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: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif
And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 detected. I suppose that if these processes can > impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by > definition. > > Dave, > > Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been > done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on > a > regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. > > I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to > hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. > > The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not > performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as > was > a time delayed signature. > > > https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen > > thyd.pdf&sa=U&ei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAg&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cs > e&usg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ > > …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long > successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the > hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There > is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can > vary. > > ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is > accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a > monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results > seem > to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. > > The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills > theory suggests. > > However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to > Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 > eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an > exact signature, but none is found. > > Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to > find > the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to > mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS > NEVER > BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of > Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is > itself off target. > > In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given > the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important > level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the > exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. > > The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess > energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft > x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to > the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for > this signal is open to interpretation. > > In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV > signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which > will be presented at some point. > > It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though > it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its > interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal > is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” > > Jones > > > > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
