In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:36:52 -0800: Hi Jones,
If I were to argue in the same way that you do, I would say that you are flapping your arms a lot, but not getting anywhere. ;) [snip] >-----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. I am not apologizing for Mills, just trying to explain his theory to those who don't appear to want to understand it. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it completely. I have no problem with specific and valid criticism, but just stating that something is ridiculous with no further explanation is mo more than political point scoring, and doesn't really advance human knowledge. > >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. You are confusing kinetic and potential energy. Temperature (in the ordinary sense), is a measure of *average* kinetic energy. It's quite possible for individual energetic exchanges to take place without the temperature of the whole being equal to the kinetic equivalent of the energetic exchange. Take as an example your average gasoline engine. The energy of formation of CO2 is about 4 electron volts. If one converts this to a temperature, one gets about 30,000 K, yet no one in their right mind would suggest that car engines run at 30,000 degrees (they would vaporize, not to mention having a phenomenally high Carnot efficiency ;). Clearly the energy release is averaged over lots more molecules than are actually involved in the reaction. No "thermodynamic vector" need be reversed, because the reaction mostly converts potential energy of the Hydrogen electron relative to it's proton into potential energy of the catalyst atom electron relative to it's nucleus (by ionizing the catalyst). This doesn't usually involve much kinetic energy at all. (It's like transferring the tension in one spring to a second spring). So yes, I am denying that "hot helium" is produced, in so far as the reaction energy largely does not appear as kinetic energy of the Helium atom. Most of it will fairly directly end up as photons when the helium ion recaptures it's lost electrons, some may end up as fast Hydrinos when the stage II energy of the reaction is transferred in the form of kinetic energy mostly to the Hydrino, rather than appearing as UV. > >But this is preposterous, Yes it is, but you are the only one proposing it. >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. Actually the requirement that atomic Hydrogen be a reactant explains a.o. why we still have an ocean. It explains why spillover catalysts do well in LENR. >That is the core and crux of Mills' error. Doesn't look like much of an error to me. > >Atomic hydrogen simply CANNOT be a viable reactant, for reasons too numerous >to mention. Then I suggest you be selective, and name just a couple. >This makes the rest of Mills' theory look like a house of cards. It might, If you had mentioned some valid ones. >But this gain simply cannot be related to the mechanism RM suggests. Your rejection of his theory appears to be based more on your own lack of understanding of it than on any real inherent problems with it. >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. You appear to be doing most of the squirming. If Helium doesn't work very well as a catalyst, then it's most likely due to a paucity of He+ ions in some experiments due to the high first ionization energy. > >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. Here, I think we mostly agree. > >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?) He does tend to be a bit over optimistic. >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. The precise connection to magnetism isn't clear to me either, though I would point out that shrunken H can exhibit a much stronger magnetic field than ordinary ground state H. The magnetic field may also be responsible for encouraging/enforcing spin alignments, which may be significant for some nuclear reactions. (Give Axil his due ;). BTW I don't discount the possibility that the mechanism that you propose is valid. Nor do I completely discount Axil's theories. OTOH I think that Fran's theory is highly unlikely, but that's just my opinions. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
