In prior thread, the premise was suggested that there are two different species
(allotropes) of carbon which are being called carbon-13. One of the two species
is the normal isotope with 7 neutrons, but the second is carbon-12 with a
deeply embedded proton of UDH (the ultra-dense hydrogen) of Holmlid.
This result has happened with some types of carbon during the 100 million year
formation process of decay from ancient vegetation under pressure in coal beds,
especially anthracite and mineral graphite. This type of coal is often used to
manufacture the kinds of graphite where physical anomalies have been witnessed.
Here is another piece of evidence which points to a thermal anomaly with carbon
which could be explained with this hypothesis. (Thanks to Can for the link)
The Replication of an Experiment Which Produced Anomalous Excess Energy.pdf
More on those details later…
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
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