Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
Gordon Docherty has posted a theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion: A Refinement of Ideas: Hydrinos and LENR existing in Perfect Harmony http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/02/hydrinos-and-lenr-existing-in-perfect-harmony-guest-post/ How does his compare to yours, Robin? Also Ed Storms had a theory in his penultimate book: Storms, Edmund (2007). Science of low energy nuclear reaction: a comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 184. ISBN 981-270-620-8. I don't have his book nor do I have a link to an online version of the cited theory from page 184. Are you familiar with Ed Storms's theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion? On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com This is a moderated group, Mills himself follows it and responds to questions. I would characterize it more as a fan club. I get the impression that if the question is too critical, Mills will just refer to a section of his book. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
The best I've found online of Storms's, apparently now abandoned, view of cold fusion as hydrino-based: An Interview with Dr. Edmund Storms Author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RudesillJanintervie.pdf Its basically just hydrinos form, look like slow neutrons and make it past the coulombic barrier -- not specifying the Rydberg state required to look like a neutron nor how it is catalyzed in a solid -- merely that it _is_ in a solid that it is catalyzed, hence explains Mills's missing the explanation as Mills has been working primarily with non-condensed matter. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 6:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gordon Docherty has posted a theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion: A Refinement of Ideas: Hydrinos and LENR existing in Perfect Harmony http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/02/hydrinos-and-lenr-existing-in-perfect-harmony-guest-post/ How does his compare to yours, Robin? Also Ed Storms had a theory in his penultimate book: Storms, Edmund (2007). Science of low energy nuclear reaction: a comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 184. ISBN 981-270-620-8. I don't have his book nor do I have a link to an online version of the cited theory from page 184. Are you familiar with Ed Storms's theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion? On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com This is a moderated group, Mills himself follows it and responds to questions. I would characterize it more as a fan club. I get the impression that if the question is too critical, Mills will just refer to a section of his book. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:12:38 -0500: Hi, [snip] Gordon Docherty has posted a theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion: A Refinement of Ideas: Hydrinos and LENR existing in Perfect Harmony http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/02/hydrinos-and-lenr-existing-in-perfect-harmony-guest-post/ How does his compare to yours, Robin? The author appears to have been reading Fran's posts to this forum. I suggest that you put your question to Fran. As I have said in the past, I don't put much faith in the Casimir cavity hypothesis for a very simple reason. The amount of change in the density of space-time in a nm cavity is trivial percentage wise, because it's the long waves being excluded, not the short ones. The Casimir force doesn't become really significant until you reach nuclear dimensions, by which time it approximates the nuclear force (IIRC). In fact I have often wondered if it might actually be the force that binds nuclei together. Also Ed Storms had a theory in his penultimate book: Storms, Edmund (2007). Science of low energy nuclear reaction: a comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 184. ISBN 981-270-620-8. I don't have his book nor do I have a link to an online version of the cited theory from page 184. Are you familiar with Ed Storms's theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that my contributions to this forum were largely responsible for it. Ed can contradict me if he wishes. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1027v1.pdf Dymamical Casimir emission from polariton condensates The nature of the vacuum is drastically changed in the presence of a polariton condensate leading to increased dynamical Casimir emission One of the tenets of my theory that produces accelerated nuclear decay rates postulates that the rate of virtual particle production is greatly enhanced in the polariton excited vacuum *We study theoretically the dynamical Casimir effect in an exciton-polariton condensate that is suddenly created by an ultrashort laser pulse at normal incidence. As a consequence of the abrupt change of the quantum vacuum, Bogoliubov excitations are generated. The subsequent evolution, governed by polariton interactions and losses, is studied within a linearized truncated Wigner approximation. We focus in particular on the momentum distribution and spatial coherence.* *The limiting behavior at large and small momenta is determined analytically. * *A simple scaling relation for the final condensate depletion as a function of the system parameters is found and the correlation length is shown to depend linearly on the condensate depletion. * Bogoliubov excitations are broken positron/electron virtual pairs that are the basis of Hawking radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation and many other topics On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:12:38 -0500: Hi, [snip] Gordon Docherty has posted a theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion: A Refinement of Ideas: Hydrinos and LENR existing in Perfect Harmony http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/02/hydrinos-and-lenr-existing-in-perfect-harmony-guest-post/ How does his compare to yours, Robin? The author appears to have been reading Fran's posts to this forum. I suggest that you put your question to Fran. As I have said in the past, I don't put much faith in the Casimir cavity hypothesis for a very simple reason. The amount of change in the density of space-time in a nm cavity is trivial percentage wise, because it's the long waves being excluded, not the short ones. The Casimir force doesn't become really significant until you reach nuclear dimensions, by which time it approximates the nuclear force (IIRC). In fact I have often wondered if it might actually be the force that binds nuclei together. Also Ed Storms had a theory in his penultimate book: Storms, Edmund (2007). Science of low energy nuclear reaction: a comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 184. ISBN 981-270-620-8. I don't have his book nor do I have a link to an online version of the cited theory from page 184. Are you familiar with Ed Storms's theory reconciling hydrinos with cold fusion? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that my contributions to this forum were largely responsible for it. Ed can contradict me if he wishes. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
