🚀 go-pugleaf

Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>:
>
>>When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
>>causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
>>it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
>>catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
>>hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
>>Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
>>highly reactive.
>
>I can offer an explanation, in terms of the Mills theory (which I don't
>believe):
>The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen
>atoms falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this
>to work, the resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely,
>otherwise you'd reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why
>Mills does not believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do
>something chemical, it would have to get back up to a normal state, or
>be ionised.

>From what I understand of the M&F theory, there is no reason why two
hydrinos could not chemically combine the same way the larger cousins
do.  In fact, from my original discussions with Mills he said that it
would release more energy than would the larger cousin equiv., and the
bond energies for the hydrino dimer would be higher.  We still have
not heard from Dr. Farrell as to why the hydrinoes are chemically
inert...

Sincerely,

Steve Kneizys...