Bob
This is also a fundamental assertion by Mills, that energy transfer must occur without photons. That is why Mills requires a catalyst with a matched electronic energy transition to the f/H state he is trying to stimulate. Right – but that describes emission “on the way down” which comes from the catalyst, not the hydrogen. We would be talking about a different mechanism on re-expansion – what happens on the way back to the normal ground state? Once the dense hydrogen has reached a plateau of stability, whether it is the single deep DDL or the less dense (137) states of Mills, the same rules for shrinkage would not necessarily apply to inflation, but even if they did, the host could supply the photon as before. And alternatively Mills may not have the complete picture. The Gernert report of Thermacore leaves no doubt that the 55 eV was seen in later testing at Lehigh. The only question is “how”. If Mills theory does not accommodate that happenstance, then “experiment rules” and Mills’ theory is either partly wrong or incomplete. Since the theory predicts the photon from the shrinkage coming from a host catalyst, and the same photon was seen and documented on re-expansion, then either both could be a product of the metal host, or only the former - but the photon is there. We should have no problem ditching Mills theory for Rossi’s results, if that is what best fits the facts. (which are incomplete), You are probably correct that the Swedes would not have seen this photon unless they had planned to look for it in advance – so it could be there in Rossi’s results and not have been reported. Yet, there is no good reason to say that it is certainly there, simply because the Thermacore nickel capillary experiment is so similar to the Rossi experiment. Jones
