Bob,
Well – once again, we can agree to disagree. For me, the most obvious explanation for the spectroscopy of the Thermacore sample, after megajoules of energy gain was shed… is that the nickel sample, as it was received by the University, retained substantial f/H embedded in the nickel. This is the same species which had originally supplied the thermal gain over many months. However, there could be many levels of redundancy in this sample – only one of which was emitting UV at 55 eV and that level is indeed exothermic on inflation. To be explained. A monochromatic beam of soft x-rays was used; and they were indeed looking for this photon spectrum possibly between 25-100 eV, so they probably had a windowless detector. At any rate, they reported the signature line at 55 eV and no other. This indicates exotherm. Mills must have freaked out! My interpretation of this is that the soft x-rays caused the f/H to reinflate, and this caused the same value photon to be released on inflation which Mills had predicted would happen on shrinkage, but he is/was wrong. The catalyst could supply the photon, or the f/H, but in any event, the reinflation was exothermic, not endothermic as Mills would have us believe. This is only part of the story. Alternatively, it is possible that there was also some nickel-hydride available in the sample, and the hydrogen was in the Bohr ground state, such that the x-ray irradiation cause that normal hydrogen to shrink and give up the photon. However, if that was the case, then any sample of nickel-hydride should do the same, whether or not it had already given up energy or not. We can therefore eliminate this. Therefore, it seems most likely that the prior history of the sample should be the determining factor, but as I am typing this, there seems to be another possibility… That would be that this particular level (1/3) is indeed endothermic on shrinkage and exothermic on expansion, BUT since there was net gain before over many months at Thermacore, there was also a population of further shrinkage f/H (1/4, 1/5, and so on) in this sample - which was responsible for the net gain over the run, even with endotherm at the first two drops. IOW the f/H reaction is endothermic at the first two drops (1/2 and 1/3 level) but subsequent levels make up for that with strong exotherm. In later testing, when the (1/3) level is what is seen, it is indeed exothermic. Perhaps the (1/2) level never happens at all, as there is not a single reference to it having ever been documented. Then – we have adequately explained the results, if we assume that this x-ray beam will not reinflate the embedded f/H lower than 1/3, which is the (1/4, 1/5, and so on). From: Bob Higgins 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
