It is hard to separate Mills' theory from Holmlid's work. They are likely to
be complementary with both offering important details. One early experiment for
a "critical volume" validation could involve the catalytic propensity of
reactor itself. IOW - a large volume with NO added catalyst other than the
reactor onterior surface - that, in itself, could produce a thermal or photon
emission anomaly.
The main detail to keep in mind - the type of stainless steel used.
Stainless steel contains nickel and iron - both catalysts according to Mills
but requiring high ionization. Perhaps a dedicated catalyst is unnecessary if
the reactor composition is optimum. The best reactor choice to investigate
would be grade 316 stainless. Here's why.
Grade 316 is a molybdenum bearing alloy. Notably - in Mills' theory,
molybdenum (as an ion) is the closest fit of all metals in the periodic table
to the magic catalytic energy of 27.2 eV - the Rydberg value required. Both
iron and nickel require much higher ionization. An alloy, as opposed to a pure
metal, can provide pseudo ionization in such a situation when exposed to
protons.
Who knows ? - a large enough 316 grade reactor could produce a UV flash using a
puff of H2 and with no added or dedicated catalyst, especially if the surface
is pitted.
Mills should have thought of this himself :-)
Bill Antoni wrote
> The "critical volume" idea I proposed was mostly based on the simple
> observation that ... {Holmlid}... uses only a very small fraction of the
> admitted hydrogen over the catalyst seemingly transitions to a denser
> state...
