Why would you assert any form of non-reciprocity? It is a reciprocal mechanism. In the f/H state, the electron has insufficient angular momentum to exchange energy with a photon. So how is the f/H atom going to absorb a photon to return to normal ground state? It cannot. It must take in energy from evanescent coupling. This could be a closely coupled catalyst that was in an excited state, or it could come from inelastic collision (but the f/H atom, being small, has a small cross-section for collision).
So, the normal Mills' re-inflation would be through absorption of a photon by the catalyst causing an excited catalyst electron orbital. This excited catalyst, then being coupled to the f/H atom can supply the energy to the f/H via evanescent means, returning both the catalyst and the f/H to normal ground state. The problem with this is that even without the f/H being present, the catalyst will still absorb and re-emit the input photon or fluoresce in longer wavelengths. What you would really like to see is photons going into the catalyst and no energy coming out at the same or longer wavelength. This is an exceedingly hard test to make with unequivocal results. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
