Dear Fran, the paper has resulted from a bet with Randy- that I will be able to publish a pro-hydrino paper in a journal of the American Chemical Society. By the way this was the last issue of the journal and the paper is an "opinion" publication. For me it was first of all a diplomatic success.
Cold Fusion had a long tortuous way to the industrial level and succeeded in the most surprising, unexpected and paradigm changing way. 2011 is also the year of hydrino energy. If it succeeds this will be a proof of the theory elaborated by Mills himself. Let's wait and see. The CIHT technology first. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, francis <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter, > > I like you paper and even the term “orbitalities” despite my > conviction that these orbitals are locally unchanged and only appear smaller > because as Naudts posits the hydrino is relativistic. That doesn’t make > anything you said wrong just understated, My interpretation for orbitality > would be chemical reactions between elements in different inertial frames > that exist inside a skeletal catalyst with a tapestry of different Casimir > geometries. IMHO atomic gases can reshape to different “orbitality” freely > based on local geometry while ionic and molecular compounds keep the atoms > at a specific orbitality in opposition to local geometry which provides > opportunity for chemical reaction between gas atoms of different orbitality. > I agree with your statement [snip] The elements of the periodic table have > reactivities and other properties determined by their orbitality. > Surprisingly, it now appears that at least one element—it happens that it is > the simplest and most abundant in the universe—has many kinds of > orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum state, that function as > different elements. [/snip] and think we will find other gases that behave > in a similar form [nitrino?]. If Mill’s would make available some of these > novel hydride compounds for testing we could finally prove the existence of > these states of matter but I don’t think the gas state alone can preserve > for long the orbitality outside of the local Casimir geometry that spawned > it. I don’t reject the possibility of novel nuclear reactions occurring or > probabilities of reactions being increased as a result of this novel > chemistry and potential for energy extraction. I believe the further apart > the orbitalities in a reaction the more novel these reactions can become. > > Regards > > Fran > > > A new definition for “chemical element”? > > Any field of science needs high degrees of standardization, appropriate and > specific language, order, and clarity. Therefore, definitions* *of the > basics are necessary. However, Nature is extremely complex, and reality* *has > so many facets that unequivocal, comprehensive,* *scientifically > sustainable definitions are rarely possible. On the contrary, there appears > to be a Heisenberg-type relationship between the importance and the > definability of concepts. Fundamental ones, such as space, time, matter, and > energy, cannot be actually defined; and essential human features such as > knowledge, intelligence, and creativity, each has several incomplete > definitions. > > In chemistry, acidity, basicity, electronegativity, aromaticity, and so > forth are useful but “fuzzy” concepts. Definitions of terms like these can > limit and sometimes even mutilate the integrity of these concepts. The great > Polish author of aphorisms, S. J. Lec, has remarked, “Definition and finis > [death] have the same Latin root” > (*1*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa>). > Richness of a concept is sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Obsolete > definitions can hamper* *creativity and progress in a field of research. > > A chemical element is currently defined as “a type of matter composed of > atoms that all have exactly the same positive charge of their nuclei”, that > is, the same atomic number > (*2*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa>). > This definition works and is perfectly justified, but it is a physical > definition. Chemistry is about reactivity, bonds, structures, and > properties, all of which depend on the electrons* *that* *surround the > nuclei and on specific electronic configurations. Chemical events happen > with electrons. Quantum mechanics has just added to the complexity of > chemistry* *but does not change anything. As long it is certain* *that any > atomic number imposes one and only one electron configuration, the physical > and chemical definitions are equivalent. Along the same line of thinking, it > seems that the periodic table of the elements is definitive, and the > short-lived synthetic elements cannot introduce new chemical data. However, > even a single* *exception to the equivalence of the definitions could open > new vistas to chemistry. Until recently, this seemed to be simply > impossible. > > *Hydrogen atoms with variable “orbitalities”** > *It is well known that the simplest atom, hydrogen, has a fundamental > ground state, and this is believed to be unique and indisputable. An > American researcher,* *Randell Mills, has a different opinion. In 1986, he > began to develop a general theory based on fundamental natural laws, and he > has questioned quantum mechanics. It is far beyond the scope of this article > to present this impressive intellectual construct. It has not yet been > accepted by mainstream physicists, but it has been described in papers and > supported by many kinds of experiments. Extensive information can be found > on the Web site of Mills’s company, BlackLight Power > Inc.