In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:29:14 -0800 (PST): Hi Jones, [snip] >Robin, > >When I open the document in Office 2007 and select page layout, page 6 is >garbled with a following page. How does one correct this?
First, try other layouts. If that doesn't work, then try the pdf version at:- http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/theory-paper.pdf > >Otherwise, it is most interesting and the lissajous idea has always seemed to >be an elegant solution (so elegant it is a surprise it has not been "borrowed" >by RM ;-) - but one further suggestion that stands out now is a way to falsify >the conclusion. One possible way is via alternative containment. Even the largest Mills Hydrino is too small to contain permanently in it's neutral state. In fact even the molecule is probably too small. However the Hydride is automatically contained because it forms ionic compounds with any normal ionic species (i.e. salts/ceramics or metals). However once they shrink below the minimum Hydride forming size, they are essentially lost, unless used immediately. At least that's currently my best guess. I suppose there is a chance that they can form a covalent bond with heavier atoms, but that's just a guess; one of the many things that needs to be investigated. > >Since the radius of your version of this species is the square of Mills' >version - there can be no effective containment, one would think (??); as most >all structural materials would be porous to a fraction of any such species. At >least a small fraction should respond to a negative charge outside the reactor >where they are formed, especially if the wall of that reactor is the cathode, >yet an even higher negative charge lies outside it. For instance a thick MgO >coating of the outside of a reactor, which is effective for containing >hydrogen might pass some of your hydrinos but not Mills conception. I don't think containment is going to be an effective means of determining which theory is correct. A more likely means of deciding is the ease with which fusion is achieved, since that is much easier under my model, than under Mills'. > >How would one know, even if it were true, that ultra reduced radius hydinos >were there ? Perhaps the very small ones can pass right through other atoms, but I think the larger ones will at least will scatter off local magnetic fields, and possibly off local electric fields (i.e. electron to electron), IOW off other atoms. That implies that they will exert a pressure on their "containment" vessel. >Perhaps a hard vacuum outside a reactor where hydrinos are formed, and with a >MgO coating or window, and following that - the appearance of H2 on >reinflation Sorry, you've lost me. Reinflation of what? >would be one way to present the argument -- if, that is, H2 is seen after an >extended period where a hard vacuum had been. > >Of course, we have known for half a century that hydrogen is the predominant >residual gas in utrahigh vacuum [uhv] systems, and that the reduction in the >hydrogen outgassing rate is the most >challenging problem in achieving xhv even today. I can find no real assurance >that this problem has EVER been solved over the long term! Sure it can be >reduced but the background rate indicates something, no? > >So-called 'anomalous hydrogen' has been seen (claimed) in a number of >experiments - but who is to say this does not indicate ubiquitous solar >generated Hy - but of the (1/n)^2 variety which is eventually diffusing to >earth's core due to its effectiv density ? You might be right. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[email protected]>
