Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
Robin and hydrino-philesphobes... In short the hydrino as a whole gets lighter as it shrinks. Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? It is thus a mass loss rather than a gain, and would be very hard to measure, as it is still only a very small proportion of the overall mass (~0.027% at most). Hey All this is true, but I think what Robin may be overlooking is **density** not atomic mass. Atomic Mass may be slightly less in the absolute, but density is another story altogether. When you get a drop in orbital diameter of the hydrino, at the first level of 1/2, then the atomic mass will indeed drop by an unperceivable amount, as mentioned, BUT the density, being the mass per unit volume and a **cubic relationship** will INCREASE by a factor of eight. An this should continue for every fractional drop in the redundant ground state... or am I missing something ? Of course, if it is this simple, then I am surprised that Nora Baron, the queen-bee in Mills' bonnet, has not opined that Mills concocted the whole hydrino-hydride to shield him from this density problem, as the hydride would have the normal H2 density, or close - BUT that invention - the hydrino-hydride is an ion, don't forget, and all ions, and I do mean ALL, can be inhibited from forming by the proper application of charge. You cannot tell me with a straight that the hydrino MUST form a hydride, and can never form a dihydrino. That is preposterous. In fact, Mills was always talking about dihydrinos, not hydrino-hydrides, up until the last few years, was he not? At the fourth level, di-hydrinos should already be considerably more dense than uranium, when liquefied. And, in general, the denser any element is, the easier it is to liquefy if it does not take the solid form anyway. Fourth level dihydrinos should be a solid, certainly. Surely, Mills is not suggesting that the bulk dihydrino is always gaseous and cannot be liquefied? At a level of 1/8, which Mills claims to have samples of, dihydrinos should have an enormous density, far greater than any natural element on earth... ... and all he need do to validate hydrinos to the World, it would seem, is to permit an analytical chemist take a density measurement. If this is done, and they are as dense as normal logic suggests, then THAT ALONE will guarantee Mills Nobel prize, so I don't want to hear any more of this... it just takes time stuff. Either he has dihydrinos in microgram quantity now, or the man is a liar. It is that simple. We all want validation, right? How difficult can that be. Micrograms can be measured for density, actually nanograms can now be weighed in a few labs. Is Mills now going to claim that he does not possess even a microgram of pure dihydrinos? ...or so it would seem. I must be missing something? Probably. If so I will apologize to Mills in advance for the rant. The frozen-cerebellum problem is actually quite likely this morning, as my expresso machine finally failed on Friday and the new one hasn't been delivered yet... and Tea is not a good substitute... at least not for the latte-addicts of the world. Jones
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
At 08:35 am 16/05/2005 -0700, Jones wrote: You cannot tell me with a straight that the hydrino MUST form a hydride, and can never form a dihydrino. Could he tell you if he had a full house or better still four of a kind? ;^) F.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 16 May 2005 08:35:20 -0700: Hi, [snip] Hey All this is true, but I think what Robin may be overlooking is **density** not atomic mass. Atomic Mass may be slightly less in the absolute, but density is another story altogether. Indeed, and you make an excellent point. I believe Mills had enough to measure boiling point temperature a while back, so presumably he could measure the density of the liquid. Why not write and ask him? His email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
From: Robin van Spaandonk ... It's not a coincidence. It's the largest integer smaller than the inverse fine structure constant. The latter is important, because if the electron could shrink to exactly the inverse fine structure constant level, it would be traveling at the speed of light (in a circle), which is why the shrinkage is limited to that value. However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Seems to me that the increase in mass implies that these theoretically tiniest of all hydrino species should be heavier than their cousins, especially hydrogen at its traditionally accepted ground state. Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? I suspect this might be impossible simply because these hydrinos are so small that for all purposes they may tend to behave more like sub-atomic particles, meaning they can't be physically contained in the normal way. It's my understanding that a circuitous description of hydrogen transformed to Hydrino, transformed to neutron, and ultimately transformed back to hydrogen scenario shouldn't occur precisely because of the endless extraction of energy that would result. Instead of this scenario you and other hydrino theorists have speculated that fusion may be the more likely fate precisely because these tiny critters have shrunk to such a small diameter that statistically their chances of interacting with other hydrino nuclei have been greatly improved. While I understand, statistically speaking, why fusion may be more likely what I still question would be the ramifications that the energy well would have constructed around individual hydrinos. How would these energy wells play (or not play as the case might be) into the theorized fusion mechanism. Wouldn't they act as a formidable barrier to fusion that would have to be overcome IN ADDITION TO the well-understood column barrier? I was wondering if this energy well might ultimately cancel out any fusion advantage hydrinos might possess as a result of their smaller diameters. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sun, 15 May 2005 11:08:49 -0400: Hi Steven, [snip] However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Seems to me that the increase in mass implies that these theoretically tiniest of all hydrino species should be heavier than their cousins, especially hydrogen at its traditionally accepted ground state. Relativistic mass increase is really just another way of saying kinetic energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. As the hydrino shrinks, it comes from the electric field energy of the electron relative to the proton. I can see no way in which this wouldn't result in a mass reduction of at least one of the two particles involved (electron proton or both). In short particle rest mass is converted into kinetic energy, and some is also lost externally (as energy made available to the environment, see energy from hydrino shrinkage). This means that the increase in relativistic mass of the electron is not even enough to compensate for the loss in rest mass. In short the hydrino as a whole gets lighter as it shrinks. Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? It is thus a mass loss rather than a gain, and would be very hard to measure, as it is still only a very small proportion of the overall mass (~0.027% at most). [snip] It's my understanding that a circuitous description of hydrogen transformed to Hydrino, transformed to neutron, and ultimately transformed back to hydrogen scenario shouldn't occur precisely because of the endless extraction of energy that would result. Well that's my opinion. Instead of this scenario you and other hydrino theorists have speculated that fusion may be the more likely fate precisely because these tiny critters have shrunk to such a small diameter that statistically their chances of interacting with other hydrino nuclei have been greatly improved. Indeed. Because they are shielded by their own shrunken electron, they can get much closer to another nucleus, which improves the chances of tunneling dramatically. While I understand, statistically speaking, why fusion may be more likely what I still question would be the ramifications that the energy well would have constructed around individual hydrinos. How would these energy wells play (or not play as the case might be) into the theorized fusion mechanism. Wouldn't they act as a formidable barrier to fusion that would have to be overcome IN ADDITION TO the well-understood column barrier? I was wondering if this energy well might ultimately cancel out any fusion advantage hydrinos might possess as a result of their smaller diameters. The loss of energy during hydrino formation would simply mean that there would be slightly less energy available from any fusion reaction than one would get from the fusion of a normal proton with the same nucleus. The reduction in fusion energy would exactly equal the amount of energy that one had already received from the hydrino shrinkage, so overall, the results would be the same. IOW hydrinos simply make fusion easier, they don't yield any more, or any less, energy over all. Furthermore, the energy freed during hydrino formation is still quite small relative to the amount released during the fusion reaction. i.e. the maximum release during hydrino formation is 255 keV. The release from an average fusion reaction involving a proton is about 5000 keV, which is about 20 times more. Note however that this assumes that the hydrino is maximally shrunken before the fusion reaction takes place. In practice, it may happen much sooner than that, after e.g. release of only 3 keV, resulting in the fusion energy being about 1000 times larger than the hydrino release energy. This means that the energy loss during shrinkage will have very little effect on the fusion energy, and not be such as to hinder the fusion event to any appreciable extent. OTOH, the reduction in size brings about an incredible increase in the chance of fusion taking place (by many orders of magnitude). To give you a feel for how enormous this is, consider the following. Calculations show that the average time between fusion events for the D atoms in D2 is at least 1E80 years. When a negative muon is used to catalyze the reaction however, the distance between the nuclei shrinks by a factor of about 207. The time needed drops to about 1E-23 seconds. IOW a size reduction by 207 yields a time reduction by 110 orders of magnitude (i.e. 3E110). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to Grimer's message of Fri, 13 May 2005 16:28:54 +: Hi, [snip] That number is 137 BTW, not 127. 