I would like to see someone take the best of these technologies and combine them. I think the environments are the same and only the way the energy is being rectified separates these researchers. I think the competing methods have a synergetic effect on each other, there appears to be multiple paths to energy gain which tend to combine in different proportions based on the particular method used to exploit the environment. Some of these paths are chemical reactions with fractional hydrogen, Beta decay, direct D-D fusion or the Naudt's take on fractional hydrogen as relativistic- suggesting the collective effect of the atoms in the catalyst bend space time such that the orbits only appear fractional from our perspective.
The open cell Casmir cavities (synthetic catalyst) separated by insulating layers (Haisch -Moddel prototype) has some advantages over skeletal catalysts and nano powders in that it forces the gas into and out of fractional states by circulating through non catalyst layers. Their prototype is limited by manufacturing capabilities to 100nm and they propose to use noble gas with Casimir Lamb pinch instead of chemistry to rectify energy. Using Mill's chemistry in this open cell design could allow for better control of the reaction since the gas is constantly circulated into and out of fractional state. This better diffuses the reactions over a greater surface area and discourages runaway conditions. It also allows multiple control parameters such as circulation pressure, mixing with inert gases and backfilling the cells with customized nano powders. If insulating nano powders are used with Arata type nano powders it may be possible to use open cell Nickel foam instead of building the H-M prototype. Rather than neatly organized layers the insulating and caltalytic cells would occur randomly based on how the powders mix - perhaps less effective but no fabrication cost and much smaller cell sizes. Fran
