More... http://www-wales.ch.cam.ac.uk/~wales/CCD/anant-watcl.html
X-ray produced explosion of water clusters: http://xray.bmc.uu.se/hajdu/experiment/html/damage.htm On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
