headers
Mike Carrell | 1 Oct 2003 01:30

Pibel and Phillips-Chen paper

Charles seems to be continuing a familiar pattern, not addressing specifics
of a BLP-related paper, and asserting that it is somehow old stuff without
being specific about exactly *what* has a *simple* explanation. He has not
done this in my extensive discussions of the thermal reactor. Instead,
questions about the location, funding, past history, etc., of the
investigators are raised instead of discussing the experiment itself. Nor
are the 36 cited references mentioned.

Certainly the hydrogen Balmer line broadening reported in this paper has
been seen before in previous papers by other investigators. Possible sources
of the broadening have been by the original investigators and by Mills in a
paper published in JAP. The existence of the effect is not new, but the
non-Mills 'explanations' are not supportable.

The Phillips-Chen paper makes this dramatically clear, for H Balmer lines,
alpha to gamma, are seen with temperatures in the 21-32 eV range in a region
15 cm from the electrodes that are providing the ionizing field in the
center of the chamber. The authors consider excitation lifetime, the
velocities and mean free paths to show that the observed emission is not
coming from the RF energized emission nor from particles escaping therefrom,
but from catalyst and H atoms within view of the spectrometer.

The hand-waving arguments that Charles has so far provided do not apply to
the **actual** experimental and observational conditions.

It would be helpful to the discussion if Charles would discuss the
experiment at hand and not some un-named other.

Mike Carrell
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
REH | 1 Oct 2003 12:49

PONDERING 3D NATURE

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no
man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Consider a solid block of some substance. It contains an infinite number of dimensionless points. So what?
Well, so would a larger or smaller block!

Question: Is one infinite amount greater than another infinite amount?
Is something just an ininite amount of nothing?

Look both ways before crossing the street is a common axiom. Now, it pays to look in all 360x360 degrees
directions, considering today's traffic and world events. 

Visible and invisible actions of a mass body require three dimensions. Action is accompanied by reaction
of some magnitude. For one example, press down on a ball of clay lying on a hard surface. The clay resists the
zero degrees push with a 180 degrees opposition of some lower magnitude. The clay spreads side to side (90
degrees) as it is pushed. This reaction also contains reaction components of a complex nature.
Ignoring this can lead to much confusion when dealing with the invisible forces and particles of nature.

The Obvious Is Often Overlooked. Nothing Is Always Overlooked.

My Analogies Documents For Science & Engineering Aides & Techs

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APFA/

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
REH | 1 Oct 2003 22:25

GROUP DISCUSSION

> Your homework assignment: Go to google and look up:
> 
> 1. Model based reasoning.
> 2. Heuristic reasoning.
> 3. Mechanistic reasoning.
> 4. Formula based reasoning.
> 
>You will find that you are confusing abstractions (infinity) with the concrete. This is something I can
point out to you but, people who think mechanistically have a hard time making the transition to model
based reasoning. In other words, if you don’t spend the time working with abstractions
andrepresentations many ideas about the physical world may confuse you.—practice, practice, practice.
> Regards
Jack Martinelli
> http://www.martinelli.org

I am unable to think like an engineer or scientist. I think like a technician/engineering aide. 

My writings do not compete with advanced thinkers like you. In addition, myinterest is creating visible
analogies for invisible forces to aid practical work. 

I worked in practical electronics most of my career. I also spent countlessspare hours studying how
visible nature does its work.

During my years in aerospace engineering, I was able to find some simple solutions to problems which had
confounded design engineers.

I would love to work only on sites for techs, but few exist. On the other hand, some techs hang out on upper
level sites hoping to glean a nugget. I hope to reach them and invite them to read my public 
access files.
REH
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John A. Kassebaum | 1 Oct 2003 22:49

Electrostatic Self-Interaction - A Conjecture


The current discussion on the electrostatic self-interaction stands 
firmly in the critics court - the OS should have a self-interaction.

I'm considering a simplistic conjecture which I would like to briefly 
discuss. It's not yet a solid argument, and it's not a current part of 
Mills theory. However, I propose it in the spirit of trying to modify 
the OS model to retain its useful predictions. If you can, please tell 
me why you think this may be or surely cannot be a useful conjecture 
within the approach taken by Mills.

Assume self-interaction is present.
Recognize that the function of trapped photons (and in reverse - holes) 
is to modify the effective nuclear charge of the nucleus.
Assume a real nuclear charge of +1 and an effective nuclear charge of 
+2 (due to a trapped photon or hole) for the hydrogen nucleus.
The real electron charge is -1 and the effective electron charge is -2 
(due to the trapped photon or hole) for the hydrogen OS.
In this case, the inside limit E1 field is due to +2 and the outside 
limit E2 field is zero.
The self-interaction is due to 1/2 of the -2 charge which is -1.
Thus, the OS will behave like it has a force due to a +1 central charge 
affecting the OS.
Assuming the inertia of the OS is unchanged, the OS orbital motion will 
be that of a standard n=1 orbital.

