competitive, it is consuming much, and they can make big business without losing their competence asset, nor their market structure (LENR will not change EADS/Boeing business model, unlike utilities, home appliances, cars manufacturers).
I am more concerned by specialist of oil energy consumption like Rolls-Royce (who work on hybrid), electric utilities, who may be disrupted.
Boeing and Airbus are clearly studying eectric airplane.
Aibus have the E-fan prototype, and wor on regional hybrid eConcept, eThrust
those big guys are battling for the future. EADS said nothing on LENR, but who knows what they do, and sure once LENR is mainstream the battle will be ferocious.
I love your typo eectric. Next time typo eektric just to make it express what we are all thinking.
Thanks for the links. Some of these designs look like Toyota Prius technology for aircraft. I had never thought of such a thing. So what if Dr. Mill’s hydrino reactor device works despite the unimpressive demonstrations. Imagine you have a 747 sized aircraft you want to power with a hydrino-electric drive. How would you do it? Would you use ordinary electric engines powering propellers? Could you make some kind of electric powered jet engine?
Scaling up hobby EDF engines like this one (http://www.shop.rc-electric-jets.com/Schubeler-DS-94-DIA-HDT-120mm-EDF-DS-94-DIA-HDT.htm) that produces up to 90N of thrust shouldn’t be that difficult. The big issue will be the power source. A 30% efficient TEG would be ideal combined with a hot cat. The hot cat could be put in line with the EDF to cool the TEG and add heat/thrust to the air flow.
We are going to need something like what I described above before we get our flying cars and I want mine now.
Aircraft is the last place you would want a heavy, unreliable, user of electricity, and producer of heat. AR has it right, an industrial process that uses heat. But will anyone live to see it??
Scaling up hobby EDF engines like this one http://www.shop.rc-electric-jets.com/Schubeler-DS-94-DIA-HDT-120mm-EDF-DS-94-DIA-HDT.htm that produces up to 90N of thrust shouldn’t be that difficult. The big issue will be the power source. A 30% efficient TEG would be ideal combined with a hot cat. The hot cat could be put in line with the EDF to cool the TEG and add heat/thrust to the air flow.
So in a few weeks we’ll have a report with some decent numbers, it won’t be peer reviewed, it won’t be in a reputable science publication, there will be no reaction from the wider world and we will be told to wait six months and we’ll be able to see the 1MW plant. Sorry if I’m being pessimistic,but I just read LPP’s web page. I remember following them years ago and it was really shoestring, they’d ask us to send them old oscilloscopes and things. They were not only published in Science ,there was an editorial in Nature saying they deserved government help. You would think their principal was a little kooky as he has his own ideas about the big bang ,inflation dark energy and dark matter,he says the whole thing is wrong. Hard to believe he’s right but he’s pretty convincing. He’s getting global attention for his approach of a smaller devise to produce denser plasma. All the people who work there are very impressive. Thanks for letting me rant,I’ll be quiet now. They do have a beautiful website.
You store a charge in it. It does not burn water, it stores electricity in sodium.
The opinion of Dr. Randell Mills is here:
It sounds as if Mills is just regurgitating what has been reported to him. He likely has no 1st hand knowledge of the facts. Nor does he seem to be aware how many experts in multiple disciplines who would not be fooled by such gimmicks.
The Hot-Cat outer shell is isolated from the resistance coils. No current passes thru. You could get burnt, but not shocked.
There was No ground connected to the reactor.
(Note: Tiny pieces of insulation were placed between the reactor & the Frame work) The Reactor was insulated from the frame work so as not to conduct heat to the frame work nor current even if there were any. There was not.
Heat is Heat. You can’t fake heat. Both IR sensor & thermocouple were used for temp readings.
HOWEVER, If someone really should find a way to Fake Heat, I’d be interested in how that’s done. I’ll Fake Heat my home this winter & avoid a utility bill. 🙂
I Note Mills Original Reactor was much like the E-cat reactor. Used Nickel & Hydrogen and produced excess heat. Just not in a stable continuous manner likely for the lack of Rossi’s secret catalyst.
