thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume).
here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hαand H β transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl>wrote: > Hello Jones > > I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum > ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical > proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body > reactions). > > Peter v Noorden > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement > > Your spiel is a complete cop out. > > > > The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. > > > > A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a > subterfuge. > > > > Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a > distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap > about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he > cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. > > > > He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat > helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a > cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. > > > > If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get > away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more > like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Jeff Driscoll > > > > As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation > having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for > transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional > transition does, I don't know) > see here: > http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif > > And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. > There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up > sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon > emission during hydrino creation. > > I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: > http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf > > Jeff > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > From: David Roberson > > A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to > ionize > a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic > processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen > again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can > impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by > definition. > > Dave, > > Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been > done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on > a > regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. > > I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to > hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. > > The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not > performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as > was > a time delayed signature. > > > https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen > > thyd.pdf&sa=U&ei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAg&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cs > e&usg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ<https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen%0d%0athyd.pdf&sa=U&ei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAg&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cs%0d%0ae&usg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ> > > …and in that 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 no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can > vary. > > 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. In this case, the results > seem > to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. > > The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills > theory suggests. > > However, XPS does find the 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. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an > exact signature, but none is found. > > Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to > find > the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to > mention is that the reason for this change in strategy 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 since the higher energy signal is > itself off target. > > In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given > the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important > level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the > exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. > > The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess > energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft > x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to > the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for > this signal is open to interpretation. > > In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV > signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which > will be presented at some point. > > It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though > it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its > interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal > is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” > > Jones > > > > > > -- > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 > > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
