Bob, I agree with Miley’s assessment [snip] Miley does not believe the ultra-dense form of hydrogen is something that forms on a surface or can exist in the air. He thinks it is a form that exists interstitially inside a metal or metal nanoparticle. [/snip]. I also think some preprocessing occurs on the surface when that surface is near contact with other nano particles or shaped grains of conductive material such as occurs in bulk nano powdered Ni. The free floating hydrogen IS affected by the tapestry of Casimir suppression thru which it randomly travels, IMHO this is the “loading mechanism” where the shrinkage occurs – my pet theory being a form of Lorentzian contraction where 137 steps are based on vacuum density suppression instead of the pythagoran relationship of C^2 to V^2 but, using whatever theory you like, I think this allows more but shrunken hydrogen molecules to load into the lattice based on a combination of molecular bonding of these shrunken atoms and the reduced vacuum density afforded by the lattice.. I could see less shrunken [f/h] at the center of the interstitial region while the more shrunken forms arrange themselves in what you describe as a snowflake but with what appears to us as nonspatial orientation placing themselves in impossibly small confinements in the corners of the interstitial confinement.. As always I think Naudt’s nailed it when his 05 paper concluded that hydrinos are relativistic but no one wants to accept Lorentzian contraction without near C dx/dt. Whenever I see the animation of Casimir plates and the shrunken vacuum wavelengths between I think they have it wrong .. the longer wavelengths are still present but the reduced vacuum density dilates time such that those longer wavelengths appear contracted from our stationary perspective outside the cavity. Eventually I hope those scientists working on radioactive remediation through catalytic action will be able to segregate just those radioactive gas atoms being deeply loaded into the lattice to determine a true rate of accelerated decay wrt to atoms “processed”, Presently I think the data is deeply diluted by the populations needed to pressure the atoms to process/ contract and then load into these interstitial regions where from their perspective they age and decay naturally for years while from our perspective they are only gone for seconds. BTW, I think this is related to catalytic action, not so much any significant dilation but just the dynamics of accelerating and decelerating constantly with changes in suppression due to surrounding geometry. Out on MY limb Fran
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium From my side of a recent private discussion of Holmlid ... I thought some of it would add to this topic: From what I have seen of Miley's work, Miley does not believe the ultra-dense form of hydrogen is something that forms on a surface or can exist in the air. He thinks it is a form that exists interstitially inside a metal or metal nanoparticle. Holmlid cites backward to Winterberg about theory for ultra-dense hydrogen. Winterberg believes the ultra-dense form is a vertical column of deuterium atoms - completely different from known RM which is planar monatomic flake-like molecules. Miley believes the ultra-dense form can exist with either H or D. Winterberg says the ultra-dense state can only form with D. Miley and Holmlid/Winterberg appear to be describing completely different animals. Interestingly, Winterberg's description sounds more like Ed Storms' linear hydroton of atoms. It is not clear how Winterberg's column-of-atoms matter is something that forms from RM. If I had to speculate, I would say that the columns form as an aligned stack of RM flakes. Then the matter switches from being a planar array of columns to being a columnar stack of flakes. Anderson/Holmlid describe D(-1) as being the lowest energy form of RM. This would imply that the snowflake form of RM, D(1) is higher energy. Wouldn't this mean that there is more potential Coulomb explosion energy from the D(1) than there is from the D(-1)? The authors keep referring to there being only a small energy barrier between D(1) and D(-1) and indicate the possibility of spontaneous change between the states. Yet they also seem to be ascribing tremendous potential energy to D(-1) [the lowest energy state] compared to D(1) [a supposed higher energy state]. I guess I don't understand the idea of Coulomb Explosion (CE). The authors describe how easy it is to remove an electron from RM (true only for a Rydberg excited atom) and then the resulting exposed ions just blow apart from Coulomb repulsion. To me this sounds pretty ridiculous. Otherwise, how could the D(1) RM be as stable as it appears to be?
