Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
Triple helixes are not involved in replication. The DNA/DNA/RNA version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a triple helix. This will only happen with pure DNA if the sequences are palindromic. Triple helixes can form with non-palinfromid sequences if the copper ions bind to the triple helix at specific locations that are related to the sequence mismatch. Nigel On 24/05/2014 03:55, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 17:31:32 +0100: Hi, [snip] And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Are triple helices involved in DNA replication, and if so if the copper attached to the end of the molecule? Nigel Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
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
[Vo]:What Dr. Mills has been doing lately.
Lately, that irascible mad scientist we know as Dr. Mills, over at BLP, has been plugging his company's latest RD achievements which, of course, any inventor worth his CIHT should do. See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ In regards to the latest demonstration where we see (behind a protective shield) a lot of impressive spark-like explosions being generated from a set-up consisting of an auger dropping small pellets of Dr. Mill's magic energy potion between two metal wheels which compresses the mixture, resulting in a series of ignitions, Mills claimed what we are witnessing is: H2O to H2(1/4) + 1/2O2 is more energetic than a high explosive. It is hard to imagine, but so many transformational technologies, now taken for granted, were unexpected. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/2194 Dr. Mills also stated: Thanks! This is an open-air system. We have run closed systems under argon and performed regeneration on the bench multiple times by re-hydration only. The fuel actually gets better since the explosion forms a very fine nano-powder that is more reactive on repeat detonation. We are expanding the engineering team and will kick off an engineering program for automated regeneration next week. We are working with photovoltaic manufacturers on delivery a concentrating PV converter package. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/2190 Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
I agree with that line of thinking. I also think the Dirac sea is a Stormy Sea 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
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
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
[Vo]:The coldest nucleus in nature as a gateway
In nature, the coldest nucleus could be defined as the most energy-depleted. Which is the same way of saying - highest binding energy per nucleon. The dividing line, or the interface, between positive energy and negative energy will be cold, relative to its surroundings. Nickel-62 is the coldest nucleus in nature - an isotope having 28 protons and 34 neutrons - with the highest binding energy per nucleon (8.8 MeV). It is often stated (wrongly) that iron-56 is the most stable nucleus, but actually 56Fe only has the lowest mass per nucleon (not binding energy per nucleon). This misconception probably originated from astrophysics, since those guys pay less attention to the little picture than to the big picture. OKAY - so what? Did I mention that the dividing line between positive energy and negative energy will probably be cold; and consequently a good choice for gateway into an energy sink will likewise be very cold relative to surroundings. This gives two prime choices, and one of them, nickel, has proton affinity - which the other lacks ... and in fact iron becomes embrittled on proton exposure whereas nickel absorbs. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The coldest nucleus in nature as a gateway
Personally, I think that is why our cold fronts in nature, which release the most energy during storms, are really just expansion/inflation of the vacuum and can create a hell of a lot of water as oxygen is ionized and combines with hydrogen. 600 x Hiroshima bomb released in 30 minutes from the Moore, OK tornado I believe this is the Final phase of inflation from our quantum vacuum gravity field and why the Earth is 75% water Stewart On Saturday, May 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In nature, the coldest nucleus could be defined as the most energy-depleted. Which is the same way of saying - highest binding energy per nucleon. The dividing line, or the interface, between positive energy and negative energy will be cold, relative to its surroundings. Nickel-62 is the coldest nucleus in nature - an isotope having 28 protons and 34 neutrons - with the highest binding energy per nucleon (8.8 MeV). It is often stated (wrongly) that iron-56 is the most stable nucleus, but actually 56Fe only has the lowest mass per nucleon (not binding energy per nucleon). This misconception probably originated from astrophysics, since those guys pay less attention to the little picture than to the big picture. OKAY - so what? Did I mention that the dividing line between positive energy and negative energy will probably be cold; and consequently a good choice for gateway into an energy sink will likewise be very cold relative to surroundings. This gives two prime choices, and one of them, nickel, has proton affinity - which the other lacks ... and in fact iron becomes embrittled on proton exposure whereas nickel absorbs. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 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 ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth. As far as my acquaintance with the corpus of modern scientific literature goes, anything that is based on virtual particles becoming real particles sounds a lot to my mind like *ex nihilo aliquid fit*. There's always an energy balance problem to be dealt with or explained away. I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place. I have no strong opinion on the question, although at first glance they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
From: Eric Walker 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 ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth… I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Well, if the Dirac dimension is acting as a sink instead of source – then energy is not exactly coming out. The semantics are difficult (like multiplying two negatives to get a positive). CoE states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but can be changed from one form to another (mass-to-energy which implies negative-mass to negative-energy). However, that strange situation leaves open the gate for non-nuclear matter (electrons, for example) to be depleted of mass-energy in our 3-space while the transaction is balanced by negative energy being reduced in an adjoining dimension. Two negatives giving a positive – yet does anything really transfer? Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place… they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Today’s unexplained crude oddity is tomorrow’s stroke of genius. You remember Rossi’s first reactor, right? You can see better craftsmanship in introductory high school “shop” classes. However, the first cyclotron of EO Lawrence was not much better – held together with wax and string. Sometimes Rube wins the jackpot. The big difference is that Lawrence understood what he was doing theoretically and Rossi does not. Yet AR has been apparently able to get E-Cat to function most of the time. Luck plays a role, but perseverance and learning-from-mistakes plays a bigger role. I just hope that we (the long-time followers of LENR) will get enough real information to provide the answers and insight that AR may be unable to provide by himself. He can have the glory, and the megabucks, which he deserves - but there are some of us who only want to know “why.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:What Dr. Mills has been doing lately.
