On Oct 24, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:45:37
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
The Mills interpretation does not make chemical sense. Normally, NaH
decomposes into H2 and Na metal when this happens at high
temperature.
I'm sure that that happens, however how many such experiments have
also measured
the energy resulting from the reaction? IOW is it possible that no
one noticed
the Mills reaction because they weren't looking for it? (This is
where my lack
of practical experience really shines through.) :(
If heat measurements were done, and no anomaly was detected, then
IMO that would
rule out the mechanism I described yesterday where the molecule simply
dissociates into Na++ + Hy + 2 e-. That would only leave the other
possibility,
where an H approaching an NaH molecule converts into a Hydrino while
breaking up
the molecule. The latter would likely also only be possible in a
situation where
atomic H is present, and hence may explain the necessity of the Ni
catalyst. If
atomic H is only present on the surface of the catalyst, then having
a catalyst
with a large surface area would be important.
Coating the catalyst with NaOH would ensure that the NaH was
produced in close
proximity to the nascent H on the surface.
BTW if the Hy, that was formed, became bound to the surface of the
Ni, then it
might also eventually hinder the formation of H from H2, thus
explaining why the
reaction eventually grinds to a halt. This would also appear to be
consistent
with shape of the decay curve of the output energy.
I think you are close to describing the process, Robin. Simply
decomposing NaH cannot result in hydrinos because the expected ion is
not formed. On the other hand, as you suggest, if the decomposition
occurs on the Ni surface, the Na will have a complex ion state because
it now is an absorbed atom, not a free, isolated atom. In addition,
the electron that is promoted to a higher level has a place to go,
i.e. into the conduction band of the Ni. The only problem is
achieving a match between the energy change of the promoted electron
and the energy shrinkage of the hydrino electron.
Now for a question. Why must the electron that is promoted always
come from a level that is observed to form an ion during normal
ionization? For example, removal of a 2p electron from Na++ would
occur during "normal" ionization, but is this happening here? In
other words, why can't a 1s electron be removed from a neutral Na
without the 2p electron being affected. After the 1s electron is
removed, a 2p electron would take its place and release a small
amount of energy as X-rays. This energy would be a byproduct of the
process just like the hydrino energy.
Do you know how much energy is required to remove a 1s electron from
nearly neutral Na? The process gets more unknown because the electron
would be promoted into the conduction band, which has a lower energy
than vacuum. In other words, perhaps Mills has the right process but
is using the wrong electron promotion process to describe it simply
because the wrong promotion gives the expected energy.
Ed
This is an ionic bonded compound, which means the
bonding electron moves from an orbit main associated with H to an
orbit mainly associated with Na. Decomposition causes a reverse of
this situation. What extraordinary event or process would change
this
expected and observed process?
No idea.
It is not logical to assume an event
just because it is required to fit your theory. Like the requirement
in cold fusion, the process used to explain the process must also be
observed and be consistent with events not associated with the
phenomenon.
Agreed.
[snip]
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
