Speaking of "chemo-nuclear transitions" in a general way - and especially in regards to hydrogen thermal anomalies, it is possible that the very definition of "chemical energy" is in jeopardy soon - to the extent that Mills finally delivers.
This is because of the Rydberg teachings - which is Sweden's great gift to
humanity 130 years ago. Wiki has a number of related entries under Johannes
Rydberg's name and also under "nascent" hydrogen. Nascent hydrogen was the
term used by Mills in his original discovery of Nickel-hydrogen thermal
anomalies - of the non-nuclear variety.
Mills may have missed the boat on several other parts of his theory,
especially in trying to abandon QM in favor of his version - but he did
understand one important point: the reliance on "chemical" or "nuclear" as
the source of energy under CoE falls apart with nascent hydrogen ... and a
massive apparent overunity potential is available from nascent hydrogen "on
paper" even with no apparent nuclear participation.
"Chemical" is a proximate cause of gain, so to avoid CoE issues - one still
must identify an ultimate source of mass to energy conversion beyond
electron orbitals - and that is what Mills got wrong. Mills said the gain
was only in orbitals - and that is NOT correct. However, this point is what
the LENR crowd got equally wrong, but that is fodder for another day. As for
now, we are awaiting CIHT.
Until CIHT device comes out from BLP, and it is long-delayed already but my
N.J. source is certain that a semi-public demo will happen before the end of
February - Mills has failed miserably in many eyes. He has failed to back up
his massive theory with an operating device that can be seen by the public
or independent scientists. Moreover, he has been dishonest about his
numerous failures in the past ...yet ... he will probably get most of the
credit for any non-deuterium version of NiH, no matter how many lies that
Piantelli wishes to foster on the community.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence.
In stark contrast to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture.
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
More on those details later,
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
