Speculation Alert !! (not really a caveat which is required on this forum, but please don't pass any of this along as anything more than hypothetical just yet)
An interesting question was posed on the hydrino forum and answered by Mike Carrell. Without necessarily getting into the details of Mills theory or disputing Mike's explanation, I would like to present here an alternative speculation for the Mills' excess energy phenomena (and why BLP has not been able to make it into a robust commercial process). This explanation will involve a hypothetical and previously unknown lepton triplet particle - electronium (*e-). Think of it as a rare heavy electron. Admittedly, we have found no clear physical evidence thus far for the existence of this putative heavy electron - electronium - but no solid contrary evidence to such a particle either. If such an electron were both rare and also by its nature was inhibited from becoming a "conduction" or valence electron, then there are good reasons why it would be difficult to pinpoint, and could have gone undetected. The QM objections to this particle can be rationalized, it seems, at least so far. Frederick Sparber came up with the initial suggestion of a natural fermion "triad" (e-) + (e-) + (e+) --> (*e-) for two very basic and logical reasons stemming from string theory. First, "nature" highly favors the coherence of three wave-particles, the *triad conversion* of energy to mass. Every proton or neutron in your body, and thus every atom in the known universe begins as a triad of wave particles (quarks). That is what I call it a "highly favored" process; and if one subscribes to Buchanan's concept of "ubiquity" then there are few grounds to think that all fermions are not subject to similar formative processes. IOW, even if rare, there is no indisputable reason why other fermions might not form into occasional triads in a similar fashion to nucleons - either in a primordial "creation" event, supernova, ongoing solar formation, or even ongoing formation in Earth's atmosphere. The stability of the resultant triad of leptons may be less in certain dimensions (such as our 3-space) than in others, but that does not deny the underlying ubiquity of the formative process. Secondly, the (*e-) particle explanation supplies a logical and elegant answers to almost all of the reported OU phenomena - and does it better than any other suggestion yet offered (except for the obvious fact that no one has found one yet). Even in LENR, the existence of the (*e-) will function to catalyze low energy fusion. Of course, supplying an "aesthetically pleasing" or elegant answer does not make an invented or hypothetical particle real. No way. But... " just in case" some physical evidence does eventually turn up for (*e-), here are a few more theoretical details - and then on to the alternative Mills hydrino material. Just as the "color force" in nucleons has some extraordinary properties not seen in the strong interaction, but often assumed to be part of it, a similar or correlated force may operate in leptons; and may be responsible for the confinement of pairs which would otherwise mutually annihilate. The color force in nucleons involves the exchange of gluons and is so strong that the quark-antiquark pair production energy is reached before quarks can be separated. Another property of the color force is that it appears to exert little force at short distances so that the quarks are like free particles within the confining boundary of the color force and only experience the strong confining force when they begin to get too far apart. Cannot some similar force, albeit far rarer in our 3-space, operate to bind lepton triads? Another generalized property of quarks which may be similarly with lepton triad formation is that some of the original mass-energy is retained as binding energy. A similar correlated force giving lepton triads "asymptotic freedom" will be invoked hereto describe this behavior of the gluon-like interaction between electrons and positrons and the resultant (*e-) is hypothesized to have an equal charge to an electron, the same spin, but a rest mass double the e- (IOW ~ 1 MeV) with a binding energy of ~.5 MeV. Consequently, these are both rare and stable and would not be noticed normally, particularly if there were reasons that they seldom became conduction electrons. Obviously, heavy conduction electrons would have been noticed in betatrons and so forth. When seen in cloud chambers in the past, the (*e) were written off as normal electrons with higher kinetic energy. Their scarcity and unavailability as conduction electrons has been the main factor which would have kept them from previous recognition BUT there are reasons to believe that they can be enriched in natural processes and especially will be found with elements of high electron affinity because they should possess a much more intense *near field* than a normal electron thought the net charge from a distance is identical. This will open up alternative ways to harness the effect from previous efforts. At any rate - let's move onto Mills hydrino, which we will suggest is NOT exactly a shrunken hydrogen at all, as R. Mills defines it but rather a proton which has captured a heavy electron naturally. These (*e-) particles are rare but it could be that Mills has found the best evidence thus for them, especially in the EUV spectra - but yet has not been able to commercialize his concept because he may be burdened by a theory which assumes that he is actual creating in situ a new particle, when instead the particle is natural. Here is where Frederick and I disagree. He thinks the proton + (*e-) is stable, and takes the electronium away from the catalyst, whereas I see it as "going the other way" perhaps even functioning as an unstable ZPE "pump" which is free to be manipulated and to pump energy from the zero point field, as when the (*e-) falls into the coulomb well of the catalyst from the neo-hydrino = proton + (*e-). It is not clear if the "orbital" or the proton+(*e-) is really more compact as Mills suggests - instead the orbital could be identical at the expense of lower angular momentum. But that particular kinetic energy transfer may have happened elsewhere initially. Mills so-called "catalysts" are elements which for one reason or another tend to enrich (*e-) and when that heavy electron particle is transferred from the proton, in my view, or to the proton in Fred's view - lets say to or from a Sr ion, then yes it does indeed find a lower orbital can and release net energy (not necessarily of exactly 27.2 eV) as photon energy as it falls into the coulomb well of the receptor, which I see as "catalyst" receptor and Fred sees in reverse (in which case it would be exactly 27.2 eV). Moreover, I believe that the characteristic energy is not a single 27.2 eV photon at all - but instead is a multiple of the 6.8 eV positronium ionization decay energy - which in my interpretation of Dirac and his epo field, is the main component of extra-dimensional ZPE which is amenable to being transferred from that higher dimension into our 3-space (by means of the virtual positron which is inherently captured in the electronium). OK. To make a short story longer. Here was the original question from the hydrino forum, which prompted this little excursion into the realm of the previously unknown (or into a flight of fancy, if you prefer, and I am sure that R. Mills will prefer) : > Why does the gas have to be continuously purged? > Assuming not all H are at 1/137, why must you > continuously flow gas through the system? I suppose > some flow may be necessary but if you would like to > extract the maximum energy from the H and a hydrino > can act as a catalyst then you would wont to keep them > around as long as possible. What am I missing? > > > And it's not needed to remove contaminants, because... Here is Mike's answer: "The short answer is to maintain constant reaction parameters for research purposes. The BLP reactions are not like starting a fire. They exist withing a certain range of parameters which have to be discovered. Fuel, in terms of fresh hydrogen is needed." Well, there are some logical reasons why this is most difficult to believe. There is no doubt that Mike has been told this by Mills or his staff, but it is just too hard to swallow when looking at the thermodynamic issues. If, as Mills says, the higher energy shrinkage is more energetic - then why not contain the reactants and get the added benefits (incredible added benefits) by changing the parameters in situ. Why waste you most energetic reactant? It makes more sense to this observer that there is NO higher level shrinkage at all and that the real reason Mills needs a flow of reactants is that one needs a continuous input of (*e-) which is going from the hydrogen and replacing a normal electron in the catalyst and doing it step-wise with many 6.8 eV steps. Let me say first that Mills hydrino and the hypothetical (*e-) electronium are not mutually incompatible - it is not necessarily an "either/or" thing. There is scant proof of either. And like many others who are basically experimenters, I find that Mills experiments are impressive, valid but very demonstrative of the real problems with his theory... which BTW may end up, despite nearly 1000 pages of innovative verbiage and formulae - even weaker and more contrived than this totally new concoction of ideas about electronium which Frederick and I are just now trying to mold into something coherent. Bottom line... I believe that Mills is indeed seeing excess energy in the EUV spectra and that it does involve a proton and a catalyst but also depends upon the availability of a heavy rare lepton triad - which is natural and not made in situ. What about the future? Is the ability to harness excess energy doomed by the issue of rarity? Not necessarily. There may be ways to get around the problem of rarity, which Mills has not even dreamed of... stay tuned. Needless to say, first we must prove that the damn thing is real... Jones