<http://www.blacklightpower.com>(Cranbury, NJ) ( > *3* <http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa> > ). > > Mills has predicted and demonstrated the possibility that hydrogen atoms > can be induced catalytically to collapse to energy states lower than the > ground state, corresponding to fractional quantum numbers. Usable energy is > released; it’s not “free”, but it is much more intense than that produced by > burning hydrogen. The collapsed hydrogen atom—for which he coined the name > “hydrino”, or “tiny hydrogen”—can react with one electron to form a hydride > ion. Hydride reacts with other elements, forming a variety of new compounds > with interesting and novel properties. Mills and his collaborators have > described and characterized a few of them > (*4–8*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa>), > but the possibilities seem limitless. Mills calls his work “a new field of > hydrogen chemistry”, but I am not convinced that this is the best > description. > > Chemical elements currently are characterized by their isotopicity > (*9*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb>)—their > ability to exist with different numbers of neutrons. Mills’s discovery has > generated a new concept: “orbitality”. Thus, atomic hydrogen, deuterium, and > tritium differ in their isotopicity, but hydrogen and the hydrino differ in > their orbitality: For the same nucleus, they have different electron cloud > configurations. For a chemist, it may appear obvious that orbitality is much > more significant and chemically differentiating than isotopicity. > > The elements of the periodic table have reactivities and other properties > determined by their orbitality. Surprisingly, it now appears that at least > one element—it happens that it is the simplest and most abundant in the > universe—has many kinds of orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum > state, that function as different elements. > > The definition of “element” is being brought into question. Originally, it > meant a building block of Nature, but now a new category has appeared. A > myriad applications will be created; and orbitality may be a complex > subject, good for many papers and theses. We must answer the questions: Are > hydrogen and the hydrino still one and the same element? What will happen if > heavier elements with different orbitalities are synthesized? > > *The strange birth of a new chemical element** > *Mills’s discoveries have created a complicated and controversial > situation. On one hand, he continues to publish more and more experimental > data proving the creation and existence of the hydrino. Some examples: > > - Hydrinos produce excess heat caused by* *the shrinkage of hydrogen > atoms released in electrolysis and vapor-phase catalysis experiments, and > the Mills theory predicts well which elements work as catalysts. > - Hydrinos create a hydrogen plasma under extremely mild conditions > (e.g., at 1/100 of the theoretical voltage and with 1/4000–1/7000 the power > input of noncatalytic controls). > - Many compounds of hydrino hydrides with unexpected properties, not > predicted by the current theory, have been synthesized. For example, > nuclear > magnetic resonance spectroscopy reveals protons tightly shielded by > electrons orbiting close to them. > > On the other hand,* *no* *papers in peer-reviewed journals confirm or > refute Mills’s ideas and results. The standard treatment is to ignore his > results and to replace scientific arguments with stock answers > (*10*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb>) > or by association with “cold fusion”, which is an entirely different > subject. > > It is interesting that, independently of Mills, a small English group has > also concluded that lower, fractional energy states of hydrogen exist in the > framework of quantum mechanics > (*11*<http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refb>). > But they do not speak about new compounds or use the process for generation > of energy. > > However, this story is about the future of chemistry and chemical > engineering, and there is only one way to decide. The samples (e.g., those > with the general formula MH*X, where M is a metal, X is a halide, and H* is > a hydrino ion) provided by BlackLight Power must be analyzed and conclusions > drawn. In the worst case, the theory will be disproved; in the best case > (for chemistry), the periodic table will be enriched with one or more > elements. Future science will decide, and perhaps the first new chemical > quasi-element will be named millsium. > > The goal of this article is simply to stimulate an immediate response from > scientists. Chemists of the world, analyze those compounds and decide! > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