I am not yet too concerned about the magnetic field, or the radiational 
stability of this model. I'm fairly certain that this conjectured state 
would be a redundant ground state in Mills' theory. Ideally, this state 
should be the first ground state (n=1), but I think it is the n=1/2
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tstolper | 2 Oct 2003 01:55

David Wick's Credentials & Viewpoint

Just in case readers of the HSG are interested, here are Wick's credentials, 
as given on the back cover of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, THE 
INFAMOUS BOUNDARY: SEVEN DECADES OF HERESY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS:

"David Wick has held academic positions at Princeton University, the 
University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. He 
currently works as a statistics consultant in biomedicine."

This is some of what Wick wrote in the "Acknowledgements" of his book: "I 
thank my thesis advisor, John Westwater, and the Department of Mathematics of 
the University of Washington for their support...during this project."

Wick dedicated his 1995 book to his parents "and to skeptics, heretics, and 
naive realists everywhere. Keep doubting; let others keep the faith."

Here are the last two sentences from the first paragraph of Wick's 
"Postscript":

"Two successful theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are 
triumphant in their own realms, yet remain strangely silent across their 
mutual boundary. And our old friend, the paradox of the continuous and the 
discrete, remains."

Here is the end of Wick's "Postscript":

"It would give me the greatest pleasure if a reader were to take one of 
these vague speculations about Bell's "precise theory" and get it to work. 
No doubt my concepts will prove inadequate, so by all means invent new ones; 
they need be neither "quantum" nor "classical." State your principles, then 
use the right mathematics, no matter how complex or abstruse; if you are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
REH | 2 Oct 2003 12:45

THE ULTIMATE SPEED LIMIT?

1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The Obvious Is Often Overlooked. Nothing Is Always Overlooked.

My Analogies Documents For Science & Engineering Aides & Techs

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APFA/

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mystic606 | 2 Oct 2003 12:59

Re: Clarifications on Gauss' law

Excellent comments. I'm unfortunately very much in a time-crunch
mode at the moment and probably won't be able to develop a well
expressed extension of the discussion. But we may be onto something
here so I don't want to let it drop.

--- In hydrino@..., "kalleprut" <hans <at> t.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> --- In hydrino@..., "mystic606"
<overgrip <at> h.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > I'd like to get a summary and clarification of the state of
> > the discussions regarding the applicability of Gauss' law to
> > determine the electric field on the OS. Here's my attempt to
> > codify the findings from a stepping forward point of view.
> > Please comment or correct if you believe something is absolutely
> > incorrect.
> > 
> > Proposition: Gauss' law does not specifically apply on the OS
> > for the following reasons:
> > 
> > 1. It is impossible to enclose the OS without being outside
> > of it. Gauss' law requires the surface to be evaluated to
> > be enclosed.
> > 
> > (Taking the limit as the distance to the OS approaches zero
> > has disputed applicability here - it may or may not produce
> > the correct answer)
> 
> You cannot use Gauss law directly to derive the value _at_ the OS, 
> unless you add a rule to handle when the charged surface is part of 
> the integration surface, e.g. that you include half the charge of 
> that surface as being enclosed. Using superposition you can then add
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Itzhak Shechtman | 2 Oct 2003 16:29

Electrostatic self-interaction -- A conjecture

Hi John,

Let us examine your conjecture in detail. Denoting the force between a +1 
nucleus and a -1 orbitsphere as a -1 unit, the force between a +2 nucleus 
and a -2 orbitsphere would be -4 units.
>From this you have to deduct +1 unit due to the electrostatic self 
repulsion of the -2 orbitsphere, and you end up with -3 units of force 
between the nucleus and the orbitsphere, compared with a -1 unit of force 
required in Mills' theory ( and this without even touching the energy 
paradox -- you remember, my original "conjecture")

John, Mills' theory can not be salvaged by such thought acrobatics. 
Something new has to be
introduced into the game.

Regards,

I. Shechtman
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John A. Kassebaum | 2 Oct 2003 17:22

Re: Electrostatic self-interaction -- A conjecture


Hi Dr. Shechtman,

Thanks for the feedback.

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 09:29 AM, Itzhak Shechtman wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Let us examine your conjecture in detail. Denoting the force between a 
> +1
> nucleus and a -1 orbitsphere as a  -1 unit

Actually -1/2 with the self-repulsion. But I understand.

> , the force between a +2 nucleus and a -2 orbitsphere would be -4 
> units.

Yes, minus the self-repulsion (you've done that below I see).

> From this you have to deduct  +1 unit due to the electrostatic self
> repulsion of the  -2 orbitsphere, and you end up with  -3 units of 
> force
> between the nucleus and the orbitsphere, compared with  a  -1 unit of 
> force
> required in Mills'  theory

OK. This make sense ... The relation between q_electron and q_proton 
must be:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Luther Setzer | 2 Oct 2003 21:09

Re: THE ULTIMATE SPEED LIMIT?

--- In hydrino@..., REH <focusing1 <at> y.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

<< 1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
> 
> The Obvious Is Often Overlooked. Nothing Is Always Overlooked.
> 
> My Analogies Documents For Science & Engineering Aides & Techs
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APFA/ >>

This person's constant Bible-quoting, vacuous posting and injections 
of irrelevant discussion have led me to remove and ban him from the 
list.

Luke Setzer
List Owner
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane