headers
Michael Ibison | 2 Jul 2000 02:23

Debating the Haus Paper, Round 2

[MODERATOR'S NOTE: I've formatted this post slightly for legibility.
Should the post appear truncated in your mailbox because of its length,
please check the archives at http://www.egroups.com/list/hydrino to read
the complete post.]

I'd like to thank everyone who has courteously contributed to this debate. I'd
also like to make it clear that I am not, personally, especially impressed with
the QM epistemology. Instead, I would prefer something less baffling.
Nonetheless, if QM, QED, or classical electrodynamics (CED) are being contrasted
with another theory, then I believe that these should each be represented as
accurately as possible - regardless of personal feelings toward them.

I'll address in turn each of the objections to my first posting on the Haus
paper. Please forgive the length - I've tried to be thorough!

=========================================

Randell Mills

=========================================

>Classical point charges obey superposition;
>thus, Haus' condition applies to
>the orbitsphere which satisfies his condition.

If I understand this correctly, Mills is saying that a static charge structure
can be considered as an assembly of point charges; if each satisfies the Haus
condition, then so must the whole structure. Agreed. But as I said: this is true
of any static structure, because it is static. A block of charge in the shape of
Mickey-Mouse does not radiate for the same reason. But that does not qualify it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Luther Setzer | 2 Jul 2000 15:25

Debating the Haus Paper, Round 2

Folks,

In the interest of getting to the bottom of the Haus debate, I'm 
extending Round 2 to continue until July 8.

I've updated the Schedule page at

http://members.tripod.com/Hydrino/Schedule.htm

to reflect this extension. I've also added a handy link there for 
newcomers to catch up on the debate progress thus far.

We'll be pressing forward with a review and debate of a hard data 
document. This will happen concurrently with the Haus debate. 
Hopefully, two threads will not be unmanageable. The post announcing 
the data debate will be out later this morning.

Luke Setzer, PE
BSME
HSG Moderator
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Luther Setzer | 2 Jul 2000 15:32

Debating the PSU EUV Paper, Round 1

Folks,

Per our schedule at

http://members.tripod.com/Hydrino/Schedule.htm

our second topic will be:

PSU Report, R. Mills, J. Dong, Y. Lu, "Observation of Extreme 
Ultraviolet Hydrogen Emission from Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas 
with Certain Catalysts"

The central "Debatable Resolution" of this paper is,

"The release of energy from hydrogen as evidenced by the EUV emission 
represents hard data supporting below-ground states of hydrogen."

Your goal is to demonstrate why or why not such a statement is 
plausible.

Remember, each person only gets *one* post this week, so make yours a 
good one. Despite whatever strong emotions you may have about this, 
please stick to the facts and remain civil. I will return for 
rewrite any posts with harsh words like "bone-headed" and "stupid". 
The term "wrong" should suffice for critics.

PLEASE RETAIN THE SUBJECT LINE I HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOUR POSTS. This 
will make later archive retrievals *much* easier.

As usual, I will expect all posters to sign off with their names and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Luther Setzer | 2 Jul 2000 18:22

Debating the Haus Paper, Round 2

Folks,

In the interest of providing supporting documents with theorems 
similar to the Haus paper, I've placed the oft-discussed Abbott and 
Goedecke papers at

http://members.tripod.com/Hydrino/Papers/

You might have to right-click the paper and download it locally to 
view it.

Luke Setzer, PE
BSME
HSG Moderator
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Preston Calvert | 3 Jul 2000 02:42

Re: Debating the Haus Paper, Round 2

--- In hydrino@..., "Michael Ibison"
<ibison <at> n.yahoo.invalid> wrote: 
> Mills takes the Fourier transform of this entity in
> Eq. 1.40 and calls it the
> Fourier transform of the current density. This is the first
> mention of an
> expression for the Mills CURRENT that appears in his book.
> But it is actually
> the Fourier transform of the charge density!
> Therefore it is inappropriate to
> plug this into the Haus formula and test for radiation,
> since that formula
> requires the transform of the current density.
> I cannot find any mathematical
> specification of a current density in the Mills' book. 
...
> However, one can say for sure that the book math cannot be
> correct (aside from
> the problem of a complex density) because the current
> cannot be proportional to
> the charge as defined in Eq. 1.3 whilst, at the same time,
> charge is conserved.

In the 1999 edition of Mills book, on p. 37, he states that the 
current-density function (the time derivative of the charge-density 
function) is given by the product of the constant angular velocity of 
the orbitsphere and the charge-density function. The Fourier 
transform of the current-density function is then the product of the 
constant angular velocity and his Eqn 1.39. This may have been 
omitted from the earlier edition.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Luther Setzer | 3 Jul 2000 03:59

Debating the PSU EUV Paper, Round 1

Folks,

For those who don't know already, there are a *lot* of new data 
papers added to Dr. Mills' web site at

http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.html

Some of these papers will be helpful to the current debate.

