This recent Mills claim supports my contention that the explosion of plasma comes from the well-known and largely studied explosion of nano and micro particles through irradiation by x-rays.
Mills is forming microscopic particles from hydrogen and potassium and possibly carbon which are exploded when irradiated by EUV. Such particles can form in water and are the basis of the HHO explosive capability among many other nano-configurations. These particles can form out of many elements and compounds, that are why Mills has most of the periodic table and associated derivative compounds listed in his patents as candidate catalysts. These Mills catalysts form nano and micro particles which are exploded in an electric arc. If Mills was proficient in all aspects of chemistry including photonics, He would understand what is really going on here and not invent some fantasy world to explain what his experiments are showing. First, he should understand water clusters Water clusters are described all over the place and even in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html http://www.psc.edu/science/Jordan/Jordan.html and so on On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I very much agree about unpatentable theory. > > Perhaps the claim that sets it apart from ost if not all of teh previous > water arc systems is claim 41 > > "The electrochemical power system of Claim 40 further comprising one or > more solid fuel reactants to form at least one of the conductor, source of > catalyst, the catalyst, the source of atomic hydrogen, and the atomic > hydrogen." > > Does this indicate that water adsorbed onto some kind of catalyst allows > something more to happen than is normally the case. Perhaps such surfaces > have been important in previous water arc systems but perhaps also this was > not fully appreciated. > > Nigel > > > On 01/02/2014 19:06, Jones Beene wrote: > > *From:*James Bowery > > > > If Mills discloses he deserves credit for that. > > > > By "discloses" I mean what the patent office means: Provides sufficient > information in the patent disclosure for those skilled in the art to > realize beneficial use independent of the inventor. > > > > You've seen his recent patent application. Even at 325 pages - does it > disclose anything that the other patents relating to electrical discharge > through water have missed? > > > > Or is it "designed to deceive" - which seems to be the consensus here on > Vortex, when we discussed this patent application earlier. > > > > There are well over 2 million hits on google relating to patents for > electrical discharge through water. Where is the novelty in Mills? > > > > ... other than, of course, the bald claim that the discharge is not really > through water nor through HHO but is through Mills version in which one of > the hydrogen atoms is in a reduced orbital making it more of a catalyst... > and even then, Mills has not shown that the HHO species of prior art does > not, in fact, conform identically to his version. > > > > I feel sorry for the BLP attorneys. They have surely told him that > theories are not patentable no matter how great they are. I doubt if the > attorneys are as incompetent as this application suggests. Most likely they > were ordered to do the impossible: which is to try to patent a device which > has been known in prior art for decades. > > > > Jones > > > > > > >
