--- Terry Blanton wrote: > > ... if for instance deuterinos are forming more rapidly than hydrinos under the same circumstances... > Why? Is there reason to believe that the 1/n transition energy is different from 27.2 eV for deuterium?
Good question. There is the possible issue of 'charge shielding' in the D nucleus due to the neutron... but I'm sure you wouldn't let that one slide, as the net effect of that would logically seem to hinder a tighter orbital, rather than create it, right? One is left to speculate that IF deuterinos form more rapidly than hydrinos under the same circumstances (definitely unproven but there are some tantalizing hints), it might involve a situation where the neutron participates by simply creating an irreversible instability in electron orbital spin... ...plus the neutron "contains" an electronium antineutrino (at least one comes out on decay) and this beast may not be quantized, or if it is, the energy steps are so small that it may be able to drain energy away from an ellipitical electron in small multiples - those which coincide with what the drop in the electron's angular momentum will accommodate - multiples of either 3.4 eV or 6.8 eV perhaps... there is very little evidence in the spectroscopy charts for the "full" 27.2 eV. Mills' own graphs show thousands of times more photons in these lower UV ranges, but he is always claiming "downshifting" is the culprit ... I don't buy that. OTOH he is the genius who "ought" to know ;-) I have long believed that the hydrino/deuterino "shrinkage" itself is probably endothermic, and that any "net" exotherm in NOT guaranteed but will depend on other circumstances which must operate in consort with the shrinkage... such as "pumping" from Dirac's sea ... for instance. BTW That is how Nick could have lots of deuterinos forming and binding to the K ions but yet little real excess energy... until he "harvests" his crop...that is. Jones