Luke Setzer, PE
BSME
HSG Moderator
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dr. Randell L. Mills | 3 Jul 2000 19:54

Debating the Haus Paper, Round 2

[MODERATOR'S NOTE: The length of this post may cause truncation on some mail servers. Should this message
appear truncated, please read the whole post at http://www.egroups.com/messages/hydrino .]

Michael Ibison wrote:

>Schrodinger REPLACES
>the classical kinetic energy
>
>1/2 * m * v^2
>
>with
>
>1/2 * (h/wavelength)^2 /(2m)
>
>The latter contains no reference to a velocity, no imperative that there 
>be any
>time variation, and instead refers to the wavelength of a wave-like 
>disturbance
>(the wavelength here must be generalized to include wave-like variations 
>which
>conform to the confining potential.) Thus the classical concept of kinetic
>energy is lost. Although referred to by the same name, the QM kinetic 
>energy has
>little relation to the classical.

A Reminder:

The point of this group is to ascertain whether fundamental physical 
laws apply on all scales including the atom. Ibison slips between 
internally inconsistent QM theories. He offers one theory to explain one
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Luther Setzer | 4 Jul 2000 17:44

Solving the Truncation Problem

Folks,

A bit of "administrivia" that should solve the truncation problems 
some folks have been having with their posts.

You should be able to get a complete post onto HSG if your posts meet 
the following criteria:

1. Line lengths no longer than 70 characters
2. Line breaks at the end of every line
3. Posts no longer than 132 lines

Should your post need more than 132 lines, consider either (a) 
editing the post down to 132 lines, or (b) breaking the large post 
into several smaller posts.

This is where signoffs with names and credentials serve another 
purpose. Not only does this offer other list members the courtesy of 
letting them know who you are and what you know, but it tells the 
moderator that your post was not truncated on its journey through 
many different mail server gateways.

I've updated the guidelines page at

http://members.tripod.com/Hydrino/Guidelines.htm

to incorporate these insights.

Luke Setzer, PE
BSME
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rob Virkus | 9 Jul 2000 00:47

Debating the PSU EUV Paper, Round 1

Dr. Mills states that no known chemical reaction is energetic enough 
to create the Lyman alpha lines he measures. A fair enough statement.
This paper certainly presents some interesting data.

However, I want to put forth a question to consider.

The filament voltage is 55V and there is a low energy plasma existing.
Is it possible that electrons having "high" energy corresponding to 
the Lyman transitions (n=1 to n=2,3,4 ...) can account for the 
excitations in the system by direct bombardment of a hydrogen atom, 
which might transfer some of its energy to the atom's electron?

Can this mechanism be discounted?

I point out that the energy of the Lyman series goes as

-13.6 ev Z^2 (1 - 1/n^2) n=2,3,4...

The energy differences are well within 55 eV for Z=1.

Now for helium, Z=2, so we have -54.4 eV (1 - 1/n^2).

These are much closer to the limit, but one could still imagine some
probability of transitions due to collision, as the n=1 to n=2 
transition only requires 27.2ev.

The EUV paper states that no Lyman alpha emission was observed for 
helium substituting for hydrogen. This is consistent with Dr. Mills' 
hypothesis. However, not knowing the details of the experiment, 
could it still be a possibility that electrons are being excited to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dr. Randell L. Mills | 9 Jul 2000 02:11

Wave Equation Questions and Answers

[MODERATOR'S NOTE: I've been working offline on some "Concepts" web pages for eventual posting to the HSG
web site. One of these is the general concept of the wave equation. As part of that effort, some nagging
questions about Mills' theory have arisen repeatedly. I asked Dr. Mills to answer those questions. I make
no guarantee that these answers will satisfy everyone, but Dr. Mills suggested I post them. Much of this
material has been posted on this list already, but some of it is new.]

>Eq. I.2 of the Mills 1996 edition is a wave-equation
>for free-space. Some of its problems are indicated
>below.
>
>Negative density
>
>We are told that the solution of this equation is the
>electron charge density. I.E.: the charge density is a
>wave. Unfortunately this does not make much sense,
>since a wave is necessarily negative in some places,
>which means that the density must be negative. (That is
>why densities are usually squared quantities.) It is
>rather like saying light intensity is a wave. It is
>the field underlying the intensity that is wave-like.

The charge (mass) density function is never less than zero.

A constant function is a solution of the wave equation. Spherical harmonic functions are solutions of the
two dimensional wave equation plus time. A constant function is added to each of the spherical harmonic
functions to give the charge (mass) density functions of the electron.

The integral of a spherical harmonic function over the orbitsphere is zero. The integral of the constant
function over the orbitsphere is the total charge (mass) of the electron. The constant function
corresponds to the spin function which has a corresponding spin angular momentum.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane