Corrected for spelling and revised
There is a well know property of nano-particles explained by > 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 > interations with photons. > > If the hydrino has been mistaken for nanoparticle activity, this > experimentally observed behavior is to be expected. > > This ambiguity in the interpretation of experimental results can be > removed if Mills can prove 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 >> > >
