Mills needs to explain in detail, the white light(broadband) emissions case in terms of fractional hydrino orbits. Maybe he has? But until I run across that theory, I think that hydrinos are mistaken for nanoparticles produced by catalysts.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:09 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with you Axil. I suspect the theory will stand or fall when it > attempts to explain many of these special cases. So far, the applications > have been limited. If the theory is to move ahead it must be tested and > stressed. I am trying to keep an open mind in spite of plenty of > questions. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement > > But Dear David, > > If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that > your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand > waving just won't due. > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
