the continuum is not easy to see in the data because it is hidden by emissions due other atoms such as oxygen etc. But in some of their experiments, the fact that they get *any* xrays (the continuum radiation and oxygen peaks) is some proof of hydrinos because the voltage used to create it was so low that the xrays shouldn't exist. Only when they have a mixture of hydrogen and the low voltage do they get the xrays. Whey they remove the hydrogen and use other gasses they get no xrays (contimuum etc.).
*And* there is other data that supports hydrinos such as balmer line widening, NMR data, Raman spectroscopy with the measurements exactly matching what the hydrino theory predicts. There is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment also. The continuum radiation happens after the hydrogen gives up a multiple of 27.2 eV to the catalyst and then the electron is in a "no mans land" area *between* stable fractional principal quantum number orbits. A stable orbit has exactly 1 unit of angular momentum hbar and the centripetal acceleration force outwards is balanced with electrostatic force in towards the nucleus. The electron, which is not in a stable orbit at this point, then spirals down to the next *lower* stable (fractional) orbit. It emits continuum radiation photon because it is spriraling down, like a sattelite spiraling down when it hits the drag of the earths atmosphere. I assume the reason for the continuum radiation photon is because the atom is in the no-radiation states as described by Hermann Haus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* David Roberson > > > > Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband > emission (noise) or so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is an artful > evasion (cop-out) by Mills and could be a relic of instrumentation he has > employed. > > > > It is that simple. It is almost meaningless. > > > > Mills cannot show several of the strong emission peaks corresponding to > Rydberg multiples (as a the tell-tale signature which his theory predicts). > The one or two that are seen are close but not exact … so he has invented > this kludge. > > > > Yes we have talked about the “invented neutrino” proving itself later, but > that cannot be a good analogy to this situation. > > > > Can anyone produce an opinion to the contrary by a spectroscopy expert who > is not employed by BLP? > > > > Jones > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
