How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested > at all in Rossi's technology. > Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino > energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is > only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. > Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly > in the most valuable electric energy. > > Peter > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote >> >> [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis >> for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. >> The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied >> manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new >> ones going forward. >> >> [/snip] >> >> Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT >> only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice >> loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to >> rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous >> heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in >> atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas >> circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods >> fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories >> however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE >> driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs >> in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I >> think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino >> is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already >> understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like >> you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the >> difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in >> smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out >> the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent >> negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry >> caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have >> people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons >> that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that >> cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid >> when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is >> based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to >> occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and >> shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really >> exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian >> contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this >> case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the >> cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for >> “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time >> quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded >> contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially >> displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to >> the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it >> has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have >> occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this >> environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the >> constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps >> dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states >> and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? >> >> Regards >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? >> >> >> >> The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common >> denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. >> >> >> >> In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas >> like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion >> mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be >> the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt >> reaction. >> >> >> >> Even though Larsen & Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe >> cold fusion using a single causative mechanism is true to the mark. >> >> >> >> Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold >> fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The >> universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations >> that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going >> forward. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >> wrote: >> >> The reason that Andrea Rossi is so desperate to frame his E-Cat as >> "nuclear" >> is no mystery among patent attorneys who have looked into the various >> filings. >> >> Here is the first reason (priority date 2000): >> >> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1rHHAAAAEBAJ&dq=20090146083 >> >> Rossi's side may counter this broad application - and they might admit >> that >> even if there are no nuclear reactions in the E-Cat, then the Mills' >> application is for catalytic hydrogen gain in a NON-nuclear reaction of >> Ni-H >> is framed for a plasma reactor, and NOT for gas-phase. >> >> They could possibly win on that - BUT - Mills did revise this earliest >> application, more than once - and claim 206 in the newest version states >> explicitly: >> >> [0206] "According to an embodiment of the invention, a reactor for >> producing >> hydrinos, plasma, and power may take the form of a hydrogen gas cell. A >> gas >> cell hydrogen reactor of the present invention is shown in FIG. 3. >> Reactant >> hydrinos are provided by a catalytic reaction with a catalyst such as at >> least one of those given in TABLES 1 and 3 and/or a by a >> disproportionation >> reaction. Catalysis may occur in the gas phase." >> >> And, as you might imagine - Nickel is listed in Table 3. >> >> Catch-22 for all of this is: what priority date does Mills get on this >> claim, since it was not in the original year 2000 filing? >> >> If Rossi has can prove an earlier priority - then the situation could be >> interesting. >> >> If Defkalion is really looking at this technology as a long-term business >> venture and not as a 'pump and dump' - then the smart thing to do IMHO - >> would be to work out something with BLP ahead of time, and this could be >> possible since Rossi may be a few months ahead on the priority date (this >> issue of dates is not crystal clear at the moment). >> >> Jones >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
