Speaking of "Fire from ice" and a possible *primordial* solar
hydrino population (part of what is known as 'dark matter') ....
the following astronomical observations can give an alternate
explanation for the putative excess heat (in the form of EUV) seen
by Mills/BLP... not to mention, expose a possible serious error by
mainstream cosmologists (one of many).
Comet Hyakutake - A decade ago - first observation of an X-RAY and
EUV emitting COMET... totally unexpected.
http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake.html
next came Hale-Bopp... same thing. Many more since then, thanks to
Chandra (the x-ray telescope) - now we can get pretty good
spectral information- so what gives?
The strength of the EUV and X-ray emission from Comet Hyakutake
took astronomers by surprise, at least 100 times stronger than
theory based on a solar wind interaction - but they did not have
the captured solar-hydrino in that theory.
There are many other theories for this unusual source of high
energy radiation - and obviously the x-rays and EUV are
"triggered" by our sun's own captured emissions in the comet - but
unfortunately that is not 'end-of-story'... Some comets show 1000
times more emitted energy than solar wind could possibly ever
provide.
... and there are no clear lines, to prove a hydrino source of the
EUV either- so Mills' original accounting cannot be verified ...
and most importantly the space craft which we have sent into space
show no surprises in capturing high energy radiation from the sun,
such as could cause this well-documented 100x or greater anomaly.
That is "no" as in zero, nada, zip and it is being emphasized
because mainstream astronomers (with blinders firmly attached)
want you to believe that this unusual cometary EUV and soft x-ray
emission is coming mainly from the sun - not the comet itself.
Baloney.
The spectrum is fit by a thermal bremsstrahlung model of kT = 0.36
keV - and needless to say, any of our lunar missions would have
melted in space if this were intercepted solar energy... and how
could they be immune while comets capture it? .... but even so,
that average energy is misleading, as the total 0.10-2.0-keV
luminosity is 6 x 10^16 erg/s. Plus, this implies that if pure
hydrino lines are present, their total luminosity must be "washed
out" to < 10 percent of the continuum luminosity.
IOW there are probably no hydrinos *being formed* to cause this
huge anomaly in emitted radiation - but that does not mean that
there are none there ! No, but it does imply that Mills could
have gotten the hydrino part correct and totally 'blown-it' on how
the excess energy is realized. And that failure can also relate to
his earthbound experiments.
The interesting point is this - what if primordial hydrinos are
present in the comet-ice and "dirt" (beginning in the Oort cloud
where they are born) but these highly shrunken hydrinos are buried
in the inner orbitals of carbon and oxygen - two of the major
heavier elements found in comets?
Ans: This scenario can explain everything elegantly - as the
energy which is seen and documented looks like Auger cascades from
these elements. If these hydrinos (shrunken to maximum enthalpy)
are forced out of their host atoms by a "trigger" (solar wind) -
would not an Auger cascade result in a jumble of higher ionization
lines with particular ratios, just as is seen?
Later comets have shown emission lines at 320, 400, 490, 560, 600,
and 670 eV. These can be fit into a number of possible ion species
as Auger cascades - but aren't good fits for hydrinos. Not to
mention, back on earth - have you noticed how sparse the
spectroscopy data for EUV lines is - coming from BLP ??? We should
have mounds of these charts, showing very pronounced lines -
instead everything presented from them shows the same "wash-out"
of lines... (unless the carts have been doctored by the well-known
means)... while at the same time this same "washout" could
definitely relate to Auger cascades of host catalysts - when the
captured hydrinos are jostled about in inner orbitals ...
IOW... it is the "catalysts" themselves which are giving us most
of the excess energy (not all), independent of new formation of
hydrinos in the Mills experiments ... and NOT the result of
ongoing hydrino formation as his theory professes (although that
ongoing formation may occur at lower levels, giving 10% or so of
what is witnessed).
The whole scenario is clouded by the fact that some new hydrinos
may indeed be forming at the same time - and with effort you can
distinguish these lines but they are NOT a major constituent of
the spectrum. This problem has been rationalized by Mills in the
past as a 'downshifting' due to absorption/re-emission. That is
only partly true and in fact it is often more like an upshift in
expected spectra.
Instead of Mills explanation, consider for a moment that most of
the excess energy could be coming from primordial hydrinos
captured in the inner orbitals of the "catalysts" !
All the more reason to focus on the importance of language - and
the fact that the real 'catalyst' in Mills' experiments may be
hydrogen and the real agent for excess-energy may be what he is
now calling the catalyst... yet... and this is somewhat
serendipitous for Mills, as the real catalyst works only because
it already contains a real hydrino (primordial and highly
shrunken - usually in the k-shell).
Now let me see... this is all a bit strange... how do I get back
into that "box" this morning, and rejoin the consensual
hallucination of matrix reality ....
Jones
