Fran - I am working on a 'spillover' essay which may help pull some of these questions together.
FWIW - It's curious that Arata was focusing on "spillover" 17-18 years ago, and not many people took notice. It took the progression to nano materials to really make this insight stand out. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanewenergya.pdf The important thing to discover, now - is whether "pycno", Miley's "IRH" and the Mills' hydrino, and Horace's deflated electron fusion are either different aspects of the same phenomenon - or merely involved together as stages of a progression, or if they are fundamentally different. For instance, AFAIK - Mills does not mention "clusters" of hydrinos, and yet when you combine Robin's version of redundancy being the equivalent of loss of electron charge, then it makes perfect sense that dozens of atoms of fractional orbital hydrogen, all having slightly more positive than negative charge, would nucleate around a deflated electron in such a way that a strong bond exists at a greatly reduced dimensions - and also there is a net neutral charge even though there is an 'extra' electron . . with the result that essentially we have Miley's dense IRH - which, in effect, is a smaller than neutron, denser than lead, and completely neutral - which is also Arata's 'pycno'. A dense cluster of neutral hydrogen could additionally be the species which has fooled Larsen and Widom into believing it is an ultra-low momentum neutron. It is low momentum, energy poor, dense and neutral and a net gain or even a interaction - from another nucleus is NOT guaranteed without some kind of coherency with that nucleus. Jones From: francis -------------------------[snip]------------------------------------ > It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of its atom's electron by Ni. That would be hydriding, if I understand where you are going, and this is what one wants to avoid initially. This is all in the formative stage of hypothesis, and not simple to verbalize, plus my viewpoint is a minority, but in the event that it helps anyone - here goes. I may be pushing the meaning of "spillover" here, as it is a rather complex subject with many overtones, going back to its origins in petrochemical processing - but in general, nickel is not a good spillover catalyst as it "wants" to retain hydrogen as a hydride. A good spillover catalyst (in terms of promoting secondary densification) merely makes the molecule monatomic but without bonding, or without ionization. This molecule splitting process is energetically unfavorable at STP, and is a near-field phenomenon on the catalyst itself, so usually these catalysts work better at moderate but not high temperature; and in a situation where the atom can be "spilled" onto a ceramic. This is Lawandy's great insight. > Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? Pd works with deuterium but for some reason, less well with H2. That is a great mystery. > If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. Not at this stage. And it is similar to Mills. If you look carefully in his patents, you will find the term "spillover" being used. However, much of what Mills mistakes for hydrinos is instead "pycno" or dense hydrogen at ground state, but in a quasi-BEC form and it is only stable in a cavity. Based on what is admittedly "too little evidence" my feeling is that first you want "densify" or convert molecules to "pycno" or the "inverse Rydberg state" which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure. -------------------------------[end snip]------------------------------ Jones - I think I am in whole agreement with what you have said but the way you said it is easily misinterpreted! Yes I agree molecules do not permit CONVERSION to different densities of pycno but it almost sounded like you were saying h2 can't form pycno which I would disagree with because pycno h1 can form pycno h2 where the only limitation on the pycno h2 is that it must remain near the same pycno/fractional value at which it was formed. I think this is why we will never see a dihydrino in the real world but always need to infer it's existence inside a cavity or lattice or view it astrophysically at high spatial velocity being ejected from the suns corona.- I think the covalent bond can accumulate some limited amount of opposition before the molecule disassociates and that the pycno h2 - once formed- may be able to migrate into the confinement of the lattice and oscillate back and forth between fh2 and fh1 when in the appropriate narrow thermal band. The Cavities may act like "ice" houses to condense the pycno but the lattice confinement may be needed to actually extract the energy. A careful reading of your statement reveals you are specifying the CONVERSION of H2 not the Formation. This also happens to be the key behind the MAHG theory and other Langmuir derived theories. You observed that For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this conversion - something which may also be going on inside the Pd membrane of a hydrogen generator as well, have you found any citations to support this observation? Regards Fran
