HSG: Welcome to the Hydrino Study Group!

All,

My thanks to each of the people on this list who have
chosen to join. As you know, the purpose of this list
is to provide a civilized forum for exchange of ideas
pertaining to Dr. Randell Mills' theory of the
hydrino.

For purposes of civility, this is a "fully moderated"
list. As stated in the list charter, no "flame wars"
or slandering or personal attacks are allowed. If you
have a sharp disagreement with the integrity of the
theory or the interpretation of the data, simply say
so. Do not attack another person's character because
of this disagreement.

The focus will remain on *science*, not personalities
or character traits. Specifically, one of two main
themes should run through any post to this list:

1. Theory: Is it *internally* consistent?
2. Experiments: Does evidence agree with the theory,
thus making the theory *externally* consistent?

So far, we have seven people on this list, including
myself and Dr. Mills. I scoured the Internet looking
for every "third party" person interviewed in the
December 1999 Village Voice article about Dr. Mills. 
(By "third party", I mean people not directly involved
with the company.)

HSG: independent replication

Greetings,

Our group, Earthtech International, is devoted to the discovery of a
new energy source. To that end we have developed significant in-house
expertise in calorimetry. To date we have pursued a good number of
replication efforts including some admittedly inaccurate attempts at
hydrino experiments (see http://www.earthtech.org) all with negative
results for excess heat.

At this time we are eager to embark upon a high-fidelity replication of
one or more of Dr. Mills' hydrino experiments with specific emphasis
upon observing the reported excess heat effects. We are focussed on
the excess heat phenomenon because (1) it is the fundamental signature
of anomalous energy release and (2) we have already painstakingly
achieved reliable calorimetry.

We have tentatively selected the smaller of the two Ni cathode
electrolysis experiments described in considerable detail on p 469 ff
of the Sept 1996 edition of Mills' book. This experiment produced heat
output from 200% to 1600% of the electrical input depending on
operating parameters!

I have recently communicated our intentions to Dr. Mills and he has
responded positively, indicating that he would provide guidance to us. 
This is a wonderful turn of events which will surely maximize our
chances of success.

We have already purchased almost all of the necessary materials for
this experiment. We are waiting only on a clarification from Dr. Mills
regarding the exact nature of the Ni cathode employed. There is an

HSG: Discussions regarding hydrino theory

Dear Group:

Hello all. I have an open mind and very much look forward to
participating in moderated, objective scientific discussions regarding
Randy Mills' hydrino theory. Clearly, there is some type of real
phenomenon going on here that is of great interest from both scientific
and potentially commercial perspectives.

Lewis Larsen
Lattice Energy LLC 

HSG: Five Theoretical Questions

This forum is long overdue. Thanks to Luke Setzer and Dr. Mills for making
it happen.

Dr. Mills,
I have had the 1999 edition of CQM for a little less than a year. There
remain some naive questions in my mind that I was hoping you might be able
to answer:

1) A symmetrical spinning shell of charge should not radiate because the
charge distribution is not changing in time. This should be the case
irrespective of the Haus boundary condition. If this is the case, what then
is special about particular quantum energy states in the orbitsphere model,
ie, why are only n and 1/n states non-radiative rather than a continuous
range? 

2) From scattering experiments it is believed that we have verified the
"probability cloud" or 3D nature of the electron shell (eg, see Rep. Prog.
Phys. 51, 299 (1988)). How does the orbitsphere model, ie, where the
precisely-defined radius is dependent on a radial Dirac delta function, fit
the experimental data?

That is, beyond the electron scattering by helium section in CQM, which is
good, but required you to graft data together and extrapolate from several
experiments. Have further verifications been done with a wider range of the
rich experimental record of scattering experiments?

3) Are there hydrino-like solutions to the wave equations for elements
heavier than hydrogen? For molecules? If not, why not?

HSG: Please let us buy a test battery $1000 for 5 gram?

HSG: "Three Posts Per Week Rule" Exception

All,

A list member wrote me to say:

> I hope that you will make an exception to the rules
> on number of posts for
> Dr. Mills. It seems he is going to get many
> questions, and consequently
> restricting him to three replies per week would be
> counter productive.

I agree. Dr. Mills is welcome to make as many (or as
few) posts as he deems necessary. I am grateful that
he agreed to join this list at all, considering the
overwhelming job he already has.

We're up to 24 list members now, and I'm sure more
will come.

