In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:06:03 -0800:
Hi,
This is one area where my version differs from Mills. In his model radiation is
possible in this case. In mine, it would only be possible through the
intervention of a second atom, with which angular momentum could be
Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and
that is zero radians per second. If you believe
distributed nature similar to
Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not
radiating.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation?
It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well
defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the
The way that it was explained to me (by my son who understands these
things much more than I do) was that in a nuclear reaction that nucleus
suddenly has lots of excess energy to get rid of, and normally the only
option that its available that allows energy and momentum to be balanced
is to
As Jones Beene often reminds us, Mills theory is not a nuclear theory, it
is chemical only, Therefore, no involvement of the nucleus. That means no
transmutation an no gamma rays.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:
The way that it was explained to me (by
From: David Roberson
Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic
Gentlemen,
It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband
emission (noise) or so-called continuum with a cutoff is an artful evasion
(cop-out) by Mills and could be a
the continuum is not easy to see in the data because it is hidden by
emissions due other atoms such as oxygen etc. But in some of their
experiments, the fact that they get *any* xrays (the continuum radiation
and oxygen peaks) is some proof of hydrinos because the voltage used to
create it was so
Corrected for spelling and revised
There is a well know property of nano-particles explained by
nano-engineersing and nano-optics which provides conversion of incoming
photon energy to either increase(even x-ray level) or decrease the
frequency of the outgoing photon frequency.
Other
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:48:41 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Jeff,
I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the
conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an
E field that is changing direction back and forth
]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:48:41 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Jeff,
I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the
conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E
field that is changing
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and
that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency
exists that is a threshold how would that be
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower
limit
to radiation as a phenomenon.
According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals
down to a more redundant level, there is a
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and
that is zero
opinion of the events.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower
limit
to radiation as a phenomenon.
According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron
energy
for a long time.
Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
describe are super
conductive?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can
: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be
excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by
a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the
surface of the nanoparticles reemit
be a more appropriate way to handle
these cases.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:47 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle
theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the
whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and
nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave
formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not
cover soliton or plasmoid
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
But Dear David,
If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your
main posit
of plenty of
questions.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
But Dear David,
If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:36:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
Why Einstein will never be wrong
A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein
improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old
What I mean to say is that first Mills is required to explain in total, the
double slit experiment including the measurement paradox and then he should
move forward from there.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Jan 2014
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher
energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the
ground state into a hydrino state
: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen
through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a
hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron.
In Mills's theory, energy
[mailto:jef...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen
through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize
From: David Roberson
A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize
a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic
processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen
again which should be
As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation
having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for
transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional
transition does, I don't know)
see here:
Your spiel is a complete cop out.
The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature.
A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a
subterfuge.
Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct
signature for the first level of
-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Your spiel is a complete cop out.
The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature.
A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature
-
*From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Your spiel is a complete cop out.
The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature.
A so-called “continuum with a cutoff
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Your spiel is a complete cop out.
The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature.
A so
continued his work
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Driscoll
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
thank you Peter,
Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides
Rowan
Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher
energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below
Carrell
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
From: David Roberson
A thought just
of hydrogen
atoms is in the sub 10 nanometer range, below the cutoff point for normal
hydrogen.
Mike Carrell
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
As far as I know, Mills's theory does
Mike,
I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that
the study in question was indeed gas phase.
This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s
own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson.
This is as close to
: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike,
I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that
the study in question was indeed gas phase.
This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s
own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright
Hello Peter,
Here is the citation on the LENR site. The fact that it is an older paper
should not diminish the fact that it was in Mills’ interest to ignore both the
results and the Lehigh technique.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
encountered: I am also aware of them, but I prefer to highlight the
progress.
Mike arrell
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike,
I am
]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jeff,
Mills only provided the cell which was send to Conrads.
Mills was not involved in the experiments which where done in Jüllich by
Conrads (and a Phd). Conrads was a very
: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole
dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th
: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in
a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th
power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen
transferring energy via FRET.
this is all
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable
orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of
existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do
be accommodated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
All they need
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the
Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills'
theory in that post.
Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized
My bad.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills states:
The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a
corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since
excitation
occurs
.
Mike Carrell
*From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mills states:
*The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a
corresponding probability
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in
this area. I suggest you join the Society
mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no
expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics,
moderated by Dr
insight to
the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades,
possibly leading to new insights.
Mike Carrell
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
http
: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
Why Einstein will never be wrong
A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein
improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because
it is valid in its own context
: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I have a good intro to the basics of Mills's theory (plus much more detail) at
http://zhydrogen.com/
much of it is details on the hydrogen atom and hydrinos - I don't go into
details of SQM (Standard Quantum Mechanics) vs CQM (Classical Quantum
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
Why Einstein will never be wrong
A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein
improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
Why Einstein will never be wrong
A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein
improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:18 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical
theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19th century
physics. Accelerated
be a far field
effect.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have
somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these
exactly matched Hydrino energy levels.
The author of the paper
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally
demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory
that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are
easier to swallow.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf
Fractional spin and charge is
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally
demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory
that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are
easier
Beauty comes from truth.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally
demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:15:56 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Beauty comes from truth.
The truth is not always beautiful.
However what I was trying to say is that whether or not one finds something easy
to swallow varies from one person to the next.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at
: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty comes from truth.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally
demonstrated them. But we do
not or
Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect.
Mike Carrell
*From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty comes from truth.
On Sat, Jan 18
that qbits exist. What is your take on them?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Beauty comes from truth.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:39:32 +:
Hi Fran,
[snip]
Hydrinos have never been observed directly and only occur inside the metal
lattice where geometry dictates.
This is just wrong. The most common signature of Hydrino reactions is usually
detected in
How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals
in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills
experiments can't.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:39:32
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500:
Hi,
How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals
in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills
experiments can't.
[snip]
Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and
Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy
levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino
experiments?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500:
Hi,
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical
methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at
http://www.blacklightpower.com/.
Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a
If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge
from more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions?
For example, cooper pairs of electrons only occur in superconductors. There
are very specific and unusual conditions in a solid that produce cooper
I wrote:
I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a
megawatt of power. It would melt.
Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a
superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go
in the back entrance you pass the
On Jan 15, 2014, at 5:59, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a
gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure
huxterism.
Why? They seem
In a pulsed system, the peak power might only be produced for a small
fraction of a second…like what happens in an explosion.
The average power is a function of the repetition rate of the pulse. It
might be that the power produced by the SF-CIHT cell comes mostly from the
near instantaneous
More...
http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html
Regarding the statement:
“The disclosure of one of BlackLight’s patent application that was
recently-filed worldwide, its 10 MW electric SF-CIHT cell
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A truly annoying press release.
Good summary.
- Jed
for me the only question is about the reports of testing by visitors, and
the last independent replication.
If real, whatever we think of Hydrino, of the press release, it works at
least enough to make a revolution at kW/kg scale. Fantastic news, even if
all else is wrong.
If not real, this is a
.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge from
more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions
complicates
accuracy.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com; CMNS c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:37 am
Subject: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
This, this time seems to be remarkable progress-
if true:
http
A truly annoying press release.
Nothing about continuous or sustained power. Nothing about the energy
in represented by that 12,000 amps. The 12,000 amps is stated as
though we're supposed to be impressed at the large number when it is
talking in terms of input to the system and could easily
Erratum: There is one sentence that is unambiguous about the word
continuous:
Technical papers by BlackLight providing the experimental tests of plasma
to electric conversion, results of excess energy production from solid
fuels, *results of continuous electricity production* at fifty times
There are two job openings at BLP:
DIRECTOR, PLASMA TO ELECTRIC CONVERSION PROGRAM
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Director%20Plasma%20to%20Electric%20Conversion%20Program%20112713.pdf
and
SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER
The main reason to suspect that this truly annoying press release is not
LENR is because the inventor emphatically supplies his own theory as an
alternative - which he steadfastly considers NOT to involve the nucleus.
But Mills could be wrong about M.O. and right about the gain (or wrong
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
No inventor, no matter how brilliant, gets to automatically make the final
scientific determination about how his device functions. He may insist that
he designed it to function in a certain manner, but that is not enough.
Yes! This is important. It
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical
methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at
http://www.blacklightpower.com/.
Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight
90 matches
Mail list logo
