This is a follow-up to a previous article Will 2010 be the year of Zero Point Energy? It focuses on the perceived differences between hydrino and fractional hydrogen and proposes that the two are equivalent. Our conclusion is that catalytic action is based on changes in Casimir force which requires the same relativistic interpretation that Jan Naudts proposed for the hydrino. The hydrino is just hydrogen that finds itself in a relativistic environment through “equivalence”. Casimir plates accumulate gravitational equivalence like any dense matter but having the unique property of venting a portion of this accumulation as a steady stream through the tiny cavity formed between the plates. The force of this stream is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between the plates for non ideal metals.
The “hydrino” appears to violate the minimum ground state for a nonrelativistic atom because our understanding of catalytic action is incomplete. When Naudts proposed a relativistic solution which was proved by Bourgoin in 2006, it was embraced by Mills but he had no reason to update his papers or theory, The fault was not with his work. The fault is with our limited understanding of catalytic action. The math and metrics for catalysts puts everything in terms of energy and surface area which hides the relativistic nature of the effect. The US patent office denied Mills a patent based on his description using catalytic action and energy to describe “fractional states” but then turned around in May 2008 and granted a patent based on the same concepts to Haisch and Moddel describing it as Casimir effect and using Lorentzian math to describe a synthetic catalyst reacting with the same monatomic gas. “Relativistic” hydrogen was acceptable but “catalytic” hydrogen was not. There are still many researchers using catalytic action to describe this same exploitable environment. They often employ different methods to extract energy but it appears for now they must translate their work to describe Casimir effect and Lorentz transformations if they want to apply for a U.S. patent. Skeptics prefer to focus on the this current definition of catalytic action which is not based on a relativistic interpretation to dismiss Mills and any other researchers who suggest a fractional quantum state. These skeptics need to understand that relativistic hydrogen can exist in a stationary reactor through equivalence and that the Casimir effect can segregate normal equivalence to accelerate time in a tiny cavity. The plates still slow time in the more traditional understanding of gravitational equivalence but inside the tiny cavity time escapes the plates in a steady accelerated stream.
We know that relativistic muons are constantly streaming toward earth and that time dilation can accumulate for much lesser velocities such as stellar gases and micrometeorites in nearby space. These effects are all normally considered intangible since they exist in different inertial frames only briefly approaching our frame of observation. Science accepts “equivalent” acceleration due to gravitational fields and that time dilation accumulates exactly the same for “equivalent” acceleration even though the mass remains stationary. Lorentzian contraction also tells us that atoms achieving luminal velocities physically shrink such that they can pass through stationary openings many times smaller than their own dimensions. I am proposing that Lorentzian contraction also occurs with equivalent acceleration allowing more hydrogen gas to be stored inside a catalyst then the calculated volume would suggest. I propose that catalytic action is a result of equivalent acceleration due to Casimir geometry.
The real controversy with respect to the hydrino should be a over this posit of equivalent acceleration where time is accelerated instead of slowed. If we can accept the slowing of time from “equivalent” motion where a space craft parks on a large dense mass, then at a mesocopic scale ,we should also accept acceleration of time where the dense mass of conductive plates is amplified by alignment and geometry to ,again, slow time but only in the plate surface. the tiny cavity between these plates breaches the plate action and funnels the time flow forming a permanent exhaust stream many times faster than the nominal rate outside the cavity. This is not antigravity as Difiore et all discovered in 2001 that the effect can not be scaled. The opposition of Casimir plates to time flow immediately exhausts at their large external surfaces. The opposition only accumulates a gravitational “pressure” internal to the metal which a small cavity or tiny deffect in the lattice simply seeks to exhaust. Because these cavities are too small to exhaust the ever accumulating pressure a permanent venturi is established where the rate of time flow is accelerated and which we commonly refer to as Casimir force (changes in this force produce catalytic action). In both cases the mass under consideration is stationary but in one instance time flow is gradually slowed proportional to density and mass while, in the other instance, this same opposition is tapped to accelerate time.
The math used by Naudts and Bourgoin dictates a relativistic environment.”Cavity QED” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula defines a Casimir cavity as a relativistic environment where the plates define an abrupt boundary that breaks the isotropy of space time. Present Casmir effect theory suggests larger virtual particles are displaced in favor of smaller particles but the relativistic interpretation is that these larger particles only appear smaller due to Lorentzian contraction.
Haisch and Modell designed a device with stacks of metal plates separated by insulating plates all drilled to form columns of Casimir cavities where hydrogen can be circulated through the entire block. This design also forces the atoms into and out of relativistic states due to the insulation layers. It avoids the stagnation that can occur in the pores of skeletal catalysts and uses a weaker .1u spacing (mechanical drilling limit) for Casimir geometry compared to average 10 nm spacing of pores in Mill’s skeletal catalyst. Their prototype is stalled awaiting funding but promises more methods of controlling the reaction and much better heat extraction then the “lump of coal” method employed for the Rowan University confirmations of Mills material.
We are proposing that Catalytic action is based on changes in Casimir effect and should be based on a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect. This is supported by the papers from Naudts , Bourgoin and Bialynicka-Birula as well as
A recent article from Peng Chen@ Cornell indicates that catalytic action only occurs at openings and defects in a nanotube (therefore catalytic action can be defined as a “change” in Casimir force).