How the Celani's wire can be fitted into this theory ?
The hydrino theory is invalid. In reference to my recent post: how gamma radiation is thermalized Micro cavities provide BEC in hot spots. The degree of thermalization is proportional to the degree of BEC establishment in the cavities on the surface of the wire. The reduction of resistance in the wire is also proportional the BEC establishment and associated proportional heat production. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]>wrote: > Jones, > > Your theory below might explain also what Rossi has told a bit 2 years ago: > Some xRay are absorbed. > Some EM fields are "escaping" his eCat. > > Moreover, in Pedrodragon, Rossi used Nickel, Hydrogen in the Bergius > process > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process). Sodium, potassium, and > magnesium were also compounds that were fetching the Bergius reactor. > Similarly Mills uses Sodium or potassium to create the hydrinos. > > How the Celani's wire can be fitted into this theory ? > > Arnaud > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: samedi 6 avril 2013 21:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:April 2013 Defkalion GT Interview > > Eric, > "Defkalion's description of the reaction is still consistent with > there being copious soft x-rays that are being blocked by the > housing > of the reactor" > > Yes - you have probably heard Robin and myself and a few others suggesting > that the EUV spectrum is the most likely source of energetic radiation that > will be seen in any Ni-H reaction which resembles Mills. And all of them do > resemble Mills/BLP - at least AFAIK. > > Mills was seeing UV 20 years ago, so it is not new. Some few gammas can > probably be seen when redundancy becomes extreme, but he says that most of > the output is UV. Mills has never reported gammas, it should be noted... > but > then again, he has turned a blind eye to anything which is suggestive of a > nuclear explanation. > > This UV radiation spectrum is because of the Rydberg energy multiples of > 27.2 eV, 54.4 eV, and 108.8 eV etc. which happen in ground state > redundancy. > These are in the UV/EUV range, but the upper end of that range can be > called > "soft x-rays" -even if that is misleading, in a way. > > Mills claims the energy comes from the electron orbitals of the catalyst > "holes". This does not mean that RM got everything right however, and Robin > has already made a few changes of note (on his site) that seem to work > better. > > As to applying or integrating Mills to other theories, at least in the > context of the dynamics of redundant orbitals and UV emission, this has > been > largely avoided except by Arie de Geus (deceased). There is always room for > compromise however, if one is not tied too closely to either camp. > > In an evolving theory of RPF, it dawns on me just now that it is possible > to > merge with a partial Mills explanation... so here goes. First, the reaction > has chemical dynamics which proceed somewhat as Mills suggests, but instead > of the energy coming from loss of electron momentum (angular momentum) the > energy comes directly from mass-to-energy conversion in the proton nucleus > via magnons. In fact, it is the "shrinkage" of the orbital that provides > the > asymmetry which is needed in RPF in order to extract net energy from a > neutral reaction - which can be either endothermic or exothermic in QCD. > > RPF can then be described as providing first the endotherm to allow for the > shrinkage, with then the exotherm is coming immediately thereafter from > magnon coupling, instead of UV. There could be a bit of both. Hey, I could > almost convince myself that this is a good fit. > > The best evidence for this, and possibly a partial proof, would come from a > finding that there is not nearly enough UV to provide the excess heat which > is seen, and secondly that the heat seen is via inductive coupling > (requiring a ferromagnetic matrix). > > Thanks for the segue. > > Jones > > From: Eric Walker > Where did you get the idea that soft x-rays were not > harmful? In fact they are deadly, but not instantly deadly, if that makes > them slightly less problematic. > The thought did occur to me after I pressed "send" that > given a sufficient flux, you could end up cooking yourself before too long. > > My remarks about soft x-rays were ambiguous -- I could have > meant that they do not pose safety concerns when shielded by the kind of > housing that a reactor will typically have, or I could have meant that they > are benign in general. My actual meaning was to suggest that they might be > benign in general (without shielding). As someone who knows nothing about > nuclear physics, I feel at liberty to make one or two embarrassing > comments. > ;) > Sterling Allan, whom you quote - is a tireless PR person > and > promoter in the PT Barnum tradition - but not a scientist. Even > Hadjichristos, listed as CTO of Defkalion has given no indication of being > literate in several important scientific fields. > My apologies for the confusion -- I didn't intend to offer > Allan or Hadjichristos as authorities. The quote was meant to provide > another data point and does not give anything to base any conclusions on. > But it is interesting to note that if the quote is half accurate, > Defkalion's description of the reaction is still consistent (?) with there > being copious soft x-rays that are being blocked by the housing of the > reactor. > > Eric > >
