Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.


September 11, 2009
Uncategorized

The Hydrino was dismissed by mainstream physicists because it was defined as having orbital states lower than ground state. Jan Naudts later published a paper “On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom” that proposed the hydrino could be a relativistic anomally but it wasn’t until 2007 that Ron Bougoin published “Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom” that showed the general wave equation solved for the 137 inverse principal quantum states indicated by Mills. Both authors used math normally reserved for photons dictating a relativistic perspective when applied to electrons. In a related paper Bourgoin solved for orbital velocity as C/n where 1< n <137. The equations he used dictate this velocity is only apparent from a relativistic perspective outside the cavity and can only be applied to electrons when in different inertial frames. the orbital velocity remains unchanged locally inside the same inertial frame. The relativistic interpretation is based on “Cavity QED” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes that Casimir cavities break gravitational isotropy forming an abrupt equivalence boundary between Casimir plates. The classical “displacement” of longer “slower” wavelength vacuum flux in between Casimir plates can be re-interpreted as a change in inertial frames simply making them appear faster or shorter. (see animation virtual particle vs. depiction changed wavelength). This puts a relativistic twist on the QED theory of “up conversion” of vacuum flux frequency due to Casimir effect. the gas atoms inside vs outside a Casimir cavity appear contracted and their clocks appear slower relative to each other. The observer in the faster gravitational field outside the cavity ages slower than the “shielded ” hydrogen dragging behind in the slower gravitational field inside the cavity. the hydrogen diffused inside a Casimir cavity experiences an “equivalent de-acceleration” the reverse of an ” equivalent acceleration” a spaceship would experience in a deep gravity well relative to a remote observer. The cavity keeps the hydrogen inside essentially stationary relative to outside the cavity but the plates partially shield the gravitational field falling outside from the inside. This means the small difference in acceleration is “equivalent” acceleration and accumulates velocity on the time axis. This interpertation may also be suggesting something about the true nature of catalytic action. Although the “depletion” zone in a cavity appears to accelerate reactions the suppression of spontaneous emission inside a microwave cavity suggests that microwave energy can also accomplish segregation of “concentration” and “depletion” zones but un the case of suppression the orbital would need to react with “concentration” zones to account for the delay.

The classic interpertation of Casimir cavity is described as a restriction of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations which are replaced with shorter wavelengths that can fit between the plates in a whole number of multiples. A relativistic interpretation however is that space-time curves allowing the longer wavelengths to appear shorter from our perspective outside the cavity. This “less” curved space places any atoms diffusing through the region into a different inertial frame and it expriences an “equivalent” change in acceleration complements of the Casimir effect. The differential rate between the internal and external frames allows the external world to steadily accumulate velocity away from the trapped atoms in the cavity but because the cavity walls keep the contents spatially stationary relative to the external world the difference in velocity may account for the anomalous heat and time dilation. I propose when compounds form at high velocity the opposition to the confinement increases for diatomic compounds and if cavity geometry is properly selected for this quality like Rayney Nickel it can act like a membrane. This would still harvest a photon and then restore the atoms to monatomic energy levels by sacrificing some of the accumulated velocity. The odd vector of the accumulated velocity also escapes the normal mechanical linkage back to our space outside the cavity through displacement in time. Atoms are pushed sidewise in time instead of in a spatial direction effectively trading time for energy and avoiding the expected back pressure of circulating gas through these cavities – instead we produce “much older” hydrogen and excess heat when the molecules are immediately torn apart by a rigid cavity. The hydrogen is free to re-accumulate velocity and oscillate between H1 and H2 powered by this break in isotropy.

A little history, On August 12th 2009 BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) announced that scientists at Rowan University independently formulated and tested fuels that on demand generated energy greater than that of combustion at power levels of kilowatts using BLP’s proprietary solid-fuel chemistry. Rowan University professors have reported a net energy gain of up to 6.5 times the maximum energy potential of the materials in the system from known chemical reactions. Unlike previous validations in the fall of 2008 using powder provided by Black Light Power this was accomplished using off the shelf chemicals with only a recipe provided by Black Light Power. In both cases the energy produced exceeded known chemistry but using off the shelf chemicals quiets much of the speculation regarding some overlooked energy source in the method of preparation. This is not to say I agree with BLP theory which I do not and most certainly do not accept the fractional state hydrino but rather present their results as a recent example of excess heat. Other reports include Arata in Japan, Energetics in Israel and SPAWARS in California. This whole subject of anomalous heat production regarding monatomic hydrogen and different catalysts has been a long standing mystery in the scientific community. From Irving Langmuir’s circa 1939 Nobel Prize work with Atomic Hydrogen to Ponds and Fleischman work in the 80’s and a bevy of recent reports all around the world. Trying to unravel this mystery has taken many paths, Cold Fusion, bubble fusion, LENR, cavitations and Casimir cavities to name a few. Much of the controversy has revolved around claims of a fractional quantum state where the orbital radius drops below the Bohr radius. I am proposing these so called fractional quantum states or hydrino states as defined by BLP are not real but rather relativistic and can only be observed from outside an equivalence boundary like a Casimir cavity. Atoms inside the cavity remain unchanged relative to each other in the same manner that the model Twin Paradox of physics allows the twin approaching C or an event horizon to remain unchanged relative to his own frame nothing happens.

