--- In further reply to Robin van Spaandonk's reply
to Thomas Malloy's message:
Yes, there is a "signature" for hydrino activity, and
it is EUV radiation in particular spectra.
EUV is not expected in electrolysis or combustion, nor
is it evident visually like light photons (which would
tend to mask it). Finding EUV requires a special
photocell, placed in a cell closed to the reaction
(using a "pinhole") as the radiation will not go
through a "window" of any kind. It is more like gamma
radiation, but less penetrating.
Extreme ultraviolet light is not seen in chemical
processes; and if it occurs robustly, then that would
be an excellent clue.
In a high voltage plasma, EUV can be be expected
without hydrinos, but there are specific spectra which
are multiples of 27.2 eV which are the important clue,
according to Mills' CQM theory; and these energy
levels should stand out very clearly in hydrino
situations.
However, since the hydrino (deuterino) is one of the
possible explanations for LENR itself, or more like a
partial explanation (in the sense that it could be
precursor-to an actual nuclear reaction) then it would
not necessarily differentiate the two classes, which I
believe was the intent of the original question.
Which brings up one very important point which I have
never seen addressed before wrt deuterium fusion.
We (including the mainstream) know that the Farnsworth
Fusor produces lots of neutrons at a fraction of the
normal threshold energy for spallation or fusion, even
though it is far from breakeven.
...so one wonders if EUV is present there (Fusor), and
to what degree, and in what energy levels ?
Mills, or BLP, or the CQM theory, could take a giant
step towards mainstream credibility, possibly
exceeding *everything* he has done in his prior 19
years of experiment (and by a very wide margin in the
eyes of the mainstream) IF he were to look for, and to
find his signature spectra of EUV coming from an
operating Fusor.
This would be HUGE, and IMHO it would open the
floodgates of funding. At his burn-rate, this could be
important. He must know this, however, and possibly
has tried and failed to find EUV there...
Which does not disprove anything. But if he has not
looked for it, I would urge Mike or anyone "who has
his ear" to strongly encourage him to do so...
... (even though he in well-known to have this strong
and irrational aversion to LENR, of the P&F
variety)... but, it should be noted that the Fusor is
technically NOT a facet of LENR, but has heretofore
been assumed to be a fact of hot fusion (even if
called "warm" fusion).
Now is the time, Randy ... "saddle up" ... ever since
the SPAWAR results, even though they are not
unquestioned, they have raised the credibility level
of LENR above the hydrino, in everyone's eyes
(mainstream of physics) at least those who will take a
dispassionate look at the evidence for both, and it is
time for a competitive response ...
Jones
("saddle up" is a bit of trivia for you cinema fans,
who may have seen the "Michael Clayton" movie and not
grasped the metaphor of the tree horses)
> Hi,
> Well,let me put it another way. if someone were
> attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's
> suppose that it worked, measurable anomalous heat
out
> put. Then they built a hydrino generator and bubbled
> the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked
> measurably better. How would that be for "proof"?
> I would say that it would be very interesting, but
> would want to know a few more
> details.
