In several recent papers, R. Mills and associates have quietly introduced a surprising catalyst, which curiously has not elicited much online comment. (unless I missed it).
I should not say "a catalyst" but two common chemicals which are joined at the hip, so to speak, having important connotations for the 'big picture'. Specifically the two catalysts are HCl and NaH . They were not mentioned in the original patent applications or papers from the nineties, and in fact sodium was used as a control in prior papers - but lately these two have been included as revisions ... catalysts that apparently work, despite requiring a squeeze-fit to theory. As we have noted before on Vortex, about half the periodic table can be shoehorned into the definition of a "Mills, catalyst" since this does not depend on either a precise fit nor sequential ionization. Consequently, all permutations of ionization potential are permissible to make the energy "hole," with the result that there are likely to be fewer non-catalysts than Mills' catalysts in nature. In short, if it works in practice, the theory will morph to accommodate it. How convenient! but that does not necessarily make it completely wrong, just overly broad. Consider the first and most notable of these catalysts: potassium ... which has been a bit of mystery as to Rydberg fit, until an alternative M.O. was discovered. The fact that K does not seem to fit into Mills theory at the lowest level of 27.2 eV is, on the surface, a bit disconcerting. This was the first catalyst which was proved to work, and logically should be the easiest to accommodate into the theory at the lowest shrinkage level. Thermacore and others discovered over the past 22 years that it does work. BTW, potassium also turns up in the Rossi SEM spectra, which he included in his first patent application, apparently not realizing that there are scanners which can analyze the line data, even on a photocopy. Anyway, K has three ionization potentials: 4.3eV, 31.6eV and 45.8 eV and the combination of all of them is 81.8eV which is a Rydberg multiple that is within range. That is, since 27.2*3 + 81.6eV... voila.. and Mills early-on stated that this is the catalytic hole. On the surface that might seem to be end of story (if you are naive) ... but there is the little problem that triple ionization of potassium only happens at about a million degrees C. No way is Boltzmann's tail that long in electrolysis, in particular; and no way will hydrogen be monatomic at the same time that K is triple-ionized. However, Mills theory is at times insightful - yet since it is so inaccurate in many places that we should not be bound by every detail - and it can be argued that there exists an easier route to the lowest Rydberg multiple using potassium, if we ditch some of the baggage. This is emblematic of the problem that Mills will face, should he need to defend the patent in court. To simplify: an easy first-level route for gain in K is found in the apparent ionization difference found in the outer two valence electron levels 4.3eV and 31.6eV, which equal 27.3eV as a subtraction. This is a good fit but it is a subtraction, meaning it is dependent on the lowest potential electron staying in place, while a much more tightly bound electron is removed - which is most problematic for Mills' theory. How does this kind of hole happen, and secondly how can monatomic hydrogen get to it? Two miracles required. Best answer: it doesn't happen the way Mills' theory suggests. The easy route happens is with a proton, and NOT with monatomic hydrogen, so this does not jive with Mills' theory. Thus, the more likely explanation (than the million degree thermal excursion to support CQM) is that a proton will tunnel on occasion to capture the inner electron in potassium's 3p shell, where it then becomes monatomic in situ having caused the deeper ionization at the exactly the same time - and the self-made 'hole' if it appears at is all in the process, is fleeting - and this is followed by a small Auger cascade. The proton does not even need to be hot, since it can benefit from a Coulomb sling-shot effect. Mills is apparently completely blind to this QM tunneling route, since he must defend the monatomic explanation in order to have any chance of showing novelty and propping up patents that are probably nearly worthless against another deep pocket innovator. Yet, if an electron at that Rydberg level IP is redundant and resonant at all, it makes no sense that it could happen only in the way CQM suggests and not in a quantum mechanical tunneling event. Anyway, back to table salt and the fact that the oceans of Earth contain zillions of tons of this putative proto-catalyst (NaCl when rearranged and ionized will provide both HCl and NaH on a temporary basis), and salt of course ionizes easily in an aqueous environment. When exposed to solar and cosmic radiation (assuming that HCl and NaH are indeed catalysts of f/H) and with ample hydronium on a transient basis, and given the quantities of reactants and billion year time involved ... well ... can you connect the dots? The oceans of Earth should be a rather large and slow f/H reactor, and in effect they would operate as a continuous factory for f/H - dense hydrogen, which is... well ... dense. It should migrate towards the center of mass. Solar produced f/H should be captured in the oceans and would do the same. This may be the identity of "dark matter" in both the local and cosmological sense - dense fractional hydrogen - and Earth is being bathed in it. If the f/H in an ocean environment eventually sinks, due to increased density and magnetic susceptibility - does this not provide an explanation for some of the interior heat of the planet? (formerly attributed to Uranium/thorium decay) Warm regards, Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
