What might carry the Ultra dense hydrogen in the Rossi fuel is its lithium
content. A method used in hydogen storage is nanoconfinement where lithium
hydride is encapsulated in other material to protect it. The lithium
particles in the Lugano fuel assay had many other elements incorporated in
its structure.



>From the Lugano fuel assay, the percent of sodium or magnesium are high in
the lithium complex. These elements could have been used to produce
nanoconfinement of the Lithium hydride and possibly the UDH nanoparticle


The Lugano reports states as follows:

"Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also
contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are
not found in the ash."

[image: nano_0.jpg?itok=CEvdks7-]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>

> Jones,
> There seems to be a number of flaws in this hypothesis.  First of all, the
> only way a shrunken neutral hydrogen can "hang around" in an atom of 12C is
> if it has become in range of the strong force of the nucleus.  In that
> case, it would become a part of the nucleus and would be ripped to pieces
> in the process.  It is much more likely that it would be quickly scattered
> out of the 12C atom.  If a hydrino hydride had entered the atom and became
> a part of the lowest orbital in 12C, it would screen one of the positive
> charges and would appear as 13B, which would really be unusual because the
> half-life of real 13B is only 17ms.  The only way a hydrino hydride
> entering a nucleus could appear as 13C is if it entered an atom of 12N.
> However, 12N has a half-life of only 11 ms, so you wouldn't find any 12N
> hanging around for a hydrino hydride to enter.
> As I understand it, Holmlid's work proposes no UDH in an atomic form -
> only in a cluster form.  So, he is completely out of this proposition to
> begin.
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:35 PM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Here is a premise which may be worth consideration, even if the evidence for 
>> it is not yet certain and the details are fluid. After all, this is vortex – 
>> not Fusion Technology… plus… the proposition is falsifiable, should it 
>> gather any traction.
>> The premise involves the isotope carbon-13 and its abundance/identity. 
>> Standard physics says that 13C is 1.1% of all carbon. However, in fossils 
>> the ratio can range from as high as 5% to almost neglible. This shouldn’t 
>> happen with a true isotope. Likewise many plants either exclude it via 
>> fractionation or else exploit it (as they have vastly different signatures). 
>> Anomalies of 13C are also huge in meteorites –larger than other common 
>> elements such as iron. This variability of isotope ratios is problematic but 
>> has been “kept in the closet” so to speak - since one technique for dating 
>> of fossils depends on the assumption of a steady ratio.
>> The present premise - which attempts to explain the isotope anomalies and 
>> other oddities of carbon (esp magnetic) is that some of the apparent 13C in 
>> nature is not really an isotope at all - but instead is normal 12C plus UDH 
>> tightly bound as a unit – to be explained. If even a few ppm were not 
>> isotopic, then among other things, the economics of coal and coal cleaning 
>> become favorable.
>> The work of Leif Holmlid and others has suggested the possibility of a very 
>> dense form of hydrogen labeled as UDH or ultradense hydrogen. The hydrogen 
>> isomer could act more like a neutron in properties than atomic hydrogen and 
>> has been called a “virtual neutron.” In a departure from Holmlid, Miley has 
>> suggested that a version of this species is inverted and mobile as a single 
>> neutron-like unit instead of as a cluster. Then… there is Mills who has a 
>> charged version with an extra electron. All of these views can be merged.
>> The lifetime of this species could be very long. The compact spatial 
>> dimension would indicate that UDH could “nest” in the inner orbital of a few 
>> host low Z atoms of the proper IP resonance. UDH- (aka hydrino hydride) when 
>> bound as 13C would increase by only one part in 100,000 the dimensions of a 
>> carbon atom, and would not drastically affect the redox chemistry of the 
>> host. The host atoms would have a measured mass increase of 1 AMU.
>> Thus a measureable mass difference (deficit) exists between this faux-13C 
>> and true 13C to provide a way to validate or falsify this suggestion. 
>> Falsifiability is most important if this is to gain traction.
>> When hydrogen is densified catalytically into UDH – which would be expected 
>> under the parameters of coal formation for instance… decaying vegetation 
>> provides all the ingredients, even the iron oxide catalyst. A new type of 
>> compressed molecular species becomes what is measured as 13C. Thus, we have 
>> a natural process, aided by a catalyst (iron oxide)which would present a 
>> tight molecule of supposed AMU 13 which would not be broken by normal 
>> ionization in a mass spectrometer (although other electrons would ionize). 
>> The UDH- would be bound at ~490 eV.
>> It might be possible to harvest the "faux-13C” (f13C) from crushed coal 
>> using magnetic (diamagnetic) separation of coal nano-powder. The f13C could 
>> have very valuable properties due to the potential energy of the UDH.
>> One aim of this – if you haven’t guessed it, is to find a both a additional 
>> source of LENR energy and also a way to justify the cost of extreme 
>> nano-cleaning of coal… rather the BS we hear from the coal industry about 
>> “clean coal”.

Reply via email to