On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff, > > Looks like you have been imbibing on the BLP kool-aid... > comments interspersed below... > > Do you glow-in-the-dark, yet? :-) > > > From: Jeff Driscoll > > JB: RPF then releases the "hotter" UV photon which can > create another catalytic > hole (when slightly downshifted) especially in oxygen > preferentially. A > limited chain reaction, mediated by UV photons, is the > result. > > In short, this hybridized version provides a more complete > picture than > Mills, especially since he depends on "angular momentum" of > electrons as the > ultimate energy source. Bollocks. > > JD: According to Mills' theory: > The energy comes from the potential energy of the electron > relative to the proton - electron drops down to a lower fractional orbit > (fractional principal quantum number) and the energy comes from this change > in potential energy. > > This is nonsense. There is no potential energy for any electron below > ground > state unless it can find a stable orbit. Finding a stable orbit will > require > substantial net energy input, which makes this part of the equation net > endothermic. There is no way around this problem. > > Energy released takes the form of: > > 1. kinetic energy transferred to another hydrogen, or > ionization of an electron or breaking of chemical bonds > > There is no net energy released from the redundant ground state, without > more. > > Period. > In Mills theory, the electron moves to an orbit that is closer to the proton, this releases potential energy which is converted into kinetic, bond breaking, ionization and continuum radiation. There is no mathematical reason this can't happen. The only reason against it is that it has not been seen previously in physics. It is not endothermic (heat absorbing), this is an exothermic (heat releasing) process. Potential energy is only a function of the orbit radius, the lower the electron drops (in orbit) the more energy is released. > > Again - "going below ground state" does happen routinely, but it is > endothermic. However, the Mills redundancy reaction can result in a neutral > particle with an electron in very close electron orbital - a virtual > neutron > if you will. At a cost. > > THEN AND ONLY THEN can the endotherm be erased by the quark reaction which > is called the QCD color charge. > > The finding of robust "shrinkage below ground state" is the limit of Mills' > actual contribution to the field, and it is brilliant up to a point - but > as > for the rest of the continuum nonsense: BS - IMHO. > > Mills could not close the deal. He risks becoming a footnote to Rossi > unless > he can produce the working public demo in a reasonable time frame. > > 2. continuum radiation as the electron spirals down to the > next stable fractional orbit. > > There is no stable orbit without energy input so there is no excess > radiation at all. This is precisely why you see from Mills this silly > appeal > to "a continuum" instead of the (formerly) predicted lines. This > "continuum" > business from Mills is a joke - really the last gasp of a dying theory. > > This spiral has a non-constant orbit frequency and gives > continuum radiation. > > Nonsense. This is an endothermic reaction. "Continuum radiation" is a > gigantic fail - a fabrication. > > Continuum energy is seen in the experiment that matches his > theory. > > Bollocks. This is a complete fabrication by Mills LOL - and attempt to > gloss > over the fact that the specific radiation predicted in the theory was found > to be absent - many years after predicted. Oops time for a theoretical > laxative. What you hear in the background is the sound of Mills old CQM > theory going down the continuum plumbing. > The specific radiation that is predicted is continuum radiation and that is what BLP shows in their experiments. > > The 19.3 nm oxygen line is in both the control experiment > (He) and the active experiment (H2+He). > > Of course it is! There is an oxygen line in the control since, the oxide > layer cannot be reduced without hydrogen present. > > When H2 is added, the oxide layer is reduced, and the line which is > slightly > shifted comes from the solar diproton reaction - the QCD rearrangement of > proton quarks - not from the oxygen layer which is now gone from the > electrode. Oxygen on any electrode cannot survive hot hydrogen bombardment. > > My guess is that it is very hard to eliminate all the > oxygen > from a surface - plus they may not have a reason to eliminate it. > Not hard at all ! The Oxygen layer reduction would be routine and > immediate. > You many need to check into a BLP abstinence program, Jeff. Mills theory > may > be intoxicating at first, but on close inspection he is ultimately wrong > about the source of energy. There is no net energy via electron chemistry. > IMO, the net energy from the endothermic "shrinkage" reaction to f/H which > is document can only derive from a nuclear reaction - the identity of which > is RPF in my estimation - reversible proton fusion. It could be another > reaction like the P-e-P reaction, but it is nuclear - not chemical. > RPF is the solar diproton reaction, but on earth it can be made net > exothermic which allows the endotherm of Mills redundancy to proceed apace > without the normal indicia of nuclear reactions. Only EUV would be seen as > evidence. > The reason we do not have a public device from Mills after 23 years and $80 > million spent is obvious. He refuses to modify his original and partly > incorrect theory to accommodate the new findings. > He was therefore wrong about LENR - but right about the Ni-H gain, and he > has dug his theory-grave deeper in hopes of salvaging something, but it > will > only get worse for him if he tries to stick with this "continuum" nonsense. > It is really an admission that he was only partly correct. > Jones > > > > >