Russ George of Planktos fame has blogged his ideas about hydrino-based cold fusion in an entry titled HYDRINO DARK FUSION ? http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/07/14/hydrino-fusion/ An excerpt: I chatted with Randy years ago at a physics conference and we exchanged some ideas on how the hydrino state of deuterium might facilitate a sort of hydrino moderated dark fusion of two deuteriums, perhaps via something akin to a screening mechanism and just maybe there-in is a connecting thread between our work. But how one gets two protons to fuse even in the strange states characteristic of cold fusion is a stretch for me, that qualify as dark fusion for sure. The central question between cold fusion and hydrinos becoming dark matter is the resulting energy. Hydrino production is an order of magnitude or more energetic than burning hydrogen while DD fusion yielding 4He, hot or cold, is about ten million times more energetic that burning hydrogen (or deuterium). So if one needs a source of energy sufficient to produce a bit of star-like plasma you need around a million times the number of hydrino events as DD cold fusion events to do so. At least we are not astronomically far apart. I tend to think that the 1 atom of D for every 5000+ atoms of H that are found in common hydrogen is the real active constituent of “light” hydrogen NiH fusion or LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) for those who are afraid of the ghost of Martin Fleischman or are merely his ‘cold fusion’ usurpers. It’s easier to imagine hydrinos than proton proton fusion. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com This is a moderated group, Mills himself follows it and responds to questions. I would characterize it more as a fan club. I get the impression that if the question is too critical, Mills will just refer to a section of his book. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com This is a moderated group, Mills himself follows it and responds to questions. I would characterize it more as a fan club. I get the impression that if the question is too critical, Mills will just refer to a section of his book. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
Is Mills measuring the p value of his hydrinos? I understand his reticence to measure fusion ash -- especially since tritium apparently got him into trouble with the pseudo-skeptics when he reported it. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:05:48 -0500: Hi James, [snip] I have talked about this before on this list, but probably before you joined. The answer to your question will depend crucially on the average size of the Hydrino's being produced. For low values of p (the shrinkage level), one might expect very little fusion, and hence Hydrino production to be the dominant heat source. For large average values of p, fusion will dominate. The average p level involved could vary strongly with the local environmental circumstances in any given experiment, so the results could vary widely. Furthermore there are a couple of mechanisms which can result in rapid multiplication of Hydrinos given a source of fast particles (such as might be produced by a fusion reaction). That means that there is a chance that once a fusion reaction occurs it will rapidly be followed by others, until the local Hydrogen supply is exhausted. This would then result in micro-craters fusion being the primary energy source. Many have pointed not just to the cold fusion production of He4, but critically, to the production of quantities of He4 that explain the measured heat. If these results are correct, the implications for Mills's theory seem to be either the energy produced by He4 fusion events swamps the energy produced by the antecedent hydrino production, or Mills is wrong. The question therefore arises (again, assuming the He4 vs heat measurements are correct): What is the expected ratio of energy produced by He4 fusion to the energy from antecedent hydrino production? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
In reply to James Bowery's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:04:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] Is Mills measuring the p value of his hydrinos? I understand his reticence to measure fusion ash -- especially since tritium apparently got him into trouble with the pseudo-skeptics when he reported it. I think the highest he has seen is about 9-11 My memory is a bit vague, and this was all some time ago. The evidence was in the form of small shoulders on peaks in his graphs. Of late, he only talks about p = 4. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:05:48 -0500: Hi James, [snip] I have talked about this before on this list, but probably before you joined. The answer to your question will depend crucially on the average size of the Hydrino's being produced. For low values of p (the shrinkage level), one might expect very little fusion, and hence Hydrino production to be the dominant heat source. For large average values of p, fusion will dominate. The average p level involved could vary strongly with the local environmental circumstances in any given experiment, so the results could vary widely. Furthermore there are a couple of mechanisms which can result in rapid multiplication of Hydrinos given a source of fast particles (such as might be produced by a fusion reaction). That means that there is a chance that once a fusion reaction occurs it will rapidly be followed by others, until the local Hydrogen supply is exhausted. This would then result in micro-craters fusion being the primary energy source. Many have pointed not just to the cold fusion production of He4, but critically, to the production of quantities of He4 that explain the measured heat. If these results are correct, the implications for Mills's theory seem to be either the energy produced by He4 fusion events swamps the energy produced by the antecedent hydrino production, or Mills is wrong. The question therefore arises (again, assuming the He4 vs heat measurements are correct): What is the expected ratio of energy produced by He4 fusion to the energy from antecedent hydrino production? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
Thanks. You may have posted while I was participating but I was, for reasons that now turn out to have been spurious, ignoring your posts. I'll try to locate them. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:05:48 -0500: Hi James, [snip] I have talked about this before on this list, but probably before you joined. The answer to your question will depend crucially on the average size of the Hydrino's being produced. For low values of p (the shrinkage level), one might expect very little fusion, and hence Hydrino production to be the dominant heat source. For large average values of p, fusion will dominate. The average p level involved could vary strongly with the local environmental circumstances in any given experiment, so the results could vary widely. Furthermore there are a couple of mechanisms which can result in rapid multiplication of Hydrinos given a source of fast particles (such as might be produced by a fusion reaction). That means that there is a chance that once a fusion reaction occurs it will rapidly be followed by others, until the local Hydrogen supply is exhausted. This would then result in micro-craters fusion being the primary energy source. Many have pointed not just to the cold fusion production of He4, but critically, to the production of quantities of He4 that explain the measured heat. If these results are correct, the implications for Mills's theory seem to be either the energy produced by He4 fusion events swamps the energy produced by the antecedent hydrino production, or Mills is wrong. The question therefore arises (again, assuming the He4 vs heat measurements are correct): What is the expected ratio of energy produced by He4 fusion to the energy from antecedent hydrino production? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
