Fran,
There are a number of patents on that site that I have not seen, but the one that may best support the idea of acceleration (alteration) of decay rate vs. Casimir confinement (which I think is where you are going) is Hora: German Patent # 19803629 Transmutation of Isotopes with Long Half Life (1998) Heinrich Hora. I assume this is the same Hora of Rydberg matter fame (associate of Miley) In effect, what he seems to have anticipated is making the target material (for accelerated decay) into a an array of Casimir cavities by forcing it to hydride with hydrogen at its surface. If there is one important variable which is left out of analyses of possible key variables in LENR it is the *near field* of a temporarily unbound proton (nascent hydrogen) as it approaches the Casimir cavity wall and regains an electron in the matrix. The reason this is missing is that no supercomputer is up to the task for a reason that will be suggested below. It is truly an unknown in 2010. Since the proton cannot radiate in confinement below the ground state radius (for all of the reasons that Mills suggests) any potential energy must be disposed of in another way. If the time constant has been warped dramatically by confinement then this fact offers an explanation of secondary phenomena like altered decay rates, which can be very elegant for a number of reasons, as it relates to well-known photon interactions, only they become virtual. The idea is that the real photon that wants to be radiated becomes a virtual photon instead. IOW time alteration (dilation) forces normal radiation into another dimension. BTW in general dilation refers to an expansion in spatial bulk or extent, the opposite of contraction. But with time dilation, since it does not refer to a particular space but instead to a sequential relationship (time), then neither of the two clocks can be said to be dominant in an absolute sense. Therefore the observation that another's clock is ticking at a different rate as measured by one's own clock can go either way vis-à-vis an absolute standard (if there were one); and the semantics problems is that time in the cavity may not be slower in an absolute sense (relative to a master clock) but instead it is perceived as faster. Bottom line: it is probably therefore best not to use the term dilation - but instead alteration of time. Bill Beaty use to have a good reference site for understanding the near field but I havent checked recently. In the reactive near-field (very close to an antenna which can be an emitter or receiver), the relationship between the strengths of the E and H fields is often too complex to predict, even in an age of supercomputers. Possibly this is because computers need a time constant for the reaction, which is absent. :-) To paraphrase Wiki: Either field component (E or H) may dominate at one point, and the opposite relationship dominate at a point only a short distance away. This makes finding the true power density in this region problematic. This is because to calculate power, not only E and H both have to be measured, but the phase relationship between E and H must also be known and it is time-dominated. In this reactive region, not only is an electromagnetic wave being radiated outward into far-space which may not be 3-space but could be in 4-space; and even if the wave is virtual, there is a "reactive" component to the electromagnetic field, meaning that the nature of the field around the antenna is sensitive to, and reacts strong to, EM re-absorption in this region. The same is not true of absorption which is far away from the antenna, which has far less effect on the transmitter (but there is some). To the skeptic of accelerated decay, this may sound too speculative to matter. For the vortician, it is the experiment alone that matters, and speculation is almost demanded when results are anomalous; and the Barker patent, for one, is easy to replicate. The alteration in decay rates can be six orders of magnitude in the HV field (actually an engineered *field gradient*) of a Van de Graaff or Tesla coil, so this is no small effect. From: Francis X Roarty Ok,I was clued in about Barker patents and others, Rex research [http://www.rexresearch.com/coldfusn/nukwast.htm#brown] reveal evidence for acceleration of decay vs delay.