A little theory, Casimir plates are inherent in a rigid catalyst and create a “depletion zone” where a whole number value of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations cannot fit between the plates. These wavelengths are thought to “up convert” to shorter wavelengths according to QED theory although, from a relativistic perspective of up conversion one might say the vacuum fluctuation simply de-accelerates relative to the gravitational field outside the cavity and therefore only “appears” faster from our perspective (space-time “unstretches” inside the cavity vs. outside). the wavelength
“turns” on the time axis presenting a faster smaller profile from our perspective -see animation The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity has equivalent acceleration ( actually “de-acceleration” is more appropriate compared to ambient gravity field outside the cavity) was first proposed by Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper “Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field“. They proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration, their calculations indicates an equivalent acceleration between the gravitational fields “falling “outside the cavity relative to inside the cavity. This force of only 10 E^-14 N appears inconsequential but it is a constant acceleration which accumulates into frame divergence. I prefer to call this de-acceleration because the isotropy is broken by a Casimir shielding effect that leaves the depletion zone dragging behind the “faster falling” external gravitational field. Hydrogen atoms inside these inertial fields are locally unaware of any change but from our perspective outside the cavity appear smaller and faster accounting for the relativistic nature of the Hydrino.

Black Light Power’s definition of the “hydrino” and other “fractional quantum state hydrogen” definitions are wrong. Here Mills’ should be commended for excellent technical skill in capturing valuable data and improving the output despite a seriously flawed theory. Not that his mistake is surprising since DiFiore et all did not introduce the idea of a Casimir cavity until 2002 the obvious assumption to explain the increased energy had to be a change in the orbital diameter since Planks constant and time were the only other variables involved and there was no reason to suspect a relativistic effects at the time! Mills had to work without the 2002 paper by the Italian researchers proposing the Casimir cavity as a source of equivalent acceleration and it wasn’t until 2005 the term “relativistic hydrogen” was proposed in a paper by Jan Naudts“ On the hydrino state of relativistic hydrogen atom” . This is a much more appropriate term sometimes called “fast” hydrogen which should be applied. Naudts calculations showed that detractors of Mills’ hydrino and other fractional quantum theories had overlooked relativistic effects inside a Casimir cavity. Naudts should have been clearer in conveying that relativistic hydrogen is not the fractional quantum hydrino as defined by Mills – the orbital radius never drops below ground state. Naudts equations did show that at least one stable state could be explained relativistically but was orders of magnitude too high for the 137 fractional states implied by data from BLP and, more importantly, it established the relativistic link. Two years later Ron Bourgoin released a paper “Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom” that showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum states claimed by BLP using Warkowski 4D co-ordinates. Both Naudts and Bourgoin used equations normally reserved for photons and skeptics argued that 1/2 spin electrons cannot occupy the same space and state and that the fractional states would simply fall away if the appropriate Dirac equations were used! A 1996 paper “Cavity QED* ” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula addresses this with the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity and resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group which I believe supports the equation selection by Naudts and Bourgoin and also establishes the relativistic nature of their solutions. I would state this as math performed from a relativistic perspective allows electrons to occupy what only appear to be the same spatial coordinates and states from an external perspective due to hydrogen populations at different acceleration rates but spatially near stationary, a back door way to extend the use of spin 1 equations when dealing with diverging inertial frames.

The frequent criticism regarding the stability of a fractional state hydrino is moot because the Hydrino doesn’t exist. “Relativistic” hydrogen is what Dr Mills mistook for fractional quantum states. Deiform et all proposed that the inside of a rigid Casimir cavity is a source of equivalent acceleration all the way back in 2002. So it is their calculated 10E-14 newtons of force which accumulates between the “more stationary” hydrogen atoms inside the cavity relative to the faster falling gravitational field outside the cavity (As Zofia stated the isotropy is broken by the Casimir cavity). This has the unlikely result of spatially confined hydrogen inside a cavity exhibiting Lorentz contraction and time dilation to an observer outside the plates without astronomical distances or deep gravitational wells. In fact it represents a gravitational “hill” due to depletion rather than the more familiar concentration effect of gravity “well”.

