In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:54:18 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Although the tonnage of these hydrinos reaching earth in the "solar wind" is >not great in any given year - this process has been ongoing for 5 billion >years. Ergo, there could be now a substantial population of hydrinos in >seawater, if they are as stable as Mills suggests, and some of these would >eventually turn up in hydrogen (especially deuterium) gas, used in >experiments.
The chemical activity of hydrinos is very different to that of hydrogen, hence one can't simply "plug in" a hydrino where hydrogen would normally be found. Depending on the level of shrinkage, hydrinohydride/hydrino can be as metallic as potassium, or a far stronger non-metal than fluorine. In short there are probably many different compounds of hydrogen oxygen and hydrinos, all with different physical and chemical properties, depending on the level of shrinkage. They could vary from gaseous to solid at room temperature. > >What are the further implications, and why would these not have been noticed >(before 1989 ;-) ? This is an excellent question. My guess would be that they don't survive very long because frequently when a hydrino comes in contact with a catalyst it shrinks one or more levels. Eventually they are so small that they undergo fusion reactions and are removed from the environment. Hence they may have a lifetime of anything from seconds to a few years (I'm obviously guessing here). But at any rate, I doubt that they accumulate in the environment for billions of years. > >The first one I would like to throw out involves H-O-Hy, or hydrino-water, as >it matriculates in the vast oceans of earth, and in the presence of cosmic >radiation over geologic time. > >We know that ground state hydrogen has a remarkably high thermal neutron >capture characteristic, and it is conceivable that Hy would be even greater. Actually, the thermal neutron radiative capture cross section for Hydrogen is only 332 mb according to http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc1.html . I Don't see why Hy should be that different to H, considering that the neutron is uncharged, hence both hydrino and hydrogen just look like a proton to the neutron. > Consequently over geologic time most Hy arriving in the solar wind might now > have been already converted to the deuterino or heavy-hydrino (Dy) anyway, > due to constant exposure to the background neutron flux caused by cosmic > radiation, uranium dissolved in seawater and weather (neutrons cause by > lightning). I would expect about the same proportion of hydrinos to have undergone neutron capture, as the proportion of hydrogen. As near as I can tell no one even considers that some deuterium has been formed through neutron capture, most simply assuming that the current hydrogen/deuterium ratio is the same as it was when the planet formed. (Though this obviously can't be true - some must have formed, and some must have been destroyed). > >Mills has never adequately addressed the possibility of H-O-Hy or >hydrino-water, and certainly not H-O-Dy or heavy-hydrino-water. Therefore we >are without much guidance from the godfather of it all - other than the Mizuno >findings. Perhaps Mills has never even considered these implications. See above. The chances that "hydrino water" would be essentially indistinguishable from normal water (or even liquid) are slim. > >However... as soon as Mizuno is independently replicated, WATCH OUT, as the >implications - especially for LENR, may blow the socks off of the >physics-mainstream. [side note] Wouldn't it be curious (more like >poetic-tragic), if Mizuno ends up stealing most of the Mills' thunder with >such a simple experiment, and given he may not have ever even heard of Mills >and certainly does not credit the redundant ground state idea in any of his >own conclusions. > >Given the Mills' assertion (or is it only Robin's), that a hydrino which is > further "pumped" up past a certain redundancy, will continue to shrink, A single hydrino can't shrink auto-catalytically (or any way either). It must react with a catalyst to do so. According to Mills (and I don't disagree), other hydrinos may act as catalysts. IOW a bunch of them together can shrink some of them while others expand. >auto-catalytically, to become an energy-poor quasi-neutron... then... anytime >neutrons are observed anomalously, we must consider this *primordial* and >natural source of either Hy or Dy, first, as a possible explanation for the >anomaly. Agreed. In a post some time last year (I think), I suggested that a severely shrunken dihydrino molecular ion might take the place of a deuterium nucleus. The difference would be that the bond between the two nucleons is purely chemical, rather than nuclear, and hence much easier to break, resulting in a proton and a severely shrunken hydrino, which might then function as a neutron in an ensuing nuclear reaction. The problem with this is of course that one is lead to wonder why the original "quasi" deuteron (i.e. the hydrino molecular ion) didn't simply convert to a real deuterium nucleus spontaneously. > >With deuterium (deuterino), the pathway to a neutron-anomaly takes less of a >leap of faith than with a hydrino, as a "shrunken" deuterino would have as its >only distinguishing characteristic - the electron orbital being much closer to >the nucleus. Why would the electron in deuterino be "much" closer than in hydrino? The difference in distance would only be due to the difference in reduced electron mass, and this is a very small correction anyway. (i.e. the difference between 13.606 eV and 13.598 eV). IOW for a deuteron, the correction would be twice as large, and one would get 13.59 eV. [snip] >The fringe science archives are replete with anecdotal evidence of neutron >anomalies - often called neutron "stripping" or the Oppenhiemer-Phillips >effect (O-P effect). I suspect that this may be more readily explained by a dihydrino molecular ion masquerading as a deuterium nucleus. The capture problem I mentioned here above, might be resolved by taking into consideration that the actual capture process would be a beta-decay process, and the half life of such processes depends strongly on the amount of energy released thereby. As such, capture of a hydrino by a larger nucleus (where e.g. 5-10 MeV is released) could in theory have a much shorted half life than capture by a proton leading to the formation of deuterium where less than 1.44 MeV is released (because some was already lost during shrinkage). OTOH, I would expect proton capture to be far more likely than neutron capture, because the former requires no weak force interaction. Yet AFAIK, most Oppenhiemer-Phillips reactions are neutron capture reactions, which doesn't auger well for the hypothesis. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk In a town full of candlestick makers, everyone lives in the light, In a town full of thieves, there is only one candle, and everyone lives in the night.
