On Friday 27 October 2006 13:08, Jones Beene wrote: > The impetus for this [far-out] idea is based on the earlier > > premise: > > For instance, even without subscribing to the details of Mills' > > hydrino theory - it is conceivable (but not likely) that an > > easily hidden species of "redundant ground state" hydrogen is > > being continuously created in the solar corona over geologic > > time - and makes its way to earth in the solar wind - > > First two corrections. The hypothetical particle in question will > be designated as Hy- [but in an earlier post it was dyslexicly > written as a positive ion]. This species (if real) must consists > of one proton and two electrons at 'orbitals' which are a whole > fraction of the Bohr orbital. However, this solar-derived species > may be largely incompatible with any earthly existence at all, and > yet it could still be a major component of solar wind. Believe it > or not, we do NOT presently know from real experiment just what is > in solar wind. It's all a guess now. Even the recently failed > attempt by NASA to find out was not equipped to search for this > species, Hy-, so it too would have been inconclusive. > > Electrons, despite electrostatic repulsion, can display an equally > strong and balancing magnetic attraction, and often will exhibit a > very strong preference for pairing, as we know. This - even > without Mills' CQM - is a most revealing and important > observation. We might even go so far as to agree with Mills that > the Bohr orbital is NOT the sole ground state, as is generally > stated in physics textbooks, but instead is merely the first [of > many redundant ground states] at which the electron and proton > *can exist with unpaired electrons*, as opposed to paired. A > further implication is that - for every Bohr atom at normal > earth-ground-state, in the Universe as a whole, there could > possibly exist from 10 to 100 widely dispersed and 'cold' Hy-, > which ARE then defined as 'dark matter' (or at least a major > component thereof). This creates the situation of an inherent > charge-bias across the Universe. Not to mention making fools of > previous cosmology "experts" who are convinced they have it all > figured out already. > > Does a charge bias, or inherent imbalance, seem to fly in the face > of observation? is it theoretically even possible? ... and before > reflexively yelling NOT POSSIBLE! > > ...consider that "universal expansion" itself could be a relic of > this inherent charge bias! We certainly have a charge-bias in > earth's atmosphere, which varies in layers, and is most apparent > as the so-called "fair weather field" but one of those layer may > be caused by the solar wind containing lots of Hy- instead of what > is normally envisioned = free electrons. Free solar electrons > could be almost impossible in a situation where the Sun itself has > an ever increasing positive charge bias from having already given > up 5 billion years worth of Hy-. In contrast to free electrons, > these Hy- can and do exit the corona by means of the 1837x greater > kinetic momentum which they possess, compared with free electrons. > > At any rate, given the thermodynamics of the constant formation of > hydrinos in the solar corona, we might further suspect that the > average [most prevalent] hydrino paired orbital is near maximum > entropy, of perhaps n=1/7 or 1/8 (if Robin's calcs are correct). > See > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > > however, I should add that Robin will likely disagree with parts > of this speculation. It is ironic that perceptive folks, of all > persuasion, can seldom agree on anything without first having the > ferment of a previous, and vigorous, disagreement. > > The major spatial difference between hydrogen and hydrino is that > in the same volume of a typical H2 molecule, upwards to 4000 of > the solar Hy- would fit if they were not charged, but since the > charge creates a strong near-field, the actual ability to coexist > with normal matter is extremely doubtful at all, and is unknown > (to anyone other than Mills, but his present inability to harness > this species is probably meaningful). But that is not the > end-of-story for using them elsewhere, even if making them on > earth is too difficult. Stated another way, why buy the cow when > the milk's free? > > OK, after this preamble (more like a pre-ramble <g>) we are back > to the Hydrino Harvester (c). I have taken the liberty of > copywriting this name and idea today for a number of reasons. > Mills, despite his admitted genius, has a history of [occasional] > plagiarizing the ideas of others without attribution. This > continues today, as many corrections in his various revised > versions of CQM resulted from the unacknowledged input from his > critics: somewhat as 'punishment' it seems for their correct > criticism, which makes it doubly wrong - but at least he does > continue to make the necessary changes in that oeuvre ... but > seldom with proper attribution. Ergo the (c). > > Anyway, if the Hy- is a real species, then what follows will be of > great interest to NASA - and they should get it for free, rather > than paying BLP for it (poetic justice). If we are ever going into > interplanetary space, or even to colonize the moon, it would be of > incredible benefit to "harvest" one of the most incredible > propellants which is imaginable - and to do that by "farming" the > ionosphere of earth. Coincidentally, this is spatial layer (one > sublayer of it) is probably a gigantic but transitory repository > for solar Hy-, as they are being continually temporarily captured, > or slowed, by earth's magnetic field. Very few may actually get to > earth's surface, although megatons arrive daily, are slowed and > then continue on towards the Oort cloud and beyond. > > It makes sense that a magnetic, or electrostatic "Harvester" for > these solar-derived hydrinos, placed into low earth-orbit, in a > part of the ionosphere where NASA has never wanted to place > satellites before (for the obvious reasons), could collect and > "neutralize" Hy-s to then be used later for a propellant in > interplanetary, or interstellar, exploration. IOW one might > imagine several hundred relatively cheap robot harvesters, which > contain permanent magnets, a supply of potassium to neutralize > with, and an AI computer brain (son of X-box). After scavenging > the ionosphere for a few weeks, the robot-collectors will > rendezvous with a space-tanker and transfer the booty and go out > again, powered by induction from the same materials they are > capturing. Simple, on paper, no? > > Well, OK - if this doesn't pan out in practicality, it might be > the premise for a good Sci-Fi tale -- > > We might call it: "Just Say NO! : The Revolt of the Hy Robots" or > something along those lines... > > Jones
Does'nt anybody want to talk about Jones' hydrino harvester idea. There is a company called JP Aerospace that has an idea of going to space in a balloon. Sounds crazy. Gets even better! They plan an ascender of large size to climb to about 200,000 feet to an enormous derigible transfer station shaped like a star. There whatever cargo is on the ascender will transfer at this station to the space ascender, an even larger and more flimsy craft powered probably by solar electric propulsion. This space ascender would then leave and ascend in a slow circular pathway gaining speed with each orbit, more so after leaving the last traces of atmospheric friction for practical purposes. Ultimately the space ascender should arrive at a true rigid space station in space in synchronous orbit about 20,000 miles up. From there it would return for another load, taking with it anything needing transport back to the surface. They do this, possibilities are endless. This plan places all its parts at one time or another in this hydrino region, and all of these parts could take part in such a hydrino harvest. This comment involving the use of others' technologies and ideas named above together in a useful and practical form is copyrighted by me, Lee M. Castleton, USAF retired. Parts of this idea involve projects and ideas that are copyrighted, patented or trademarked by others who own their respective projects and IP. It is sad that intellectual discourse has come to this, but the deep dyed villains in this whole sordid affair of locking up science in a cocoon of avarice are our senators and ex-vice-presidents who passed the DMCA and other acts that have the net affect of debilitating our research abilities and bringing a digital dark age to all the world except China, Russia, North Korea, and many Muslim countries too numerous to name. Those so called American politicians could not have done a better job, even if they had been foreign agents, of making real the precept of the ancient Chinese military general and philosopher Sun Tzu: "If you would defeat an enemy smarter than you, then you must cause him not to think!" I did not create this crazy world, but along with you all must live in it. Makes me wonder if some of these ideas may be among the thousands that are locked up by the patent bureaus of many countries simply because their governments evaluate them to be of military significance.
