Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
These PhD dudes should have simply settled on Nuclear as the reaction and let the implications of zero point energy & miracles become someone else's problem. They simply report that at the VERY LEAST it is a NUKE phenomenom. If it's so far removed from natural reality that it can only be explained in terms of miracles & ZPE, well, that's someone else's problem. The DUHH factor is incredibly high here. It leads one to suspect that these guys are engaging in insider trading on this information to the benefit of their friends & family. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Terry Blanton > > > In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a > vacuum/ZPE/Dirac > > source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs > to > > swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the > reaction > > can be pinned to nuclear. > > Hmmm. Now where did I read that before? ;-) > > > Hmm... Did you plant that particular thought into the collective > unconscious? > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction can be pinned to nuclear. ***Thanks, Jones. Until now I found no better explanation for the swedish scientists having such a long delay; it was either incompetence or greed. Now I see that it can be bewilderment. However, they knew going in that there could be anomalous results, so they have betrayed their first responsibility of simply reporting the results. No one asked them for a theory to explain it; after all, no one has been able to do so for 25 years and for them to think they could do it in a matter of months is the height of hubris.
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
You make an excellent point that we have not considered. When hydrogen is initially desorbed form the hydride, it will change into exotic forms such as Rydberg crystals. Once formed, these new hydrogen molecular configurations will no by absorbed back into the hydride. Desorption of hydrogen from a hydride may be a one way street. This means that any type of hydrogen manipulation via temperature control will not affect the reaction strength. I believe that Rossi has not solved his control problems. He needs another control parameter other than temperature to control the hot cat. The results from the six mouth test that we are all waiting for will tell the tale on this point. The Hot-Cat may produce excess heat but might tend to meltdown on occasion. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > I think the hydride loads MORE hydrogen from the supply when it is heated > by allowing the gas population to migrate into regions where vacuum > wavelengths are suppressed. In these regions the gas contracts to the > exotic forms that are the subject of all these discussions and theories. I > won't go so far as to say that this type of pressurized loading is, by > itself, in conflict with COE since it takes heat and pressure to achieve > the effect but once achieved the gas continues to move between different > regions changing freely to different exotic/fractional/relativistic values. > If Naudt's is correct about the gas being relativistic then I posit the > contraction we observe is due to negative gravity [negative equivalent > acceleration] .. a concept hard to imagine because we think of dx/dt only > in terms of a constant unit of time where 0 dt is the absolute minimum, I > am positing that suppression of vacuum wavelengths allows us to reduce the > unit of time below what we presently accept as the zero value for a > stationary inertial frame. I predict that the time unit can be suppressed > enough in these Casimir regions to account for the reports of anomalous > half life decay. I believe the local perspective of a hydrino or fractional > hydrogen wrt to space time outside the lattice is consistent with the same > perspective a stationary observer on earth would have for a near C object > but using negative acceleration/suppression can achieve the effect without > any spatial dx. I think confusion will continue to reign over this field > because of our definitions of time and temperature which ignore > relativistic effects. I think the hydrino locally perceives negative > equivalent acceleration as intense gravity in a direction that appears > normal local to it's inertial frame but which cause the object to shrink > from our perspective - I suspect the walls of the confinement shrink away > as the gas atoms suddenly see a totally empty region of space to one side > of them while, to the other, the previously inaccessible bottom of the > cavity suddenly appears large enough for them to continue downward between > walls that should be otherwise too small for them to fit between. I think > this is a new form of Lorentzian contraction on the nano scale powered by > vacuum suppression instead of dx and I believe the normal contraction along > a single axis is still in effect except it is only available to the hydrino > while our perspective of the hydrino is equivalent to that of the near C > Paradox Twin of a universe suddenly accelerated greatly and shrunken behind > us as we travel a hypotenuse toward C. > Fran > > -Original Message- > From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:18 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it. > > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:25:22 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen > >envelope and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we > >were to assume that the hydride replenished the envelope as the > >pressure decreased due to transmutation to keep the pressure constant, > >then that would be a different story. > > > >That assumption would be the same as connecting the envelope to a > >hydrogen tank with a pressure regulator attached. > > ...but that's exactly why the Hydride is present! If the only Hydrogen > used was what was in the tank, then it could just be filled from a cylinder > at the start and closed off, and the Hydride would not be needed at all. > > Actually, it's slightly more complicated. The Hydrogen supply is most > likely regulated during the course of the experiment by deliberately > controlling the temperature of the Hydride. This effectively has the same > effect as the gas pedal in a car. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
I think the hydride loads MORE hydrogen from the supply when it is heated by allowing the gas population to migrate into regions where vacuum wavelengths are suppressed. In these regions the gas contracts to the exotic forms that are the subject of all these discussions and theories. I won't go so far as to say that this type of pressurized loading is, by itself, in conflict with COE since it takes heat and pressure to achieve the effect but once achieved the gas continues to move between different regions changing freely to different exotic/fractional/relativistic values. If Naudt's is correct about the gas being relativistic then I posit the contraction we observe is due to negative gravity [negative equivalent acceleration] .. a concept hard to imagine because we think of dx/dt only in terms of a constant unit of time where 0 dt is the absolute minimum, I am positing that suppression of vacuum wavelengths allows us to reduce the unit of time below what we presently accept as the zero value for a stationary inertial frame. I predict that the time unit can be suppressed enough in these Casimir regions to account for the reports of anomalous half life decay. I believe the local perspective of a hydrino or fractional hydrogen wrt to space time outside the lattice is consistent with the same perspective a stationary observer on earth would have for a near C object but using negative acceleration/suppression can achieve the effect without any spatial dx. I think confusion will continue to reign over this field because of our definitions of time and temperature which ignore relativistic effects. I think the hydrino locally perceives negative equivalent acceleration as intense gravity in a direction that appears normal local to it's inertial frame but which cause the object to shrink from our perspective - I suspect the walls of the confinement shrink away as the gas atoms suddenly see a totally empty region of space to one side of them while, to the other, the previously inaccessible bottom of the cavity suddenly appears large enough for them to continue downward between walls that should be otherwise too small for them to fit between. I think this is a new form of Lorentzian contraction on the nano scale powered by vacuum suppression instead of dx and I believe the normal contraction along a single axis is still in effect except it is only available to the hydrino while our perspective of the hydrino is equivalent to that of the near C Paradox Twin of a universe suddenly accelerated greatly and shrunken behind us as we travel a hypotenuse toward C. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it. In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:25:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen >envelope and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we >were to assume that the hydride replenished the envelope as the >pressure decreased due to transmutation to keep the pressure constant, >then that would be a different story. > >That assumption would be the same as connecting the envelope to a >hydrogen tank with a pressure regulator attached. ...but that's exactly why the Hydride is present! If the only Hydrogen used was what was in the tank, then it could just be filled from a cylinder at the start and closed off, and the Hydride would not be needed at all. Actually, it's slightly more complicated. The Hydrogen supply is most likely regulated during the course of the experiment by deliberately controlling the temperature of the Hydride. This effectively has the same effect as the gas pedal in a car. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In a system that uses only temperature as a control mechanism(Rossi), what the hydrogen system needs is negative feedback in the hydrogen system to counteract reactor meltdown. This might be provided through the use of a small internally sealed hydrogen storage tank controlled with a smart valve that opens when the temperature starts climbing above the maximum operating temperature of the reactor and releases hydrogen as the operating temperature cools. When the reactors' operating temperature cools, the tank would release the sequestered hydrogen back for hydride storage. What would be ideal is a mix of different types of hydride that did this balancing of hydrogen through temperature control using chemistry only. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:25:22 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen > envelope > >and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we were to > assume > >that the hydride replenished the envelope as the pressure decreased due to > >transmutation to keep the pressure constant, then that would be a > different > >story. > > > >That assumption would be the same as connecting the envelope to a hydrogen > >tank with a pressure regulator attached. > > ...but that's exactly why the Hydride is present! If the only Hydrogen > used was > what was in the tank, then it could just be filled from a cylinder at the > start > and closed off, and the Hydride would not be needed at all. > > Actually, it's slightly more complicated. The Hydrogen supply is most > likely > regulated during the course of the experiment by deliberately controlling > the > temperature of the Hydride. This effectively has the same effect as the gas > pedal in a car. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:25:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen envelope >and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we were to assume >that the hydride replenished the envelope as the pressure decreased due to >transmutation to keep the pressure constant, then that would be a different >story. > >That assumption would be the same as connecting the envelope to a hydrogen >tank with a pressure regulator attached. ...but that's exactly why the Hydride is present! If the only Hydrogen used was what was in the tank, then it could just be filled from a cylinder at the start and closed off, and the Hydride would not be needed at all. Actually, it's slightly more complicated. The Hydrogen supply is most likely regulated during the course of the experiment by deliberately controlling the temperature of the Hydride. This effectively has the same effect as the gas pedal in a car. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen envelope and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we were to assume that the hydride replenished the envelope as the pressure decreased due to transmutation to keep the pressure constant, then that would be a different story. That assumption would be the same as connecting the envelope to a hydrogen tank with a pressure regulator attached. On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:28 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 00:19:58 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >We don't know what the hydride is. The amount does not matter or the > >hydrogen density. The important characteristic of the hydride is the > >desorption/absorption behavior vis-à-*vis* the required > >temperature/pressure profile. > > If you are trying to calculate how much energy is released per Hydrogen > atom in > order to determine whether or not Hydrinos can do it, then you do need to > know > how much Hydrogen was available to the experiment. This is most easily > determined by subtracting what is left at the end from what was available > at the > start, however an upper bound is placed on the amount of Hydrogen used by > the > total amount available in the Hydride at the start. > If this was small enough it could immediately rule out Hydrino shrinkage > as the > sole source of energy. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 00:19:58 -0400: Hi, [snip] BTW, even if Hydrinos shrinkage is not the sole energy source, they may still be acting as catalysts for nuclear reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 00:19:58 -0400: Hi, [snip] >We don't know what the hydride is. The amount does not matter or the >hydrogen density. The important characteristic of the hydride is the >desorption/absorption behavior vis-à-*vis* the required >temperature/pressure profile. If you are trying to calculate how much energy is released per Hydrogen atom in order to determine whether or not Hydrinos can do it, then you do need to know how much Hydrogen was available to the experiment. This is most easily determined by subtracting what is left at the end from what was available at the start, however an upper bound is placed on the amount of Hydrogen used by the total amount available in the Hydride at the start. If this was small enough it could immediately rule out Hydrino shrinkage as the sole source of energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
We don't know what the hydride is. The amount does not matter or the hydrogen density. The important characteristic of the hydride is the desorption/absorption behavior vis-à-*vis* the required temperature/pressure profile. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:55 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:21:52 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? > >> > > > >Yes > > Do we know how much H2 was stored in the Hydride? > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:21:52 -0400: Hi, [snip] >2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? >> > >Yes Do we know how much H2 was stored in the Hydride? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
> 1) Is gas in the envelope at the start the only source of Hydrogen, Yes, the reactor may be subject to vacuum to remove air before the start of operation. If the envelope is initialized with hydrogen from a tank, the hydride will take the pressure up too high upon heating. The initialization/shutdown cycle is controlled through heating and cooling only. No hydrogen manipulation is required. > > or replaced from a bottle during the course of the experiment? > No replacement. This is to keep the init/shutdown process systemic in terms of pressure. 2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? > Yes > 3) Was the Ni powder saturated with H during the initial pressurization? > No. Pressurization occurs as the hydride heats and releases hydrogen to the envelope. I speculate that the envelope is subject to a vacuum before operations. > 4) Was any Hydrogen left in the envelope after the experiment? > The hydrogen is reabsorbed by the hydride upon cooling of the reactor. How hydrogen is handled throughout the test will be of great interest when the test procedure is released. But it is safe to say, to make the reactor idiot proof, and failsafe, no hydrogen manipulation is permitted in commercial operations. As a design objective, the reactor must be a sealed unit to protect its intellectual content.
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 9 Jul 2014 18:50:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Because the molecular mass of Hydrogen is 1gram/mole, there is 1 mole of >hydrogen in 1 gram of hydrogen atoms. For every mole, there are 6.02*10^23 >atoms so in 1 gram of hydrogen there are 6.02*10^23 hydrogen atoms (in >scientific notation) this is equal to 6020 hydrogen >atoms. > > > >If the gas envelop capacity of the reactor is one liter and is operating at >a pressure of 3 bar then > > > >1 mole of an ideal gas = 22.4 liters at one bar >1 mole of H2 = 2.016 grams >2.016 g / 22.4 liters= 0.09 g per liter at one bar > > > >At 3 bar, there is .27 g of hydrogen in the gas envelope > > > >The number of hydrogen atoms is therefore > > >.27 g * 6020 hydrogen atoms/g = >16254000 hydrogen atoms more or less > >Please complete the Miles chemical energy calculation. 1) Is gas in the envelope at the start the only source of Hydrogen, or is replaced from a bottle during the course of the experiment? 2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? 3) Was the Ni powder saturated with H during the initial pressurization? 4) Was any Hydrogen left in the envelope after the experiment? BTW if the actual amount of Hydrogen used is as you stated, then the energy release / H atom for 43000 kWh is about 6 MeV / H atom, which would obviously be nuclear in origin. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
