Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions).
Peter v Noorden ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] 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. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a "continuum with a cutoff" is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have "drunk to kool-aid" on this "continuum with a cutoff" BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll 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
