headers
Tstolper | 1 Mar 2002 03:26

Re: Calibration of Spectra


In message 3935, dated February 26, 2002, Peter Zimmerman wrote:

<<Dr. Mills is making an extraordinary claim, to wit, all of 20th 
century quantum theory is wrong, **and** he has experimental evidence to 
back up that assertion.>>

Mills isn't claiming that all of 20th century quantum theory is wrong. 
Planck's constant and de Broglie's equation, both discovered before 1926, 
form part of the bedrock on which Mills has built his new theory of physics. 
Mills is claiming that the quantum theory built up since 1926 on 
Schroedinger's equation is wrong. 

I think that's an important distinction. If Mills tried to claim that 
Planck's constant and de Broglie's equation were wrong, then he would be the 
crank that Robert Park has tried to paint Mills as being, and that Zimmerman 
sometimes insinuates Mills is, as for example in Zimmerman's use of the word 
<<mummery>> in message 3926, and in Zimmerman's mention earlier of that comic 
poem. But when Mills claims that Schroedinger-based QM (SQM) is wrong, he is 
in the most distinguished company possible: Einstein thought that SQM would 
someday be superceded by a better and more complete theory, and so did Dirac. 
Schroedinger himself came to have grave doubts about SQM.

<<The papers, **as they are initially posted on the BLP website,** are 
provisional('provisional' because so many problems have been found,...>>

Or invented. Pibel's assumption that Mills and Ray didn't know how or when 
to calibrate their spectrometers was wrong, and so Pibel's N2 proposal 
collapses.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jim | 1 Mar 2002 03:53

(unknown)

It is obvious to even the most casual observer that in some cases the
spectrometer was NOT properly calibrated. You need to actually look at the
Fig. 9 & 10 overlay on the HSG site.

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: <Tstolper <at> a.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: Calibration of Spectra

>
> <<The papers, **as they are initially posted on the BLP website,** are
> provisional('provisional' because so many problems have been found,...>>
>
> Or invented. Pibel's assumption that Mills and Ray didn't know how or when
> to calibrate their spectrometers was wrong, and so Pibel's N2 proposal
> collapses.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
novel_compound | 5 Mar 2002 20:27

More criticism of Bob Park

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28966&cid=3110322
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
luthersetzer | 5 Mar 2002 16:55

Science Magazine Publishes Tabletop Fusion Paper

All,

Please read this story and forward it to friends so The Village Voice 
will know that people are interested in reading this sort of topic:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0210/baard.php

I'd be interested in knowing if Dr. Mills can explain these results 
with his orbitsphere model.

Luke Setzer
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jim | 5 Mar 2002 16:37

Sonic fusion

Here is a report on "bubble fusion" (I know this will attract some good
jokes!). It is actually ultrasonic in nature.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47136,00.html

jd
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
novel_compound | 5 Mar 2002 19:30

Possible new fusion technique

Surely this will be of interest to the group:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38511-2002Mar4.html

(Luke, feel free to 86 this post if it's a "duplicate submission.")
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
shanewilsonearth | 6 Mar 2002 12:46

Re: More criticism of Bob Park

The criticism of Bob relates to a paper in Science by Taleyarkhan et 
al., which claims to provide evidence of nuclear fusion achieved 
with 'desktop' apparatus. The paper has been made available to non-
subscribers on

http://www.sciencemag.org

Science published an editorial, which indicated that Bob had tried to 
stop the publication of the Taleyarkhan paper. The editorial can be 
reached at

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1793.pdf

Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

And the matter became even more public on 1 March when Robert Park 
issued an airy, premature dismissal from the American Physical 
Society. By this time, it had become clear that a number of people 
didn't want us to publish this paper. 

Bob is clearly a religious man. He belongs to the dogmatic 
Noeasyfusion Sect. Faith is a wonderful thing. It gives one a sense 
of security and certainty. Hence the "there is nothing we don't know 
about the hydrogen atom" mantra.

Shane
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tstolper | 6 Mar 2002 01:18

Re: Calibration of Spectra

In message 3948, Jim Driggers noted that some spectra weren't calibrated and 
suggested looking at the Fig9&10_Overlay.gif

I did look at the overlay. Much seems to lie in the eye of the beholder.

As Mills explained in message 3921, certain experiments didn't require 
absolute calibration. Pibel assumed from the uncalibrated experiments that 
Mills and Ray didn't know when or how to calibrate their spectrometers. That 
assumption was wrong, so shifting the spectra in the overlay graphic isn't 
justified, and so the N2 proposal collapses for that reason alone, though 
Mills mentioned other reasons as well in this thread.

Mills also wrote in message 3921 that he and Ray were going to write a paper 
addressing these issues. We can all look forward to reading it.

Tom Stolper 
BA math, MA polisci
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jim | 6 Mar 2002 14:05

(unknown)

This lack of calibration has rendered the experimental data worse than
useless. It has made a case for an alternative explanation that has not
been refuted. It certainly appears at this point that the lines in question
are due to nitrogen.

In the future, I would suggest not only that the calibration method and
spectra presented, but that the intensity is clearly indicated. This
experiment needs to be redone with the proper calibration indicated in the
paper as well as any other suggestions that have been put forward by the
'reviewers.'

If Dr. Mills ever is published, he will have to get used to this.

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: <Tstolper <at> a.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: Calibration of Spectra

> In message 3948, Jim Driggers noted that some spectra weren't calibrated and
> suggested looking at the Fig9&10_Overlay.gif
>
> I did look at the overlay. Much seems to lie in the eye of the beholder.
>
> As Mills explained in message 3921, certain experiments didn't require
> absolute calibration. Pibel assumed from the uncalibrated experiments that
> Mills and Ray didn't know when or how to calibrate their spectrometers. That
> assumption was wrong, so shifting the spectra in the overlay graphic isn't
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
amack43 | 6 Mar 2002 00:25

CQM and Superconductors?


I was interested to read what Dr. Mills theory had to say about 
superconductors.

CQM gives its own explanation as to why superconductivity occurs 
(it rejects the Cooper pair theory) and moreover claims to be able to 
calculate a range for the critical temperature in different materials.

It seems to me that a new theory on the basis of superconductivity is 
worthy of a paper in itself and would be of great interest to many 
labs around the world seeking to make ever higher temperature SCs.

Could those of you better qualified to do so take a look at the theory 
and assess CQM's superconducting theory and also whether the theory 
allows for the existence of room temperature superconductors?

Regards,

Antony Macken
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane