Jones,
While speculation is underway, I would like to add my own. The Mills
criteria for a catalyst is the energy that is required to remove an
electron from a level to infinity, i.e. the ionization potential.
However, this can only occur in a gas. In a solid, the electron never
goes to infinity. Consequently, the Mills criteria does not apply.
Instead, Mills has to find a catalyst in which a transition between a
stable level and an energy near the conduction band is equal to the
required energy. The energy used to make this kind of transition is
impossible to predict. As a result, success is based on trial and
error, much like cold fusion.
Suppose the Ni in contact with NaH provides a place for the electron
released from NaH to go that then gives the energy change the right
value. After all, NaH does not have a conduction band and the
electron could not find a way out of the local system without a
conductor with a conduction band being present. If this is the
explanation, any finely divided conductor would work, for example
finely divided Pd. This idea would suggest that nanosized Pd in a
cold fusion environment is only required to take the released electron
away from the actual catalyst, which has not been identified in this
case. What do you think about this idea?
Ed
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Ed
I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the
catalyst
required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the
Raney nickel?
First - there are two very distinct ways to look at this situation.
It is somewhat logical to believe, as does Mike Carrell, that Mills
got everything right -- and that the energy anomaly he discovered is
explainable based precisely on application his CQM theory, and that
the theory rules, and that no amount of good fortune is present.
This is why Mike constatnly wants people to "study" Mills theory as
if it were gospel.
If that is true, then the nickel probably serves only as a proton
conductor and catalyst to remove the proton from the sodium. IOW -
those who are strict BLP advocates cannot imagine the situation
where Mills could have succeeded, though good fortune alone - and
found an experimental anomaly but that it is one that his theory
does not explain.
However, that is merely their interpretation, logical as that may
seem, and until more is known - most of us would agree that Mills
should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Which is not to say that other avenues should not be investigated at
the same time. An alternate interpretation is that Mills found a
robust energy anomaly and is trying to shoehorn it into a theory
which itself is suspect; but which theory is partially correct, and
close enough to make it seem like it "works" to explain the anomaly
when it really only goes part of the way.
If this alternative interpretation is eventually found to be valid,
and it is a long-shot - then the nickel may serve a similar purpose
and role as does palladium in LENR, and in fact the excess heat may
be nuclear and not the result of "redundant ground states".
After all, as far back as 1990-1991 others besides Mills were
finding excess energy in nickel light water LENR.
Personally - I think the truth may be somewhere in between and that
"redundant ground states" are necessary precursor states to low
energy nuclear reactions - yet the hydrino states alone are neither
endothermic or nor very energetic by themself -- which is why Mills
could never get it right with his initial choice of catalysts
(sodium was not favored till recently) and that most of the excess
heat is coming from LENR.
Since this interpretation pleases almost no one but moi, it will
probably not be tested for some time. OTOH it would be very easy to
falsify by looking for the smoking gun. Therefore - I will name the
exact 'make and model' of that smoking gun.
There are two excellent candidate low energy reactions where
"redundant ground states" mimic a neutron partially - and end up
adding a proton to another nucleus without the expected
radioactivity. The evidence shoud be there if they look for these
changes and these transmutation elements.
One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) --> 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron
adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little
radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays.
One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron
is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except
to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of
the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two.
The other would be 62Ni + (hy) --> 63Cu.
These reactions could easily be hidden since neither transmuted
nucleus is radioactive. Are there QM problems with coupling and
conservation of spin, you ask? ... more on that later.
Jones
