Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly in the most valuable electric energy.
Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote > > [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis > for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. > The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied > manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new > ones going forward. > > [/snip] > > Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT > only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice > loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to > rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous > heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in > atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas > circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods > fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories > however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE > driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs > in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I > think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino > is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already > understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like > you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the > difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in > smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out > the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent > negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry > caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have > people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons > that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that > cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid > when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is > based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to > occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and > shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really > exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian > contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this > case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the > cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for > “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time > quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded > contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially > displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to > the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it > has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have > occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this > environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the > constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps > dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states > and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? > > Regards > > Fran > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? > > > > The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common > denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. > > > > In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas > like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion > mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be > the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt > reaction. > > > > Even though Larsen & Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe > cold fusion using a single causative mechanism is true to the mark. > > > > Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold > fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The > universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations > that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going > forward. > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason that Andrea Rossi is so desperate to frame his E-Cat as > "nuclear" > is no mystery among patent attorneys who have looked into the various > filings. > > Here is the first reason (priority date 2000): > > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1rHHAAAAEBAJ&dq=20090146083 > > Rossi's side may counter this broad application - and they might admit that > even if there are no nuclear reactions in the E-Cat, then the Mills' > application is for catalytic hydrogen gain in a NON-nuclear reaction of > Ni-H > is framed for a plasma reactor, and NOT for gas-phase. > > They could possibly win on that - BUT - Mills did revise this earliest > application, more than once - and claim 206 in the newest version states > explicitly: > > [0206] "According to an embodiment of the invention, a reactor for > producing > hydrinos, plasma, and power may take the form of a hydrogen gas cell. A gas > cell hydrogen reactor of the present invention is shown in FIG. 3. Reactant > hydrinos are provided by a catalytic reaction with a catalyst such as at > least one of those given in TABLES 1 and 3 and/or a by a disproportionation > reaction. Catalysis may occur in the gas phase." > > And, as you might imagine - Nickel is listed in Table 3. > > Catch-22 for all of this is: what priority date does Mills get on this > claim, since it was not in the original year 2000 filing? > > If Rossi has can prove an earlier priority - then the situation could be > interesting. > > If Defkalion is really looking at this technology as a long-term business > venture and not as a 'pump and dump' - then the smart thing to do IMHO - > would be to work out something with BLP ahead of time, and this could be > possible since Rossi may be a few months ahead on the priority date (this > issue of dates is not crystal clear at the moment). > > Jones > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
