Randell Mills (hydrino)

[PoetLaura]

I apologize beforehand for the non-technical nature of my question... I'm an English Literature type of gal.

I stumbled upon a news article related to a university's successful testing of Dr. Mills' blacklight power method. This method consists of obtaining cheap clean energy from the process of making hydrogen atoms into "hydrinos". From what I've read of Dr. Mills' work and others' responses, his ideas are not exactly well-respected in mainstream physics circles.

I realize there are big "ifs" that abound... afterall the process he is using could work without his fundamental ideas being correct... but was curious what it would mean for experiments at CERN/LHC if this hydrino state does exist?

I was hoping that someone with a background in physics could explain in layman's terms what the existence of a hydrino state would mean for the OUTCOMES of the experiments taking place in particle physics. Would something like this state be easily proved or disproved with collider data? For example, if we accept the hydrino model, how does that model support or not support black holes, dark matter, the problem of gravity, etc? I believe I read that the hydrino model excludes the possibility of a singularity?

Thanks!!!

[froarty]

The hydrino is relativistic only observable from a different inertial frame and appears locally to still be a hydrogen atom. skeletal catalysts rely on Casimir geometry to perform their magic. the excess heat process remains a mystery with numerous theories put forward. My opinion is a cross of the Haisch -Model theory and Jan Naudts / Ron Bourgoins work on relativistic fractional states of hydrogen combined with my own contribution that spatial confinement opposes the "non radiative transition" of dihydrinos in Rayney nickel. The rectifying agent is the covalent bond in opposition to changing levels of background energy (sum of vacuum fluctuations). This is why hydrogen must be disassociated to execute the non radiative transition to hydrino and then MUST form a dihydrino molecule to avoid the symetry of a nonradiative transition back to hydrogen. Once formed the dihydrino component atoms still try to transition further with changes in plate spacing/casimir force but find these relativistic transitions oppossed by the covalent bond in spatial confinement. Obviously the Twin paradox and satellite measurements proving SR don't encounter this issue with only time dilation as a byproduct but the spatial confinement of a RIGID cavity AND accumulating velocity can break the covalent bond restoring monatomic energy levels from relativistic velocity.
see animations http://www.byzipp.com/hydrino/

[Tau]

Froarty, can you try to explain this in layman's terms?
You are using lots of interesting terminology, but I don't get your point.

[froarty]

tAU, As it happens I just submittted an OpEd "Will 2010 be the Year of Zero Point Energy?" http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-2 ... 0-819.html which explains it much better and I am working on pulling my animations together with a couple new ones to annotate and narrate into a short video -something that using three different versions of Flash at 3 different locations has made impossible previously. I just bought the swf to flash decompiler from Sothink and finally now have all my animations available in Flash6 format to link as scenes. I'll post a link here when I get a rough draft finished.
Regards
Fran
new link http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/720 ... 29148.html
new animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf

[Tau]

OK. I'll bite.
So I've looked at you animation (nice, but not convincing in any way) and I read the Japanese article where they "verified" the research. In that article, they were playing around with tiny palladium/zirconium powder particles. They do not give sufficient information to see what they actually measured, so there is not much to be concluded here. I would say it is just another "cold fusion" article.
I see no connection between your "casimir plates" animation and the japanese article, since their particles have no pores.

In the article you refer, there is a lot of talk about that current theories cannot explain things, and that they "solve" this by creating new theories.
The physical descriptions are very vague, and even I (I am a mathematician, not a physicist) can see that things are heavily mixed up here.

I'll give you an example from the real world:
If the windows of my car are frozen, I can spray them with a special thawing spray, that quickly removes the ice. The result is, however, that the inside of the windows does freeze over.
Now this will baffle many people, who think that the ice freezes because the spray will heat the the ice in some way. But a bit of physics explains what happens: the ice will be forced to thaw because the crystals are chemically forced into solution, and the necessary heat is extracted from the glass, cooling it so far that the inside freezes.
I am absolutely convinced that the "anomalies" measured are physical processes that are completely normal, but probalby not yet understood because the researcher did not take all relevant processes into account. When the processes are understood better, we will have learnt something.
The reason I am so convinced is that this is normal part of scientific progress. This happens more often than that "new theories" are developed (about once in a decade).
So, if any of these experiments actually are repeated by many people with convincing results, we'll see.
In a sense, I hope I am wrong, but this is just too good to be true.

[froarty]

OK. I'll bite.
So I've looked at you animation (nice, but not convincing in any way) and I read the Japanese article where they "verified" the research. In that article, they were playing around with tiny palladium/zirconium powder particles. They do not give sufficient information to see what they actually measured, so there is not much to be concluded here. I would say it is just another "cold fusion" article.
I see no connection between your "casimir plates" animation and the japanese article, since their particles have no pores.

Although pores can also form inside the lattice as defects the "stronger" catalysts all have atomic geometry that forms "plates". Note catalytic action is not Casimir force rather it is a "change" in Casimir force. A recent article from Peng Chen@ Cornell indicates that catalytic action only occurs at openings and defects in a nanotube. A Pd lattice can accumulate Casimir force but with an isotropic lattice would simply
empty this "pressure" to free space at its external boundaries. It needs defects to unbalance this
flow of vacuum energy. If the lattice finds a "land locked" cavity it tries to utilize this to exhaust the imbalance but finds the channel too small - the pressure is unable to balance and a permanent venturi is established. The rate of this flow can exceed even "nominal" rate in free space for the same reason a small hole in a sail creates a "whistle".

-Notice also the kitamura replication http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf showed increased energy as the powders got finer? This is an indication of the increased catalytic or pyrophoric property of the metal powders. the "pores" form between the grains of finely divided nano powders often requiring their manufacture inside a glove box to prevent ignition in the atmosphere.
there is a new book "advances in Casimir effect" Oxford 2009 (see intro Google books) the authors propose that the cavity walls/"plates" can be treated exactly as a concentrated field source (creating the "sails" that blow the whistle). Now put some hydrogen atoms in this cavity and they are accelerated by this concentrated catalytic action. If you select your skeletal catalyst with appropriate small and abruptly changing geometry you can confine the molecular motion enough to accelerate it's atoms apart , The covalent bond is broken and atomic energy levels restored by catalytic energy (note I am now trying to couch my speculation in accepted terms of catalytic action). there is no violation of CoE if you assume atomic hydrogen would be more accelerated under same conditions and the disassociated atoms from the molecule traded some of this acceleration to break the covalent bond and restore their monatomic energy levels. Once disassociated their fractional state is free to translate as Mills call it "nonradiatively" to a value that reflects the local vacuum energy "suppression factor" of the cavity.

I am absolutely convinced that the "anomalies" measured are physical processes that are completely normal, but probalby not yet understood because the researcher did not take all relevant processes into account. When the processes are understood better, we will have learnt something.

I agree the forces are "normal" in the same way a computer always does what you tell it to do even if the results aren't what you were trying to accomplish. There is no magic here but using a covalent bond to rectify energy from Casimir force would be a really nice trick. ever since we learned two plates will gravitate together researchers wanted to know 2 things, one if it can be harnessed for energy and two if it can be reversed to "push" against this invisible field for inertialess drive. The early answer to energy was no, It would take an equal or greater force to pull apart the plates mechanically. Mills and the Haisch/Moddel are trying to harness a different form of this same energy, which I just wrote up on Vortes-l

[Vo]:f/h on a white water ride down the Casimir stream
Francis X Roarty
Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:30:07 -0800

After recent correspondence I realized a much simpler analogy without
invoking time dilation or anything more exotic than f/h. Strong Catalytic
action alone could Tear apart a f/h molecule if the confinement geometry is
selected to impede the high mobility of f/h molecules while f/h atoms are
much less impeded and continue to accelerate. An abrupt change in Casimir
force is known to create a catalyst (see Peng Chen @
<http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html> Cornell), If the abrupt change
is sufficiently large it can tear apart the molecule which can not react as
fast the atoms it is holding together, like 2 water tubers in a turbulent
mountain stream. As soon as the white water subsides the tubing partners can
rejoin, In the case of f/h the 2 atoms have nature pushing them back
together and giving off a photon until the next patch of white water (abrupt
catalytic action) tears them apart again. There is no violation of CoE
because you have 2 different forces in play, the desire for lowest energy
state is constant but can be briefly overcome at abrupt changes in
geometry/casimir force. The Casimir field is therefore not a steady state at
the mesoscopic scale and we can use it to create a pulsating current of gas
atoms / molecules in catalytic action. The covalent bond becomes a simple
rectifier that releases heat energy in the form of a photon each time these
forces cycle.

Fran

see powerpoint of "ride" http://byzipp.com/energy/hydrino_files/frame.htm

[Tau]

Your reaction reminds me of an octopus: when attacked, confuse the enemy with lots of ink.

Now put some hydrogen atoms in this cavity and they are accelerated by this concentrated catalytic action. If you select your skeletal catalyst with appropriate small and abruptly changing geometry you can confine the molecular motion enough to accelerate it's atoms apart , The covalent bond is broken and atomic energy levels restored by catalytic energy (note I am now trying to couch my speculation in accepted terms of catalytic action).

So basically, you say:

• You can accelerate hydrogen atoms by a force.
• If they are accelerated enough, this would do all kinds of interesting things.
• I speculate that I can generate energy this way.

I am trying to understand this.
What exactly is the difference between this reasoning and trying to construct a cannon with a magnet and a few tiny steel balls?

• You can accelerate a steel ball with a magnet.
• If they are accelerated enough, they fly around.
• I speculate this is a powerful as a cannon.

Maybe this would clarify things a bit for simple people like me.

[froarty]

Tau, spent too long on animation last night http://www.byzipp.com/scenic2.swf
it has a new scene and easy navigation but is unfinished- the new animation should only give off photons when hydrinos form dihydrinos in the "flat portion of steps" and be "cleaved" apart at the sudden change in Casimir force between steps. It will improve
over the next week but presently uses a borrowed movie clip from previous scene scaled
down to sort of fit.

I don't believe in cold fusion but like a growing number of researchers feel there is an interim force being exhibited that is responsible for this ongoing debate. The problem is that skeptics and CF researchers are focusing on the byproducts. Normally this is the right thing to do but what I believe is going on here has disguised an energy source that reverses the reaction over and over again. Normally catalytic action is not considered an
energy source but rather accelerates reactions that were going to happen anyway. What I believe Mills and Arrata and numerous others over the years have witnessed is
a stronger form of catalytic action while "setting the stage" with hot nearly disassociated
molecules inside a spatially confined geometry that opposes molecular mobility more than
atomic mobility. When an abrupt change in force tries to reshape the atoms the molecule is cleaved apart. The restored monatomic energy level is provided from the acceleration force of the catalyst. The resulting hydrinos can ithen start regaining velocity from the permanent Casimir field or immediately reform a dihydrino and give off a
photon.

Like the Wright brothers the phenomenom needs a careful control loop to avoid both stalling and runaway conditions -the engine in this plane can quickly overheat and melt the force giving geometry shut (Mills), or, it can leach out slowly days and weeks after the loaded powders have been removed from electrolysis in a slow heat gain worthless to industry.

I think this anomally tells us a lot about the true nature of catalytic reaction but recently
realized introducing this concept presently complicates the description needlessly. People
are already familiar with catalytic action and natures preference for molecular state. The 2 forces rarely exist at a scale to oppose each other and require monatomic hydrogen
to diffuse deep into the smallest cavities and lattice structure of the catalyst where they
cool enough to form dihydrinos, then abrupt changes in geometry can "pulse" the casimir force into cleaving this still "warm" molecule back into hydrinos. This allows the slower atoms to reform immediately as a larger h/x or gather velocity on it's own ifrom the Casimir effect eventually reforming a smaller dihydrino. The cycle will runaway with itself if
enough heat is present (Mills) or stall if the heat is taken away too rapidly such as a wet cell (Arata).

[Tau]

Dear PoetLaura,
It is a bit hard to give an honest answer to your question.
As a scientist (to be honest, I am not a physicist but a mathematician, but I do have a PhD), I must say that scientifically hydrino is, er, rubbish. Not only is it not discovered "yet", it contradicts experiments that are done in countless different ways.
Regardless of the impressive sounding Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP), the theory does not match reality. The trouble is that the difference between the language used on websites like http://hydrino.org/ and "real" physics is not visible to the untrained eye.
Nevertheless, there are quite a few people that believe in it, and there is even a startup company that managed to somehow get 60 million dollars.
So, feel free to believe in it, but realize that real physics does not need people believing in it, it just is. And hydrino isn't.