137 is approximately the inverse of the fine structure constant. That's very interesting. Is that simply a co-incidence or is there some theoretical reason why the number of collapses (which, of its nature, has to be an integer, happens to be approximately the inverse of the fine structure constant. It's not a coincidence. It's the largest integer smaller than the inverse fine structure constant. The latter is important, because if the electron could shrink to exactly the inverse fine structure constant level, it would be traveling at the speed of light (in a circle), which is why the shrinkage is limited to that value. However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Wed, 11 May 2005 17:29:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] I gather there has been some speculation that much of the missing mass recently detected in our universe might turn out to be nothing more exotic than hydrinos floating about in the deep recesses of outer space. The That is Mills' contention. implication is that this yet-to-be-detected state of matter does not tend to interact with other hydrinos nor other elements - except in special situations like the BLP catalysts. Actually according to Mills, the disproportionation reaction would allow hydrinos to react with one another. This implies as far as I can tell that the only reason they are still there, is that they are too widely dispersed to interact frequently. Personally, I think the entire model of the universe needs rebuilding from the ground up. There is almost nothing in modern cosmology that I would keep. The whole thing is a giant house of cards, with assumption resting upon assumptionetc. All this, of course, remains highly debatable for now. Yes, but Mills' experimental results are interesting nevertheless. There does appear to be something going on that is definitely worthy of serious investigation. I gather that, so far, nobody has figured out a way to directly detect the existence of hydrinos. They are, after all, extremely tiny critters. Setting aside claims of recorded excess heat, the assumption that hydrinos exist appears to be built entirely on unique spectral analysis signatures and special hydride compounds that Mills claims to have manufactured. Why set aside the claims of excess heat? BTW there are also the plasma experiments, where a plasma is created with extraordinary ease when a Mills catalyst is present. [snip] Too bad there doesn't appear to be an academic interest (perhaps on the graduate level?) in devising experiments that might help prove or disprove in the direct sense the existence of hydrinos. Indeed. This does bring up many questions pertaining to whether it is possible for hydrinos to combine with other elements and produce unique alloys with unusual characteristics (i.e. the theorized BLP battery). Again, I get the impression that hydrinos don't interact, perhaps because they are situated down in a deep energy well making it difficult to combine covalently or ionicaly with other elements. Hydrinohydride (the negative ion of the hydrino) should form plenty of ionic compounds. Obviously, Mill's special hydride compounds are claims to the effect that there may be circumstances where combinations ARE possible. See above. From my perspective there remain many unanswered questions making it difficult to prove that they really exist. As long as considerable independent confirmation is not attempted, it will remain questionable, unless an actual commercial product emerges in the mean time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
At 07:52 am 11-05-05 +1000, you wrote: In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Tue, 10 May 2005 17:02:40 -0400: Hi Steven, [snip] It has been theorized that the electron circling the hydrino's proton nucleus might eventually transform the nucleus into a neutron if there have been a sufficient number of fractional collapses of the orbital shell. I This doesn't happen. believe this may occur somewhere around 127 fractional collapses where the electron's velocity would eventually approach the speed of light. That number is 137 BTW, not 127. 137 is approximately the inverse of the fine structure constant. That's very interesting. Is that simply a co-incidence or is there some theoretical reason why the number of collapses (which, of its nature, has to be an integer, happens to be approximately the inverse of the fine structure constant. I believe Eddington got quite worked up about the number 137. I suppose that must have been in the days before they realise that the fine structure constant was not an integer. Frank Grimer
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