For now, this list will remain "fully moderated",
meaning I will review each post for compliance prior
to group posting. I might eventually consider going
to "unmoderated" mode with the understanding that
individuals who engage in "flame wars" will spend some
time on the "moderation" bench to cool off. Any
"flame war" posts would also be stricken from the
archives.

Cheers,

Luke Setzer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

HSG: Moderation Policies

Dear Group:

I think that the hydrino discussion group should remain fully moderated
and highly focused for as long as Luther or his appointee can donate
the time to perform the necessary moderation tasks. I have been a
lurker on Vortex for several years and have witnessed numerous "flame
wars" and personal verbal assaults between participants that have
sometimes gone on for many days. Such online behavior substantially
dilutes the quality of group interaction and hinders active, fear-free
participation of group members with varied opinions. In the case of
busy people with limited time to pour through online drivel, such as
myself, "flame wars" and personal attacks greatly reduce a person's
ability to efficiently peruse discussion threads. You have to examine
the body of a posted message to determine whether you want to read it
or not. The greater the percentage of unfocused, irrelevant messages,
the longer it takes to do that effectively.

Lewis Larsen
Lattice Energy LLC 

HSG: K[KH KHC000]n+ [sic]

This looks really interesting.

I have looked at the paper posted concerning the electrolytic synthesis
of the title compound.

Is there anything available concerning the gravimetric analysis or
physical constants of the compound? e.g. what was the %yield. Was the
synthesis replicated?

Does the compound melt or decompose on heating? What's its solubility?
(H20, ipa, MeOH, etc.)

Just a standard line for the CRC "PHYSICAL CONSTANTS OF INORGANIC
COMPOUNDS"

Has anyone run this through a Gel Permeation cromatograph, etc. for a
MW distribution since it may be polymeric?

Thanks,
Dan

Yeah, I'm reformed analytical electrochemist.

HSG: Stirling Engines

HSG: H2K: Run 031800

All, 

Here is the raw data from run 031800 conducted Saturday March 18, 2000.

It was a very smooth run, I tried various fill pressures in the course
of the run 
without much effect nice steady glow and power in until T+160 when I
decided
to increase power from 20 watts to 30 watts. 
Tc of course began to rise over the next 15 minutes as expected but at 
T+ 174:30 the power meter suddenly indicates five (5) watts. 
The two parallel backup meters confirmed the reading on the Texmate
meter! 
Tube voltage changed slightly from 463 volts to 469 but there was a BIG 
change in tube current. It dropped from 65.1 milliamps to 12.1
milliamps !!

I have no idea what caused this. The only thing changing at the time
this happened
was the rising tube temperature after the power increase at T+160. The
tube ran
at this low current draw mode ( 11.1 TO 13.2 mA ) for a full 20
minutes, temperature 
rising rapidly for the entire time, 20 minutes plus 3 additional
minutes thermal delay.

I have uploaded the Lotus123 data to the file download page at my
website.
Follow the link on the home page to the file download page

A photo of the graph of this run may be viewed at the website, follow
the link from the
home page. The link will be marked "NEW"

Sorry for the CAPS following the raw data below. I pasted all of this
in from
the Lotus spreadsheet and it was in caps there. I'm not shouting. <g>

Tc=Deg C +-0.1C
Tf= Fill pressure torr +-0.01 torr
Pin=Input watts +- 1.0 watt
Tr=Ambient room temperature +-1.0C

