Regarding Jones' theories on LENR. Your evaluation of Mr. Beene’s commentary is subjective and misguided. Jones has been popularizing and invalid LENR theory purported by Mills that is not scientific for way to long.
Every LENR system including Mills nickel powder requires in some form or another nuclear active sites (NAE) to produce heat. Like other LENR systems Mills powder requires heat to start the LENR reaction. And like other LENR systems, these nuclear active sites are destroyed; the nickel powder must be completely reformulated to become active again. In this reformulation process, the nuclear active sites are rebuilt. Mills powder is just another LENR system that drives off of polaritons working inside a nuclear active environment Hydrinos are a fantasy inspired by a misunderstanding about the blue shifting in spectroscopic data produced by polaritons. All this fractional electron level nonsense is counterproductive and hurts the prospects for the acceptance of LENR by main stream science. If this is quality commentary, you are mistaken. I have had an open mind to in considering seriously the hydrino theory for more than a year now but it is becoming increasingly tiresome. With the rise of the polariton theory at NASA, W&L. and others the time of the hydrino is over. The Hydrino is clearly an outlier theory that takes advantage of a real Nanoplasmonic reaction to claim credibility through misinterpretation. Now, Jones wants to connect the hydrino to the Ni/H reactor. It is more proper to connect Mills powder to what is going on inside the Ni/H reaction and forget about fractional hydrogen. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When someone resists your bullying, you want them to leave the forum > rather > > than discuss the issue in an tolerant manor. > > I believe you misinterpret Jones writings. I have seen no evidence of > bullying. > > The written word in an imperfect method of communication. I often > read things into a message which is unintended by the author. > > Over the past few years I have enjoyed both your and Jones' theories > on LENR. While you certainly lead on quantity, I must give the > quality award to Mr. Beene. > >
