From: Michel Jullian
> In regards to the Galileo protocol, I again suggest you read: > > http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html The results of EarthTech's experiments are self-contradictory, so of course - NO general conclusion is possible from all of that information, yet most of it is valuable to an extent in forming an extreme minority opinion. BTW some of the self-contradictory results can probably be refined with a less confused and more streamlined approach than the "shotgun" approach, which they were following. However, there is still ONE conclusion that fits most of the evidence better than any other. Far better. It defines the pits as both non-nuclear and non-chemical (in the sense of covalent chemistry). The origin of the pits is "supra-chemical" - i.e. involving inner electron orbitals (as opposed to valence electrons, which would be chemical). There are at least two ways this can happen. Quote: "Using the 3 day protocol, we ran a series of tests where parameters were held the same except for the electrolyte composition. Each test used the same molarity (0.3M) but different chemicals - HCl, LiCl, NaCl, KCl. The HCl electrolyte contained a slightly higher concentration of PdCl2 than the rest of the tests, but lower than the original replication tests. Our experiences had shown that the PdCl2 concentration did not affect the outcome. The test with HCl did not show pits, while the other 3 did." Here is a big point that is easy to overlook. A chemical etching process CANNOT be the general explanation if HCl - a strong acid - gives no pits. It did not. OK next a skeptic might counter that the pits are chemical, but only in the presence of a metal ion. Which is a bit of a cop-out, since not all metal ions give pits. That is to say, since metal ions do not always result in pits, nor does a strong acid, we can almost rule out a chemical explanation. The only conclusion that makes sense for most but not all the experiments - about 80% as far as I can tell (since they are self-contradictory) . and it makes the most sense when factoring in light water and heavy water differences, which effectively eliminates LENR as a possible valid explanation, is . tad da (drum-roll): All of the permutations and combinations which show pits are the ones which would be expected to produce fractional hydrogen - in that the ionization potentials of the electrolytes involved are multiples of the Rydberg constant. This does not demand Mills' CQM. In my alternative fractional hydrogen theory (not ready for prime time) -all of the pit-forming combinations (and more) are also multiples of the ionization potential of positronium. OK, I agree that that is a minor difference, effectively, since the two are themselves connected, but there are many catalytic hole with my version that are NOT there in Mills, most particularly with lithium, which BLP has never claimed as catalytic (whereas Arie de Geuss did claim it, for different reasons). At any rate, the pits, in my take on it, are evidence - not of EUV interaction, as Mills or his supporters might surmise - but of the "reinflation" of fractional-hydrogen which has not been chemically bound, following formation. Most of it becomes chemically bound, but in a run of several days, we could expect several thousand sites. Mills says this species is stable, but he is incorrect IMHO. This explanation will please almost no one, since it is neither in the LENR camp (nuclear), nor in the skeptics/EarthTech camp (chemical), nor in the Mills' camp (his version of the hydrino). To be more specific as to the precise origin of the large pits, I see fractional hydrogen as temporal and short lived *unless* it can become chemically bound. It is effectively passivated when chemically bound and there would be no pits. Mills is completely in error about the "hydride" and its stability. Therefore, unless the species is chemically bound (and in fact most of it becomes bound) then effectively it will eventually be "reinflated" by the Dirac epo field, and by virtue of extracting multiples of the 6.8 eV ionization potential of (Wheeler's) "quantum foam" (virtual positronium). I agree with Frank Roarty in that the factor that makes all of this possible is probably the relativistic manipulation of time at the angstrom level since this is probably the interface with another "dimension". However, Fran may place too much reliance on "the cavity" itself, as opposed to ordinary average spatial constraints which are available in condensed matter of many varieties. As hypothesized, then - the origin of the pits is ultimately "supra-chemical" - i.e. involving inner electron orbitals during the formative stage of nascent hydrogen becoming fractional, and then becoming bound - but the pit itself happens when a fractional species of low kinetic energy is caught in the never-never-land of CR-39 with no available bonding site, and "decays" (endothermic decay) back to normalcy via interaction with the quantum foam (as it emerges from a near-timeless dimension into a time-denominated dimension). Jones
