-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Hi Robin,
It sounds like you are becoming a bit more of an apologist for Randy these days, instead of trying to sort out the details of precisely where he is most likely mistaken. Randy expects the world to believe that "cold hydrogen" ... which is atomic hydrogen (it is extremely cold compared to the helium ion it reacts with) can reverse thermodynamic vectors and supply massive net energy to remove the remaining electron of helium - so that in essence the helium atom has indeed lost the full 79 eV during the total reaction. No one can deny that hot helium (800,000 degrees K) - would be the net result of Mills' theory. But this is preposterous, and Mills' has no basis in fact or experiment to demand that "atomic hydrogen" be a required reactant OTHER than an obviously incorrect part of his theory. That is the core and crux of Mills' error. Atomic hydrogen simply CANNOT be a viable reactant, for reasons too numerous to mention. This makes the rest of Mills' theory look like a house of cards. We (on vortex) who are seeking the correct answers from either camp - are not required to accept all of CQM and in fact, we should reject this part out of hand. It is clearly wrong to require atomic hydrogen as a reactant. We can pick and choose among the other details which do work. Same with W-L. That theory is even more clearly incorrect since it has no predictive value (like the Rydberg multiples). Mills' critics have had an easy target when these precise details are exposed under the microscope, so to speak ... yet... it does indeed appear to many open-minded observers (and investors) like there is net gain from his experiments, going back to Thermacore in the early nineties - and that a significant energy anomaly can arise when reactants have these Rydberg level ionizations. But this gain simply cannot be related to the mechanism RM suggests. It is time to dump Mills, dump W-L, and come up with a better understanding. It serves no good to try to rationalize this problem another way. Mills has found an energy anomaly despite a partially incorrect theory and the LENR group found the same anomaly, at almost the same time (early nineties) with an even more inaccurate theory. The way that BLP must squirm to include helium as a catalyst means that they do not understand the dynamics of the reaction very well. It is extremely unlikely that Mills' gainful reactions are any different from the Ni-H of Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli and the rest - and since they do not understand it - at even the Mills' level, the field is wide-open on the theory side. After over twenty years of trying to rationalize Mills, and being disappointed in his continuing delays (Remember the hydrino powered Capstone Turbine, which was market ready a decade ago?) the only conclusion that makes sense is that the truth about nickel hydrogen lies somewhere between the two major proponents. Rydberg values are important but not in the way Mills suggests. The reaction is "nuclear" but not in the way Focardi/Piantelli/etc profess. Mills may have the Rydberg resonance part correct, and Focardi/Rossi/etc may have the "new kind of nuclear reaction" part correct, but in both cases there is a major underpinning, which is missing. Yes - Ni-H is a new kind of nuclear reaction - in not having significant gammas, bremsstrahlung, little transmutation product and/or other indicia - but there is also no ultracold neutron, no beta decay, lots of UV, and a strange connection to magnetism ... and eventually there will be a "merger" of the two camps - which we on Vortex can hasten by exposing the parts of each theory that are obviously incorrect. Atomic hydrogen as a reactant is obviously incorrect. Jones
