I will remind the theorists among us again that Rossi states in his patent that copper can be used as a micro powder material as an alternative to nickel. This implies that the physical and/or chemical properties of Nickel are not critical to the Rossi reaction.
Rossi has surveyed many other transition metals to support his reaction. He found that nickel performed the best but conversely the other transition metals work almost as well. Nano-engineering is all important in the Rossi process. This indicates to me that the nuclear and/or chemical properties of the micro-metal are not as important as the nano surface preparation of the micro-powder. In simple terms in my opinion, the topology of the nano-structures is what makes the Rossi reaction go. Rossi calls this topology "tubules" and spent six months working day and night to optimize this surface structure. The changing work functions of the varied polycrystalline structures of these tubules will break apart H2 into H. Somehow inverse Rydberg matter may be formed between and among these tubules with the help of the high pressure and temperature of the hydrogen envelop and the mediating action of an alkaline catalyst. When all those electrons and protons that comprise a inverse Rydberg molecule are packed into the very small space between these surface tubules, this set of subatomic particles gain a lot of energy… maybe from Zero Point Energy…or just from the uncertainty principle. Dr. George Miley shows in his experiments and also in the Rossi ash, what comes out of this process is a zoo of other transmuted elements all up and down the periodic table. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Does anyone understand what happens to one of these fractional Rydberg > hydrogen atoms once it is released into the atmosphere? Does it gain > energy from the air and become standard hydrogen? I am just curious? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 1:41 pm > Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as > fractional Rydberg > > That is exactly what I was saying… Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” > is actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes > redundant but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong > definition that caused so much controversy. The term should be eradicated > with extreme predjudice. > > *From:* Danny Ross Lunsford > [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com<antimatte...@yahoo.com?>] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as > fractional Rydberg > > You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. > Angular momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to > get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad > ideas. > > *---------------------------------------------- > "I write a little. I erase a lot." *- Chopin > > > > --- On *Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>*wrote: > > A recent paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with > cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” > http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...<http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf> > >
