--- OrionWorks wrote: > > Best part of this scenario - falsifiability. Argon Auger cascades have a spectral signature which is so recognizable that it cannot be denied, if demonstrated. And there is a sound (to me) theoretical basis for this whole complicated scenario, including Puthoff's ZPE role, which is absent from most of the Mills' (more controversial) assumptions. > You make it sound so plausible! ;-)
It has only started coming together in recent days. There is a lot of unprocessed information which is pending and might change the situation... > So, what's holding up the dog and pony show? As always, time.... and eventually it will be limited by funding availability, if and when it gets down to building an engine. But one suspects that a simple defining experiment would get the ball rolling. > How difficult (technically and financially) would it be to see if this intriguing phenomena performs as advertised? Not difficult for the *properly equipped lab* to verify a spectral signature, based on a very high-compression ignition of hydrogen oxygen and argon. The CalTech lab would be ideal, but.... they have other commitments, no doubt. Otherwise, for a lesser lab - impossible - as we are talking about containing a 5000+ psi explosion in the context of x-ray spectroscopy. Mills may have already done it (unpublished) but there is no evidence that he has looked for soft-X-rays under any circumstances, which is a bit surprising, given that they are easier to document (technically) and much more meaningful than EUV, energy-wise . Ironically this outcome (auger cascade) would probably NOT happen under vacuum conditions, his [Mills'] normal regime. And since such a finding of soft x-rays would both reinforce but also compromise parts of the CQM theory, except ironically in proving the existence of hydrinos, Mills would not want to publish a mixed-verdict, one suspects. Unfortunately labs like CalTech are manned by folks who are a bit sensitive about performing "not invented here" work, and especially "fringe" experiments - even fringe experiments which are based on mainstream data (reinterpreted). Especially if it is their own mainstream data (as the "reinterpreted" part equates with embarassing). I hope to begin looking for an independent lab soon, and funding is already being explored, pending all of the loose-ends being tied up. Of course, this work could all have been done previously - at JPL/CalTech, but not available to the public. By next week, things may change of course, as this is a house-of-cards which is all premised on a handful of real (but older) experiments which may not tie together as nicely as hoped - on closer examination. If I had to pick out one key info-resource which in need of re-examination (outside of what JPL may have tucked away) it would be work by Alfven which is available in old Journals and a hassle to dig out. Of course - it is always possible that if any of this relates to the unacknowledged "Aurora" program - then it is all lost in a black hole of intrigue... hopefully not. Jones
