Abd,
I don't think Mills papers or theory can be used without
interpretation because the fractional states are actually relativistic. I do
believe his data should be considered valuable as a measure to confirm new
theories. I believe that soon someone with more math skill than I will
calculate the DiFiore et al acceleration and redirected energy of a heated
reactor in this confined cavity to better account for Mills output heat
energy than he did. I understand this thread is about what information
should and shouldn't be included on the LENR site but fractional orbit
electrons keep detouring this subject and are not possible except
relativistically. This is what Naudts suggested in 2005 but when Ron
Bourgoin solved for the 137 fractional states in 2007 he did not realize the
significance of Naudts statement or that the use of the Poincare
transformation with an electron was only possible because of a relativistic
perspective - A 1996 paper "Cavity QED*
<http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf> " by Zofia
Bialynicka-Birula supports the use of these equations normally associated
with photons because of the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity and
resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group
which therefore establishes the relativistic nature of their solutions. Put
simply math performed from a relativistic perspective allows electrons to
apparently occupy the same spatial coordinates and states because from an
external perspective these hydrogen populations can have the same spatial
coordinates but different temporal co-ordinates.
Regards
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:16 AM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience
>of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
>suppose they are cold fusion.
Most of Mill's "claims" are only peripheral to cold fusion or
low-energy nuclear reactions. If hydrinos exist, and if there is some
mechanism for hydrino formation in the experiments, the reduced-orbit
electrons might more effectively shield the Coulomb repulsion and
thus catalyze fusion, but that doesn't make articles on hydrinos,
themselves, relevant, nor are the BlackLight Power "reactors"
relevant, that's definitely not cold fusion, but hydrino chemistry.
New kind of chemistry, but not nuclear.
> This is not because I have anything thing against Mills' work. It
> is because people come to LENR-CANR to learn about metal-lattice
> based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons effect, or whatever you
> want to call it. It would annoy the readers to find many papers
> about other subjects. If they want to learn about Mills they will
> go to his site.
It could be argued that some of Mills' papers are relevant to cold
fusion. On the other hand, the political implications are
problematic. Mills is working out his own karma, so to speak; if he
manages to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and then someone else
making a hat from the specifications likewise pulls out a rabbit, the
whole issue might bear revisiting; we are likely to know within a few
years. Meanwhile mentioning hydrinos simply confirms for critics how
nutty these cold fusion people are. While we can't run our lives
based on those opinions, we also might wisely avoid unnecessarily
feeding the beast with tasty tidbits.
Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous human
combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He does
have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in quite some
depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive discussion (p.
184-186) is missing from the index; he actually gives much more ink
to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.
