headers
John Barchak | 1 Aug 2003 04:05

common sense science hydrinos

Common Sense Science hydrinos can be found at:

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei—Part 3
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/Atom3b.pdf
Joseph Lucas and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
29045 Livingston Drive
Mechanicsville, MD 20659 USA

On Page 12, the N=1/2, N=1/3, etc. is found:
"Fine Structure and Hyperfine Structure in Atomic Spectra.
In the past classical models of the atom, nucleus and elementary 
particles were unable to describe certain phenomena such as the 
atomic spectra fine structure due to electron spin-orbit coupling 
(quantum interpretation) and the atomic spectra hyperfine structure 
due to nuclear-spin electronspin coupling, because there was no 
classical quantity known as the spin of the electron or nucleon. In 
particular the electron was usually modeled as a sphere with a 
magnetic moment due to the rotation of charge but no additional 
quantity called spin. This situation has been rectified by the 
refinement of the Bergman's [1] Toroidal Model and the
Bostick's [13,14] Charge Fiber Model of the electron and other 
elementary particles by Lucas [15] into a full fledged Classical 
Electrodynamic Model of Elementary Particles.

According to the Lucas Model all elementary particles are composed of 
multiple intertwined primary charge fibers. These primary charge 
fibers may be complex and consist of multiple intertwined secondary 
charge fibers. The secondary charge fibers may also be complex and 
consist of multiple tertiary charge fibers.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Eugene F. Mallove | 1 Aug 2003 19:15

New physics discussion group forming...

Since this group is exploring the frontiers of understanding of QM and CQM,
some of the monographs in the already released body information at
www.aetherometry.com may be of special interest:

€ AS2-31 ""On the Wave Structure of Energy: Fundamental Differences Between
DeBroglie's Theory of Matter Waves and the Aetherometric Theory of Wave
Superimposition."

And 

€ LS1-007 "Aether Power from Pulsed Plasmas" (Among other matters, the
structure of the electron is discussed therein) -- No, it is not an
orbitsphere, but the model may have some connection, ultimately.

Eugene Mallove

******
Dear Friends and Colleagues,

AKRONOS Publishing, the foremost electronic publisher of research works
in Aetherometric Biophysics, has the pleasure to announce the availability
of the following new publications and initiatives:

- The beginning of publication of the seminal Aetherometric Theory of
Synchronicity (AToS), with the release of the first two chapters of
Volume II, on the Gravitational Aether:

ABRI Monograph AS3-II.1
Correa, P and Correa, A (2003)
"The Gravitational Aether, Part I: Gravitational Orgonometry (1)"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
barth_aj | 1 Aug 2003 16:42

Re: common sense science hydrinos

--- In hydrino@..., "John Barchak"
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Common Sense Science hydrinos can be found at:
> 
> A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei—Part 3
> http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/Atom3b.pdf
> Joseph Lucas and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
> 29045 Livingston Drive
> Mechanicsville, MD 20659 USA
> 
> 
> On page 1:
> "Moreover it goes beyond the Dirac Quantum Model of the atom to 
> predict 64 new lines or transitions in the extreme ultraviolet 
> emission spectra of hydrogen that have been confirmed by the
> Extreme Ultraviolet Physics Laboratory at Berkeley from its NASA 
> rocket experiment data [5]."

This is a clear demonstration that the authors of that pdf document
don't have the slightest idea of how to interpret data, and are just
basing these claims on totally inept wishful thinking. It's very much
like what Mills has done in his interpretations of extreme-UV
astronomical spectra. Figure 7 of that pdf document shows that these
guys are just concluding that every minute bump in the noise is an
actual peak, without any justification. If they had read the original
analysis of the data by Labov & Bowyer, they would know that there
were very few statistically significant emission lines in that
spectrum and there are perfectly normal explanations for all of them.
If you don't understand the difference between signal and noise, it's
very easy to draw ridiculous conclusions from your data.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Barchak | 1 Aug 2003 21:30

Hubble Space Telescope

The fact that Hubble Space Telescope images are crystal clear has 
caused some distress among the Quantum Clique. See
Credibility of Common Sense Science, page 14
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/credibility_of_CSS_ps.pdf
Any comments from astronomers out there?
John B.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Barchak | 2 Aug 2003 15:55

Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theorem is an immediate counterexample to 
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
peterzaterols | 2 Aug 2003 18:35

Re: Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

--- In hydrino@..., "John Barchak"
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theorem is an immediate counterexample to 
> the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

It's the EPR paradox, not their theorem.

--pz
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
jbarchak3 | 2 Aug 2003 19:04

Re: Re: Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

There is no paradox.
Regards
John B.
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

-----Original Message-----
From: peterzaterols <peterz <at> e.yahoo.invalid>
To: hydrino@... <hydrino@...>
Date: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: HSG: Re: Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

>--- In hydrino@..., "John Barchak"
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theorem is an immediate counterexample to
>> the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>
>It's the EPR paradox, not their theorem.
>
>--pz
>
>
>
>Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
>A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
> Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
> Post message: hydrino@...
> Subscribe: hydrino-subscribe@...
> Unsubscribe: hydrino-unsubscribe@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Zimmerman | 2 Aug 2003 17:06

Re: Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

It's the EPR paradox.

--pz

John Barchak wrote:

>The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theorem is an immediate counterexample to 
>the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>
>
>
>
>Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
>A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
> Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
> Post message: hydrino@... 
> Subscribe: hydrino-subscribe@... 
> Unsubscribe: hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
> List owner: hydrino-owner@...
> Complaints: hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
John Barchak | 2 Aug 2003 23:08

Re: Episode XXXI - Barchak's Corollary to EPR

See message 5170 - Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen created the EPR theorem. 
QM people created the paradox.

--- In hydrino@..., Peter Zimmerman
<peterz <at> e.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> It's the EPR paradox.
> 
> --pz
> 
> John Barchak wrote:
> 
> >The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theorem is an immediate counterexample 
to 
> >the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> >
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
orionworks | 4 Aug 2003 18:57

Could BLP benefit from "Power Chips"?

Since there is a temporary lull in the SQM/CQM debate, spearheaded 
with Woogie taking a hopefully enjoyable summer hiatus, perhaps this 
might be a good time to bring up a fascinating article printed in the 
latest issue of Infinite Energy. See: Volume 9, issue 50 2003, Page 
45.

I wonder if it's possible that BLP could benefit from a new proto-
type nano-technology device manufactured by a company called Power 
Chips. The home web site is located at: 
http://www.powerchips.gi/index.shtml 

As I understand it these "nano" devices work by ingeniously re-
focusing excess waste heat back into usable electrical output through 
a quantum defined mechanism called "electron thermotunnelling". Under 
optimal conditions the Carnot Efficiency is claimed to be as good as 
70 percent, or possibly even better. Nothing comes close to it in 
reclaiming useable power from excess heat, at least in so far as to 
what I have seen in the reports. There are no moving parts, 
essentially being a "microchip." They should be cheap to mass 
produce. They are less complex to assemble than a typical 386 Pentium 
III chip.

I noticed that the sterling engine was conspicuously absent from the 
comparison charts.

This does bring up the question as to how the Power Chips might 
compare to Dr. Mill's current efforts to harness useable electrical 
energy from a sterling engine prototype. What is of particular 
interest is the fact that Power Chips convert heat directly into 
electricity. For this reason alone I wonder if this might be a better
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane