It seems to me that this backs up what Paul Rowe has been saying for many years now.
Since I believe Rowe has really "conjured" H out of the aether, I find no difficulty in believing this too. We will no doubt eventually end up with a situation where these things are much easier to achieve than anyone has ever imagined. Grimer At 10:22 am 15-12-04 -0800, you wrote: >The possibility that a "bare proton" created in our >3-space is somehow able to attract virtual particles >in quanta of 3.4 eV (and multiples) directly from >Dirac's sea, resulting in excess energy, is >fascinating. > >It could help to explain what is going on with some of >many reported excess-energy phenomena involving bare >protons, especially Langmuir's torch and the recent >MAHG of Nicholas Moller. >http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/ > >In October in the J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16 >7017-7023 (2004) Experimental observation of an atomic >hydrogen material with H�H bond distance of 150 pm >"suggesting metallic hydrogen" (according to them) was >reported by Badiei and Holmlid of G�teborg University, >Sweden. > >This may or may not be further evidence of the main >point of this post, but should be mentioned in case >the authors mis-interpreted their own work. > >Abstract - with (alternative) commentary. A phase of >hydrogen called Rydberg matter (RM) is formed in >ultra-high vacuum by desorption of hydrogen from an >alkali. The RM atoms are released with a surprising >amount of energy - 9.4 eV, which is over double the IP >(ionization potential) of the alkali in which had been >immobilized, and after deducting the energy of the >laser photons which released them there appears to be >a net gain of around 3.4 eV per atom. The authors of >this experiment, OTOH, went into it looking for >evidence of metallic H, and consequently they believe >from the results that this energy is evidence of the >bond energy of a metallic phase of atomic hydrogen, >using the results by Chau et al (2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. >90 245501) > >They could be correct, but this result also can be >reinterpreted to fall in-line with some recent >suggestions about possible excess energy methodology >in Langmuir's torch, and in the Moller Atomic Hydrogen >Generator, which is based on years of careful >investigation by Moller into the details of Langmuir's >torch, even going so far as to dig-up Langmuir's >typewritten correspondence with Bohr from the archives >in Denmark. This torch was a big-deal back then, way >ahead of its time. > >Much of the reported excess energy related "bare >protons" (or for that matter, "bare deuterons" in the >interfacial layer of a CF electrode) could be related >to the simple presence of the proton charge being able >to attract an opposite charge from Dirac's sea of >negative energy, specifically from "virtual >positronium". > >The virtual Ps has a liftime which is fleeting in our >3-space and does not have time to annihilate, BUT >before fading into the reciprocal space which is >Dirac's sea, it does have time enough to become >disrupted and to leave behind half or all of its >binding energy of 6.8 eV, which is likely to be in the >form of light-lepton pairs of net mass/energy of 6.8 >eV. or 3.4V each, in my view. > >Anytime one sees "peaks" in the spectroscopy of >hydrogen plasmas at these two levels, particularly the >lower one, this could possibly be indicative of an >energy "extraction" from Dirac's sea, at least in this >hypothesis. Unfortunately, this explanation is also >effectively indistinguishable from saying that the >energy comes from "ZPE" except that here it is >quantized, so it can be traced to a source. > >Jones > > >