Because the molecular mass of Hydrogen is 1gram/mole, there is 1 mole of hydrogen in 1 gram of hydrogen atoms. For every mole, there are 6.02*10^23 atoms so in 1 gram of hydrogen there are 6.02*10^23 hydrogen atoms (in scientific notation) this is equal to 6020 hydrogen atoms. If the gas envelop capacity of the reactor is one liter and is operating at a pressure of 3 bar then 1 mole of an ideal gas = 22.4 liters at one bar 1 mole of H2 = 2.016 grams 2.016 g / 22.4 liters= 0.09 g per liter at one bar At 3 bar, there is .27 g of hydrogen in the gas envelope The number of hydrogen atoms is therefore .27 g * 6020 hydrogen atoms/g = 16254000 hydrogen atoms more or less Please complete the Miles chemical energy calculation. On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:24 PM, wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:28:32 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > >However, if hydrogen was added continuously during the long run (as > >expected), then the amount consumed would tell us "volumes" about the > nature > >of the reaction by knowing the thermal output per atom consumed. If it was > >in the range of 200 eV per atom of H2 then we are talking f/H reactions, > and > >if it is MeV range and up, per atom consumed, then we are talking nuclear. > > > >We need to see these results, but according to the sparse record of the > >Hot-Cat, and the fixed amount of starting fuel - then the reaction is most > >likely neither LENR or the hydrino. > > > >In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a > vacuum/ZPE/Dirac > >source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs > to > >swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction > >can be pinned to nuclear. > > I agree. However lets see the numbers before jumping to conclusions. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:28:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] >However, if hydrogen was added continuously during the long run (as >expected), then the amount consumed would tell us "volumes" about the nature >of the reaction by knowing the thermal output per atom consumed. If it was >in the range of 200 eV per atom of H2 then we are talking f/H reactions, and >if it is MeV range and up, per atom consumed, then we are talking nuclear. > >We need to see these results, but according to the sparse record of the >Hot-Cat, and the fixed amount of starting fuel - then the reaction is most >likely neither LENR or the hydrino. > >In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac >source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to >swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction >can be pinned to nuclear. I agree. However lets see the numbers before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:17:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >I would guess 10 kilowatts per hour for the number of hours in the six >month test. Was that a rate of acceleration or deceleration in the power production? ;) > >4380 hours at 10 kilowatts/hour or 43800 kilowatt hours. or about 44 >megawatt hours. "kilowatt hours" means "kilowatts times hours" it can't also be "kilowatts/hour". The two are direct opposites. You are either multiplying by hours, or dividing by hours, it can't be both at the same time. Contrary to popular belief, "kilowatt" is NOT an abbreviation of "kilowatt hours". Just to set things straight: A kilowatt (kW) is a unit of power, not energy. IOW it is the time based *rate* of energy consumption or production. E.g. how much energy is produced *per unit of time*. A "kilowatt hour" (kWh) is a unit of energy. So I assume you meant 10 kW for 6 months = 10 kW x 4383 hours = 43,830 kWh. > >The amount of hydrogen is fixed through the use of hydrides but the amount >is unknown In that case, you can't possibly determine the energy release per Hydrogen atom, and hence you can't possibly state that Hydrinos are excluded as an explanation. > > >On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:34:49 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor >> >tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be >> >nuclear and can not chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from >> >LENR. >> >> Do you know how much Hydrogen was used during the test, and what the total >> energy release was? >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
One fear I have had about DSoNE is that a hole in the dike that allows the exchange of energy beyond our 3space might explain the Fermi paradox. Rossi's reactors do appear to be incredibly unstable and allegedly meltdown or explode. Maybe those events plug a hole which, if it grew larger, could create a flood. There is a factor in Drake's equation for those civilizations which destroy themselves. Lemuria and Atlantis maybe got a little too close?
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Terry Blanton > >> In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac >> source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to >> swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction >> can be pinned to nuclear. > > Hmmm. Now where did I read that before? ;-) > > > Hmm... Did you plant that particular thought into the collective unconscious? > I've always believed the energy source was zpe, a miracle. But, how do you have a PhD and say it is so? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg94394.html
RE: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton > In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac > source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to > swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction > can be pinned to nuclear. Hmmm. Now where did I read that before? ;-) Hmm... Did you plant that particular thought into the collective unconscious?