T	Tc	Tf	Pin Tc - Tr Deg C/W Tr RUN 031800 MARCH 18,
2000	
0	21.5	19.81	0	0.5	0	21	Notes and meter checks	
5	130.1	19.85	20	109.1	6.505	21 971V	0.021A	
10	219.4	19.85	20	198.4	10.97	21 018V	0.019A	
15	275.5	17.89	20	254.5	13.775	21 ADJ FILL PRESSURE	
20	307.7	19.29	20	285.7	15.385	221085V	0.018A	
25	326.3	19.93	20	304.3	16.315	22VERY STEADY GLOW	
30	337.8	20	20	315.8	16.89	22 1062V 0.019A	
35	342.1	19.99	20	319.1	17.105	231061V	0.019A	
40	346.1	20.21	20	323.1	17.305	231056V	0.019A	
45	346.4	20.22	20	323.4	17.32	231059V	0.019A	
50	347.7	20.66	20	324.7	17.385	231059V	0.019A	
55	349.7	20.98	20	328.7	17.485	211059V	0.018A	
60	350.5	21.31	20	329.5	17.525	211059V	0.019A	
65	351.3	21.62	20	330.3	17.565	211038V	0.019A	
70	351.3	21.87	20	330.3	17.565	211040V	0.019A	
75	351.3	21.96	20	329.3	17.565	22ADJ FILL PRESSURE Tc FALLS	
80	348.2	19.48	20	326.2	17.41	221113V	0.018A	
85	350.5	19.71	20	328.5	17.525	221035V	0.019A	
90	349.7	19.93	20	326.7	17.485	23INCR FILL TO 30.33 TORR	
95	354.3	30.63	20	331.3	17.715	23Tc FIRST INCR THEN FALLS BACK	
100	350.4	30.8	20	327.4	17.52	23 846V	0.024A	
105	350.1	30.97	20	327.1	17.505	23REDUCE FILL TO 17.30 TORR	
110	344.5	17.45	20	321.5	17.225	23Tc FALLING	
115	344.1	17.51	20	321.1	17.205	23Tc LEVELING OFF	
120	345.4	17.55	20	322.4	17.27	231264V	0.016A	
125	345.3	17.77	20	322.3	17.265	231266V	0.016A	
130	346.4	17.94	20	323.4	17.32	23HERE FILL TO 97.9 TORR	
135	350.8	97.93	20	327.8	17.54	23 Tc RISING	
140	351.4	98.1	20	327.4	17.57	24 360V	0.056A	
145	350.8	98.1	20	326.8	17.54	24 HERE REDUCE FILL TO 24.81	
150	351.6	25.46	20	327.6	17.58	24 360V	0.055A	
155	350.8	25.74	20	326.8	17.54	24 HERE INCR Pin TO 30 WATTS	
160	401.9	25.85	30	377.9	13.39	24	
165	434.8	25.87	30	410.8	14.49	24CATH/SLEEVE AT BRIGHT YLO HEAT
170	450.2	25.94	30	426.2	15.00	24 463V	0.065A	
175	472.8	26.04	5	448.8	94.56	24 469V	0.012A SUDDEN DROP IN TUBE
CURRENT
180	480.3	26.2	5	456.3	96.06	24 391V	0.013A VERY BRIGHT WHITE CATHODE
GLOW
185	489.8	26.27	5	465.8	97.96	24 395V	0.012A	WOW!	
190	498.8	26.35	5	474.8	99.76	24 490V	0.011A	
195	514.2	26.53	30	490.2	17.14	24398V	0.076A SUDDEN INCR IN TUBE
CURRENT
200	500.3	26.54	30	476.3	16.67	24545V	0.053A HERE FILLTHEN PUMP TO
26.35	
205	494.5	26.45	30	470.5	16.48	24 Pin JUMPING ABOUT 22-30 WATTS	
210	488.1	26.7	30	464.1	16.27	24 GLOW NOISE AFFECT Tc METERING
215	479.9	26.83	30	455.9	15.99	24 VERY HARD KEEP Pin STEADY	
220	499.3	26.92	30	475.3	16.64	24 Tc INCR Pin INDICATE 24-30 VERY
JUMPY	
225	504.3	26.98	30	480.3	16.81	24T+ 225.5-TUBE VAC SEAL FAILED...END OF
RUN

THE QUESTION OF THE DAY: WHAT HAPPENED AT T+174:30 WHEN THE 
TUBE CURRENT DROPPED FROM 65 mA TO 12 mA?	
THIS WAS APPROX TEN MINUTES AFTER Pin WAS INCREASED BY 
10 WATTS FROM 20 TO 30 WATTS INPUT.	
NOTHING ELSE WAS CHANGED WHEN THIS HAPPENED, GLOW WAS STEADY AT 30
WATTS Pin WHEN SUDDENLY THE WATTMETER INDICATED
5 WATTS. I IMMEDIATELY CHECKED THE PARALLEL BACKUP METERING AND
AFTER MULTIPLYING I x V , CAME UP WITH THE SAME ANSWER. TUBE CURRENT
WAS INDEED AT 5 WATTS AND THE Tc WAS RAPIDLY RISING. THIS WAS NOT
THERMAL DELAY FROM THE PREVIOUS 10 MINUTES AT 30 WATTS Pin, AND IT KEPT
UP FOR A FULL 20 MINUTES BEFORE RETURNING TO 30 WATTS, THE TEMPERATURE
BEGAN TO FALL AT T+ 198, 3
MINUTES AFTER THE Pin RETURNED TO 30 WATTS.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada
702-254-2122
http://hometown.aol.com/vcockeram/myhomepage/index.html