headers
Steven Florek | 15 Oct 2002 07:57

(unknown)

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/Line%20Broadening%2010.10.02.pdf

and

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/GEC_Micro_DC%20paper%2010_02.pdf

These two papers reference more independent experimental data than perhaps the rest of all of previous BLP
work combined. While they may not constitute independent *confirmations* of hydrinos, these papers
draw attention to what may be independent *observations* of results consistent with BLP claims under
similar experimental circumstances. This would counter the objection that nobody has ever seen the
phenomenon before.

-SF
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Carrell | 15 Oct 2002 18:36

Letter to Editor of Scientific American

Dear Randy,

Below is the text of a letter I am sending to the editors of Scientific American concerning an item by Graham
Collins on p40 of the November issue, in which Collins sandwiches selected facts about you and BLP between
Joseph Newmann and the motionless electric generator under the heading of "Selling the Free Lunch".
---------------------------------
Graham Collins "Selling the Free Lunch" is glib association posing as journalism, unworthy of Scientific
American. I am well aware of both Joseph Newman's work and that of Dr. Mills, Mr. Collins evidently is not.
Placing Dr. Mills' discoveries in context with Newman's and the motionless electric generator is irresponsible.

Dr. Mills has extensively published detailed experimental results in peer-reviewed journals and
addressed major scientific professional societies. There is no "free lunch" in the BalckLight Power
process; hydrogen is the specific fuel consumed, producing extraordinary energy by the specific
catalytic process. Current work is privately funded by qualified investors. A half-hour study of
www.blacklightpower.com would find a board of directors with impressive business and technical
credentials and a small technical staff including Ph.D.'s testing and developing applications of Dr.
Mills' discovery. There are tutorials and dozens of scientific papers. That NASA is sponsoring an
investigation at Rowan University into the use of one of the BlackLight Power reactions for deep space
exploration should have given Mr. Collins pause in his glib association.

Mr. Collins uses a journalistic trick by carefully selecting facts concerning Dr. Mills' work, and
placing those facts in a context which distorts their import and does a disservice to readers of
Scientific American.

Mike Carrell
1406 Coles Lane
Cinnaminson NJ 08077
-----------------------------------------
PS to Luke: Edit as appropriate and post to HSG.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Kassebaum | 15 Oct 2002 23:25

(unknown)

FYI

This is a new, more accurate measurment of the universal gravitational constant 'G'. This has
implications for Dr. Mills' theory because the precision of the measured 'G' used in Dr. Mills'
calculations affects the precision of his predictions for other physical constants and effects.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992902

-John

--

-- 
John A. Kassebaum
5904 Oakforge Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46254
USA
Phone: (317) 293-1242
mailto:jak <at> k.yahoo.invalid
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Fafarman | 16 Oct 2002 02:40

Re: New Scientist - G measured - Interaction with M Implied

John wrote:

"This is a new, more accurate measurement of the universal gravitational constant 'G'. This has
implications for Dr. Mills' theory because the precision of the measured 'G' used in Dr. Mills'
calculations affects the precision of his predictions for other physical constants and effects."

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992902

Thanks for the link. However, the phrasing of the comment is rather misleading. The main thrust of the
article is not that this is a "more accurate" determination, but that the previous two most accurate
values differed by ten times the estimated experimental error, which implies the presence of an effect as
yet unaccounted for.

"The result adds weight to a controversial theory that the strength of gravity is subtly affected by the
Earth's magnetic field."

That would indeed be a significant observation.

-- Dave
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
John Kassebaum | 16 Oct 2002 05:29

(unknown)

Dave Fafarman wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>"This is a new, more accurate measurement of the universal gravitational
> constant 'G'. This has implications for Dr. Mills' theory because the
> precision of the measured 'G' used in Dr. Mills' calculations affects the
> precision of his predictions for other physical constants and effects."
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992902
>
>Thanks for the link. However, the phrasing of the comment is rather
>misleading. The main thrust of the article is not that this is a "more
>accurate" determination, but that the previous two most accurate values
>differed by ten times the estimated experimental error, which implies the
>presence of an effect as yet unaccounted for.
>
>"The result adds weight to a controversial theory that the strength
>of gravity is subtly affected by the Earth's magnetic field."
>
>That would indeed be a significant observation.

I basicly agree with you, but accuracy of G has been improved from 100 parts per million to 33 parts per
million in this report from research team in Zurich. The difference in measurement values between
Switzerland, Paris, and Seattle measurements was said to be 10 times the 100 parts per million accuracy of
those experiments. Paris and Seattle measurements agreed because they were at essentially the same latitude.

The more accurate Switzerland measurement of 'G' was said to be different due to latitude differences in
the magnetic field strength farther from the poles. You are right that a main thrust of the report is an
implication that G may have some dependence on the local magnetic field strength.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
John Kassebaum | 16 Oct 2002 16:19

(unknown)

[Could the earth's magnetic field affect the shape of the orbitspheres composing the earth's bulk, thus
affecting gravity in accordance with CQM? --LS

I've been thinking about that. I guess I'm still not convinced that the implications are well enough
founded either. It would be interesting to compare the work done on the earth gravity maps to what is being
reported for G also.

In a magnetic field, electrons that have a magnetic moment want to align with the imposed/external field.
This is how nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging systems work. In any case, a magnetic field also
causes the motion of seperated electrons to follow a curve according to the right hand rule. A strong
enough field (for a given linear momentum electron) will cause an electron to follow a closed circular path.

Adding more field strength makes the circle smaller, and so on. It would herefore seem reasonable to say
that an imposed magnetic field should cause the orbitsphere to be smaller (more curvature) in the
dimensions orthogonal to the applied field. To translate into increased gravity requires a volumetric
contraction of spacetime which in Mills' theory is caused by the curvature of the orbitsphere. This
effect (of increased curvature orthogonal to the magnetic field) seems like it might create a
contraction which is more oblate than spherical. Perhaps the geometry of the test set up should be
considered with respect to the orientation of the magnetic field. I suppose one could also impose a
magnetic field on the apparatus to see if the measurement varies.

-John

--

-- 
John A. Kassebaum
5904 Oakforge Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46254
USA
Phone: (317) 293-1242
mailto:jak <at> k.yahoo.invalid
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
peterzaterols | 19 Oct 2002 20:19

Re: New Scientist - G measured - Interaction with M Implied

<< In a magnetic field, electrons that have a magnetic moment want to align with the imposed/external
field. This is how nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging systems work. >>

++++ Actually, it's not. First, NMR works with nuclear spins and dipole moments, not electrons. Second,
NMR is a dynamic, not static, phenomenon. Third, what is described is nothing other than a bar magnet
lining up with an external field.

What he might have been thinking of is _electron_ paramagnetic resonance, but of course that's a dynamic
effect too.

--pz
Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |
headers
John Kassebaum | 20 Oct 2002 17:01

(unknown)

peterzaterols wrote:

> First, NMR works with nuclear spins and 
> dipole moments, not electrons. Second, NMR is a dynamic, not static, 
> phenomenon. Third, what is described is nothing other than a bar 
> magnet lining up with an external field.
>
> What he might have been thinking of is _electron_ paramagnetic 
> resonance, but of course that's a dynamic effect too.

Hi Dr. Zimmerman,

Thanks for the feedback. I know NMR is a dynamic response. I guess these sentences were not really germain to
my argument anyway.

Just for clarity, my understanding of NMR is that a large static magnetic field (like a tesla or more) is
imposed on the imaging target which causes the atoms to align themselves with the imposed magnetic field.
Then a brief RF pulse is transmitted throught the target which causes the aligned atoms to 'ring'. Each
tissue or material transmits or damps out this ringing at different rates. By listening to the ringing,
and seperating the target's material regions into categories with similar ringing decay times, the
target can be imaged. 

I think the are where I was imprecise was 'electrons ... have a magnetic moment'. I think I am imagining
Mill's orbitsphere here where the magnetic dipole moment is generated from the electron's orbital spin.
I think the accepted physics just uses the electron's spin here? On the other hand, maybe I am descibing
electron paramagnetic resonance.

I'd be happy to have any gaps or misunderstandings in my description cleared up if you would like to reply.

Thanks as always!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Fafarman | 21 Oct 2002 18:27

Frontiers

Hi, all. A while back I had dropped some "idea coins" in the well ... hoping to hear at least a "splash"
eventually ...

An update:

In the "letters to the editor" of the most recent issue of Infinite Energy magazine, Don Hotson
successfully IMO defends his interpretation of Dirac's Theory against an intelligent critique. Anyone
(besides Don and me) see it (or the original articles) or have any comment?

Also, I started reading Stephen Wolfram's massive tome, "A New Kind of Science" -- which, as I had mentioned
previously, I believe ties in closely to Hotson's ideas (and will be interesting to seek connections to
Mills). One must look past the somewhat inappropriate self-promotion of the book -- but it is worth the
effort. In particular, the saga of Pattern 110 (which is raised early in the book) deals a mortal blow to the
common-sense (but wrong) notion of "simplicity in, simplicity out" (even more effectively than Chaos Theory).

-- Dave Fafarman
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
eric | 22 Oct 2002 04:51

(unknown)

People,

I live about an hour from the BLP building. I would like to volunteer to be a skeptical witness if they ever
have a compelling demonstration of something generating significant levels of anomalous heat. I don't
consider myself qualified to evaluate a demonstration say putting out 1 or 2 excess watts with hundreds
being put in. But if they have something they can show putting out 100's of watts...

So, Randy - give me a call if you have something worth my driving up for.

People, the following is another Scientific American article dealing with fringe FE claims:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=7&articleID=00034DF5-683F-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000

In recent decades crackpot inventors have focused on a variant of perpetual-motion machines known as
free-energy devices or over-unity generators. These contraptions supposedly output more power than
they take in, generally by drawing on an implausible font of energy hitherto unknown to science. The
motionless electromagnetic generator discussed last month is a good example [see "There's No Stopping
Them," by Graham P. Collins; Staking Claims]. At first it appears to be based on misconceptions about
magnets, but it turns out the inventors have published a physics paper describing a "higher symmetry
electrodynamics" that would allow infinite energy to be extracted from the vacuum by their device.

Limitless energy is more marketable than mere perpetual motion. Many over-unity promoters are outright
scam artists, putting on public appearances to drum up investment money or to sell franchises and making
it onto TV news shows with gullible hosts.

Perpetual motion holds a special place in the world of patents. Until 1880, a miniature working model was
required for a U.S. patent to be approved. With the industrial revolution in full swing, that requirement
became impractical to administer and the rule was rescinded--with the notable exception of
perpetual-motion devices.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane