Peter,
I like you paper and even the term "orbitalities" despite my
conviction that these orbitals are locally unchanged and only appear smaller
because as Naudts posits the hydrino is relativistic. That doesn't make
anything you said wrong just understated, My interpretation for orbitality
would be chemical reactions between elements in different inertial frames
that exist inside a skeletal catalyst with a tapestry of different Casimir
geometries. IMHO atomic gases can reshape to different "orbitality" freely
based on local geometry while ionic and molecular compounds keep the atoms
at a specific orbitality in opposition to local geometry which provides
opportunity for chemical reaction between gas atoms of different orbitality.
I agree with your statement [snip] The elements of the periodic table have
reactivities and other properties determined by their orbitality.
Surprisingly, it now appears that at least one element-it happens that it is
the simplest and most abundant in the universe-has many kinds of
orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum state, that function as
different elements. [/snip] and think we will find other gases that behave
in a similar form [nitrino?]. If Mill's would make available some of these
novel hydride compounds for testing we could finally prove the existence of
these states of matter but I don't think the gas state alone can preserve
for long the orbitality outside of the local Casimir geometry that spawned
it. I don't reject the possibility of novel nuclear reactions occurring or
probabilities of reactions being increased as a result of this novel
chemistry and potential for energy extraction. I believe the further apart
the orbitalities in a reaction the more novel these reactions can become.
Regards
Fran
A new definition for "chemical element"?
Any field of science needs high degrees of standardization, appropriate and
specific language, order, and clarity. Therefore, definitions of the basics
are necessary. However, Nature is extremely complex, and reality has so many
facets that unequivocal, comprehensive, scientifically sustainable
definitions are rarely possible. On the contrary, there appears to be a
Heisenberg-type relationship between the importance and the definability of
concepts. Fundamental ones, such as space, time, matter, and energy, cannot
be actually defined; and essential human features such as knowledge,
intelligence, and creativity, each has several incomplete definitions.
In chemistry, acidity, basicity, electronegativity, aromaticity, and so
forth are useful but "fuzzy" concepts. Definitions of terms like these can
limit and sometimes even mutilate the integrity of these concepts. The great
Polish author of aphorisms, S. J. Lec, has remarked, "Definition and finis
[death] have the same Latin root" (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa> 1).
Richness of a concept is sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Obsolete
definitions can hamper creativity and progress in a field of research.
A chemical element is currently defined as "a type of matter composed of
atoms that all have exactly the same positive charge of their nuclei", that
is, the same atomic number (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa> 2).
This definition works and is perfectly justified, but it is a physical
definition. Chemistry is about reactivity, bonds, structures, and
properties, all of which depend on the electrons that surround the nuclei
and on specific electronic configurations. Chemical events happen with
electrons. Quantum mechanics has just added to the complexity of chemistry
but does not change anything. As long it is certain that any atomic number
imposes one and only one electron configuration, the physical and chemical
definitions are equivalent. Along the same line of thinking, it seems that
the periodic table of the elements is definitive, and the short-lived
synthetic elements cannot introduce new chemical data. However, even a
single exception to the equivalence of the definitions could open new vistas
to chemistry. Until recently, this seemed to be simply impossible.
Hydrogen atoms with variable "orbitalities"
It is well known that the simplest atom, hydrogen, has a fundamental ground
state, and this is believed to be unique and indisputable. An American
researcher, Randell Mills, has a different opinion. In 1986, he began to
develop a general theory based on fundamental natural laws, and he has
questioned quantum mechanics. It is far beyond the scope of this article to
present this impressive intellectual construct. It has not yet been accepted
by mainstream physicists, but it has been described in papers and supported
by many kinds of experiments. Extensive information can be found on the Web
site of Mills's company, BlackLight Power Inc.
<http://www.blacklightpower.com> (Cranbury, NJ) (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa> 3).
Mills has predicted and demonstrated the possibility that hydrogen atoms can
be induced catalytically to collapse to energy states lower than the ground
state, corresponding to fractional quantum numbers. Usable energy is
released; it's not "free", but it is much more intense than that produced by
burning hydrogen. The collapsed hydrogen atom-for which he coined the name
"hydrino", or "tiny hydrogen"-can react with one electron to form a hydride
ion. Hydride reacts with other elements, forming a variety of new compounds
with interesting and novel properties. Mills and his collaborators have
described and characterized a few of them (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa> 4-8),
but the possibilities seem limitless. Mills calls his work "a new field of
hydrogen chemistry", but I am not convinced that this is the best
description.
Chemical elements currently are characterized by their isotopicity (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb>
9)-their ability to exist with different numbers of neutrons. Mills's
discovery has generated a new concept: "orbitality". Thus, atomic hydrogen,
deuterium, and tritium differ in their isotopicity, but hydrogen and the
hydrino differ in their orbitality: For the same nucleus, they have
different electron cloud configurations. For a chemist, it may appear
obvious that orbitality is much more significant and chemically
differentiating than isotopicity.
The elements of the periodic table have reactivities and other properties
determined by their orbitality. Surprisingly, it now appears that at least
one element-it happens that it is the simplest and most abundant in the
universe-has many kinds of orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum
state, that function as different elements.
The definition of "element" is being brought into question. Originally, it
meant a building block of Nature, but now a new category has appeared. A
myriad applications will be created; and orbitality may be a complex
subject, good for many papers and theses. We must answer the questions: Are
hydrogen and the hydrino still one and the same element? What will happen if
heavier elements with different orbitalities are synthesized?
The strange birth of a new chemical element
Mills's discoveries have created a complicated and controversial situation.
On one hand, he continues to publish more and more experimental data proving
the creation and existence of the hydrino. Some examples:
* Hydrinos produce excess heat caused by the shrinkage of hydrogen
atoms released in electrolysis and vapor-phase catalysis experiments, and
the Mills theory predicts well which elements work as catalysts.
* Hydrinos create a hydrogen plasma under extremely mild conditions
(e.g., at 1/100 of the theoretical voltage and with 1/4000-1/7000 the power
input of noncatalytic controls).
* Many compounds of hydrino hydrides with unexpected properties, not
predicted by the current theory, have been synthesized. For example, nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy reveals protons tightly shielded by
electrons orbiting close to them.
On the other hand, no papers in peer-reviewed journals confirm or refute
Mills's ideas and results. The standard treatment is to ignore his results
and to replace scientific arguments with stock answers (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb> 10) or
by association with "cold fusion", which is an entirely different subject.
It is interesting that, independently of Mills, a small English group has
also concluded that lower, fractional energy states of hydrogen exist in the
framework of quantum mechanics (
<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb> 11).
But they do not speak about new compounds or use the process for generation
of energy.
However, this story is about the future of chemistry and chemical
engineering, and there is only one way to decide. The samples (e.g., those
with the general formula MH*X, where M is a metal, X is a halide, and H* is
a hydrino ion) provided by BlackLight Power must be analyzed and conclusions
drawn. In the worst case, the theory will be disproved; in the best case
(for chemistry), the periodic table will be enriched with one or more
elements. Future science will decide, and perhaps the first new chemical
quasi-element will be named millsium.
The goal of this article is simply to stimulate an immediate response from
scientists. Chemists of the world, analyze those compounds and decide!
