Nickel is a special LENR metal because it reflects near infrared light the best of any material.
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: Eric Walker > <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get > from Hydrinos is 137^2 > x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron > mass) from each > Hydrogen atom.) > > This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that > is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion > with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? > > Actually it was suggested early-on in the development of Mills’ theory that > once the shrinkage reached a threshold level, it would become autocatalytic > “all the way down”… which is kind of like the old aphorism for all-things > unknowable: “turtles all the way down”… and yes, equally without proof. > (but > appealing in simplicity) > > If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources > for > power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat > out electron shrinkage by a country mile (well, at least a factor of 2) > even > if both employ electrons as the mass which is to be converted. Plus the > beauty of Dirac, in the guise of “dark energy” is that it works as a “sink” > as well as a source. In fact, the Dirac sea works better for LENR as an > energy sink than as a energy source. > > IOW, the “holes” in the Dirac sea are positrons in another dimension, so we > can essentially send electrons into that sink (if we find the gateway) and > retain the full mass energy value in 3-space, instead of a fraction (if > energy is conserved) and not worry about the annihilation photons at 511 > keV, since that event does not happen in 3-space. This could be why the > active electron in LENR, once it goes into autocatalytic redundancy (in an > alternative to Mills theory) “keeps on going and going”… like the energizer > battery :-) > > This is where things get interesting – the interplay of Nickel, LENR, > Gravity and the Dirac sea. > > The idea of nickel or a nickel isotope being the gateway to the Dirac sea > is > then in the forefront. In trying to find small details that point to why > nickel is (apparently) the most effective element for this transfer of > energy in LENR, more so than iron - one curious detail found in geology of > earth… which is “gravity anomalies”. This is the way geologists find nickel > deposits (and iron). > > Gravity anomalies correlate well with nickel deposits, but also with iron. > Of course, the standard rationale for this is that many of these deposits > are ancient asteroid impact areas, and the source of nickel is from the > meteorite. > > Well and good, but maybe that explanation overlooks another possible > explanation, which is a bit convoluted, so bear with me. > 1) Nickel proportionality - to iron in Fe/Ni meteorites… Iron is found > in much higher ratio than on earth’s surface, tens of times higher than in > meteorites. IOW - on earth’s present day surface, iron is far more > prevalent, possibly indicating that nickel has become depleted on the > surface of earth over billions of years, except in the younger impact > sites. > 2) If Ni were itself more susceptible to interaction with gravity, in > some unexplained way that is beyond its higher density, then it would have > disappeared faster from early earth, when the surface was molten. Of > course, > Ni is denser to start with, and that is one major factor - but is there > something more vis-à-vis the force of gravity and two dense metals? Uranium > is dense, but there is plenty on the surface, so density alone may not be > the only determinant of surface proportionality. > 3) We only assume the interior of earth is mostly iron – when in fact > the interior could easily be mostly nickel. In fact, why not mostly nickel? > Answer: traditional belief. > 4) The actual density of earth’s core seems to be higher than either > iron or nickel, but nickel is significantly denser than iron – ergo – more > nickel could be in the core than iron. > 5) Many of the largest meteorites are over 50% nickel, yet they are > still called “iron” meteorites by tradition, since in general most of the > smaller one are higher in iron. > 6) Hydrogen interacts far differently with iron than nickel and that > could be the “other factor” beyond density. > 7) If the core of earth was mostly nickel, with dissolved hydrogen in > dense form, then the source of interior heat of earth, which is assumed to > come from uranium decay, could be coming from LENR !! > > In short, geologists assume many things in nature - based on the way the > surface of earth looks now, instead of what it could have looked like > earlier. > > That argument above - is a long way to go to support a premise that nickel > could be a better “gateway” to Dirac, by being more susceptible to gravity, > in some way which goes beyond its higher density. However, this is worth > posing as an argument wrt to nickel’s higher propensity to absorb protons > and the heat source of earth’s core. > > And this argument about hidden nickel properties has not yet broached > unification of gravity with electromagnetism, which should be part of the > argument… both Ni and Fe are ferromagnetic, but there is a lot of > difference > in the way that they interact with magnetism and this is probably reflected > in the way they interact with protons. > > Jones > > > > >