[froarty]

Tau,
the "hydrino" appears to violate the minimum ground state for a nonrelativistic atom because our understanding of catalytic action is incomplete. When Naudts proposed a relativistic solutionwhich was proved by Bourgoin in 2006, it was embraced by Mills but he had no reason to update his papers or theory, The fault was not with his work. The fault is with our limited understanding of catalytic action. The math and metrics for catalysts puts everything in terms of energy and surface area which hides the relativistic nature of the effect. The US patent office denied Mills a patent based on his description using catalytic action and energy to describe “fractional states” but then turned around in May 2008 and granted a patent based on the same
relative concept to Haisch and Moddel because they called it a Casimir cavity and used Lorentzian concepts to describe the same fractional states. There are many researchers (Arata, SPAWARS)still using catalytic action to describe this exploitable environment with different methods of energy extraction. It appears for now these researchers must translate their work to describe Casimir effect and refer to the atoms as having “relativistic” fractional states if they want to apply for a U.S. patent. Skeptics just want to focus on semantics – the hydrino by the present interpretation of catalytic action can’t exist and then dismiss all the other researchers who went out of their way to define their work in terms of a relativistic atom. These skeptics are wrong to dismiss Mills based on the present definition of catalytic action and applying their own preconception that relativistic hydrogen can not exist in a stationary reactor. I think everyone is aware that relativistic atoms are constantly spewing from a stars corona and these atoms could physically pass through the eye of a much smaller stationary needle due to Lorentzian contraction. The real controversy here is over a new relativistic interpretation of catalytic action.

The math used by Naudts and Bourgoin dictates a relativistic environment."Cavity QED" by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula defines a Casimir cavity as a relativistic environment where the plates define an abrupt boundary
That breaks the isotropy of space time. Present Casmir effect theory suggests larger virtual particles are displaced in favor of smaller particles but the relativistic interpretation is that these larger particles become relativistic by virtue of increased time flow through the Casmir cavity. The smaller the Casmir cavity (hole in the sail) the faster the time flow and the smaller the atom becomes.
Note the mass doesn’t have to achieve luminal velocity relative to the isotropic value of time flow, Instead, the atom remains nearly stationary relative to the increased flow of time through it [Y axis(time) changes while X axis(spatial) remains stationary]. We are already familiar with “equivalent” acceleration when you park a crushproof spaceship on a dead star it accumulates velocity based on the gravitational acceleration relative to a stationary observer outside the field. This is just a different form of equivalent action
Where the time flow is increased instead of slowed. Like the dead star Casimir plates impedes time flow and accumulate a “pressure” but unlike the averaging effect at the macro scale the nature of a Casimir cavity allows us to convert this accumulated pressure into a small but very fast permanent stream of virtual particles on the time axis. This converts the cavity into a time machine, the gas atoms remain spatially contained but are temporally accelerated. This is the concept that needs to be grasped by the skeptics.


Haisch and Modell designed a device with stacks of metal plates separated by insulating plates all drilled to form columns of casimir cavities where hydrogen can
Be circulated through the entire block. This design also forces the atoms into and out of relativistic states due to the insulation layers. It avoids the stagnation that can occur in the pores of skeletal catalysts and uses a weaker .1u spacing (mechanical drilling limit) for Casimir geometry compared to average 10 nm spacing of pores in Mill’s skeletal catalyst. Their prototype is stalled awaiting funding but promises more methods of controlling the reaction and much better heat extraction then the “lump of coal” method employed for the Rowan University confirmations of Mills material.


We are proposing that Catalytic action is based on changes in Casimir effect and should be based on a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect. This is supported by the papers from Naudts , Bourgoin and Bialynicka-Birula as well as
A recent article from Peng Chen@ Cornell indicates that catalytic action only occurs at openings and defects in a nanotube.

Regards
Fran

[froarty]

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/720 ... anted.html

Updated on Science blog

[froarty]

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/720 ... ect.html-1

latest blog includes a scripted simulation of hydrogen in the cavity/pores

[Xymox]

I moved this topic as its obviously controversial