Yeah might be pulling protons out of the Dirac sea to combine with electrons, or something like that
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > According to Albert, adding 25 MWhrs (90 gigajoules) of any form of energy > to an object increases its mass by 1 milligram, even though no matter has > been added... and vice-versa. > > In the case of the AR glow-tube, where 1.5 MWhr has been reported, the > equivalent mass loss would only be about 60 micrograms. This could come > from > anywhere, although fringe fizzix suggests it should come from the single > gram of reactant. But this is new territory. For instance, can SPP or even > electrons be actually consumed to provide mass-energy? (say by dark matter > or positrons without the gamma signature)? Can SPP act as a gateway to the > Dirac field? > > 1.1*10^21 electrons weigh in 1 microgram. > 6.25*10^18 electrons per second = 1 amp > 30 days is 2.6*10^7 seconds... ! > > What's the point? The point is that if there is a real paradigm shift here, > then it does not necessarily have to nuclear fusion as the source, not even > involve the nucleus. We should be thinking outside the box ... err... make > that outside the glow tube. A 'sink' for electrons could be imagined. > ____________________________________________ > > This is not Mark Gibbs' site but an aluminum mineral which > may be relevant to this discussion. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbsite > > Gibbsite is Al(OH)3 is one of the minerals found in > bauxite. Unlike other hydroxides, it is stable at high temperature. > > We are told that in the Rossi reactor hydrogen is admitted > in the form of LiAlH4. In that case, about 12% of the weight of that > compound is hydrogen. We are told elsewhere that Lithium accounts for 1 > percent of the total fuel mix. The density of Al is about 2.7 g/cc and > lithium is .53 g/cc. or about 5 times less than the Al so that in the total > mix, here is what we have to work with, roughly. > > Lithium - 0.01 grams > Aluminum 0.05 grams > Hydrogen 0.006 grams > > We are also told that the fuel powder is put into a cavity > filled with air and not evacuated, so it is clear that as soon as the 6 > milligrams of hydrogen is released from the carrier, it will oxidize to > steam, and then as the temperature rises, and the steam pyrolizes at 1200 > C, > we will end-up preferentially with a stable hydroxide. > > That would be Gibbsite, perhaps. Is there a better > scenario? > > At any rate this does not seem to be a hydrogen reactor. > Since no radioactive debris is seen in the ash, it may not be a nuclear > reactor either, but for certain 6 milligrams of hydrogen is unlikely to > provide over a MWhr of heat. If every single atom converted in the Alain's > version of the "hydrotron" reaction we would be left out in the cold by a > factor of 10 times too little heat. > > Jones > > >
