One more post on this intriguing subject of “disappearing hydrinos” leading to anomalous cooling, before passing the pliers to Terry.
We have already mentioned that Dirac’s “reciprocal space” provides an alternative venue for this modality, if it really exists – with a lot more credibility and less baggage that “parallel universes” … but that also brings up other fractal spatial possibilities. There is a paper on ArXiv – “Huge Casimir effect at finite temperature in electromagnetic Rindler space”. Here is the story on a blog: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/proposed-metamaterial-structure-to-test.html http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf Anyway – there are several novel connection between fractals, anomalous energy gain or loss - and active geometry which is not exactly 3-space, all of which keep popping up in the literature from time to time (not unlike quantum foam). The message is that particular geometry can somehow alter spacetime - and it is more than the actual spatial dimensions in nm, but also the layout and the (magnetic) field. These have a common thread in that there is a known dynamic Casimir effect (DCE) which can supply excess energy, due to spatial constraints and relativity (i.e. altered spacetime). Consider also: ‘Minkowski Space’ is related to ‘Rindler Space’ and also to ‘De Sitter Space.’ It is possible that all three of these terms relate to a unique fractal of space-time (using ‘fractal’ in the original sense of a fractional dimension) which becomes accessible at the Forster radius of 2-12 nm. This is NOT normal 3-space, nor is it 2-space but somewhere in between. Almost a wormhole, so to speak. Look at the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacetime in the context of this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf This all fits together in a way that is not easy to verbalize, but seems to involve 1) Double vortex in spacetime 2) Vortex flipping and self-oscillation 3) Spatial geometry that relates to the Forster radius (FRET) 2-12 nm 4) Exaggerated vibrational modes 5) Anomaly is not always a gain in temperature – sometimes a loss. The problem is that this analysis is an early attempt to merge mathematical-space with real space. But what is “real space”, anyway? Jones --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.springerlink.com/content/h68g501352t57011/fulltext.pdf Same story on missing neutrons with graph and the full text site - showing the apparent region of interest with a cluster at about .1 Gauss. Of course, extending this finding (which could be wrong to begin with) to virtual neutrons is a leap. Yet that is what we do here- try to extend the ‘cutting edge’ … while avoiding the ‘bleeding edge’… This time there the reference paper is extremely suspect, in itself. Anyway, that small triangle in the graph could be important in the context of “nano-magnetism” and the fact that the trigger temperature for Ni-H seems to relate to the Curie temperature of nickel. It also tends to show visually how difficult hitting the parameter for disappearance would be. The magnetic field in question is actually LESS than the Earth's magnetic field at its surface which is about .4 Gauss in most places. A typical refrigerator magnet is 50 Gauss so we have to ask – are they really that accurate with this? We can imagine that the ‘sweet spot’ – which relates to cryogenic neutrons would be much harder to duplicate at 350C. Anyway, on the plus side - I could download the paper today from Springer for free, which is unusual since they (especially) usually charge a significant fee for carrying out the garbage. Jones … perhaps ALL reactions with hydrogen loaded metal result in a mix of the two temperature anomalies, hot and cold - even the ones that are massively gainful in heat… Those with heat, such as Rossi claims, could be at a ratio of 90/10 (hot/cold). Perhaps Ahern titanium samples gave 47/53 and it appeared to be cooling, but it was only net cooling with significant heat also….If the “missing neutron” or “missing hydrino” ends up providing a huge loss of mass-energy to the reaction, then that loss covers up a lot of excess heat prior to the disappearance. This can possibly explain why LERN is generally unreliable – a natural tendency to produce a balance of excess heat and excess cooling - and it requires some unknown intervention to shift the balance. The intervention appears to be a magnetic field at only about a tenth of a gauss.