Hi Robin, Thanks for the brief but concise tutorial concerning my questions on the progressive evolution of hydrino states. The graphics at your web site were helpful as well. I gather there has been some speculation that much of the missing mass recently detected in our universe might turn out to be nothing more exotic than hydrinos floating about in the deep recesses of outer space. The implication is that this yet-to-be-detected state of matter does not tend to interact with other hydrinos nor other elements - except in special situations like the BLP catalysts. All this, of course, remains highly debatable for now. I gather that, so far, nobody has figured out a way to directly detect the existence of hydrinos. They are, after all, extremely tiny critters. Setting aside claims of recorded excess heat, the assumption that hydrinos exist appears to be built entirely on unique spectral analysis signatures and special hydride compounds that Mills claims to have manufactured. These hydrides appear to posses unique characteristics that might turn out to have lucrative industrial applications. I understand Mills has been willing to share these specially manufactured compounds with other labs for verification of claims. Too bad there doesn't appear to be an academic interest (perhaps on the graduate level?) in devising experiments that might help prove or disprove in the direct sense the existence of hydrinos. This does bring up many questions pertaining to whether it is possible for hydrinos to combine with other elements and produce unique alloys with unusual characteristics (i.e. the theorized BLP battery). Again, I get the impression that hydrinos don't interact, perhaps because they are situated down in a deep energy well making it difficult to combine covalently or ionicaly with other elements. Obviously, Mill's special hydride compounds are claims to the effect that there may be circumstances where combinations ARE possible. From my perspective there remain many unanswered questions making it difficult to prove that they really exist. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Tue, 10 May 2005 17:02:40 -0400: Hi Steven, [snip] It has been theorized that the electron circling the hydrino's proton nucleus might eventually transform the nucleus into a neutron if there have been a sufficient number of fractional collapses of the orbital shell. I This doesn't happen. believe this may occur somewhere around 127 fractional collapses where the electron's velocity would eventually approach the speed of light. That number is 137 BTW, not 127. 137 is approximately the inverse of the fine structure constant. Curiously, things seem to get a little fuzzy in regards to what CQM predicts is the fate of hydrinos that manage to attain this highly refined fractional ground state. Even Mills, I gather, has not cared to speculate too deeply on this possibility in his CQM publications, at least not publicly. More or less true, this is rarely covered in great depth. Primarily because the situation doesn't arise in reality IMO. Does anyone know how much TOTAL ENERGY is theorized to be released by the collapsing orbital shell of the electron belonging to a hydrino as it approaches the ultimate speed of light through approximately 127 fractional transitions? Does it approach the amount of energy that might be released by, say, a neutron decaying back into a proton, electron, and EM radiation? According to Mills formulae, it is an amount of energy exactly equal to half an electron mass, i.e. 255499 eV. The reason I ask this is I have often wondered WHERE the source of all this released hydrino energy comes from. Yes, yes, I know it's supposed to come from the collapsing state of the electron's orbital shell as it finds a new ground state. I believe Mills has let it be known that he more or less believes that it comes from the mass of the proton. Personally, I think it comes partly from the mass of the proton, and partly from the mass of the electron, with the most likely distribution being half-and-half (see also my web page at http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/New-hydrogen.html ). But here's my point: A free standing neutron has a half life of approximately 11 minutes, give or take a minute. As I understand it the neutron eventually decays back into a proton by releasing an electron along with some EM radiation. That would mean WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Which is precisely why the original premise (that an ultimately shrunken hydrino collapses to a neutron) must be wrong. That would mean the entire amount of energy extracted from a hydrogen atom could be repeated infinitely as a typical hydrogen atom is transformed into hydrino, and then into neutron, and then finally as it decays back into a proton - electron pair (plus some EM radiation) to make another hydrogen atom. Indeed it would, if the original premise were true. There is something disturbingly circuitous about the endless production of energy and/or the transformation of matter. Such disturbances are usually a strong sign that the assumptions are wrong. ;) [snip] I may be wrong on this point, but I suspect Dr. Mills CQM theories would not subscribe to this kind of a super-universe construct as the explanation as to where all this seemingly limitless energy would come from. Indeed, but that's because it doesn't exist to start with. The total mass of a:- neutron = 939.5656 MeV ground state hydrogen atom = 938.7835 MeV maximally shrunken hydrino = 938.5280 MeV As you can see, it's even harder for a hydrino to turn into a neutron than it is for a hydrogen atom to turn into a neutron. Now getting back to the final fate of hydrinos. In all likelihood, they fuse with other nuclei, before they reach the final ground state, which is why the question essentially doesn't arise in reality. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