A Casimir depletion zone drags behind the exterior gravitational field to produce a differential force opposite the direction of the external gravity field. The velocity attained by hydrogen atoms in this spatially confined field is concentrated on the time axis and result in the divergence of time co-ordinates in the Warkowski space-time system. Although the 10E-14 N force seems inconsequential it only reflects the opening of the temporal confinement which heat and gas law energy can now contribute to further diverge the frame on the time axis. I am interpreting the Casimir cavity as a depletion zone where the isotropy of the gravity field is broken and the restriction of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations reduces the more gravitationally active flux below 2 THZ as proposed by Christian Beck and Michael Mackey. Their papers, “Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy” and “Electromagnetic dark energy” propose virtual photons with frequency less than 2 THz are more gravitationally active than those above. Their claims are presently only theoretical awaiting experimental evidence to prove slower virtual photons are more gravitationally active. I infer from their work the ratio of short to long vacuum flux increases with mass so the time dilation in a depletion zone is opposite to a gravity well meaning the hydrogen inside a relativistic cavity will speed up instead of slow down further increasing the rate of frame divergence. It seems to act very much like catalytic action and could be the underlying mechanism behind all the columbic barrier and oxidation surface theory presently used to describe a catalyst.

Locally inside the cavity hydrogen remains just hydrogen and the Bohr radius is never violated. The acceleration inside the Cavity is at a different relative angle to time which accumulates into time dilation and Lorentz contraction which, as previously mentioned, looks suspiciously like what we more commonly refer to as catalytic action. With the appropriate choice of rigid catalyst (Rayney nickel or Pd) this “catalytic action” can be leveraged into producing excess heat. The acceleration and attained velocity of relativistic H1 inside the cavity opposes the confinement of Pd or Rayney Nickel when it forms relativistic H2 and is immediately broken apart restoring monatomic energy levels. nonrelativistic H2 remains confined by the geometry of the cavity unless disassociated such as BLP’s use of a tungsten filament in a reactor with their Rayney Nickel powder.

Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.
N =1 is assumed to be 45 degree for flat space sharing dimensions equally. As Velocity increases toward C on spatial axis XYZ time is suppressed (event horizon), As velocity increases toward C on time axis the spatial axis XYZ are suppressed (Casimir cavity).

If relativistic H1 forms relativistic H2 it is also denied mobility just like hydrogen molecules near the mouth of the cavity that were unable to diffuse into the depletion zone. The relativistic H2 however has accumulated velocity, is still in a frame with a different acceleration rate and is subject to gas law – heat still trying to diffuse the molecule in opposition to this confinement. The vacuum fluctuations of this still diverging relativistic frame build “organized” boundary conditions with the covalent bond of the confined molecule which breaks the bond and restores the atoms to monatomic levels using ZPE. You could also say the energy is provided by gas law for those opposed to ZPE :_)

When relativistic H2 forms inside a cavity it emits a photon and becomes more spatially confined in opposition to the high velocity of the relativistic H2. relativistic H2 and normal H2 both resist mobility when the appropriate geometry rigid Casimir cavity is selected but the relativistic H2 however has already attained high velocity in opposition to this confinement. This opposition immediately tears apart the ionic or covalent bond of the compound and restores the atoms to monatomic energy levels still at significant velocity. These relativistic H1 atoms are free to repeat the procedure again and again while emitting photons to further heat the cavity and restore some of the lost “temporal” velocity while not even combusting the hydrogen, the energy is supplied by a gravitational difference creating a temporal vector that allows a trigonmetric exchange between space and time. The product is excess heat and very “old” hydrogen.. see animation

A patent US 7,379,286 B2awarded May 27, 2008 to Bernard Haisch and Garret Moddel leverages Casimir force which they refer to as Casimir -Lamb shift. Their planned prototype of Casimir columns formed by milled columns through metallic plates separated by insulation layers are arranged in a stack. They drill an array of .1 micron columns through the stack which unlike Rayney nickel has a feed through path separated by insulators that force the depletion zones in each plate of each column to translate through its full range of values which is a vast improvement over the skeletal catalyst used by Mills. A recent discovery by Peng Chen at Cornell University Finds nanotubes only have catalytic action at ends and at defects where plate spacing changes. This indicates The Haisch – Moddel cavity columns with insulation breaks is superior to skeletal catalysts used by Mills. Although the skeletal catalyst has stronger depletion fields due to much smaller geometry the Rowan validations appear to release a burst of energy and then the Mills reactors are finished while the Haisch – Moddel model is designed to run continuously. Their .1u diameter cavities are much weaker, form columns that allow circulation control and mixing ratios of diatomic to monatomic gases and simpler heat exchange. Although the methods of confinement and the physics being exploited differ they both require the Casimir cavity to establish a differential zone where normal reactionary forces are partially suspended allowing what appears to be over unity but is actually rectifying energy from the ZPF.


Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.

23 Responses to Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.

  1. Anonymous December 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    M.I.T. NEWS ON FRACTIONAL QUANTUM STATES

  2. Bob February 24, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    “They drill an array of .1 micron columns through the stack which unlike Rayney nickel has a feed through path separated by insulators that force the depletion zones in each plate of each column to translate through its full range of values which is a vast improvement over the skeletal catalyst used by Mills. ”

    You seem to be making broad assumptions and comparing vastly different research as though each piece fit nicely into a puzzle. For example, you compare here Bernard Haisch and Garret Moddel’s work to Mills when the two have nothing in common. Mill’s work is not dependent on “Rayney nickel” or “skeletal catalysts” or only can occur in “short bursts” as you assert. Each of these may be part of some of Mills’ experiments but they do not characterize the whole.

