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).
9 thoughts on “Hydrino patent based on catalyst denied while later patent for relativistic hydrogen based on Casimir cavity granted”
Thank you for your useful comments. I am intrigued to watch the interplay of two people who are tracking and blogging about an interesting area. Even though you have different interpretations, neither one of you is making the disagreement personal. That seems to be an example of the way scientific knowledge develops and helps people like me find their way into the published literature.
It’s also interesting that it touches on two other topics that have received a lot of attention.
I don’t see any definitive evidence for cold fusion here, although the evidence for small amounts of anomalous heating seems to be replicable. It’s certainly worth trying to track down its cause.
As for the connection to “dark energy,” that makes me go “hmmmmm.” The nature of Zero Point Energy is that we can’t extract it. It is inherent because of the quantum nature of matter. (The uncertainty principle says that energy can’t be exactly zero or, equivalently, that a particle cannot be completely at rest, i.e. at an exact position with zero momentum.)
I don’t understand general relativity very well, but my understanding of dark energy is that it might simply be due to the Cosmological Constant, which Einstein famously called his biggest mistake.
So if the zero point field is another way of viewing the Cosmological Constant, then it is as inherent a property of Nature as the uncertainty principle.
I don’t see any way to extract useful energy from the zero point field unless it is different from the Cosmological Constant.
So if you are portraying Fran’s argument accurately, I share your doubts that the anomalous heating is coming from the zero point field.
But I also have to doubt your interpretation of dark energy, which seems to disagree with all other writings I have seen on the subject.
Yet, like you, I remain less than totally persuaded that dark energy is a real phenomenon. I see it as the best explanation offered so far, but not necessarily the right one.
It has powerful explicative properties for a remarkable set of astronomical/cosmological measurements. Yet it assumes that distant (in both space and time) type I-a supernovas behaved as closer ones do. That is the most reasonable assumption at present, but it still is an assumption. Another explanation could be systematic errors in our measurements, which I interpret your cosmic dust argument to be.
So I encourage both you and Fran to keep posting. Usually I will read without comment, but I would appreciate it if you comment on each other’s posts in the same respectful and straightforward tone you use in your own. That would be very instructive to readers of Science Blog.
In other words, it’s refreshing to see a disagreement that doesn’t seem destined to erupt into the typical internet “flame war.”
Author of Physics Decade by Decade (Twentieth Century Science set, Facts On File, 2007
Even though I don’t have time to go into depth on your posts, I am intrigued by the idea that “anomalous heating” may be real even if it is not the result of “cold fusion.”
You seem to have been joined by another blogger who discusses similar issues, qed-induced-radiation, who appears to be a German scientist named Thomas Prevenslik.
Are you two in correspondence with each other or perhaps in competition. It would help me to understand any personal dynamics that may be at work behind the science.
Yes I have communicated with Thomas for over a year regarding the opposing theories on Casimir effect. Thomas belongs to the camp that Casimir effect can be explained from unbalanced thermodynamic forces that produce electrostatic attraction between plates while I lean toward the existence of virtual particles creating an imbalance. I try to walk the middle road that both camps agree on regarding a permanent field that is established when the plates are braced apart and that the energy potential between the plates is reduced. I have sent him some of my animations and blogs and I am very happy to see his work on this forum. Thank you for the link -I can now keep abrest of his work from his ScienceBlog home page.
The following link ( http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=99 ) is to a Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003 Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance.
Reading the DIA report, it becomes clear that Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) are fact, not fiction. Apparently, “cold-fusion” isn’t a scam after all. Yet, scientists are having a hard time explaining the results they are getting, with some theorizing that small scale deuterium fusion is occurring in a palladium metal lattice (i.e. a Casimir Cavity).
Two alternate theories worth mentioning are the BlackLight Process (i.e. catalytic) developed by Dr Randell Mills and BlackLight Power, and the Relativistic Hydrogen theory advanced here by Mr Froarty.
By the way, U.S. LENR researchers have reported results that support the phenomena of anomalous heat, nuclear particle production, and transmutation. I don’t believe either the BlackLight Process nor the Relativistic Hydrogen theory can account for the latter two phenomena.
It is definitely an overstatement to categorize the DIA report this way: “Reading the DIA report, it becomes clear that Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) are fact, not fiction.”
The only thing that is clear is that physicists are researching anomalous heating that could be LENR but could also have other origins, such as the phenomena that “froarty” has been describing in his blog.
It is reasonable for the DIA to track all kinds of research that could potentially disrupt the status quo for good or ill. In this case, they are only noting increased research in an interesting phenomenon. If it turns out to be LENR, this country needs to be prepared to move.
But nowhere in the DIA report does it say that the LENR hypothesis is more tenable than the alternatives. It only advocates awareness of a possibility that still appears to be a longshot.
My restatement of your conclusion is: “Reading the DIA report, it becomes clear that the phenomenon of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is a hypothesis that has not been ruled out entirely, and thus it is prudent for the DIA to track the research.”
It is a huge leap of faith to call that hypothetical phenomenon “a fact.”
Fred Bortz, author of Physics: Decade by Decade (Twentieth-Century Science set, Facts on File, 2007)
I am an American, although I spend most of my time in Hong Kong and Berlin.
Fran and I do not agree on the Casimir effect. Specifically, I do not believe the zero point field (ZPF) exists as Casimir claimed in 1949.
We know the zero point energy (ZPE) for atoms and molecules exists. But there is absolutely no evidence for the ZPF. Today, astronomers infer the existence of the ZPF (or dark energy) based on an expanding Universe. But this is fallacious because the redshift that Hubble measured was most like due to absorption of the galaxy photon in submicron cosmic dust and not due to the Doppler effect. See http://www.nanoqed.org at 2009 under Cosmology and Cosmic Dust, paper “Dark Enegy and Cosmic Dust”
So that brings us to what is being measured in the Casimir experiments today. Fran says I have argued that thermodynamics in combination with electrostatic charging is the source of the Casimir effect. That was my first attempt to explain the Casimir effect without the ZPF.
Since then, I have made the argument that the Casimir effect is caused by the thermal blackbody radiation emitted in the FIR by atoms in the surface of Casimir’s plates. Electrostatic charging is not invoked. By this theory, wavelengths L > 2G are excluded from the gap G as Casimir asumed. But unlike Casimnr and his followers, I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the conservation of energy. Unfortunately, Casimir did not conserve EM energy and this has been going on by his followers for over a half century.
The EM energy U in the gap depends on the kT energy of the surface atoms and is constant as the gap G changes. For N surface and subsurface atoms, U ~ NkT, and therefore there is no Casimir force F in the conventional sense, i.e., F = dU/dG = 0. However the EM energy density U/G^3 is not constant. It is the gradient of EM energy density at the surfaces in combination with the polarizability of the surface atoms that produces equal and opposite force on the gap surfaces. See Ibid, Casimir Effect, paper “Casimir Update”.
Unlike Casimir followers, I only believe in what is known to exist – blackbody thermal radiation. I leave the ZPF to the philosophers.
Thomas, nice to hear from you, I have no problem with your interpretation, the end result is the same as long as long as the virtual photons are inexhaustable. You mention ” I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the conservation of energy.” which lends support to work by Beck and Mackey that virtual particles below 2thz are more gravitationally active or slows time flow, ie upconverting to a higher frequency would be less gravitationally active or accelerates time flow. I simply think you focused on a small band of frequencies while it was actually the entire environment that was up converted because time is accelerated,
your conclusion is, “The EM energy U in the gap depends on the kT energy of the surface atoms and is constant as the gap G changes. For N surface and subsurface atoms, U ~ NkT, and therefore there is no Casimir force F in the conventional sense, i.e., F = dU/dG = 0. However the EM energy density U/G^3 is not constant. It is the gradient of EM energy density at the surfaces in combination with the polarizability of the surface atoms that produces equal and opposite force on the gap surfaces” This is still based on the cube of the gap in the denominator, using energy measured in what by definition is a “catalyst”, Once we have a better understanding of the true nature of catalytic action I think we will discover your definition is absolutely equivalent to Casimir effect.
maybe I can help. I live in Germany near Berlin.
I therefore made to produce hydrogen without energy to Invention.
Without Elktrolyse without organic, without bacteria, without oil or coal or whatever.
It is only Necessary water. The amount of hydrogen is only infinite amount of water
Perhaps they could work together inventions.
Please write to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Comments are closed.