Just because 55 eV photons were seen does not mean that they came from H entering the f/H state or from re-inflation (which is supposed to be endothermic). Since (according to Mills' theory), a catalyst must be involved, these photons would have to be coming from the catalyst or other evanescent energy exchange system. The theory predicts that the 55 eV of energy can be exchanged and says the f/H cannot directly transact a photon.
So if 55 eV photons are detected, they could well be coming from the catalyst (speculation: H-clusters may be a catalyst that could share that big photon and subsequently exchange the energy by coupled evanescent means with an f/H). Detected 55 eV photons doesn't invalidate a theory that claims there can be no direct photon absorption or emission from an f/H atom. Other atoms will absorb and emit 55 eV photons or there would be no catalysts for the Mills reaction. The data only says that 55 eV photons were seen, not where exactly they came from. Seeing 55 eV photons coming from a supposed f/H species by itself tends to invalidate Mills and DDL theories. Otherwise you need to invent clusters of H or something to justify the exchange since the theories describing f/H say there can be no direct photon transactions. If the theory is wrong, then there is no basis for f/H states to begin with and you have no story at all for where the 55 eV came from. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > 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. > > > > NO ! Bob – you do not get it, yet. > > > > The one overriding fact in all of this is clear: experts in spectroscopy > stated that 55 eV photons were seen. > > > > If this does not fit into Mills theory then the THEORY IS WRONG. The > photons were seen. > > > > Experiment rules. This may be the very reason that Mills seldom mentions > the Thermacore work, since it voids his theory. > > > > I cannot say it any more emphatically. The photons were seen. > > > > If the theory does not permit this, then the theory is wrong. > > > > Jones > > >