    I suspect that cavity QED, LENR and Mills’ hydrino work are three separate phenomona and do not have a single cause. If true, there will be several new energy sources in the future.

    BTW, Mills reports continuous processes of heat and energy. Many experiments are run in closed vessels with limited hydrogen so there are short bursts and are not indicative of inherent limitations of the process. Also, the material characterization of tightly bound states seems real enough to merit the simplest explanation, that they are just what they seem.

  3. froarty September 23, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Fred, Please accept my overdue thanks and yes your criticsms did illuminate some major failures, It wasn’t until I read my message from your perspective I realized just how clouded my message was, Only a handfull of people familiar with the research would have understood where I was going and they were not my target audience. The title is now an immediate clear message that states my case and a clear demarcation from the fractional quantum state theories -This had been my sticking point since the math wasn’t lying but lack of proper interpretation had turned a relativistic solution into a non relativistic poison.
    I have deprioritized that message and now just trot out to kill the hydrino since it is too late to re-define it, The math of Bourgoin is still valuable but it can wait for another time to cleave it away from all the misplaced sub-ground state associations.
    Best Regards
    Fran

  4. Fred Bortz September 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    Fran,

    Something prompted my memory and I wanted to revisit this discussion.

    I note that the title and much of the text of this seems to have been revised.

    That reminds me of the scene at the end of The King and I when the dying King remarks on his son’s plans to do away with the requirement that everyone’s head be lower than the King’s.

    The dying man says something like, “This is your doing, I believe, Mrs. Anna.”

    Anna replies something like, “Oh, I hope so, Your Majesty! I truly hope so.”

    So is this revision due to my positive influence?

    If so, then let me urge you to continue working on a revision, not for this blog but for publication in the LENR-related professional literature.

    Good luck!

    Fred Bortz
    Science Books for Young Readers
    and
    Science Book Reviews

  5. Fred Bortz September 17, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    I’m glad my comments were useful, Fran. I hope they help you recast the paper into a form that the right editors will be willing to publish. We’ve had a great conversation here. We were both smart enough not to let the anonymous contributors provoke a fight–an ever-present danger on a blog.

    Good luck!

    Fred

  6. froarty September 17, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    Fred,
    Thank you for the kind words and yes there is a growing number of LENR researchers considering if an intermediate energy source is needed to explain the limited nature of the nuclear evidence they are collecting. Their present data may be an effect of the runaway heat causing higher monatomic velocities of which some tiny fractional percentage achieves fusion or fusion like byproducts upon collision.
    Best Regards
    Fran

  7. Anonymous September 16, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    The advice given here is a sad commentary on the state of scientific exploration. To me this is advice that should be given to a writer who wants to create a bestseller “write to appeal to your audience” not advice of how an objective scientist should formulate a theory. I am sure glad Einstein, Newton or Galileo did not think it was wise to minimize the potential importance of their work in order to conform to their peers. If conformation was a tenet followed by all scientists we would likely still hold the belief the Earth was the center of the universe.

    Just to be clear I do not subscribe to Mills hydrino, his grand theory or for that matter the infallibility of the patchwork of conventional models (standard model, quantum mechanics, relativity etc) that each describe different physical phenomena but are not self-consistent when viewed as a combined theoretical framework.

    With that said a theory that unifies the current patchwork of theories may not happen without encouragement to explore and test creative ideas and theories using the scientific method and an objective framework that is willing to accept the possibility the current conventional theories are incomplete or even wrong on some fundamental level. Creating a conformational peer pressure that motivates scientific endeavor to try to mash the inconsistent separate theories into one unified theory while ignoring that there may be alternatives is arrogant and myopic. If this belief that the current theories can be meshed together is wrong it will slow progress drastically vs the progress that would be made with a better understanding based on more robust accurate unified theoretical framework.

    This unified theoretical framework may never happen if scientists alter their ideas and theories to conform to conventional understanding in order to appease peers. Newton, Galileo and Einsteins ideas may have never gained traction if they forced their theories to fit into the conventional understanding of their time and the progression of theoretical and scientific understanding of nature would have suffered sorely if they had.

  8. Fred Bortz September 17, 2009 at 7:16 am #

    Anonymous, if you identify yourself, I may be willing to engage in further discussion.

    My advice to froarty was not as you portray it. He has clearly worked hard to develop a theory that may have some value. I was not telling him to falsify or distort it.

    Given my impressions of it, I was merely suggesting where it might be publishable and what its value might be. I was also telling him that by including certain details that are irrelevant to his central question, he gives a misimpression of his purpose.

    I also suggested a title that brings his conclusion to the forefront. No one can tell from the present title that this is the key question: Is there a non-nuclear explanation for anomalous heating?

    That is a novel perspective on the argument, where both sides are currently arguing whether the heating is real and, if so, that it has a nuclear source. Froarty says we should accept the experimental evidence of the heating but not jump to the conclusion that it is caused by fusion.