I have asked his opinion about the harmony existing between Hydrinos and LENR.
It does not exist in more senses.
Re Rossi we had a discussion with Randy in 2011, I said that Rossi has excess heat, still lacks control and tries to show that he has more heat than he really has. He disagreed with the excess heat. Unfortunately Rossi has never made a perfect demo- see:
Therefore I could not collaborate with him and vice-versa.
Is Randy Mills aware of the 6 month independent test?
It was so much written about this Test that everybody is aware of it.
Rossi says that even he does not know yet the results of the tets – it is really very, very independent and he stll does not know if the results are positive or negative. We have to wait and hope.
Wouldn’t it be plain weird if Mills was working with IH under a spreading chessnut tree??
I think Mills is just trying to cover his own a$$. Especially the $$ part. Besides, Rossi would probably agree that it is not “Cold Fusion” but a newly discovered nuclear phenomenon.
Mills should spend more time coming up with something credible and less time tearing down Rossi.
Dear Barry 8,
I have to confess that my influence on the ideas and programs of both
Mills and Rossi is less than minimal.
What I want to emphasize that I have expressed long time ago my doubts that LENR is entirely nuclear and /or nuclear in the usual way.
I hope- but I am not very optimist about publication- that Rossi’s TIP2 will reveal
much about the nature of the reactions that take place in the E-Cart.
Technologically speaking this is Know What less than the more significant Know How and far from the most valuable Know Why. it is upon Rossi what will he tell to the large public and to the competition.
For this not-only-nuclear and for the desire-prediction that technology will solve
the LENR problem ,see please my ancient paper “Why Technology Firts?” appended to:
When Mills says ” Rossi work is not credible” he has to realize he is putting down something much bigger than Rossi. He’s putting down the credibility of the entire Industrial Heat company.
This page, like Mr. Rossi’s JONP is what real science is all about, open debate, no restrictions, no It can’t be done etc.
All peer review should be like this, no appointed “experts” all scientists who wish to comment will over time determine if the report is good.
One does not need Dogma ridden opinion experts, they are death to science as proven regarding the establishment position on Cold Fusion, etc.
Open-minded science, just as it should be.
Such open debate would, with the help of the experimenters who read the debate and do the important practical work on ides that they find interesting, soon lead to progress.
Hey George are you OK? You haven’t posted for a while.
If you put a molten salt fission reactor in an aircraft,you could fly for years at a time, nobody would do such a thing,there are treaties that out law it,and safe as it is,you’d be a moron to do it. But at Oak Ridge they did it long ago,that’s the idea for the Brayton cycle rather than the Rankine. That the reason that Rossi was speaking of turbines not steam ones ,hot air ones,much more efficient ,although you still have steam cycle for the heat after it exits to use the residual heat. Plus they are much cheaper as GE can sell you one while steam is much more expensive.
Sorry to offend Gordon, but unless you have a PhD in physics and publish in peer-reviewed journals (even lower-tier ones like Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics, which IS peer-reviewed even if it is not mainstream academic science) this style in which this paper is written is not helpful.
The reason why is that it does not read like a piece of journalism or a blog post, which is what any non-physicist is doing when they write about LENR. Instead, it has the superficial appearance of being a rigorous scientific article. That is misleading to readers and will actually backfire in the cause of trying to advance LENR and obtain legitimacy in the wider scientific and public audiences.
Whether you are a physicist at MIT or a hobbyist/enthusiast, you need to clearly state your qualifications for the audience so we can have some sort of idea of how seriously to take a piece of work like this. In a perfect world, all publications would simply stand or fall entirely on their own merits. But we don’t live in a perfect world. There isn’t enough time to read everything and try to figure out what is truly legitimate, what is true but unconventional, and what is just plain junk.
Any publication should be evaluated on its merit, not credentials.
Think about Galileo… He would never get published in a peer-reviewed journal. The peer review had its merit when everything was published on paper and the pages were limited.
