In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:26:06 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The probability of reaction is quite small, in fact Ar+ is not a very good >catalyst. Nevertheless, contacts happen all the time, otherwise gas pressure >wouldn't exist. > >MC: Gas pressure results for impacts with the container, more than other >atoms/molecules. Much bigger target.
The atomic radius of Argon is about 0.98 Angstrom. Thus the diameter is about 2 A. When an electron is removed, it will shrink a bit, but I doubt it will shrink by more than half, so lets say about 1 A. For a gas at 1 torr, and a temperature of 1000 K with a particle diameter of 1 A, the mean free path is about 2.3 mm. That's a pretty small container. Even if we assume that the total collision cross section is supplied by the Ar+, and that the Hydrinos have 0 size, this still works out to 9 mm. Still a small container. Furthermore, it's only a *mean* free path, that doesn't mean collisions aren't going to happen in less distance occasionally. >What is the basis for your statement >that Ar+ is not a very good catalyst? In one of Mills early experiments he compares various catalysts, and Ar+ doesn't exactly shine. >In the water bath calorimeter studies, >He, Ar, and O give approximately the same energy yield. Each are as >effective on a per-atom basis. The problem is optimizing the reactor >parameters to get the highest energy yield against competting processes. The >is one reason the 'solid fuel' is significant. I already sent Mills a wash list of my doubts about the water bath experiments years ago. To summarize I suspect the actual Hydrino energy contribution was more on the order of a couple of watts (not 10's of watts), and that the small differences in energy output were primarily due to the differences in efficacy of the different catalysts. [snip] >MC: You are familiar with the water bath calorimetry? Have you another >explanation for the observed excess heat? I am very suspicious of any experiment that purports to put out 60 W of heat, when that also just happens to be the nameplate power output of the microwave generator used. Suffice it to say, that I strongly suspect measurement error in those experiments. > >>It is more likely that the transfer is a near-field phenomenon that >>can be approached from antenna theory, but I do not know of any detailed >>work on such. > >Would such allow for transfer of angular momentum? > >MC: Why do you enter angular momentum into the discussion? The 'form' of the >energy transfered is not stated. The H atoms exhibit very high kinetic >energy/ temperature, manifested as Balmer line broadening. ...because IMO, the hydrino can't shrink without shedding angular momentum. In fact I think that's the primary reason for the existence of the normal ground state of the Hydrogen atom. In order to shrink it would need to shed angular momentum, and it can't do this via photon emission, because the creation of a circularly polarized photon requires more angular momentum than the electron can supply. Hence H can't shrink via photon emission, hence the "ground" state. The Hause condition appears to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition, according to the skeptics, and I think they may be right about that. However the angular momentum condition is sufficient. Thus if shrinkage requires shedding angular momentum, and it can't be done via photon emission, then that only leaves passing it off to another particle, which in turn implies a physical collision. BTW I think you will find that Mills assumes that the angular momentum of the electron is a constant during shrinkage. One of various points upon which I disagree with him. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
