Hydrino vs Casimir cavity based patents
Date: Sunday, February 07, 2010 @ 11:48:57 UTC
Topic: Devices
Hydrino patent based on catalyst denied while later patent for relativistic hydrogen based on Casimir cavity granted
by froarty/Scienceblog.com
This is a followup to previou article Will 2010 be the year of Zero Point Energy?
It focuses on the perceived differences between hydrinos 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 a relativistic interpretation.
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 relative concept to Haisch and Moddel because they called
it a Casimir cavity and used Lorentzian concepts to describe the same
fractional states. relativistic hydrogen was recognized couched in
these terms but denied when described in catalytic terms...
Read whole article: Hydrino vs Casimir cavity based patents
|
|