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac > source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to > swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction > can be pinned to nuclear. Hmmm. Now where did I read that before? ;-)
RE: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com >AA: The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be nuclear and cannot chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from LENR. > RvS: Do you know how much Hydrogen was used during the test, and what the total energy release was? Interesting point Robin, since this was a very long run - and presumably was the Hot-Cat configuration (but that is not certain) ... so if there is a small amount of metal hydride, a fixed amount from the start (as was claimed in the original Hot-Cat report) - and given that a gram of nickel hydride only holds a few milligrams of H2 - then that argues against BOTH explanations: LENR and hydrino. There is simply not enough fuel for either. However, even if no substantial hydrogen is consumed during the six months, and the hydrogen present serves only as the carrier of energy from another dimensions (which is available via quantum vacuum fluctuations) according to such sources as: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html ...and since the energy density of "nothing" would be 110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun Well, the conclusion then, as unlikely as it may seem - is that a small fixed amount of hydrogen argues against either LENR and f/H but not against a Dirac/ZPE explanation, where protons act as the gateway to another dimension. However, if hydrogen was added continuously during the long run (as expected), then the amount consumed would tell us "volumes" about the nature of the reaction by knowing the thermal output per atom consumed. If it was in the range of 200 eV per atom of H2 then we are talking f/H reactions, and if it is MeV range and up, per atom consumed, then we are talking nuclear. We need to see these results, but according to the sparse record of the Hot-Cat, and the fixed amount of starting fuel - then the reaction is most likely neither LENR or the hydrino. In fact, that strange outcome - requiring the mention of a vacuum/ZPE/Dirac source of energy transfer, would be very difficult for all of those PhDs to swallow, and thus responsible for a much longer delay than if the reaction can be pinned to nuclear. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
I would guess 10 kilowatts per hour for the number of hours in the six month test. 4380 hours at 10 kilowatts/hour or 43800 kilowatt hours. or about 44 megawatt hours. The amount of hydrogen is fixed through the use of hydrides but the amount is unknown On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:34:49 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor > >tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be > >nuclear and can not chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from > >LENR. > > Do you know how much Hydrogen was used during the test, and what the total > energy release was? > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:34:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor >tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be >nuclear and can not chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from >LENR. Do you know how much Hydrogen was used during the test, and what the total energy release was? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
The neutron bands in transition metal lattices may be the result of magnetic decoupling of neutrons from the nuclei of the transition metal. This would possibly make the neutrons available for transmutations and energy release to the lattice--consistent with Axil’s idea about the polarization of the gluon spins and reduction of the strong force between protons and neutrons. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 4:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be nuclear and can not chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from LENR.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos
Axil, I agree with your statement [snip] These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials and hydrinos are not ubiquitous throughout nature as Mills claims. [/snip] but would add geometry to you description : These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials at specific geometries. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:24 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos This is an interesting concept that might apply to protons as well. I have been seeking a mechanism that allows the binding energy associated with a proton entering a nucleus to be spread among others nearby and this might be that process. The gamma rays that normally occur with hot fusion would be eliminated in this manner and converted into heat. If the gammas are not generated, then they would not cause problems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 11:24 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hydrinos http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy Hydrinos may be caused by entangled electrons. When electrons become entangled they gain mass if not energy. If such a “heavy“ electron enters the orbit of a nickel atom, this extra mass will drive the orbit of the entangled electron closer to the nucleus. If the electron gets heavy enough, like Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF), a heavy electron fusion process allows nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule. In like manner when an entangled electron with a mass 1000 times greater than a free electron gains mass through entanglement, the high mass electron’s orbit draws closer into the nuclei in direct proportion to its increased mass based on its degree of entanglement, the probability of nuclear fusion with the heavy electron is greatly increased, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. When Mills sees evidence of hydrinos in spectral analysis emanating from his materials, he is really seeing heavy entangled electrons in close orbit around the nickel nucleus. This is a materials physics mechanism and only appears in the types of materials that Mills uses to increase heat production using this LENR mechanism. These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials and hydrinos are not ubiquitous throughout nature as Mills claims. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos
This is an interesting concept that might apply to protons as well. I have been seeking a mechanism that allows the binding energy associated with a proton entering a nucleus to be spread among others nearby and this might be that process. The gamma rays that normally occur with hot fusion would be eliminated in this manner and converted into heat. If the gammas are not generated, then they would not cause problems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 11:24 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hydrinos http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy Hydrinos may be caused by entangled electrons. When electrons become entangled they gain mass if not energy. If such a “heavy“ electron enters the orbit of a nickel atom, this extra mass will drive the orbit of the entangled electron closer to the nucleus. If the electron gets heavy enough, like Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF), a heavy electron fusion process allows nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule. In like manner when an entangled electron with a mass 1000 times greater than a free electron gains mass through entanglement, the high mass electron’s orbit draws closer into the nuclei in direct proportion to its increased mass based on its degree of entanglement, the probability of nuclear fusion with the heavy electron is greatly increased, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. When Mills sees evidence of hydrinos in spectral analysis emanating from his materials, he is really seeing heavy entangled electrons in close orbit around the nickel nucleus. This is a materials physics mechanism and only appears in the types of materials that Mills uses to increase heat production using this LENR mechanism. These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials and hydrinos are not ubiquitous throughout nature as Mills claims. Cheers: Axil
RE: [Vo]:Hydrinos and Kervran - the perfect Ni-H metaphor
Interesting to consider the possibility that bio-transmutation might contribute to thermo-regulation (maintaining a consistent body temperature); and what happens when one has a fever, how is that transmutation rate throttled up and down? Do cold-blooded animals lack this transmutation process??? All kinds of questions arise! -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hydrinos and Kervran - the perfect Ni-H metaphor Let me follow up on the following, in a new thread to address a lingering mystery that is a perennial favorite on this list - biological transmutation (ala Kervran's chickens)... From: David Roberson Unfortunately, there are some serious questions as to whether or not hydrinos exist. This is why many of us keep saying that Mills is his own worst enemy for not following up on promises to release samples for independent testing. He may be forced to do this if Rossi is really making the progress he is claiming (highly doubtful). In "Highly Stable Novel Inorganic Hydrides"... http://tinyurl.com/c4nbqcu ... page nine - Mills claims a simple electrolysis cell can produce a stable version of potassium hydride (a hydrino version) that does not decompose at 600 degrees C ! Any grad student could verify that detail. What does BLP lose by providing a few milligrams for testing, as they indicated that they would 10 years ago? BTW - the hydrogen bond corresponds to a binding energy of 22.8 eV and the KHy is ferromagnetic ! There are 5 air-tight physical anomalies for KHy which could be verified in a day for a sample - MHD resonance, density, decomposition temp, ferromagnetism and binding energy. OK - keep those anomalies in mind along with the half-dozen replications of Kervran's biological transmutation, and particularly the 1978 officially-funded effort of the U .S. Army, Fort Belvoir, Virginia ... which positively confirmed that mechanisms for elemental transmutations could occur in biological systems. This was before Mills, so they did not realize how easily the explanation of the redundancy seen in the KHy isomer (potassium hydrino) portends the appearance of transmuted calcium 40Ca. This is, after all, simply the addition of a proton - just like in the purported Ni-H reaction to copper, but unlike that reaction (which should have a radioactive intermediary) the calcium reaction does not require any emission: K+p -> Ca - which is 'clean' since the energy lost during redundancy is being made-up via time-shifted QM tunneling. Very elegant. The abstract of the final Army report is S. Goldfein, Report 2247, Energy Development from Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems, U .S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command, May 1978. DDC No. AD AO56906.) and contains this: "The purpose of the study was to determine whether recent disclosures of elemental transmutations occurring in biological entities have revealed new possible sources of energy. The works of Kervran, Komaki, and others were surveyed, and it was concluded that, granted the existence of such transmutations (Na to Mg, K to Ca, and Mn to Fe), then a net surplus of energy was also producedIt was concluded that elemental transmutations were indeed occurring in life organisms and were probably accompanied by a net energy gain." This is not proof of the hydrino, but many of us find it curious that other open-minded observers will accept Kervran (and the many replications) and at the same time disparage Mills, when there can be little doubt that the Mills' mechanism is the perfect fit to explain Kervran. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the \'Free Energy\' of the 4th Dimension!
seattle truth said on Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:10 -0800
YES!! MAGICAL FREE ENERGY FROM THE FOURTH DIMENSION!!!
Great solution. So if you were stealing energy from the fourth dimension,
does that mean that soon that dimension will run out of energy? Or is the
fourth dimension magical and has no laws of conservation?
>Not at all - in fact the 4th dimension should be considered unphysical
except for the briefest period between virtual particle creation and
annihilation when this dimension intersects our 3D spatial plane. My posit
is this sea of virtual particle/ vacuum fluctuations are a known energy
source normally considered unexploitable but it clearly does act as the
energy source behind the random motion of gas atoms. And for those who
ascribe to the Puthoff model of the atom it restores energy from spontaneous
emission because it imparts a pressure - etheric wind if you will- that
keeps the electron displaced behind the nucleus by a minimal time/distance.