    My point here is that if he wants to communicate his interesting idea to an audience, his first job is to connect to that audience’s needs and interests. You seem to demean the importance of that connection. I also suggest that the most receptive audience is the people who are arguing about LENR.

    Too many people blame their readers for not getting their point rather than taking responsibility for reaching them. Froarty has, to his credit, not followed that path. He has been quite patient in explaining his case in response to my questions, even when I clearly missed his point.

    Frankly, I think this discussion has been a refreshing look at how science can be communicated and how critiquing can lead to improvement.

    As a scientist and a writer, I value critical discussion with editors who make sure your work is both accurate and clearly presented for their publications’ audiences. I am serving as something of a volunteer editor here, and froarty is responding as I hope a good scientist would.

    What’s wrong with that?

    Fred Bortz
    Science Books for Young Readers
    and
    Science Book Reviews

    P.S.:
    Perhaps I should not have said that the anti-LENR camp will find this more interesting than those who favor LENR as the explanation. There may be many in the pro-LENR group who are not “true believers” and would appreciate an alternative explanation, even if it leads away from the technological breakthrough that they hope is possible.

  9. Fred Bortz September 16, 2009 at 7:51 am #

    Fran, I admit to not going into to this deeply enough to get your scientific points. My comments have dealt mainly with what I see on a quick scan to answer the question “What is froarty talking about?”

    When i do that quick scan, I see connections with LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), which is the new way of saying “cold fusion” without the stigma. I also see connections with BlackLight Power, whose claims are generally regarded with the same level of skepticism (and sometimes disdain) as the original Pons/Fleischman results. You’d certainly be better off losing the latter connection, since it immediately biases readers against you.

    Here’s how I am now understanding your article:
    You have a theory that explains the anomalous heating in LENR as due to a non-nuclear phenomenon (“fast” hydrogen?), which means that the acronym is not correct. That is potentially very important, since people are claiming that further research into the phenomenon might lead to vast energy production from fusion.

    If you are correct and the anomalous heating is real but due to another source, it seems that the other source is much more limited in its output than fusion. Thus it doesn’t make sense to put further research and development efforts into LENR.

    Such a result is not as “sexy” as producing cold fusion, but it is potentially important for steering people away from unproductive and expensive efforts.

    I think that if you put your work in that context, and if scrutiny reveals that your theory is sensible, then this should be publishable and valuable.

    From my perspective, the missing ingredient is the scrutiny to test your theory. It could be right or it could be total hogwash–I don’t have the slightest idea since I lack the background to evaluate it. But it clearly seems to be asking an important question: Is anomalous heating real but non-nuclear?

    So I suggest retitling your article to something like “A non-nuclear alternative to anomalous heating in LENR.” Then rewrite it to keep a focus on that question and eliminate all direct reference to Pons/Fleischman and BLP (some of the LENR articles you cite may mention those, but you don’t have to).

    Then you will have an article that some people in the anti-LENR camp will find much more intriguing, and the journals that are treating LENR as science but allow for considerable skepticism become good targets for you. You might even find that sponsor you are seeking.

    Fred Bortz

  10. froarty September 15, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    [snip] I say this even though I think the anomalous heating is likely to have other origins than nuclear fusion, [end snip]
    Fred, I never said it was fusion! “fast” hydrogen builds velocity due to an equivalence boundary, a tiny diverging inertial frame with an acceleration vector at a different temporal angle that due to the spatial confinement in the cavity is further accelerated by heat, These fast hydrogen accumulate velocities much quicker when heated to encourage the monatomic state than the passive loading of H1 or D1 in Pd nano materials that often takes weeks to produce excess heat, It is this velocity that supplies the excess heat when two of these fast hydrogen try to form an molecule or compound inside the rigid cavity which is chosen to be of appropriate dimensions to resist diatomic motion at these velocities which therby shreds the newly formed diatomic structure and restores monatomic energy levels -All this to say the energy is coming from the cavity structure manipulating the Zero Point field not fusion by any means -you could stretch the interpretation to call it nuclear but only in the sense of the Puthoff model where it is the ZPF that keeps the orbital from collapsing into the nucleus.
    Best Regards
    Fran

  11. Fred Bortz September 15, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Fran, I have not tried to follow your math, so I have avoided commenting on your scientific argument here.

    But to your credit, you accept the role of mainstream science. You did not claim to be submitting here, as some beyond-the-fringe bloggers do, because the normal publication channels are manned by closed-minded guardians of the status quo who won’t give you a chance.

    Your ideas, being closely tied to anomalous heating, still put you on the fringe. And it is still not clear that even if that anomalous heating proves to be real that you have found anything useful.

    Because of that, you can expect serious criticism from mainstream scientists. You will also take plenty of heat from people who accept the hydrino as real. That’s typical of what a fringe idea will face.

    As long as you realize (1) that such criticism is par for the course and (2) that fringe ideas more often than not prove to be wrong; and as long as you keep seeking constructive criticism from serious scientists, then you are following a reasonable path that may eventually lead to publication.

    To give your idea the maximum chance to move off the fringe, either towards the mainstream or towards oblivion, you really need to submit this to journals and use their editorial responses to continue to develop your ideas.

    If your idea turns out to be wrong but leads others in a more productive direction, that is certainly no disgrace.

    Just make sure that people don’t look at it and say, as Pauli did of one particular poorly constructed argument, “It is not even wrong!

    One way to avoid such a fate is to leave out all references to the hydrino and BLP, which is viewed as not credible, and just focus on your unique arguments. Mentioning the never-reproduced and suspect work of Pons and Fleischman is also not likely to get you positive attention, even among some LENR scientists. See how the journals that publish the experimental work on LENR are handling this, and approach them with an idea that you claim provides a theoretical explanation for that phenomenon.

    I say this even though I think the anomalous heating is likely to have other origins than nuclear fusion, and therefore think your move from the fringe will, unfortunately, probably take your idea toward oblivion.

    But as Bob Park said about the recent LENR work, it appears to be science. I guess that’s his way of saying that it was wrong, but not “not even wrong.”

    Good luck!

    Fred Bortz

  12. froarty September 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Yes Fred I should be publishing in a peer review but got such resistance in forums and blogs as I was developing my ideas that I haven’t proceeded past one feeble submital that was declined due to content. I would like to submit to arix but would need someone to sponsor me, This is a little to difficult to ask for when you are telling people the hydrogen orbital inside a stationary cavity is being relativistically displaced such that it shrinks away from our perspective due to Lorentz contraction, Most people beleive this even less than the sub ground state argument. It was only in the last month or so that I found the Italian research that proved I wasn’t crazy suggesting a gravitational hill inside a cavity with their equivalence proposal. and then just a couple weeks ago I found the other “key” to criticsm that Naudts and Bourgoins math was flawed because their equations were strictly for photons – that was the paper from Zottia regarding the break in isotropy allowing use of the Poincare transforms.The information has already been forwarded to Haisch , Moddel and Puthoff but only Moddel commented on it to say it was an intriguing idea but would take months of modeling and he did not have time to devote to it, and a couple “thank you for the information” noncommital responsed from SPAWARS investigators. I should also mention a lot of very constructive criticsm from Ed Storm of LENR repute, even though he doesn’t agree with me his criticsms were very insightfull and a big help.
    Best Regards
    Fran

  13. Fred Bortz September 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Fran, I’m moving this to the top to create a new sub-thread of discussion, since my key questions seem to have gotten lost in arguments about Bob Park and BlackLight Power.

    The following is what I asked and did not get answered. I was critiquing not the science but your choice of publication medium.

    I wonder why you are blogging about this rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Journals aren’t the be-all, end-all, but the process offers the kind of critique that any good idea can benefit from….A blog qualifies as a media outlet these days, but your posting looks more like a technical article than a news release. What did you intend it to be?If this research showing “anomalous heat” is correct, it will certainly benefit by scrutiny from people who are in a position to judge its validity and importance, i.e. readers of a professional journal rather than blog readers. I, for one, am certainly not expert enough to critique it on scientific grounds.

    I admit that I am not yet persuaded that the “anomalous heat” is any more real than the Pons/Fleischman result. But at least that is being argued in scientific journals and at conferences. If your idea has merit, shouldn’t you be publishing/presenting there as well?

    Fred Bortz
    Author of Physics: Decade by Decade (Facts On File, Twentieth-Century Science Reference Set, 2007)

  14. froarty September 15, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    Lies from people who want to take your money.

    http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn060608.html

    http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power

    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505150

    —————————————————————————————-
    Please reconsider your position based on the following,

    The first citation only makes ref to a 1991 article that is basically just a news report with a single paragraph attacking the sub ground state argument…making my point that a fractional ground state is impossible!=HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE? BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as Hydro Catalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 APR 91], discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a “state below the ground state,” called the “hydrino.” There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull ***. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains.

    The 2nd citation also makes my point that fractional states are impossible http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html When I mention Mills among the others I make note of his WRONG theory regarding fractional quantum states BUT that doesn’t negate his data…. I think my article is pretty clear that the hydrino “as defined” cant exist. The Bohr radius is never violated – but that doesn’t eliminate Mills from the race with Arata , SPAWARS , Energetics or even Griggs and his cavitating water hammer – they are all following aspects of the same anomaly. The math that seems to imply fractional states is basically a relativistic translation and the orbital never really falls below ground state because relativistic “scaling” applies equally to the ruler with which you measure when approaching C or equivalently an event horizon. Nothing can be “measured” between these inertial frames without effecting the “ruler” as well. The time dilation isn’t “measured” until the twin returns to earth. Naudts states in his proof that skeptics overlooked a relativistic solution and Bourgoins work was based on Naudts assertion. An honest objection to their work would be their choice of equations normally reserved for photons which I recently found is supported by a paper from Zottia Bialynicka- Birula http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
    The real obstacle here is that people just can’t believe the work of DiFiore et all that proposes the cavity allows divergent acceleration of inertial frames. It has the unlikely result of spatially confined atoms accumulating velocity on the time axis and producing what Mills more accurately sometimes calls “fast” hydrogen as opposed to his wrong definition of fractional state hydrino. the orbitals are getting further away (think Lorentz contraction) while spatially remaining relatively stationary to the observer outside the cavity. If you really want to throw stones at my theory this is my weakest link not attacking Mills whom I actually think is being wrongly accused but upon whom I do not rely upon for support.

    The 3rd citation doesn’t apply to my article at all, It singles out the wiki dentition of BLP and theory which as stated I don’t agree with. It has nothing to do with the broader state of research re LENR, cavitation, star in a jar, Casimir cavity research ect ect.

    The final citation is already addressed in my article and for that matter in the Wikipedia time line, the Rathke criticism in 2005 was itself criticized for overlooking a relativistic solution in the same year by Jan Naudts – I believe this was wrongly assumed to support the hydrino but it did not because the hydrino was “defined” to have fractional quantum states – so Mills either needs to redefine his copyrighted hydrino or we need to use another term like “fast” or “relativistic” for these (shrunken from our perspective) orbitals whose acceleration vector is able to accept donations from other energies inside the confined space to diverge much more quickly than the “passive” type systems where h1 or d1 is allowed to slowly load in Pd cathodes or nanoparticles to release excess heat over longer periods of weeks or even months.

    Not that it matters because as the theory leaks out it is the home brew water fuel cell researchers and HHO hobbyists will get a free pass via grandfather license to power their own homes. I believe they have been puttering all around the mechanism for years and once the theory is hammered out some combination of catalyst plate geometry, acoustic confinement and HV ac electrolysis is going to reduce this whole science to the right kind of sand in the right kind of a bucket with the right kind of electrolyte.(just add battery charger + electrolysis circuitry.
    I would encourage you to look at the papers I cite from Zottia and DiFiore on my blog

  15. Anonymous September 15, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    Erm hello! !!
    I thought human civilisation was in dire peril from climate change and a cheap clean power source is what we needed.

    Surely this blacklight process has a measurable input and output, why don’t you just prove it’s a safe, clean and economical power source first and worry about whether it breaks a scientific law later!

    Science is not a religion!

  16. Fred Bortz September 14, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Perhaps Bob Park said somewhere that some researchers are looking into cold fusion scientifically. But even so, he clearly doesn’t think much of their efforts.

    [EDIT INSERTED AFTER A GOOGLE SEARCH]: The exact quotation is Item 4 from March 27, 2009, and it’s hardly “swallowing his pride”:

    4. COLD FUSION: TWENTY YEARS LATER, IT’S STILL COLD.
    Monday was the 20th anniversary of the infamous press conference called by the University of Utah in Salt Lake City to announce the discovery of Cold Fusion. The sun warmed the Earth that day as it had for 5 billion years, by the high temperature fusion of hydrogen nuclei. Incredibly, the American chemical Society was meeting in Salt Lake City this week and there were many papers on cold fusion, or as their authors prefer LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). These people, at least some of them, look in ever greater detail where others have not bothered to look. They say they find great mysteries, and perhaps they do. Is it important? I doubt it. But I think it’s science.

    His most recent blog posting about cold fusion, to which this anomalous heating report appears to be related, (Item 5 on 6/12/09) is as skeptical as ever: “Cold fusion 20 years later remains a curious mix of self deception and outright fraud.”

    Fred Bortz
    Science Books for Young Readers
    and
    Science Book Reviews

  17. Fred Bortz September 12, 2009 at 12:50 pm #

    Fran,

    It would really help if you would keep your paragraphs shorter. Blogs are in some ways similar to newspapers, and newspapers have short “grafs” to guide readers through the articles.

    I find long blocks of text even harder to read online than in print.

    Often, a graf is a single sentence, contrary to what Miss Montgomery taught me and my peers in high school.

    Having said that, I wonder why you are blogging about this rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Journals aren’t the be-all, end-all, but the process offers the kind of critique that any good idea can benefit from.

    The biggest lesson from the Fleischman and Pons “cold fusion” debacle was not to go public (i.e., take your story to the media) before publication in the professional literature. Then make sure that a p.r. person doesn’t foul up the scientific significance by overstating (“hyping”) the result instead of merely describing it to the media.

    A blog qualifies as a media outlet these days, but your posting looks more like a technical article than a news release. What did you intend it to be?

    If this research showing “anomalous heat” is correct, it will certainly benefit by scrutiny from people who are in a position to judge its validity and importance, i.e. readers of a professional journal rather than blog readers. I, for one, am certainly not expert enough to critique it on scientific grounds.

    Fred Bortz

    EDIT ADDED 9/12/09
    P.S.: You seem to give BLP credibility, but I am willing to rely on Bob Park’s assessment of the company, most recently summarized at http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn060608.html Park writes, in part:
    “There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains.”

  18. froarty September 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Fred, The hydrino doesn’t exist and I said so clearly in the article “The Bohr radius is never violated” . You have messed up a clean blog with an inappropriate comment and I would appreciate it if you could edit the comment to fit the subject matter and then I will edit this reply away or reply to your modified comment such that it all follows the article. Presently I believe we are just unduly confusing the readers.
    Thanks in Advance
    Fran

  19. Fred Bortz September 11, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Fran, you are right about my just skimming this. It is so densely packed that I couldn’t follow it.

    However, my comment (which arose from my wondering “what the heck is a hydrino anyway?”) may in fact give you a chance to clarify a few things.

    From my googling of hydrino, I discovered that the hydrino and “Black Light Power” are generally regarded as frauds or scams. Thus my critique is not about your paper but the fact that you are blogging about this topic at all.

    Dr. Aaronson’s blog article is amusing and supports your thesis if you are indeed critiquing BLP and hydrinos. And my comment was only about not wasting effort on beyond-the-fringe science. That description seems to apply to both BLP and the hydrino.

    So perhaps you can help me (and other readers) along by giving a little context. Please explain why you are bothering to bring any attention to the apparently disreputable work of BLP?

    No offense intended here. I’ve just seen too much junk posing as science here lately.

    Fred Bortz

  20. Anonymous September 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Bob Park doesn’t even know what he thinks anymore. He went from “…I think it’s science” to “… self deception and outright fraud” within the span of 3 months. I guess even Bob Park is not immune from the self deception and fraud of believing he actually knows what he is talking about. His inconsistent pronouncements over the period of a few months on this same topic only serve to make him look either senile or arrogant. Either way his confused opinion on this matter is completely meaningless since there is obviously no self-consistency.

    http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn032709.html Number 4 Friday, March 27, 2009

    “They say they find great mysteries, and perhaps they do. Is it important? I doubt it. But I think it’s science.”

    [EDIT INSERTED AFTER A GOOGLE SEARCH] Reply:

    After the multiple years of indicating cold fusion was anything but science I would think he would have to swallow a little bit of pride to come out and say “…I think it’s science”. I guess that doesn’t matter anymore though since it is obviously “… self deception and outright fraud” once again.

  21. Fred Bortz September 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    The multiple postings about so-called “hydrinos” finally persuaded me to see if this was potentially useful fringe science or, as it appears to be, beyond-the-fringe science.

    When I have time, I’ll put together a blog entry about the distinction and why I probably shouldn’t be commenting on the latter. So I’ll just point you to someone else’s commentary instead.

    A Google of “hydrino” turned up this revealing critique by a young MIT physics professor, Scott Aaronson. Clearly, as a fellow physicist, he and I share common delusions and such closed minds that we fail to see the wisdom of the beyond-the-fringers.

    I’ll give Aaronson credit for doing something I have not. He spent enough time to understand the claims of hydrino-philes to come up with an alternate theory of the “doofusino.”

    Enjoy!

    Fred Bortz
    Author of Physics; Decade by Decade (Twentieth Century Science set, Facts On File, 2007)

  22. Anonymous September 14, 2009 at 9:54 am #

    Bob Park also wrote almost the same thing about cold-fusion until recently when he had to swallow his pride and admit it is science.

    To the Author of this article I think you might want to take a closer look at Mills theory because from the little I have read he does seem to imply “an equivalence boundary” wherein the radius does not change, depending on the frame of reference, due to relativistic effects.

  23. froarty September 12, 2009 at 6:33 am #

    Fred, The importance is obvious for energy production, numerous reports, the recent re-evaluation of work by Fleischman and Ponds and numerous older reports all the way back to the 1920’s have described excess heat with regards to monatomic hydrogen/D1 and catalysts. The reports from Arata -Zang, SPAWARS and yes even BLP are correct regarding the data but their interpretations are all lacking. The mechanism is still a mystery but I believe Jan Naudts paper from 2005 may be more telling than even he realized when he stated these investigators and skeptics are all overlooking relativistic effects which could explain the “hydrino” – Here Jan should have said “excess heat” but he too was being misled by the interpretation of the math. One assumes fractional states in a solution mean the Bohr radius is compromised but the other interpretation (since Jan is calculating from a relativistic perspective) is that the radius remain the same and only looks smaller from outside an equivalence boundary – An equivalence boundary is normally an acceleration at a substanial fraction of C or an equivalet acceleration by approaching an event horizon which necessitates astronomical distnces, and deep gravitational wells. The Italian research team mentioned in the article proposed the Casimir cavity to be just such a boundary in 2002 regarding the depletion zone inside a Casimir cavity creating an equivalent acceleration of 10 E-14 Newtons relative to outside the cavity. This is where I lose most people because the Italians only speculated on the net gravitational field inside the cavity relative to the outside. I am proposing to extend their theory to consider the effect on hydrogen falling inside this cavity subject to their calculated force. I contend the H1 accumulates velocity exponentially relative to the gravitational field outside the cavity and has the unlikely result that the H1 population inside the cavity can be spatially contained while temporally acccelerating, It appears smaller from our perspective because the warkowski temporal coordinates diverge.

Leave a Reply

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *