There is a well know property of nano-particles that nano-engineersing and nano-optics which provides conversion of incoming photon energy to either increase(even x-ray level) or decrease the frequency of the outgoing photon frequency.
Other sited spectroscopic results can be explained by nano-particle intentions with photons. If the hydrino have been mistaken for nanoparticle activity, this behavior is to be expected. This ambiguity can be removed by proving that nanoparticles are not generated through the action of the catalysts and hydrogen. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
