Question: Not sure if it has been discussed before, but could it be that nanoparticulate fuel arrangements are not the ideal? Many workers, most recently JM Thomas (Nature 17 Sept 2015) showed that single atoms, of Pd especially, make better catalysts than nanoparticles. super catalysts, in fact.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Yet another interesting possibility for anomalous energy, showing up in > nature but heretofore unappreciated - which arguably fits into a version > of the Holmlid effect is in biology. If Holmlid is correct that iron-oxide > catalyst along with an alkali (potassium) and a source of light, can > create energetic particles, we can look at biology in a new light, so to > speak. > > Disregarding Kervran, there are two biological energy anomalies in > particular which are really rusty, so to speak. One is the Monarch > butterfly and the other is the class of plants called epiphytes. Both of > these are strong energy anomalies of a biological sort with iron oxide > and light as contributory. > > Epiphytes are non-parasitic plants that grow on trees, deriving nutrients > from air and rain, not from the host. Spanish Moss is the classic example, > growing on oak trees for physical support, but having no roots, it > generally does not negatively affect the oak. It has been shown that Spanish > Moss, Tillandsia, grows faster on electrical cables than on trees and has > 17% Fe2O3, iron oxide in its ashes, when burned, as well as potassium. This > plant captures sunlight and possibly induced electrical current as a > supplement (or alternative) to photosynthesis. It is a fast grower, not > as fast as Kudzu but in times past, tens of millions of pounds was > harvested annually in the USA for such things as the Model-T Ford (seat > padding). I love these old PopSci references: > > > *https://books.google.com/books?id=eiYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=Popular+Science+1932+plane&hl=en&ei=uwhRTaffEsq9tgf9vIG6CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCTgy#v=onepage&q&f=true* > <https://books.google.com/books?id=eiYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=Popular+Science+1932+plane&hl=en&ei=uwhRTaffEsq9tgf9vIG6CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCTgy#v=onepage&q&f=true> > > ___________________________________________ > > Another interesting possibility for anomalous heat due to the Holmlid > effect (nucleon disintegration) is the planet Jupiter. > > Jupiter has a core temperature estimated to be 36,000 K (64,300 °F) > despite the cold surface - but its large gravitational force is far from > being able to trigger nuclear reactions. It is a factor of 75 too low to > trigger fusion. It also has an iron core, the surface of which is probably > catalytic and where heat is generated via proton disintegration. Jupiter > could be the ideal mass range for finding hydrogen planets with hot cores - > where the Holmlid effect predominates. There really are few other choices > that make as much sense. > > The present consensus for Jupiter’s internal heating is that the great > mass and compressibility is making energy available from gravitational > contraction. But that explanation is close to brain-dead, IMO since there > is no net gain from gravitation oscillation around an static average value. > And there is no indication of permanent shrinkage. > > However, theoretical models do indicate that if Jupiter had even slightly > more mass than it does at present, it would shrink significantly, meaning > that it is in a metastable state already which is probably exacerbated due > to the internal heating. So to the extent that internal heat offsets > gravity, then yes gravity heating is arguable, but not without the internal > heat. Thus we cannot attribute this core temperature to gravity at all, > except as the transfer medium/mechanism. > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Ø Can you say what evidence the natural state should exhibit if > such a sub-nuclear shuffle were as "less difficult" as you describe? Are > there natural occurrences that can be looked for that could validate such a > proposition? > > Indeed – such a radical shift would have dramatic, even Universal > repercussions (turtles all the way down) <g>. > > The obvious first place to look is our sun. Do we really understand the > solar hydrogen fusion cycle? My opinion is that we could have it partly > wrong, especially the basic P+P reaction- which is statistically difficult > to reconcile. Here is the way the mainstream looks at it: > > *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction> > > But many observers are struck by the mechanics of the solar fusion cycle > being absolutely dependent on a rare beta decay in the diproton. Can that > really happen during the short lifetime of the species? Despite what you > may think, this critical detail has never been observed, and is merely an > educated guess. It is a guess which is based mostly on lack of another > viable mechanism. > > If Holmlid is shown to be correct – then on our sun, we should find that > nucleon disintegration could be happening instead of, or in addition to, > the fusion of protons. Of course, there would be some of both, since muons > catalyze fusion and we know that helium is formed. The proportions could be > close to even, however. > > The precise details are impossible to frame without more information, but > if Holmlid is replicated, you will see solar cosmologists in a desperate > scramble to cover their proverbial trailing edges. > >