I looked on the videos. Does not say much except the last one where BLP accept an award for being a potentially explosive company. The sparks seems fun but the award is impressive. They are doing / having contact with the real world. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Lately, that irascible mad scientist we know as Dr. Mills, over at BLP, has been plugging his company's latest RD achievements which, of course, any inventor worth his CIHT should do. See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ In regards to the latest demonstration where we see (behind a protective shield) a lot of impressive spark-like explosions being generated from a set-up consisting of an auger dropping small pellets of Dr. Mill's magic energy potion between two metal wheels which compresses the mixture, resulting in a series of ignitions, Mills claimed what we are witnessing is: H2O to H2(1/4) + 1/2O2 is more energetic than a high explosive. It is hard to imagine, but so many transformational technologies, now taken for granted, were unexpected. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/2194 Dr. Mills also stated: Thanks! This is an open-air system. We have run closed systems under argon and performed regeneration on the bench multiple times by re-hydration only. The fuel actually gets better since the explosion forms a very fine nano-powder that is more reactive on repeat detonation. We are expanding the engineering team and will kick off an engineering program for automated regeneration next week. We are working with photovoltaic manufacturers on delivery a concentrating PV converter package. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/2190 Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
Jones, I like your thinking about that some people wants glory and megabucks while others just want to know why. I like the generous attitude and I think that AR should make liaisons with people who mostly wants to know why in as many ways as possible.The secrecy and the misleading maneuvers do not benefit anyone or the LENR field as a whole. I am sure that with just an ounce of creativity it is possible to create alternatives to secrecy. A hint- it is not patents. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker 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 ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth… I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Well, if the Dirac dimension is acting as a sink instead of source – then energy is not exactly coming out. The semantics are difficult (like multiplying two negatives to get a positive). CoE states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but can be changed from one form to another (mass-to-energy which implies negative-mass to negative-energy). However, that strange situation leaves open the gate for non-nuclear matter (electrons, for example) to be depleted of mass-energy in our 3-space while the transaction is balanced by negative energy being reduced in an adjoining dimension. Two negatives giving a positive – yet does anything really transfer? Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place… they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Today’s unexplained crude oddity is tomorrow’s stroke of genius. You remember Rossi’s first reactor, right? You can see better craftsmanship in introductory high school “shop” classes. However, the first cyclotron of EO Lawrence was not much better – held together with wax and string. Sometimes Rube wins the jackpot. The big difference is that Lawrence understood what he was doing theoretically and Rossi does not. Yet AR has been apparently able to get E-Cat to function most of the time. Luck plays a role, but perseverance and learning-from-mistakes plays a bigger role. I just hope that we (the long-time followers of LENR) will get enough real information to provide the answers and insight that AR may be unable to provide by himself. He can have the glory, and the megabucks, which he deserves - but there are some of us who only want to know “why.” Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 May 2014 20:57:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, 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? yes. 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? Mills claims that the deeper you go the higher the multipolarity of the radiation required to be created, making it ever more unlikely. This is the reason he gives why he keeps on finding H[n=1/4]. I have another reason:- If you look at Hydrinohydride formation, the formula Mills provides for the formation energy of the Hydride gives a maximum p value of 24. Beyond that the formation energy is positive, IOW it doesn't form. The maximum is at p=16. Now if you assume that the radius goes as the inverse square of p rather than inversely linear with p then you find that then Mills p=16 has the same radius as p=4, and p=5 would equate to Mills p=25, which is unbound. In short if the radius goes as the square of p, then the smallest Hydrinohydride occurs for p=4, which could go a long way toward explaining why p=4 keeps on cropping up in Mills' experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Sat, 24 May 2014 15:04:02 +0100: Hi, [snip] Triple helixes are not involved in replication. The DNA/DNA/RNA version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a triple helix. What role does the triple helix play in nature, or is this merely a lab curiosity? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Solar Roadways
Solar Roadways https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNMFKKyFU60#t=53 Harry
