The interesting for me to note is that the non square integrable feature of the Dirac solution is perhaps a key feature, It can (I'm not an expert) mean that you generally do not see single live hydrinos but clusters of hydrogen that take advantage of x number of hydrino states to keep the cluster bounded by demanding the hydrinos to have a non localized part. The main effect would then be a BEQ like state that could be the main driving force to generate energy. But a certainly a few hydrinos could escape and keep that state for so long to do other nuclear reactions as the paper you showed suggested. I would also not expect these clusters to live long because they would trigger a nuclear reaction as Kim suggests and due to the energy release break up.
Does this make sense? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > A number of observers have observed this “deep Dirac” (DDL) layer to be > the real source of Mills’ “hydrino” since it is similar in ways - but not > the same - and its presence leads to a nuclear reaction. (which is a > drastic departure from Mills). > > > > See Meulenberg, > > > > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Meulenberg-Femto-Atoms-And-Transmutation-ICCF17-ps.pdf > > > > The other alternative which I have been promoting is the DDL as the > predecessor state to RPF (reversible proton fusion). > > > > RPF (diproton reaction) would provide a smaller amount of energy (much > smaller than fusion) via QCD color charge dynamics from excess proton mass, > but with no fusion. > > > > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe > > > > BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 > > QUOTE > > The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, > called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The > corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. > For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of > quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. > > UNQUOTE > > > > Can we spin on this? Note > > 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has > "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that > happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. > > > > 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of > spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can > have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it > depends on a delicate balance. > > > > But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, > well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact > manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, > one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that > case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more > closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation > e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just > as with a BEQ state. > > > > So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of > hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino > clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more > combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the > mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. > > > > At least that's my 2c of what's happens. > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned > out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their > expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … > > > > USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching > applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP’s > efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible > IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well > if it ever comes to litigation. > > > > A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked “gas > phase” in all of their voluminous filings – that is, up until Rossi’s > patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase… at > which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed > liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they > were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. > > > > I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the > effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. > > > > *From:* David Roberson > > > > It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels > covered. Why list ranges that include each other? > > Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate > electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady > magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but > can change their direction of motion. > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the > > "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - > > > > Patent Application – Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf > > > > I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing > > patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. > > > > What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous > > energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of > > plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, > > the following excerpt appears - > > > > > > "The current density may be in the range of at least one of > > 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, > > [...] > > The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about > > 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. > > [...] > > The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, > > 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." > > > > > > The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create > > very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta > > and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the > > plasma current filaments. > > > > > > Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of > > the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? > > > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > > > > > > >
