From: Bob Cook
The stability of the H(-1) ion may be quite stable in a strong magnetic field
which would support the formation and stability of paired electrons.
Ostensibly this ion would have a net negative charge which should tend to
counteract the formation of smaller diameter ions, due to mutual repulsion …
but what if Mills is correct - that the dense-hydride has inherent stability,
despite the increased charge? Assume that Mills is correct on this in USPTO
20090146083 for “hydrogen catalysis”….
Basically he is saying that the extra electron in the anion results in a
binding energy of ~.8 eV despite the charge implications. That is significant
but it is far less than what Holmlid claims for the “ultra-dense” species
(which is not an ion). This has implications for charge-masking. Obviously two
electrons around a proton should repel each other, or exhibit a large 1s
wavefunction, yet they are bound with significant energy despite of a reduced
orbital. This essentially tells us that the binding force is magnetic, not
electrostatic.
Bob may be correct that this species requires the presence of a magnetic field
to retain stability over time. There are implications for experimenters here.
AFAIK – no one doing Parkhomov replications is benefiting from a dedicated
magnetic field (other than the small field associated with the heater coil). A
persistent field could be an instant improvement.
Mills has a different explanation for the next point – which is found in R&D
related to metallic hydrogen. In this subfield, hydrogen is known to metallize
around alkali cores, such as potassium and lithium. Taking all of this
together, it seems to indicate that there could be a hybrid theory which
explains both Mills and Holmlid, and lest we forget: Arata, Zhang and the other
Japanese proponents of “pycno”. Sadly, Arata and Zhang are hardly ever
mentioned these days.
All of them are seeing the same shadow on the cave wall (Plato’s cave) but
interpreting it differently.
