As you say Terry, Mills has defined the required catalytic "energy hole" in such a way that most of the periodic table can be shoehorned into his parameters <g>
... that is: if you allow all of the possible permutations: IOW all of those which work out to a ~27.2 eV NET (ionization-potential) hole - and define the parameter range with a plus or minus 5% tolerance and include many-body combinations. And in any event - one cannot patent a theory, and especially such an overly broad theory as CQM - although RM has made a valiant effort to do so, for many years. As mentioned previously - Mills/BLP never had the foresight to patent the critical "gas phase" implementation - at least not at first (probably due to Thermacore's prior art) - but they did modify an early application to include "gas phase" BUT this sneaky little change came about over a year after Rossi's initial filing, and thus will not stand. Thermacore's prior art essentially invalidates most of Rossi's claims on gas-phase anyway. Fast forward 17 years from the greatest missed opportunity in all of alternative energy... an experimenter who wants to find the best of all of these tested prior art catalyst choices (based on numerous past papers but applied to gas phase) should look for the ones that supplied the highest COP in actual experiments. Doh! Is that not obvious? This is what I believe Rossi did in his R&D, and it is really a no-brainer if you suspect Mills could be correct on the basic operative method. Actually, I do not know precisely the largest gain ever reported by BLP in all of their papers. But it is well-known that Mills often claims an average gain of 200 times the heat of hydrogen combustion (COP >200). Anything over that is worth taking note of, and that is probably what Rossi did. In the Mills paper which Ron Wormus suggested to myself and Brian some weeks ago, and for which Ron personally has experimental results that seem to anecdotally verify the finding of robust gain - the energy required to produce a certain amount of photonic output was claimed to be at a maximum of 8600 times less than that required for the control. (there are three similar from the same time period, written about 8 years ago) ... and that clue will point Terry to the paper. Again, until this is proven to work out, we do not need more disinformation in the public record. But it is most remarkable that no one (until Rossi ?) has taken note of this past work. BTW - Photon output is precisely where ALL of the gain in the Mills' reaction comes from, so this claim is essentially the best of any claim for bona fide results with fractional hydrogen which I can find - but Mills experiment is for plasma phase using either nickel or tungsten. Both seem to work. Note that one gets very little light from gas phase, comparatively, since UV is universally absorbed - so moving the experiment to pressurized hydrogen would not give anywhere near the COP>8000 in photon emission; but it might easily provide COP>30 in thermal emission- which is a figure that often comes up from Rossi/DGT. Going to gas phase from plasma phase appears to be a tradeoff where the energy density is increased by a factor of 4,000 (from millitorr) but the effective COP could be reduced by a factor of only 250 ! That is a workable tradeoff, and it is a pity for Mills that he has missed this in his patent coverage, even though Thermacore had found it first. I wish I could go back to the early nineties, knowing all of the details of this long history of missed opportunity. Jones From: Terry Blanton I'll render a guess that it's KaCO3. That's a mix of potassium carbonate and calcium carbonate. ;-) I think CaCO3 or K2CO3 would work. T
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
