Robin,
> The problem with this is that Hydrogen bound in a molecule has a different > ionization energy than free Hydrogen, which means that it can no longer > function as a Mills catalyst (unless coincidentally the molecule has become a > Mills catalyst analogous to NaH). Yes. That is exactly why I proposed getting the same energy transfer via FRET and the sequential 3.4 eV fluorescent ZPE pumping, instead of catalysis. Of course, the inherent fluorescence of phenanthrene could be coincidental. If you believe in coincidence. In the end, this is an alternative and isn't CQM at all as I stated several times, but is CQM-influenced or CQM-inspired. Note that the method proposed by Mills is never actually suggested as being the only way that the same end result can happen in practice. Secondly - as posted several times by the renegade observers who are trying to merge CQM and CF into a coherent single theory - and who believe that Mills got "much of it right", and either missed some of it, or got some of it wrong -- there is no convincing evidence that has ever appeared in the spectroscopy on the BLP site that proves the shrinkage reaction is not endothermic, since he has never shown a clear and unambiguous peak at 27.2 eV AFAIK. Sure, there is lots of UV in his charts but none of it proves an exotherm - especially so long as there could be disguised LENR as the power source. We should be open to the viewpoint that the source of energy could ultimately be nuclear in the LENR sense of no gammas or real neutrons - which is a divergence that Mills does not want to hear. Until more is known there is little harm in providing alternatives, or in trying to reconcile similar theories. Maybe, if nothing else - it will spur Mills into publishing a good MS analysis of his solid fuel ash... which has never appeared. Jones
