More PolySci less SciPolitics

[Jones Beene]

Science should be about the search for truth. This is even more genuinely necessary for "fringe science" - the practitioners of which have enough inherent problems with the mainstream, without adding unnecessary and silly 'political' baggage and vanity agendas.... Unfortunately the socio-politics which are ingrained in the human psyche, basically - vanity+envy, these emotions hinder that situation (truth-searching) immeasurably, and on every level but especially on the "fringe"... where the outlaws of mainstream science would rather quibble than cooperate, it seems. In common parlance, we recognize that "doodoo (the least vulgar word I could come up with) flows downhill" and obviously nobody wants to be group on the bottom of that odoriferous cascade. Case in point: LERN and the Mills' hydrino. A visitor from another planet, realizing how they themselves had solved the riddle of LENR long ago, might think that earthly scientists must have blinders on - not to see the obvious and immediate cross-connection between the two subfields. Yet the reality of the situation is that there are two polarized, often mutually jealous camps here - of unyielding advocates with separate political agendas, and neither seem willing to concede the obvious - that the two formative-fields are absolutely inseparable and joined-at-the-hip.   Moreover, by using the best of both worlds, it might be easily possible to solve the riddle of free-energy now ... but... nada... mas caca... and neither camp wants to end up being bottom feeder. Moreover, within each camp there are now semi-official efforts underway to quiet dissention within the ranks  - this being more true of the hydrino side, where the list owner seems to have lost interest in the search for truth - but hey - it is his list, and I am soon gone from there as well. Fortunately, Bill B. is a bit more mellow and open-minded on the politics of alternative energy. Another case in point. Even here, a very important paper by Mizuno seems to have escaped comment, perhaps because of politics: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf   There are the troubling implications in the Mizuno paper - and several of his other papers point more to hydrino explanations than to anything else (despite the fact that Jed say he has likely never heard of the hydrino) - no problemo - he is a truth-seeker and that ignorance is immaterial to what others do with his work in a broader context. These particular implications are troubling to both the hydrino camp and to the CF camp, however, and are based on two very "telling" findings in this paper. Lets emphasize that IF... this experiment was not claimed by a very competent experimenter - to be *very high* in repeatability, perhaps these issues mentioned below could be ignored. But ten-out-of-ten is very convincing to any truth-seeker especially coming from a practitioner of LENR who admits up-front - the low-repeatability of CF inherent in normal experiments. Here is the abstract:                             Abstract "We observed neutron emissions from pure deuterium gas after it cooled in the liquid nitrogen followed by compressed under a magnetic field. The neutron count, and duration of the release, and the time of the release after treatment was initiated all fluctuated considerably. Neutron emissions were observed in ten test cases out of ten. Compared to the experiments in which neutrons were observed with electrolysis in a heavy water solution, repeatability was highly good and the neutron count was high." WOW ! First, consider that the experiment is *unpowered* gas phase of deuterium - no loading - and that the surprisingly high neutron emissions, seen early-on - are absolutely gone, more or less, after 4000 seconds. Next let me re-emphasize *10-out-of-10* repeatability and "gone after 4000" seconds. There is an obvious implication here that in any population of deuterons, that there is a small percentage of atoms where the neutron is more loosely-bound than in the bulk of the atoms, and once this low population of "meta-stable" varieties are removed, then the anomaly ceases. Second, there is significant but lesser neutron emission from hydrogen alone! Assuming that this is not within the range of statistical error (arguable), then we are left to ponder whether this neutron emission could be the result of the "natural" level of deuterium, coming from either the H2O or methane precursor - whichever is the source of the gas which is used (unlikely); but even so, at a maximum of 300 ppm, this increase of approximately 40% in neutrons over baseline is anomalous and very interesting. Yet there is one good explanation for both of these findings. The finding raises the likelihood of a metastable species- and you may have already guessed where I am going with this, if you have followed the hydrino forum, or Mills CQM. Needless to say, the theory and experiments of R. Mills are as controversial as those of Mizuno, and a small portion of the theory has recently been shown to be in mathematical error (causing the hydrino list owner to ban the most intelligent voice of dissent on that list, unfortunately a skeptic but a brilliant mathematician - which Mills is not) ... but.... most of Mills ideas are at least partially correct, if not equally brilliant in their own right. Has no one heard of moderation these days!! And in fairness to Nora, Mills is equally as egotistical and intransigent when proven wrong. Has no one heard of reconciliation of ideas these days! ...or seeking the truth and dumping the politics.   On this list, so far at least, I am free to pick-and-choose among all the conflicting arguably good ideas, and keep only the ones which are useful to a more general approach to the broader field of LENR. This would be impossible without knowing about CQM. But nowadays CQM itself is an actual impediment to understanding the BIG PICTURE. And by big, I mean: cosmological scale. If Mills does get the "big prize" it will be (IMHO) for the cosmological implications of hydrinos - which answer so very many things cosmologically, but which Mills himself has probably gotten all wrong on the earthly end. Back to the very important Mizuno experiment. IF there is a natural population of "redundant ground state" hydrogen (or deuterium) which is forming continuously in the solar corona, as Mills suggests, and which has been doing this for nearly 5 billion years, then some of it would likely survive the transit to earth and over geologic time, there would be a "natural" but low population of both hydrogen and deuterium (in redundant ground states - ergo with far different properties), which shows up first in the oceans and then later in hydrocarbons. This population could easily have escaped detection, till now, as it is identical in every respect except for atomic size and "near-field" charge. It is in a redundant ground state - BUT the cause may well have been an ENDOTHERMIC solar reaction, and any attempts to actually form hydrinos (at least in the first two drops 1/2 and 1/3) will fail to produce net energy as these may well be endothermic. This putative scenario - of a "natural" population of "redundant ground state" hydrogen/ deuterium could explain this Mizuno experiment and much more (much of LENR even, including the lack of reproducibility). I can see no way around the fact that IF Mizuno's results are accurate, and 10-out-of-10 is a pretty good batting average.... then there must be only a limited amount of this "hyper-active" or metastable deuterium in any starting population. By that, I mean a small  percentage of deuterium nuclei which are so loosely bound - naturally - that almost any external constraint, such as alternating magnetism, will "strip" the neutron. One of these  metastable species for every [?? huge range of 10^10 to 10^20] normal atoms would suffice to  explain this and probably many other phenomena in LENR such as excess heat, electrode transmutation, helium (from alpha emission following neutron absorption) "heat after death", and the lack of reproducibility (depleted population of metastables)... the list goes on and on. The fact that Mills' redundant ground state deuterium fits that description is intriguing, as logically the much tighter electron orbital would alter the coulomb balance (as felt by the proton) only and especially when the proton is aligned in a strong magnetic field like Mizunos. But even Mills' himself does not acknowledge that the results he sees in his own experiments could be, in whole or in part, from primordial solar-derived metastable hydrogen, and not from the activity of the reaction-cell itself. The cell maybe net exothermic, due to solar hydrinos, even if the 1/2 and 1/3 stages of hydrino formation are endothermic. IOW Mills has described how the material could have been created in the solar corona, but even he does not realize that all he has done in his experimental work is discover different ways to convert this natural metastable entity - which is, in effect, a strange kind of solar energy. Factoid - Mills is only successful with a constant flow of hydrogen - which is NOT reused. He has never demonstrated that once UV light has been seen that the hydrogen can be reused. I say that there is the possibility that Mills has at least part of the mechanism backwards: to wit - if the starting gas has been totally depleted in "original" hydrinos, and none were added to compensate, then that gas cannot be reused. He has not shown otherwise. ... at least that is my current obsessive-scientific-fixation and truth-search for this weekend, which will likely change the instant someone is able to shoot it down with any kind of non-politicized logic. Which will likely need to come from the "usual suspects" the several observers who recognize the possibility of a cross-connection  - an many have their political agenda set to a default of no-hydrinos-in-LENR. Personally, I am as certain of the cross-connection, as of the truth of either. Coincidences this large do not happen in science. Jones