The peer-review should be replaced with a rating system, so the creative thoughts would not be suppressed again and again.
The people with credentials mostly publish “teeny-tiny” contributions (sometimes even junk), which do not contribute too much to the progress of our civilization. This is OK with me. However, promoting the consensus and “decisions by commissions”, as often practiced, is not OK. The various forms of “consensus” brought already too many disasters. The status of the Science and many other areas is really a “disaster”. The progress WILL really happen at the fringes, but we are not there yet, and most people do not even understand that simple fact. There are tools in the methodology of creativity, pointing really strongly into the direction of the fringes.
Yes, the old Z building on the theories of Y building on the theories of X building on the theories of … building on the theories of A. But, what if the assumptions made by A were subtly wrong? Sometimes, it is useful to take a different PERSPECTIVE on the REAL WORLD. Knowledge informs, but it is NOT reality – and this is where we get to the heart of what is wrong with your argument above : “There isn’t enough time to read everything and try to figure out what is truly legitimate” This is known as bounded rationality, and speaks to the fact that humans – ALL humans – are but mere mortals. So, a system such as you describe has Z bounded by Y bounded by X bounded by … bounded by A, in addition to other environmental factors. It is a system of pure constraint. For “refining what is known”, this is a very good system, but don’t ever expect it to be original, and NEVER think it is always right – and, when it is wrong, how is that wrong going to be corrected? After all, it was the “right thinking” of those on whom “hands were laid” that led to it being wrong in the first place. This is where free-thinking originality and recombination of “known” facts in different, unexpected ways comes into play – otherwise known as imagination. Yet free-thinking requires stepping out of the system of “conformance reward”, something that will inevitably lead to criticism, ridicule and, potentially, destruction of the person’s career who does so. So, if your career depends on “always being right”, who from the peer-review systems is ever going to stick their neck out and be wrong? This is man’s wisdom at its best, namely pure folly. Why, then, do you worry about whether the author is an “MIT man” or a patent clerk? Is it not the ideas that are most important? The purpose of articles such as the one I wrote is to get people to read … and imagine. It is not to learn rote to pass an exam to gain the approval you seek from others to join the race toward a well-paying tenure for life and a distinguished career. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but, as the saying goes, a man cannot have two masters, so either it is the ideas that are important, or the person having them, and in particular, their accumulated wealth, standing and reputation (or, as it is called outside of science, “celebrity status”). Now, by all means, if you feel comfortable, just follow along the well worn tracks of others, unhindered by thoughts of the larger universe, but don’t expect those also following to accept any new ideas such as Hydrinos or LENR until well past the time when the current “masters of science” have retired and died out. Was it not Max Plank who said “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” or, as it is more popularly paraphrased, “Science advances one funeral at a time”. Now, in a perfect world, we could plod along, advancing and backtracking in “the search space of truth”, until we believed (we could never prove it) that we have covered all the ground, including opportunities that were possibly missed earlier. Unfortunately, as you say, we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t actually have time for this rather unimaginative approach to “eventually cover the ground”. Fortunately, we have been blessed with imagination. So, there will be those who have problems moving outside of their own comfort zone, preferring to plod, but please don’t tar the rest of us with the same brush. It is in seeing the world from a new perspective that the answers we seek are often found.
Also, as far as I’m aware, mainstream science has already ruled on LENR – that it is “fake science” or “junk science” or “impossible” – take your pick. So, why talk about “advancing LENR” when, “as is well known”, it doesn’t exist? Mainstream science ruled on this twenty five years ago. Period. Of course, mainstream science also said that about ball lightning until several peasants independently – and inconveniently – uploaded film of it.