This chaotic energy normally averages to zero so quickly and locally there
is no physical method to exploit it at the macro level from a single
inertial frame, nor would NORMAL relativistic methods provide any practical
solution. My inspiration came from Jan Naudts when he said the hydrino is
actually relativistic hydrogen but because the hydrino exists inside a
skeletal catalyst Jan was obviously not talking about the spatial velocity
of hydrogen being ejected from the suns corona..He was saying you can have
hydrogen at relativistic velocities inside a pourus block of nickel and
aluminum - this would mean the hydrogen can remain spatially stationary
relative to the hydrogen and hardware outside the reactor while existing in
a different equivalent inertial frame inside the catalyst. Because of
suppression the equivalent acceleration builds much faster than normal mass
at the inverse cube of the spacing between the plates - I do agree that
longer wavelengths are treated differently in a Casimir cavity but in a
relativistic interpretation they are NOT displaced, instead they are forced
to slow down below our inertial frame (negative acceleration) and simply
look shorter from our perspective outside the cavity.
Furthermore, he says :"*The importance of the hydrogenic groundstate is
fundamental to the physics of the quantum and is embodied in the
relationship between the displacement measurements of the Classical Electron
Radius {Re=ke2/mec2 =αhc/2πmec2}, the Electronic Compton Radius {Rc=h/2πme
c=Re/α} and the above derived First Bohr Radius {RB1=Re/α2=h2εo/πmee2}; all
as functions of the interaction probability between matter and light in the
DIMENSIONLESS Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant {Alpha=α=2πke2/hc=e2/2ε
ohc}."*
*
Lane - I am not discounting your work, I don't have the math muscle to do
that even if I wanted to, but I suspect it is incomplete.
The claims regarding changes in half life of gas atoms diffused in these
catalytic powders confirmed for me the relativistic foundation proposed by
Naudts. The math you have already accomplished may need to further include
an equivalent form of Gamma where V^2 is instead derived from the Casimir
formula.
*
I solved all of this in my new paper,
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf starting
on page 27, where it shows that the fine structure constant is an aggregate
and this trio of lengths can be directly divided through basic algebra..
There is no ground state radius below .529e-15, because there is no
transitional subset for it to transfer to.
- Again your statements are true for the local observer but if a
relativistic environment exists then a differential can be accomplished
between our frame and a negative inertial frame that is equivalent to going
below those dimensions from our perspective.
Best Regards
Fran
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!
2010/12/17 seattle truth : > I solved all of this in my new > paper, http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf starting on page 27 Try "A solution is suggested . . ." T
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!
YES!! MAGICAL FREE ENERGY FROM THE FOURTH DIMENSION!!!
Great solution. So if you were stealing energy from the fourth dimension,
does that mean that soon that dimension will run out of energy? Or is the
fourth dimension magical and has no laws of conservation?
Furthermore, he says :"*The importance of the hydrogenic groundstate is
fundamental to the physics of the quantum and is embodied in the
relationship between the displacement measurements of the Classical Electron
Radius {Re=ke2/mec2 =αhc/2πmec2}, the Electronic Compton Radius {Rc=h/2πme
c=Re/α} and the above derived First Bohr Radius {RB1=Re/α2=h2εo/πmee2}; all
as functions of the interaction probability between matter and light in the
DIMENSIONLESS Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant {Alpha=α=2πke2/hc=e2/2ε
ohc}."*
*
*
*
*
I solved all of this in my new paper,
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf starting
on page 27, where it shows that the fine structure constant is an aggregate
and this trio of lengths can be directly divided through basic algebra..
There is no ground state radius below .529e-15, because there is no
transitional subset for it to transfer to.
Peace.
2010/12/17 Jed Rothwell
> Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
> from Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th
> Dimension!
> http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id112.html
>
> [SNIP]
> The critique of Eric Krieg is well justified and on the mark.
>
>
> Where is this critique?
>
> - Jed
>
>
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!
Jed,I did note the same omission by the author but recall reading the critique somewhere on this website http://www.skeptic-links.org/home/eric-krieg.html which I can't presently access due to corporate filters. The author is in favor of a relativistic interpretation as opposed to a sub ground state which is why he agrees with Eric's critique but which wasn't real clear without reading the rest of his article. He is not a skeptic he just agrees with Eric that Mills got the theory wrong. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension! Roarty, Francis X wrote: from Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension! http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id112.html [SNIP] The critique of Eric Krieg is well justified and on the mark. Where is this critique? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!
Roarty, Francis X wrote: > from Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension! > http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id112.html > > [SNIP] > The critique of Eric Krieg is well justified and on the mark. Where is this critique? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff.
Mauro, I did vaguely recall some controversy over carbon 14 dating regarding samples taken from the pyramids but held my tongue less I be considered a crackpot, This does get back to your comment in that limestone may qualify as a Casimir cavity since calcium is a rare earth metal and very conductive no matter that conduction is limited to the size of the calcium grains and I think it is by nature a porous powder meaning it would have the voids filled with whatever ambient atmosphere that happened to be present when the rock formed. I started this thread after coming across the Lorentz contraction and realized the concept I was so poorly trying to convey about the hydrino being a relativistic effect is already accepted approaching C thru equivalence at an event horizon. I therefore now couch my theory in terms of Lorentz contraction where the quiescent pool inside the protected Casimir cavity is to the observer outside the cavity equivalent to how that same observer is to an event horizon. I am saying that the zero point field always has an "equivalent" acceleration which is obvious approaching C near an event horizon but not so obvious in deep space. In the case of an event horizon the difference in acceleration is slowly accumulated by the square of the distance to accumulated matter in a gravitational well which requires the observer to remain outside the gravitational field to see the effects. In the case of the Casimir cavity the effect is very localized and very abrupt bordered by the plates but essentially the same. A tiny observer inside the cavity sees events occurring outside the cavity slowed down just as we observe events near an event horizon. Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. Hi, There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as thought: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108 http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 And a negative result, for completeness :) http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1 All this talk about time dilation, Lorentz contraction, "event horizon", would be better understood in my opinion in terms of changes in ABSOLUTE velocity (absolute relating to that? relating to that that is not moving. And what is not moving? Empty space isn't. Do you want a preferred reference frame? you'll have to look for it in the void: The void is not moving, because the void is nothing, and that which is "nothing", can't move.) All the rest(i.e. "matter" and "energy") is moving!: Macroscopically, our galaxy is probably accelerating towards somewhere, and is rotating on its axis. Our solar system is travelling inside our galaxy arm, in a curved path, and probably rotating around a some "center". Our planet is rotating on its axis, and following the curved path of the Sun. Microscopically, elementary "particles" are no more than tiny rotating(i.e. moving) "things". If yo start to slow down or stop all or some of that movement, "anomalous" things start to happen. Ask those crazy nutating Sufis, if you don't believe me :-) Maybe thougths and reflections on the nature of turbulence can shed light on all this. And we'll slowly start to realize the intimate correlation between the macrocosmic and the microcosmic. Best regards, Mauro OrionWorks wrote: > Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV: > > Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is > possibly bound to the effects of "time dilation" play an integral role > in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically > when an atom decides to "decay"? > > An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to > adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear > decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very > large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined > with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. > > Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has > already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos", > "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > >
Re: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff.
Hi, There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as thought: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108 http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 And a negative result, for completeness :) http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1 All this talk about time dilation, Lorentz contraction, "event horizon", would be better understood in my opinion in terms of changes in ABSOLUTE velocity (absolute relating to that? relating to that that is not moving. And what is not moving? Empty space isn't. Do you want a preferred reference frame? you'll have to look for it in the void: The void is not moving, because the void is nothing, and that which is "nothing", can't move.) All the rest(i.e. "matter" and "energy") is moving!: Macroscopically, our galaxy is probably accelerating towards somewhere, and is rotating on its axis. Our solar system is travelling inside our galaxy arm, in a curved path, and probably rotating around a some "center". Our planet is rotating on its axis, and following the curved path of the Sun. Microscopically, elementary "particles" are no more than tiny rotating(i.e. moving) "things". If yo start to slow down or stop all or some of that movement, "anomalous" things start to happen. Ask those crazy nutating Sufis, if you don't believe me :-) Maybe thougths and reflections on the nature of turbulence can shed light on all this. And we'll slowly start to realize the intimate correlation between the macrocosmic and the microcosmic. Best regards, Mauro OrionWorks wrote: > Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV: > > Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is > possibly bound to the effects of "time dilation" play an integral role > in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically > when an atom decides to "decay"? > > An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to > adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear > decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very > large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined > with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. > > Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has > already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos", > "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > >
RE: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff.
I agree a small amount of rapidly decaying material trapped in a Casimir cavity should decay measurably faster if the theory has legs. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 3:11 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV: Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is possibly bound to the effects of "time dilation" play an integral role in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically when an atom decides to "decay"? An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff.
Maybe these help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/decay.html Meow! Terry On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV: > > Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is > possibly bound to the effects of "time dilation" play an integral role > in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically > when an atom decides to "decay"? > > An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to > adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear > decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very > large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined > with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. > > Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has > already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos", > "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
