Well, Robin - in that case there is almost no difference between your view and that of the Rossi collective, except at the outset you are borrowing Mills version of the hydrino, with some changes - whereas they have 'invented' the 'hypole' probably to avoid any taint of his intellectual property.
In fact, Rossi could (should) have borrowed Dufour's "hydrex" virtual neutron model which goes back twenty years. This might have necessitated slight alteration. Again, my overriding comment is that Randell Mills has effectively shot himself in the foot (or head) with the continuing assertion that Ni-H is not a nuclear reaction. It may cost him billions, in the end - and is based on arrogance in support of an incomplete theory, which would have otherwise been seen to be derivative of the dreaded "cold fusion" effect of P&F. Yes, Ni-H may be a "delayed" nuclear reaction, and it may be new physics (in the lower gamma emission level), and it may require Casimir cavities as a first step... and it may involve EUV emission but in the end it is nuclear, as the Ni > Cu transmutation shows. There is almost no possible way that two groups can react nano-nickel and hydrogen - yet in one experiment nuclear reactions always occur, but in the other they never occur. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] >> This is exactly what I would expect if the energy of Hydrino fusion were carried away by a fast IC electron ... > What about the transmutation of nickel to copper? This seems to be the cornerstone of [Rossi's] findings and theory. RvS: Addition of a single proton to Ni produces Cu. The energy of the fusion reaction may be carried away by the IC electron. (Since Hydrino electrons are much much closer to the proton than in ordinary Hydrogen they may get "sucked in" when the proton is attracted to the Ni nucleus by the nuclear force, then get expelled from the newly formed Cu nucleus carrying the excess energy.)