And, whilst on the “war of words”, why is it phrases such as “junk science” and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” are used at all? Why not just say “not yet sufficiently proven” or, better yet, “as far as is currently understood, this does not look possible” and let the truth take care of itself? The more one looks into “the discovery process” the more one sees that the mainstream is acting like a classic hierarchy, namely self-serving and acting to protect itself and its raison d’être, the structures and knowledge it “protects”. For anyone involved in science, this should be ringing major alarm bells, as scientific theories are morphing into canonical fact. They are becoming scriptures to be protected by a royal priesthood. Science is becoming a religion. Plus ça change… Wasn’t science supposed to be about “holding all up to scrutiny and searching for the truth – INCLUDING what has gone before”? So, at what stage did it become about “holding all up to scrutiny and searching for the truth – EXCEPTING what has gone before – AS RECEIVED TRUTH, LIKE RECEIVED WISDOM, IS ABSOLUTE AND IMMUTABLE”? The emperor must never be challenged. Dark days indeed.
I’m 62 and have never read anything questioning the reality of ball lightning, but have read a lot of different theories concerning its nature.
One such example:
Letters to Nature: Nature 230, 179 – 180 (19 March 1971); Ball Lightning as an Optical Illusion
Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory, Penticton, British Columbia:
Hope this helps…
Well put Gordon. We are witnessing the failure of absolute and immutable “wisdom.” All wisdom, and ALL levels of power except perhaps pure energy are subject to challenge. Thereby do we approach equilibrium.
I always award bonus points for Biblical references.
Note: I understand there are many good people doing science. But, There are a few who have an oversized Ego.
Only PhD’s in physics should publish.
Kind of like the religion of old.
Only the High Priests shall have access to scrolls of knowledge & disseminate it. Reading & Writing are banned from the commons. The Priests shall provide the consensus & you shall accept it as gospel. To question them is blasphemy.
I find it Ironic that “some” in Science trash talk religion & blind faith, Yet, They themselves ask us to take so much on blind faith in their endeavors.
Sorry, I believe in Science. I believe in a higher power. I Do Not believe in blind faith. I believe in questions.
I’m with you Omega. Robert Johnson said “90% of the energy is in the questions”.
Well said, however I still put more stock in information depending on the source and context. When I read the Bible I do not take all of it literally, I decide and I have more faith in the publications,” Science” and “Nature” than I do in any ones random personal blog.
On September 2, 2014 BlackLight Power closed on $5 M in private equity financing. On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M.
Countdown Clock to Working Prototype: 13 weeks:
Interesting document by Gordon. But there’s just one little problem with it.
Randy Mills thinks that Rossi isn’t on the level and that low-temperature LENR is impossible:
So, when the Father of the Hydrino voices this, how does one reconcile the two?
For near 20 years, Mills had a very similar setup with NI/H as Rossi has. And for that period of time made the same claims as Rossi, Except, Mills was not able to scale it up. You can find video’s of Mills reactor on YouTube. Compare them to Rossi’s device.
Add to that, more then a dozen others also have similar setups & claims, Also unable to scale up. Check out the Data presented at the Missouri ICCF 18 Conference.
Or the JET Energy LENR device called the NANOR presented at M.I.T by Swartz & Peter Hagelstein. They all lack the Key that Rossi discovered.
Mills likely has an Ego problem. If He couldn’t figure it out, How could someone like Andrea Rossi. “Reconciled” Note: No question Einstein was a genius, But even he called wrong on occasion.
Let’s see here–we don’t have Docherty’s little setup, so he can’t bolster his position with that. It would seem that we have the following situations:
1. Mills is right and by extension, has something (i.e., his hydrino reactor), so Rossi doesn’t have anything and therefore Docherty is also wrong. There’s no low-temp LENR.
2. Mills is wrong, so he doesn’t have anything and neutrinos are just so much bafflegab. Low temp LENR is or is not real (if Mills is wrong, he lacks the basis for opining on LENR based on his hydrino theory), but there being no hydrinos, Docherty is wrong.
3. Rossi and Mills both have something; Mills’ statement about LENR is wrong, but his statements about hydrinos are otherwise correct. Docherty then could be correct–not a sure thing until his idea is proven–but that’s not a cinch by any means.
4. Niether Mills nor Rossi have anything. LENR is not occurring, Mills is scamming, there are no neutrinos and Docherty is wrong.
