[AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:03:45 -0500
"A broad X-ray peak with a 3.48 keV cutoff was recently observed in the
Perseus Cluster by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and by the XMMNewton
[32-33] that has no match to any known atomic transition. The 3.48 keV
feature assigned to dark matter of unknown identity by BulBul et al. [32]
matches the 1/4+1/1=>1/17 transition and further confirms hydrinos as the
identity of dark matter."
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> A lower ground state of hydrogen that can be reached at low energy?
>
> Nah.
>
> If hydrinos existed, huge amounts of hydrogen in the universe should
> already be hydrinos. We should be knee deep in the stuff. It should form,
> and be very stable.
>
> Where the heck is all this stuff if it exists?
>
> Nowhere, because it's nonsense, sorry.
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 21:52, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Erratum: AWG -> AHW (Atomic Hydrogen Welding)
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Such questions are beyond my competence, which is why my approach is
>>> simple:
>>>
>>> Replace the 2 tungsten electrodes of an AWG rig with titanium and
>>> measure the resulting temperature.
>>>
>>> If the factor of 7 gain reported in the cite obtains, the result should
>>> be unambiguous.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:46 PM, David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/20/2015 1:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arguing against arithmetic showing specific energy that is orders of
>>>>> magnitude lower than nuclear by parading a litany of rhetorical if not
>>>>> polemical "wisdom", isn't even wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> James,
>>>>
>>>> What is your stand on the viewpoint that because Mills' theory of
>>>> fractional Rydberg states are not square-integrable in the Dirac
>>>> expression, they are therefore to be considered in the quantum realm as
>>>> non-physical? That has been the traditional view at least until Jan Nault's
>>>> paper:
>>>>
>>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Also don't these n < 1 states lead to non-resonant wave function
>>>> solutions? (Isn't that just another way of stating the above?)
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
Other related posts: