Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly.  It could well take many 
years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct.  Quantum mechanics 
did not reach maturity overnight.


Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement



In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle 
theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the 
whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or 
plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his 
framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on 
nano-particles micro particles or dust.  


Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not 
well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind 
spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made.





On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:

If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says 
that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really.




On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

I see what you mean Axil.  Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it 
should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator.  In 
time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero.  Of 
course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy 
for a long time.


Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive?



Dave




-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement



Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited 
by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed  by a broadband 
spectrum of many  photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the 
nanoparticles  reemit the energy of excitation.


Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles 
when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source..


Reference,


http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf

These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence 
during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation.




On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic.  I have 
come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate 
clocks are built using the transitions.  Are you sure that you accurately 
understand the source of that radiation?   It would seem more reasonable for 
the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the 
catalyst.  The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be 
the source for the wide band radiation.


This is just my way to justify the emissions.  Mills may likely have a 
different opinion of the events.


Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Walker <[email protected]>

To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement





On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:


Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit
to radiation as a phenomenon.



According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron "spirals 
down" to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons.  
Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario.  Assuming I 
haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what 
you're saying here?


Eric




[1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf



















Reply via email to