I see no way to reconcile this without calling somebody a liar. (3) is a possibility, but it still doesn’t demonstrate that Docherty’s paper has merit. Perhaps someone needs to build Docherty’s apparatus and test it.
Nice post. I think it important to acknowledge that the probability that there are no useful LENR reactions occurring anywhere is greater than zero. I also think it more probable that a low temperature ecat works than any nested or hotcat devise. I’m pretty sure this test will show positive results but I’m not sure what that will mean.
“I see no way to reconcile this without calling somebody a liar.” Really? Must skeptics always invoke these adolescent pejoratives? If we want unfounded speculation we could also say Mills, Rossi, and Balikiryan have each been granted exclusive rights to technologies transferred by extra terrestrials. Sure.
Right and Wrong? These are moral concepts. So is liar. What place have these in discussing the merits or demerits of trying to understand phenomena? Further, by making the statement “I see no way to reconcile this without calling somebody a liar.”, you have set yourself up as judge and jury, again in a moral context – there is no way “liar” is expressing anything other than a moral concept. Thus we see that you are taking a moral position on this discussion, but a moral position about what? This is when you try to present your position not as a moral one, but as a scientific one. You appear to consider the alternatives in an objective fashion. Even here, though, we see your moral position seeping through “Mills is right”, “Mills is wrong”, “Mills is scamming”. These statements are not only moral statements – they are also presented as black-and-white. You do this by reducng a whole series down to one simple idea, “X”. You then go on to say either “X is right” or “X is wrong”. These are value judgements and, worse than that, they are both presented as black-and-white. It is either right or wrong. There is no room for part-right, or expressing interesting ideas. No, Right or Wrong. Period. Subtle explorations of ideas have been reduced to a single logical statement to which the law of the excluded middle is applied. X is right. X is wrong. This even shows up when you look at case 3: Rossi and Mills both have something… Docherty could be correct. Here, you use “correct” instead of “right” to make it look like you are reasoning objectively. The moral dimension still seeps through, however: “Mills’ statement about LENR is wrong”. Of course, by using black-and-white reasoning in “options” 1,2 and 4 (there’s that judging again, “deciding” which option is “right”) you thoroughly condemn the whole topic of LENR and Hydrinos, for either Hydrinos are right and LENR is wrong (option 1), or LENR is right and Hydrinos are wrong (option 2), or BOTH LENR and Hydrinos are wrong (option 4) (as an aside, how can a Hydrino be wrong – is it a moral being?). This just leaves option 3, the apparent scientific statement, which we have seen is really just another dressed up moral option:
“3. Rossi and Mills both have something; Mills’ statement about LENR is wrong, but his statements about hydrinos are otherwise correct. Docherty then could be correct–not a sure thing until his idea is proven–but that’s not a cinch by any means”
What is it that Docherty could be correct about? Don’t you mean, the ideas presented by Docherty may have some merit or may not? Further, why is the implication of “Rossi and Mills both have something” that “someone needs to build Docherty’s apparatus and test it.” If your option 3 is correct, would the implication not then be “OK, so let’s think about what’s going on, taking into consideration ideas such as those presented by Docherty?”
This is the true scientific approach. Treat no idea as scripture (not even mine!) – and even where an idea is “proven”, still remember that humans are imperfect, and descriptions of ideas written by humans even more so. So, there’s always nuances that could have been missed, or, of course, just general room for improvement…
So, what we see in conclusion is that this argument is actually a moral one in which Docherty is to be tried and found (morally) right or wrong, with a heavy emphasis on the wrong (an emphasis bordering on hate, I might add). Further, the argument as presented clearly has a second purpose – to imbue the reader with the strongest of feelings that LENRs and Hydrinos are junk science anyway, and that those taking an interest or actively involved are “wrong”, are “liars”, are intellectually inferior, are sub-human.
