In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:15:03 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Mike > >> The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in >> its electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP >> catalyst. > >Yes, agreed - but then again (even without a kludge that makes it >a catalyst)- this goes to the original "straw man" argument of the >HSG thread. That being: > >> Keep in mind: whether quantum mechanics is a correct theory is a >> DIFFERENT question then whether or not Mills theory is a correct >> theory. Even if Mills measurements could demonstrate >> conclusively his fractional quantum states, his theory would >> still be incorrect. > >And as it turns out, in the alternative hydrino theory of Arie de >Geus, lithium is a hydrino catalyst.
Mills may not claim Li as a hydrino catalyst, but as I have previously pointed out on this forum, it has a K shell x-ray absorption energy of 54.7 eV, which IMO makes Li+ (at least), where the K shell is directly exposed to the environment, and hence to collisions, a Mills catalyst with m=2. IOW if it can absorb 54.7 eV from an x-ray, then I see no reason why it cannot absorb the same amount of energy from a hydrino. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
