Bob,
The window is fused silica. This is obvious choice and one of very few UV transparent materials. I’m sure you are aware that the old EPROMs used fused quartz windows. This is essentially what Lehigh did for the Thermacore testing. X-rays do indeed expand hydrinos - which is not prohibited by Mills theory AFAIK. Why shouldn’t they not? Can you cite your source on that? Jones Jones, Why do you believe that the Swedes would have seen a 55 eV signature? Almost all x-ray probes for XRF and EDAX have windows covering the sensor and few windows pass below about 1keV photons. A 55 eV signature would be well below this window. Also, if it were to show, it may only show in EDAX with an excitation of from an electron beam in the SEM. This type of coupling to a fractional H is allowed, but photon coupling is not. So, exciting with high energy x-ray photons as in XRF would not stimulate a 55 eV fluorescence anyway. You would have to construct a system with a window-less sensor and with an EUV filter to measure 55 eV photons - very specialized and hard to do. According to theory, x-ray photons will not expand a fractional or DDL hydrogen. This is the basis of Mills' whole theory. These fractional states are purported to have insufficient angular momentum for photon transaction. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, Eric Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. They would have seen a UV signature, if it was there. If you were unaware of this, it may be a bit disingenuous to now say they saw the signature, but didn’t report it in accordance with Rossi’s instructions - since they did report the natural isotope ratio etc which impugn the Focardi suggestion of fusion. Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it is noise with spin <g>… …and in that Gernert paper, the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is little doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. The tests did show a signature, but not the exact level. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. These x-ray will “expand” dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. In this case, the results supports some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM) which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level, since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka “pychno”) is seen at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules of excess energy was documented (Thermacore). In conclusion, XPS did find a 55 eV signal/ signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV - but not exact. Mike Carrel who was Mills’ main supporter here, has mentioned that Mills has lately dropped all efforts to find the lower Rydberg signatures in favor of the H(1/4) and greater. What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy (aka: cop out) is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster. In short his theory is partly wrong and partly right. However, there are takeaway messages from the Thermacore work wrt Rossi’s reaction. 1) Dense hydrogen is real and will show up under XPS with a signature 2) Nickel hydride is stable for extended periods with dense hydrogen embedded (the Lehigh testing was done a year later than the first excess heat. 3) The results do not match Mills original theory exactly but come close in parts 4) The Swedes should have seen the 55 eV signature if the Rossi reaction was a Mills-type reaction and they did not report this. 5) It is thus fair to say that the Rossi reaction, despite many similarities - is not exactly a Thermacore type reaction, unless the Swedes are hiding evidence or failed to analyze their own data. 6) Everything may change with the new report – TIP2, but as of now, there is no evidence that Mills theory applies to Rossi. However, there is reason to suspect that dense hydrogen can exist in a number of isomers, one of which is predicted by the Dirac theory- and it correlates to the cosmological signature for “dark matter”. Mills own theory does not predict dark matter, as his value is too low, but close. From: frobertcook Eric - I agree with your comment. That is the reason we should look at the TPT carefully to see if it was designed to look inside any of the reactors Rossi supplied to monitor conditions. If not, I for one will be skeptical of conclusions regarding scientific conclusions. Eric Walker wrote: Jones Beene wrote: The ironic thing about the Rossi effect ... is that the radiation band which is apparently absent for Rossi is ultraviolet - UV and EUV. X-rays below ~ 10 keV will be stopped by a simple metal casing. EUV will be stopped by much less. I think we don't really know what the UV/EUV signature is for Rossi's device.