Finally, I ask one question: what is the purpose of the reply to which I am replying – to discuss the ideas presented, or just attack, demolish and dismiss LENR, Hydrinos and those attempting to understand these phenomena as “junk science” and “liars”? If the former, then the reply to which I am replying is wide of the mark. If the latter, if you’re so certain, then why even bother?
Sigh. Language is such a problem. Allow me to restate this in neutral terms. I apologize for not being more clear–and for the length of what I’m about to say. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
I attempted to present my view in terms of logical statements. In philosophical logic, “lying” does not carry the moral burden of “intent to deceive” as it does in common parlance. In the philosophy of logic, a lie is something that is not true. It does not concern itself with the beliefs or morals of the teller.
In the everyday world, a lie is something stated as truth that the teller believes not to be true. In fact, it’s possible for a person to lie while telling the truth, if he believes the reverse of what’s said is true.
Allow me to try again.
1. Mills originated hydrino physics. He states that, according to his physics, LENR is impossible and Rossi is not being intellectually honest. To wit: “Cold fusion through chemistry at low temperature is not theoretically possible. Moreover, my view of the Rossi work is that it is not credible. First generations were a misrepresentation of hot water as steam and recent cases exploited multiple ground loops through a metal support frame to show fake heat. It is not making any excess energy.”
2. Rossi has claimed transmutation of Ni62 to Cu63, which, unless our idea of the structure of the atom is totally incorrect, implies a nuclear reaction that produces a product with more massive nucleii at temperatures less than temperatures normally associated with nuclear fusion. Hence, “cold fusion” or, if you will, “LENR”. I can find no cite for Rossi claims of anything falling under the heading of hydrino theory.
3. Docherty proposes that LENR using hydrino theory is possible and even postulates a way to test this.
If Mills’ statement is factual, then (2) cannot be true. If Rossi is creating LENR, then, according to Mills, there is no basis for it in his own physics, so there must be something wrong with hydrino theory. Either hydrinos exist and are involved in LENR, or they’re not. Either LENR is possible or it’s not.
There must be a way to resolve this.
Gordon, have you asked Mills to critique your paper? If so, what was his response? If not, why not? Have you constructed your appratus to show that hydrino theory and LENR are not incompatible?
Am I a skeptic? Well, given the show of the past 25 years, I strongly lean in that direction. Is my skepticism malicious? I don’t think so–I think it would be a great breakthrough if hydrinos or LENR were demonstrated in an open peer-reviewed manner to be a physical fact. I’m on nobody’s payroll to confuse or obfuscate anything.
“1. Mills originated hydrino physics. He states that, according to his physics, LENR is impossible and Rossi is not being intellectually honest. To wit: “Cold fusion through chemistry at low temperature is not theoretically possible. Moreover, my view of the Rossi work is that it is not credible. First generations were a misrepresentation of hot water as steam and recent cases exploited multiple ground loops through a metal support frame to show fake heat. It is not making any excess energy.” ”
This equates LENR and Cold Fusion. Rossi does not. Instead, he describes the “Rossi Effect” as a “Quantum Reaction”, not a chemical one (i.e. one involving the making and severing of molecular bonds). As to “”Cold fusion through chemistry at low temperature is not theoretically possible.”, I don’t think anyone on this site would say otherwise. No one here, as far as I know, has ever claimed that Cold Fusion is just a chemical reaction.
“2. Rossi has claimed transmutation of Ni62 to Cu63, which, unless our idea of the structure of the atom is totally incorrect, implies a nuclear reaction that produces a product with more massive nucleii at temperatures less than temperatures normally associated with nuclear fusion. Hence, “cold fusion” or, if you will, “LENR”. I can find no cite for Rossi claims of anything falling under the heading of hydrino theory.”
Three to four years ago, there was some evidence of Copper in the reaction ash of Rossi’s e-Cat, and this was talked about at the time. Since then, however, with further LENR experiments undertaken by various parties, the commonly held view is now that LENR involves some form of transmutation – starting with the various isotopes of Hydrogen moving through to Helium. Now, the hot fusioneers claim that this means there is no fusion, because in their definition, fusion is the fusing of two atoms of equal numbers of protons and neutrons (such as deuterons) only. This is a rather narrow definition of fusion, however, as transmutation from protium to deuterium to tritium to helium 4, whilst not what happens in standard hot fusion, ultimately does fulfill the main criterion for fusion, namely that you start with an atom of one atomic weight and end with an atom of heavier atomic weight (plus, it is hoped, energy out, at least to be useful as a source of energy).
Accepting LENR as being manly related to transmutation, the energy produced in LENR systems is produced only after a metallic crystal lattice is evacuated of air/water, filled with monatomic hydrogen (in its natural ratios of protium to deuterium to tritium), and subject to pressure, heat (circa 186C before the reaction takes off), EM field and phononic / magnonic resonance. The 186C value is strongly suggestive of the metallic lattice containing a metal hydride – this is the temperature at which hydrogen starts to dissociate from the metal, at least in certain cases.
“3. Docherty proposes that LENR using hydrino theory is possible and even postulates a way to test this.
If Mills’ statement is factual, then (2) cannot be true. If Rossi is creating LENR, then, according to Mills, there is no basis for it in his own physics, so there must be something wrong with hydrino theory. Either hydrinos exist and are involved in LENR, or they’re not. Either LENR is possible or it’s not.”
Now, this is where it gets interesting, for, referring back to point 2, later studies strongly suggested that Copper is not always produced in the Rossi Effect. Earlier studies had found evidence of some Copper, however. So, it was suggested (as an idea, I might add) that the Copper could have resulted from contamination of the reaction site OR have resulted as a secondary effect related to some other primary effect. Now, one way Copper could have been produced in a secondary effect is if the NAE sites became so (over) energetically stimulated (active) that there was a massive, localized, release of highly energetic transmutation products. These products would then collide with the enclosing Nickel atoms in the lattice, forming Copper – and thankfully destroying the reaction site in the process, so as to kill of any thermal / nuclear runaway.
“Gordon, have you asked Mills to critique your paper? If so, what was his response? If not, why not? Have you constructed your appratus to show that hydrino theory and LENR are not incompatible?”
No, but it’s a good idea – and if he ever visits this site, I hope he finds a little time to consider what has been written and ask himself the question “What if…?” I know he is very busy, however, so I would not be surprised if this was somewhere toward the bottom of his priorities 🙂
At the end of the day, I put together the paper for this site to bring together for all interested the “facts” as I know them in order to explain how it is possible for Hydrinos and LENR to coexist and that, indeed, makes perfect sense that they do so – that they are actually different perspectives on the “same elephant”. For those who haven’t heard the oft-repeated story from India, there was once a village of blind men into which an elephant walked – well, the following link is as good as any to finish the story:
“In philosophical logic, “lying” does not carry the moral burden of “intent to deceive” as it does in common parlance. In the philosophy of logic, a lie is something that is not true. It does not concern itself with the beliefs or morals of the teller.”
Actually, yes, it does See, for example:
My brother held a Masters in (Moral) Philosophy, so I would often hear
about such “stuff” and learn about the importance of “understanding the
meaning” as he mused over various topics that would arise from
time-to-time. Sadly, he’s no longer with us, but he was very, very well read in Philosophy and the Arts (I was “Science”, he was “Arts”), and I miss him very much.
You could join this group:
Mills is following this group, and answers questions quite frequently, almost daily.
If you have an electric boat going thru a canal, it generates a wake/wave. That’s expended/lost energy.
By mounting a wave generator or tide generator to the sides of the canal, you would be capturing waste energy. Beaming it back to the boat would be a net gain. An increase in range.
It’s a similar principle as regenerative breaking. However it would recover energy while propelling. Regenerative braking works only when decelerating. The wave generating would be more efficient.
However, It could never be practical. Nor would it give you infinite range.
By mounting a wind mill to the side of your car, you would actually have a net loss & a reduced range.
So not the same. One increases efficiency & range while the other does the opposite.