From: George Holz
I agree with all of Mills’ objections to SQM but I have my
own GUT ideas which include other reasons for sub ground states with
somewhat different energy levels and mechanisms formation. I like Mills for
the large number of good experiments which prove for me the existence of
below ground energy states in hydrogen. Unlike Mills my theory does not
allow easy calculation of the exact energy levels for fractional states but
the first few states should be similar. Hi George, Please publish your theory. It can only help. One problem with Mills own concept, which was apparent from the early days is there were no strong spectral lines where there should have been. Then, to try to cover his tracks on this devastating situation, he concocted this bogus cop-out called “continuum radiation” which really means: “oops, no hydrogen spectral lines are seen where they should be”. Thermacore, in contrast, documented a strong peak at 55 eV in testing done at Lehigh on residual hydrogen from nickel capillary tubes, after a long successful run - but Mills never gave convincing evidence of anything at that level or lower, AFAIK. The University testing was done with X-rays (ESCA - Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis) which would serve to reinflate the fractional species. Thus the results at Lehigh could be considered to support an alternative version of the theory, based on the same Rydberg levels, but inverted - in the way the energy is derived. Yet even the authors (Gernert et al) of the paper praised Mills, and did not mention, or may not have understood, that things were not as pretty as they should be when this UV radiation turned up, as it did. Nowadays, Mills has shown higher level peaks in other experiments, but not all of them are at Rydberg multiples, and still nothing indicating the lower Rydberg lines as convincingly as this old work. Most importantly, since the Thermacore effort found the signature line (which could also indicate the presence of dissolved helium from LENR), many weeks after the experiment was run, this indicates that the UV emission was most likely derived from “reinflation” of the fractional hydrogen stored in the nickel. How else could UV be delayed? This is detail documented in the paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf What this paper could really mean (in the worst case interpretation) is that Mills theory is completely confused in cause/effect modality, in that the energy gain comes on reinflation of hydrinos, not on shrinkage. At best it would be net energy in both directions, if the Lehigh results are correct. But - there is also an implication that forcing the ground state redundancy could be endothermic, and yet highly asymmetric, thus gain comes mostly on the return of hydrinos to Hydrogen … and it is net gain due to the asymmetry of the reaction (the shrinkage is slightly endothermic and the reinflation is highly exothermic). This explains why there is no large supply of hydrinos in nature. It is a transient species unless compressed within a metal matrix. The bottom line – in the nineties, is that Mills terminated his relationship with Thermacore, in order to protect his theory and his IP - which was no doubt a huge mistake for everyone but BLP. Thermacore could build working devices and Mills has not proven that he can. I believe that Thermacore could have taken the nickel capillary concept and made it into a commercial product many years ago, had they not split with Mills and then been bought by Modine in an economic downturn… but doing so (going commercial) would mean revising major parts of Mills theory, which was not going to happen then, so long as he could prevent it. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
