amack43 | 1 Apr 14:24 2003

Re: Strange Conference

--- In hydrino@..., Peter Zimmerman
<peterz <at> e.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

<< ++That's a silly and insulting (while intended to sound flattering) statement. My time on Google wasn't
misspent. I found out that the one physicist was a believer in cold fusion -- a fairly important datum given
that RLMMD grew out of and then away from the CF community. I found that some of the other luminaries had no
credentials in quantum mechanics of any kind. And, agreed, I failed to note that Agicon (since I asked for
it in Italian and it didn't turn up), was a technology broker shop. >>

And a lot of physicists believe in string theory and wormholes and spookiness, none of which is provable
and, if Mills turns out to be right, will be regarded as nothing more than fine Italian balogne. All I care
about is who is right and finding out the truth. I also don't give a damn whose PhD is bigger, or was given by
whoever or whatever.

So to recap. Mills predates cold fusion. Mills suggested a proposed mechanism based on his theory for the
excess heat numerous parties said they had observed. I don't know if he still thinks CAF is relevant and I
don't care because it is fudging the issue. The issue is and always has been hydrinos. Do they exist? And can
we create them ?

Since Mills is the only one in the world to have published experimental papers on this, he wins because
neither you, nor Bob Park nor even our pussy footing friend Woogie and his calipers have attempted to
replicate Mills' experiments for the purpose of refuting them and showing that he is wrong.

> ++You'll remember that both Pibel came into this thing skeptical but 
> willing to be convinced. The theory fails to convince me, and Charles 
> seems to have found that the spectroscopic experiments are poorly done, 
> and won't convince a specialist.

It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of fact. Forget the theory. The only question is whether in a
collision between an H atom and another atom which has ionisation energies being integer multiples of
(Continue reading)

kleml29 | 1 Apr 19:39 2003

Re: On the Application of Brouwer's Theorem

--- In hydrino@..., "smenton" <smenton <at> r.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

<< Kudos to John and Nora for providing the group with their excellent insights in this area. This is exactly
the type of exchange that I hope HSG can facilitate. It helps all of us better understand CQM (strengths and
weaknesses.) I hope we can continue this type of dialogue. I did find a couple of comments attributed to
Nora to be somewhat ironic. >>

While amounting to little as physics, the freshman exercise in deriving the expression for the
capacitance of a charged sphere gives a surprising result: A unit of length is defined entirely in terms of
capacitance, voltage, and dielectric constant. As a pure exercise, calculating the inductance of an
oscillating, charged sphere turns out to be hairy.

Bob Lowry

davehowe17 | 2 Apr 03:34 2003

Re: Strange Conference

From: "amack43" <ghetto <at> c.yahoo.invalid> 
Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Strange Conference

>Since Mills is the only one in the world to have published 
>experimental papers on this, he wins because neither you, nor Bob 
>Park nor even our pussy footing friend Woogie and his calipers have 
>attempted to replicate Mills' experiments for the purpose of 
>refuting them and showing that he is wrong. 

Amazing.

Has it ever occurred to you that *if* anybody attempted to replicate any of Mills' experiments with the
express intent of refuting them, the null results would simply be brushed off as "he did it wrong", or "he
fudged the data to show a null result"?

As with all pseudoscience, it's not up to the detractors to DISprove the claims. It's up to the claimant to
PROVE the claims. You can no more DISprove the existence of hydrinos than you can DISprove the existence of
Santa Claus. But a fat man in a red suit coming down your chimney on Christmas Eve might go a long way toward
getting you to rethink your stance on a certain piece of popular mythology.

Randy's been at this a long time. Don't blame Zimmerman, Park, or Pibel for Mills' failures. That Mills is
widely regarded as a crackpot is his own fault -- nobody else's.

If Mills really had something, he would have published the recipe for an experiment that would
unquestionably prove his claims, and make the name "Randell Mills" go down in history. (Well, that name
may still go down in history, but probably not the way Randy would like...)

amack43 | 2 Apr 06:56 2003

Re: Strange Conference

--- In hydrino@..., "davehowe17" <dhowe17 <at> h.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Has it ever occurred to you that *if* anybody attempted to replicate
> any of Mills' experiments with the express intent of refuting them,
> the null results would simply be brushed off as "he did it wrong",
> or "he fudged the data to show a null result"?

+++Yep. That's entirely possible both in terms of a Mills' response to 
a genuine but negative replication as well as an underhand dodgy replication in order to discredit Mills.
The hope is that there will be more than one replication run by honest and upstanding men of science. But
ultimately you are right. Replication can only ever confirm the original results. It can never prove that
the original results were misconceived or false.

> As with all pseudoscience, it's not up to the detractors to DISprove
> the claims. It's up to the claimant to PROVE the claims. You can no
> more DISprove the existence of hydrinos than you can DISprove the
> existence of Santa Claus. But a fat man in a red suit coming down
> your chimney on Christmas Eve might go a long way toward getting you
> to rethink your stance on a certain piece of popular mythology.

+++Since I haven't been getting presents for a few decades now, he better not exist because if he does it will
mean I've been bad.

+++But as with ALL science it is up to the claimant to prove the claims. I don't have a problem with that. But on
the results and data provided, Dr. Mills has proved his case in that he has set out his reasons, his methods
and his results, all of which support the existence of the hydrino. That's all that he can do.

+++But it can't and doesn't end there. Someone else has to do what Mills has done to allow us to weigh up
whether Mills' evidence should be accepted or rejected. The ball is no longer in Mills' court. We have to
shift from detractors expressing mere opinion on what they can't really know to experimental results
(Continue reading)

jamesinsarasota | 2 Apr 13:33 2003

(unknown)

Given the amount of time Mills' has been at this business, and given the sheer
number of $ deployed, by now he should have fabbed a small closed-loop rig showing the effort is
worthwhile...one simply cannot help wondering--why not already???

ashtonrsmiller | 2 Apr 22:41 2003

Re: Strange Conference

Anthony:

Your response to Dave Howe expressed my view on this topic much more succintly than I ever could. Thanks.

Bob Miller

woogie_the_cat | 2 Apr 23:35 2003

Elephants, Cat 'Ownership' (sic) and BLP

--- In hydrino@..., "amack43" <ghetto <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> +++I don't recall Dr. Mills calling himself that, so I would almost 
> certainly say it is someone else's fault. I also don't think it is 
> in dispute that Bob Park was responsible for the patent 
> cancellation. Prof Pibel seems like a nice guy despite being a cat 
> owner but it seems to me he focuses too narrowly on some aspects. 
> One of the lines might be CN. Or it might not. What about all the 
> other lines? What about the control cells? The heat, the chemicals 
> etc. I think he should look on the evidence presented by Mills as 
> a whole not just the bits and pieces that may justify his 
> preliminary belief that Mills is wrong. After all (and you started 
> the analogies), if a blind man grabs an elephant by the testicles, 
> he might think it's a coconut tree (before he gets stomped on). 
> You have to look at the overall picture before you pass judgement.

Firstly, I think that we should all be careful in what we write about others on matters that we know nothing
about. Prof. Park could (if he were a suing sort) get Tony in trouble over this bit of text.

Secondly, cat 'ownership' is an oxymoron. I am the human slave of Woogie.

As far as me picking out a single line and saying that this is CN, this is not true. I am picking about one
hundred lines that Mills said were hydrinogen and deuterinogen and saying that they are CN, measured with
a miscalibrated spectrometer. I don't say as much about some of the other evidence, because I don't feel as
confident with my analysis.

Also, please note that Mills has omitted the CN and OH results from his most recent presentation. Why? Is he
less sure of these results?

As far as the elephant's unmentionables: 
(Continue reading)

orionworks | 3 Apr 02:53 2003

Re: Strange Conference

--- In hydrino@..., "davehowe17" <dhowe17 <at> h.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> As with all pseudoscience, it's not up to the detractors to 
> DISprove the claims. It's up to the claimant to PROVE the 
> claims. You can no more DISprove the existence of hydrinos than 
> you can DISprove the existence of Santa Claus. But a fat man in a 
> red suit coming down your chimney on Christmas Eve might go a long 
> way toward getting you to rethink your stance on a certain piece 
> of popular mythology.
> 
> Randy's been at this a long time. Don't blame Zimmerman, Park, or 
> Pibel for Mills' failures. That Mills is widely regarded as a 
> crackpot is his own fault -- nobody else's.
> 
> If Mills really had something, he would have published the recipe 
> for an experiment that would unquestionably prove his claims, and 
> make the name "Randell Mills" go down in history. (Well, that 
> name may still go down in history, but probably not the way Randy 
> would like...)

In addition to Anthony's recent comments of great relevance...

Consider the possibility that Dr. Park may not go down in history the way he had planned either.
Paraphrasing what Charles Beaudette has had to say as documented within his book "Excess Heat", on how CF
evidence has been misrepresented within the American scientific community, it might make for some fine
spectator sport when the chickens finally come home to roost. Ultimately, history will be the judge of that.

Actually, it's encouraging that few have felt the need to respond to this particular discussion thread at
any great length. There is little point in engaging in discussion when the topic infers that Mill's work is
"pseudoscience." It is pointless to badmouth Dr. Mills, just as it is inappropriate to ridicule either
(Continue reading)

Mike Carrell | 3 Apr 06:07 2003

(unknown)

I find David Howe's post below both amazing and bemusing.

> From: "amack43" <ghetto <at> c.yahoo.invalid>
> Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 12:24 pm
> Subject: Re: Strange Conference
>
> >Since Mills is the only one in the world to have published
> >experimental papers on this, he wins because neither you, nor Bob
> >Park nor even our pussy footing friend Woogie and his calipers have
> >attempted to replicate Mills' experiments for the purpose of
> >refuting them and showing that he is wrong.
>
> Amazing.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that *if* anybody attempted to replicate any
> of Mills' experiments with the express intent of refuting them, the null
> results would simply be brushed off as "he did it wrong", or "he fudged the
> data to show a null result"?

Which experiments are you referring to, specifically, and why do you assume that others have not done them,
or the results were null? And null in what sense? Dozens of experiments were done for Mills by industrial
and university laboratories years ago, and have been listed in archives and various papers. Mills now has
five papers describing experimental results published by mainline journals.

> As with all pseudoscience, it's not up to the detractors to DISprove the
> claims.

You are labeling Mills work "pseudoscience" on what basis?

> It's up to the claimant to PROVE the claims. You can no more DISprove the
(Continue reading)

amack43 | 3 Apr 07:57 2003

(unknown)

--- In hydrino@..., "woogie_the_cat"
<cpibel <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Firstly, I think that we should all be careful in what we write 
> about others on matters that we know nothing about. Prof. Park could 
> (if he were a suing sort) get Tony in trouble over this bit of text.

+++ You are quite right, Charles. I have made an assumption that Bob Park was involved in the uproar over
BLP's patent and this may explain why Santa Claus has crossed me off his list.

+++ FYI I refer to the following published In "What's New" of Friday 6 September 2002, an often amusing and
satirical commentary authored by Bob Park on a weekly basis putting the boot and knife into topics not so
dear to his heart. He wrote:

"... Several other patents were in the works. That's when things started heading South. Prompted by an
outside inquiry (who would do such a thing?), the patent director became concerned that this hydrino
stuff required the orbital electron to behave "contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry."

+++Another column penned by James Randi of the Skeptics Society, a charismatic and often entertaining
debunker of aliens and psychic powers, and who I believe to be an associate of Bob Park, shortly thereafter
reported the above column in the following way:

"Bravo! But why, hard on the heels of re-examining other questionable patents (see three weeks ago on this
page), would the Patent Office have happened upon this particular one, when there are so many in this
category? The secret can be inferred from Bob Park's weekly column, where we find: "Prompted by an outside
inquiry (who would do such a thing?) . . ." That rascal! 

"The very fact that the Patent Office has paid heed to the complaints that Park, the JREF, and others have
made, speaks well for rationality. Let's hope that we can look forward to many quack devices and systems
being re-evaluated. Let's see a lot more of this 'extraordinary action' from the Director. As for
(Continue reading)


Gmane