Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Alternate THEORY for Hydrino based on Relativity
links & animations

The concept of time dilation of hydrogen atoms inside a Casimir cavity is based on radial acceleration which for the purpose of time dilation is the same as linear acceleration. Recall the moving mirror/observer paradox


(ct’)^2 = (ct)^2+(vt’)^2
(ct’)^2 - (ct)^2 = (vt’)^2
t’^2 - t^2 = (vt’)^2 / c^2
t^2 = t’^2- (v^2 t’ ^2) / c^2
t^2 = t’^2 (1- v^2 / c^2)
1/(1- v^2 / c^2) =t’^2/t^2
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 = gamma

Both frames above are the same 2 mirrors onboard a spaceship but the right is being observed from the earth bound observer who sees the light taking the longer path between mirrors which are both moving relative to his position on earth. In the left frame light travels straight between the mirrors when observed from onboard the spaceship with no relative motion between mirrors and observer. Likewise 2 mirrors left on earth would be observed as straight by the local earth bound observer while the observer on the spacecraft would see the path as longer. The strange thing is that both local observers see the “remote” clock as running slower because from their perspective it is always the remote clock that is taking the “long diagonal” path between mirrors. The solution is in the math and the realization that the time dilation constant of proportionality, gamma, equals the ratio of remotely observed time between mirrors to locally observed time between mirrors. Both observers see the same delay which only equates to the absolute magnitude of the dilation and has no significance as to which clock is actually running faster or slower. It is only after the objects return to the same time frame that comparisons can solve for which clock was running faster or slower. We now know through thought experiments and confirming experimental data that the clock on board the more accelerated object runs slower than the less accelerated object but this is not visible to our observers and this leads to confusion when discussing time clock mirror examples in that very often people mix metaphors referring to the “solved” conditions while citing “observed” conditions resulting in conflicts. As shown in the mirror paradox, the “observed” remote vector between mirrors will always appear longer relative to the local path indicating only the absolute “magnitude” of the time dilation. The ratio of the remote time to the local time (Gamma) is called the time dilation constant. It is derived above for the general form using Pythagoreans theory and substitution. Gamma is an absolute value of the ratio and does not tell you which frame is moving faster or slower but if you know which object is more accelerated it allows us to calculate the time dilation. For any given number of time units on the faster object simply multiply by the ratio to get the number of time units experienced on the slower object.

How does this relate to Hydrogen atoms inside a Casimir cavity? A relativistic interpretation of the Hydrino as suggested by Jan Naudts would imply that the suppression of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations between Casimir plates is not what current theory holds. Current theory says that longer vacuum fluctuations which do not fit as whole number wavelengths between the plates are suppressed allowing shorter wavelength fluctuations to replace them in a process QED calls "up-conversion". The relativistic interpretation is based on "Cavity QED" which relates Casimir force to gravitational acceleration where the plates represent an abrupt equivalence boundary which shields the cavity from the ambient g field flowing around it. This "difference" in gravitational acceleration inside vs. outside is proportional to Casimir force and represents a small "equivalent" acceleration for the gas atoms diffused in the cavity relative to outside. The radial acceleration of electron orbitals of these hydrogen atoms in this shielded cavity provides the luminal velocity for potential relativistic effects. In the case of the hydrino the relativistic interpretation would mean that the Bohr wavelength never gets shorter but rather appears shorter due to time dilation inside the cavity, as the Casimir plate spacing grows narrow the Casimir force increases and the wavelength appears smaller still. Since outside the cavity is a stronger g field we have more equivalent acceleration and therefore time dilation is slower outside or faster inside depending on your perspective.


The relativistic interpretation of the Hydrino also solves a problem because as presently defined by R Mills the hydrino would have to have a fractional Bohr radius. A 1996 paper " Cavity QED by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula addresses this with the destruction of isotropy inside a Casimir cavity and resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group. This allowed Ron Bourgoin to use the Poincare group to publish " Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom " in 2007 that showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum states indicated by data from Black Light Power. Ron's use of the Poincare group was controversial because this math is normally restricted to photons which can coexist in the same state and physical location which electrons can not. The use of the Poincare group is allowed because time dilation allows electrons to co-exist in the same spatial positions and states from the perspective of a stationary observer. The paper failed to emphasize the relativistic nature of the solution and Black Light Power wrongly assumed that his proof of the 137 fractional quantum states was physical and ignored the relativistic aspect. The relativistic interpretation keeps electron and nucleus at an "equivalent" displacement via time dilation. Bourgoins' equations below solves for electron velocity as a simple relationship of n = v/c (nc = v) for example 1/137 *C = 2.18 E6 m/sec is minimum velocity and C is max


Although his numbers represent a relativistic perspective and the radius and velocity never change from the perspective of a "local" observer standing on the nucleus, it does explain why the hydrogen atom appears to shrink while accelerating inside a Casimir cavity. The 2.18 E6 m/sec calculated by Bourgoin is very simply the same effect one see when a skater pulls in their arms to perform a spin but at relativistic speeds the remote observer still sees the remote "clock" as slowing down. Since we are the more accelerated frame due to the shielding effect of the Casimir cavity we now know that time inside the cavity will occur at multiple seconds per second from our perspective and that the time dilation constant should be multiplied by elapsed time outside the cavity to determine how much time has past inside the catalyst. Note time dilation is difficult to determine in an actual Casimir cavity where the calculated force varies most with smallest changes in geometry between the narrowest plate spacing and then starts to fall off as you approach atomic geometry due to the summing of the fields at the plate boundaries. P(z) =F(z) / S = -(pi^2 * reduced h * c) / (240* z^4) Here reduced h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the velocity of light, and S is the area of the plates.

A little history, On August 12th 2009 Black Light Power, Inc. Black Light Power 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 Casimir effect 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 but I am proposing a relativistic interpretation based on work by Jan Naudts, Ron Bourgoin and Zofia Bialynicka-Birula. From a relativistic perspective, "up conversion" can be accomplished by curving space time such that any waveforms existing in this zone turn away from the spatial axis of an observer only presenting a profile that "appears" faster and smaller. The wavelength "turns" on the time axis presenting a faster smaller profile from our perspective (I know I am solving not observing). Imagine a waveform on a scope twisting from center on the vertical axis while scrunching up so that it appears to be disappearing into the screen. This is what a relativistic solution proposes regarding "up -conversion" as the plate spacing narrows the vacuum fluctuations have a shorter spatial path so they change their temporal perspective in order to fit between the plates. They are not displaced and replaced they merely twist and appear faster because they appear to be occurring in a shorter time interval.

(Missing flash animation)

The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity has equivalent acceleration (actually "deceleration" 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 is inconsequential compared to Casimir force but they were seeking to prove a small gravitational effect by summing many layers of plates and cavities to expose any net differential in forces between the plates and cavities. The lattices and cavities normally balance between depletion and concentration zones but they were seeking to establish if this relationship to geometry could be manipulated. Their results although small do support the link between gravitational force and vacuum fluctuations, later work by Beck and Mackey proposes vacuum fluctuations below 2 THz are more gravitationally active than those above 2 THz lending further support to this relationship.

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 " Measurability 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 is 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 causes space-time to curve which accumulates into time dilation which looks suspiciously like what we more commonly refer to as catalytic action. With the appropriate choice of rigid catalyst (Rainey 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 Rainey Nickel when it forms relativistic H2 and is immediately broken apart restoring monatomic energy levels. No relativistic H2 remains confined by the geometry of the cavity unless disassociated like Black Light Power does with a tungsten filament.



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).



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.



patent US 7,379,286 B2 awarded 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 Rainey 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.


By Francis X Roarty















Last edited by froarty; 10/20/09 02:59 PM.
.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
November 2, 2009 by Anonymous, 4 weeks 2 hours ago
Comment: 45909

Hi. First of all I'd like to say I'm not a scientist, merely someone interested and trying to (remotely) understand the mystery of the BLP. Forgive me for that.
Can I bluntly summarize the statement of this article from this quote?
"It allows a trigonmetric exchange between space and time where we age hydrogen in exchange for excess heat."
and this:
"I am proposing these so called fractional quantum states or hydrino states as defined by BLP are not real but rather relativistic"...
Can we conclude you propose that hydrinos in fact do not exist but that excess heat is being generated indeed by "stealing" energy from space and time?
So Mills'/Rowan university's experiments that show excess heat would indeed still be true (and thus still provide a possible energy source), but all other claims for using hydrinos as a byproduct would become a lie, since they don't exist?

harakiri

reply
I hate to beat up on Mills
November 6, 2009 by froarty, 3 weeks 2 days ago
Comment: 45918
Harakiri,
I hate to beat up on Mills because he did a hell of a job without the benefit of the paper Cavity QED (1996) he had to approach this solely from chemistry and the suggestions of Naudts and math of Bourgoin only recently became known in 2005 and 2007. I would love to simply redefine the hydrino but am told it is copyrighted and belongs to Mills. The differences between true fractional states and relativistic fractional states is not just the stability argument or I would simply hold my peace but it also reflects on the very interpretation of the Casimir effect which QED theory says displaces larger (longer wavelength) virtual particles in favor of small (shorter wavelength). The "relativistic interpretation" curves space time proportional to casimir force translating the "apparent" frequency and size of everything (including the virtual particles) existing in that space to an observer outside the cavity. This perspective changes the way one should approach optimizing the effect. I am hopeful that the Casimir effect could be electrically controlled by shorting the plates on a duty factor basis to prevent melt down. I suspect the "hydrides" that BLP claims to have recovered are evidence of the "melt down" when the fast H1 reacts with the catalyst material itself to finally "close" the Casimir "plates". I believe fast H1 and Fast H2 can oscillate between states due to differences in field confinement inside the cavity as long as the difference in acceleration builds velocity and the plates don't melt. The hydrino atom or molecule can't exist in our inertial frame and would need to be delivered in situ within a Casimir cavity. The potential uses may still exist if the application can accept the hydrino in situ.

It is my position that anomalously large isotope effects, "pycnodeuterium", the "hydrino" and what others are calling "fractional state hydrogen" are all describing a relativistic state of hydrogen produced by the Casimir effect. Now Rodger Shawyer is suggesting his EM drive which is creating quite a stir in Europe and the UK is based on the same principle. He seems to be reversing the process associated with the hydrino using microwaves to bend spacetime instead of Casimir geometry to sum a small natural break in the isotropy. I have to admit there are a growing number of clues to make me consider this plausible. "cavity QED" in 1996 proposed broken isotropy in a Casimir cavity resulting in an abrupt equivalence boundary formed by the cavity walls. the shielded cavity "decelerates" relative to outside the walls possibly explaining catalytic action from a relativistic perspective where reactants actually occur at the "normal rate" from their own perspective. the Casimir cavity is spatially stationary but drags behind the gravitational field falling outside of it suggesting the accumulating velocity is relativistic. Microwave cavities like Puthoff used to explain suppression of spontaneous emission are also powered by microwaves but appears to "accelerate" orbitals diffused inside - Therefore the relativistic interpretation of suppression is that the atoms are time dilated and from their perspective the spontaneous emission also occurs at the "normal rate". Likewise Shawyers cavity is bending space time relative to outside the cavity and even if the chamber is evacuated bent space time has a different gravitational rate proportional to time dilation. My theory is that these forces always try to balance in an effort to restore isotropy for instance the depletion zone in a Casimir cavity would be balanced by a concentration zone of vacuum fluctuations in the nuclei of the cavity walls due to geometry. Shawyer does not need this trick to sum a depletion zone because he isn't looking to harvest a force -he uses a microwave source and wave guide geometry to forcibly break the isotropy -I am sure the balance between isolation and concentration zones is still maintained but his device appears to be repeatedly sweeping or effecting one type more than the other inside his device.


Last edited by froarty; 12/23/09 10:35 AM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
In my opinion, what Mills is observing is a sort of neutronless cold fusion. I like the Casimir force explanation: at the proximity of metal surface vacuum is shielded from density fluctuations of vacuum, it's less dense there, therefore the massive objects can condense here easier into more dense states, which is what the cold fusion means. After all, adsorption at surfaces acellerates many reactions in chemistry, so that the cold fusion shouldn't be any exception. It means, it's much easier to explain Mills theory by cold fusion, then to explain cold fusion by Mills theory.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
In the article I have an anchor for "missing animation" that can be found http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf

I also have a new article "Will 2010 be the Year of Zero Point Energy?" at OpEdNews Jan 10, 2010
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-2010-be-the-year-of-Z-by-fran-roarty-100110-819.html

Last edited by froarty; 01/12/10 01:33 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
The fractional hydrino state theory is fringe from simple reason: if hydrogen can get into way less energetic quantum state spontaneously, why all existing hydrogen atoms aren't in hydrino state already?

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted By: Zephir
The fractional hydrino state theory is fringe from simple reason: if hydrogen can get into way less energetic quantum state spontaneously, why all existing hydrogen atoms aren't in hydrino state already?


hydrogen can NOT get into way less energetic quantum state spontaneously, in fact it requires a very "specific" type and spatial confinement of rigid catalyst to concentrate the catalytic action to a level that can disassociate a covalent bond. see new animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf with new article http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-will-2010-be-year-zero-point-energy-29148.html I haven’t narrated it yet but think this may make my theory a little clearer.

You don't get something for nothing, you must invest enough heat to disassociate the hydrogen such that it can squeeze into the relativistic fields and Casimir geometry of a scale where molecular hydrogen meets resistance. if these fractional hydrogen form a fractional molecule they give off a photon but then find the covalent bond opposes their desire to transition further.
Regards
Fran




Last edited by froarty; 01/14/10 04:06 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
If hydrino is formed spontaneously under release of large amount of energy, why such stable system should convert back into normal hydrogen again? And even if it would, why it shouldn't consume whole the energy previously released during this?

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted By: Zephir
If hydrino is formed spontaneously under release of large amount of energy, why such stable system should convert back into normal hydrogen again? And even if it would, why it shouldn't consume whole the energy previously released during this?

The hydrino is not created spontaneously and does not release any energy. Mills is quite correct when he says the transition is nonradiative. In fact the transition back to hydrogen will also be nonradiative if a chemical reaction doesn't occur to bond the hydrino to another atom. The translation is relativistic and only occurs from a relativistic perspective (observer in a different inertial frame like outside the cavity). It is similat to the 2 twins in the twin paradox except the Casimir cavity takes a much more direct approach to creating time dilation, instead of increasing what Puthoff describes as "pressure" through spatial acceleration by the space ship borne twin the cavity creates a venturi effect through which the accumulated "pressure" of the sail like Casimir plates see the cavity as tiny hole which is not large enough to exhaust the pressure and becomes a permanent venturi where the time stream passes through the "present" at a rate far greater than nominal open space. see animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf and updates to blog http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-will-2010-be-year-zero-point-energy-29148.html

It only occurs when 2 criteria are met. The hydrogen atom enters a Casimir cavit /rigid catalyst and the H2 is disassociated so the atoms can translate to hydrino -H2 is too large and slow to translate and will never reach the geometry needed to become a dihydrino as the bond resists the change in atomic shape necessary to become a dihydrino -the molecule resists changes in Casimir force -a fact we can use to exploit the otherwise symetrical transition in and out of hydrino state if we can get the hydrinos to form a dihydrino while in their translated state -they either become trapped or their motion destroys the covalent bond and restores them to their atomic energy levels. the Casimir force has 2 different relationships to the fractional orbitals -one for atomic hydrogen and one for molecular hydrogen and the relativistic nature allows us to escape the conservation of energy that would normally just increase the back pressure on the gas supply to equal any energy gains.

Last edited by froarty; 01/19/10 10:56 AM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: froarty
The hydrino is not created spontaneously and does not release any energy

If so, why Mills claims, it could serve as a free energy source? BTW author of the same animation like yours one is claiming, "hydrino (is) unreal but heat is not!"

http://byzipp.com/energy

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
I am that author and the distinction is that the orbital radius only changes relativisticly - like the twin paradox the spacefaring twin is unaware of any change in size or change in the rate of time passage. Naudts is the only author that seems to realize the hydrino is relativistic and his work coupled with Puthoffs atomic model leads one to realize that catalytic action is based on Casimir cavities and time dilation. the surface area and oxidation sinks to the level of metrics while the Casimir cavity is the actual principle that drives the action through time dilation.

That said Mills statement that the orbital is "really" sub ground state may be come a non sequitor
if our knowledge of catalytic action increases to embrace time dilation as the engine. His statement that the hydrino can be used as an energy source is accurate -they may not be subground state but they most assuredly have the ability to create heat if they form dihydrinos which nature disassociates when the casimir force changes from the value at which the molecule formed. this creates 2 opposing forces where nature falls to a lower state to form a molecule and then when the molecule moves to a different plate spacing nature turns around and disassociates the molecule so the atoms can reshape to a new fractional state H/x >> H/(x+dx)

Last edited by froarty; 01/19/10 02:53 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Hi, can you answer my question in simple & concise way?
Does formation of hydrino atom release an energy (Yes/No)?

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
No, formation of hydrino releases no energy and translation of hydrino back to hydrogen also releases no energy. It is only when a dihydrino forms that you release energy in the form of a photon but this is only the normal energy released when any type of atomic hydrogen falls to the lower energy state of a molecule BUT then the casimir force changes with motion and reshapes the atoms to the point where they break the covalent bond restoring the energy given up during molecular formation from the normally chaotic energy of the vacuum fluctuations. these atoms may have been say fractional H/16 + H/16 > (H2)/16
when they formed a dihydrino. When the casimir force changes the atoms may try to reshape into say H/15 but are opposed by the covalent bond. When the force changes enough to break the covalent bond the atoms immediately reshape to the new fractional value and are now ready to repeat the cycle again -giving off another photon. Mother nature is being fooled into working against herself -first falling to lower states as a molecule and then being re-energized to monatomic levels due to the opposition of a covalent bond to changes in fractional states.

formation of hydrino = NO energy release
disassociation of dihydrino = Yes energy gain restoring atoms leads to photon release when they reform dihydrino at lower fractional state

Last edited by froarty; 01/19/10 06:22 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
OK, formation of hydrino cannot serve for production of energy - end of story.

Can formation of dihydrino serve for production of energy (Yes/Not)?

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
F
froarty Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Yes! formation of dihydrino can serve for production of energy.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5