Discussion of the hydrino theory of Dr. Randell Mills

mystic606 | 1 Jun 2005 13:39

Re: Afshar and Fourier

John,

I looked through the paper quickly.  The FT seems to be used to
describe the distribution pattern on the collector/backdrop.  While
I found no obvious reason to invalidate the author's arguments I
did, at least on a cursory reading, get the impression that they
were very circumstantial and didn't really cut to the issue.

The author really only needs one clear and convincing argument to
discount Ashfar.  Instead of that, the author seems to throw up
a bunch of arguments, none of which are clear or convincingly deal
with the root issue in my opinion.  Seems more like inter-departmental 
squabbling than a technical report.

But additional experiments were proposed and that can't be a bad 
thing.

Philip

--- In hydrino@..., "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> y...> 
wrote:
> Here is the latest from Danko Dimchev Georgiev 05/21/05 ==>
> 
> Complementarity is not violated  Afshar's experimental setup in the 
> light of Fourier optics
> By Danko Dimchev Georgiev
> [May 21, 2005]
> Abstract
> In March 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar announced at Harvard University 
> the results of a variation of a two-pinhole experiment, in which he

(Continue reading)

headers

JimNLori | 1 Jun 2005 01:46

Re: Re: I'm very disappointed in Andreas Rathke

Well, we all know that is there is not a "closed form" solution for it, the
square root of 2 must be bogus 

jd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak@...>
To: <hydrino@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: I'm very disappointed in Andreas Rathke

So QM only works for student exercises?  Can't the quantum computer
find an analytic solution for the square root of 2?  Best-John B.

--- In hydrino@..., "JimNLori" <jamloraus <at> p...> wrote:
> I'll do that just as soon as you supply an analytic solution to
find the
> square root of 2 
>
> jd
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> y...>
> To: <hydrino@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:40 PM
> Subject: HSG: Re: I'm very disappointed in Andreas Rathke
>
>
> Hi jd
> OK, explain Sulfur with QM.

(Continue reading)

headers

novel_compound | 1 Jun 2005 21:24

Why I'm disappointed in Andreas Rathke

pz wrote,

<< Rathke... went public with accurate and detailed criticisms of the 
Mills set of equations... Rathke also makes an interesting point... 
that invalidating the theory only invalidates the CQM-based 
interpretations and explanations of phenomena measured in 
experiments.  It does not invalidate the experiments. >>

I don't have a problem with Rathke's paper.  If CQM is "fixable," 
then pointing out errors in Mills' math will only make CQM stronger, 
as Mills is continuously revising chapters of his book in attempts to 
satisfy his critics.

My beef is that in his email to me, Rathke said "My only interest in 
this topic was to save the European tax payers some money by keeping 
ESA from repeating NIAC's fault and studying this hoax."  

Clearly he had reached his negative conclusion before even beginning 
to write the paper.  

If he believed the experimental data were valid, he would be calling 
for further study to find a conventional explanation.  But he's not, 
so clearly he feels the experimental data are falsified -- part of 
the "hoax."

Now, some hoaxes are harmless and amusing.  But BLP has taken 
millions from investors.  To call the entire matter a hoax is 
equivalent to charging Mills with fraud on a massive scale.

And because the Rowan/NIAC study successfully replicated four of

(Continue reading)

headers

peterzaterols | 1 Jun 2005 18:19

Re: I'm very disappointed in Andreas Rathke


Sulfur has Z=16.  Obviously it has too many particles to solve
exactly, since Z>1 and the three-body problem is insoluble in closed
form.  That's **classical** physics, and if you can write out the
equations of motion you'll understand why.

And it's too light to treat the electrons with a many-bodied
statistical model -- one would like Z>30 or 40 for that.

So you're stuck with things like the Hartree-Fock self-consistent
field approximations, and the more sophisticated treatments of
several-body physics.  Using QM you can easily calculate things like
the bond angles and strengths, the ionization energy for the first
electron, and a very good prediction of the spectral lines.

If S had one more charge with Z=17, we could treat it as a sort of
hydrogenic atom with an outer shell having a single hole in it; that
leads to hydrogen-like behavior, but obviously not as much so as
potassium which has just one valence electron and is readily treated
as a fat hydrogen to get the first many excited states and the
ionization energy.

Is the solution analytic and closed form?  No.  Can you get an
analytic expression for pi?  Only in Indiana where the legislature set
it at either 3.0 or 22/7 once upon a time and depending on which urban
legend you believe.  Are the approximations used "unphysical"?  Hell,
no.  They are developed using a lot of physical intuition and modest
amounts of math.

What else would you mean by "explain sulfur?"

(Continue reading)

headers

Nora Baron | 1 Jun 2005 22:53

Re: Superposition of Complementary Descriptions

Reply to: M, Carrell, HSG #9242, Re: Superposition of Complementary 
Descriptions

--- In hydrino@..., "Mike Carrell" <mikec <at> s...> wrote:
>In this skirmish between buzzpoker and Nora, let me speak briefly in Nora's
>defense.
>
>Longtime readers of HSG will have witnessed spirited exchanges between Nora
>and myself, a defender of BLP's experiments but not of CQM, which I must
>leave to others. Nora has not accused Mills & Co. of falsehood. Being a
>mathematician, she is unable to correctly evaluate discussions of the
>experiments between supporters and critics. Like other critics, having 
>found
>one or more perceived flaws in BLP's work, all is suspect until confirmed 
>by
>some disinterested third party. This is a perfectly safe, if unproductive,
>position. It is no guarantee of of being 'true'.
>

  Thanks for the distinctly faint support.  Prepare for a
graceless and largely ungrateful response.

  I note that buzzpoker now claims that I supported Rathke's
"hoax" comment.  I wrote in support of PART of Rathke's
paper, the object of which was to show that Mills' theory is
inconsistent.  That paper does not mention or imply anything
about a hoax.  Rathke's "hoax" comment was made in a private
e-mail to novel-compound which was posted AFTER my remarks
on his paper.  I have never even commented on it, much less
supported the "hoax" statement.  I will say again: I very

(Continue reading)

headers

john_e_barchak | 1 Jun 2005 22:56

Re: I'm very disappointed in Andreas Rathke

I voted for 22/7, but I do not believe in Santa Claus, the Easter 
bunny, or point particles. - John B. 

--- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peterz <at> e...> wrote:
> 
> Sulfur has Z=16.  Obviously it has too many particles to solve
> exactly, since Z>1 and the three-body problem is insoluble in closed
> form.  That's **classical** physics, and if you can write out the
> equations of motion you'll understand why.
> 
> And it's too light to treat the electrons with a many-bodied
> statistical model -- one would like Z>30 or 40 for that.
> 
> So you're stuck with things like the Hartree-Fock self-consistent
> field approximations, and the more sophisticated treatments of
> several-body physics.  Using QM you can easily calculate things like
> the bond angles and strengths, the ionization energy for the first
> electron, and a very good prediction of the spectral lines.
> 
> If S had one more charge with Z=17, we could treat it as a sort of
> hydrogenic atom with an outer shell having a single hole in it; that
> leads to hydrogen-like behavior, but obviously not as much so as
> potassium which has just one valence electron and is readily treated
> as a fat hydrogen to get the first many excited states and the
> ionization energy.
> 
> Is the solution analytic and closed form?  No.  Can you get an
> analytic expression for pi?  Only in Indiana where the legislature 
set
> it at either 3.0 or 22/7 once upon a time and depending on which

(Continue reading)

headers

john_e_barchak | 1 Jun 2005 22:59

Re: Afshar and Fourier

Hi Philip
Right - the more experiments, the better.   The Fourier argument 
seemed very similar in the two cases.  I would like to point out that 
there are at least *three* cases where this "Fourier argument" comes 
up.  The third one involves Jaynes - see HSG #9140.  Jaynes thought 
that Bell was incorrectly using the chain rule for probability Pr
(A,B|C)= Pr(A|B,C)P(B|C).  However Bell was using the defining 
property of conditional independence Pr(A,B|C)=Pr(A|C)P(B|C) and he 
motivates the conditional independence from the assumption of local 
hidden variables.

Jaynes argument was refuted by Stephen Gull at the same conference 
where Jaynes presnted his argument, using some Fourier analysis 
tricks and the thought experiment of a computer simulation; and 
Jaynes' response was that Gull had brought up a deep and important 
new point which was going to take another thirty years for the 
community to digest.

While I agree with your assessment that Michael's friend's 
arguments "were very circumstantial and didn't really cut to the 
issue," there are issues here that are "deep and important" that *no 
one* seems to understand them.   My gut feeling is that the SQM 
people are painting themselves into a corner with these Fourier 
arguments.  Fourier concepts combined with "complementarity" can fry 
human neurons (  The Copenhagen viewpoint must either be totally 
formalized, or dumped.

All the best
John B.

(Continue reading)

headers

john_e_barchak | 2 Jun 2005 15:48

Re: Superposition of Complementary Descriptions

I think we all sorely miss Charles Pibel (Woogie too).  He was a 
civilizing influence on all of us. - John B.

--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
> Reply to: M, Carrell, HSG #9242, Re: Superposition of Complementary 
> Descriptions
> 
> --- In hydrino@..., "Mike Carrell" <mikec <at> s...> wrote:
> >In this skirmish between buzzpoker and Nora, let me speak briefly 
in Nora's
> >defense.
> >
> >Longtime readers of HSG will have witnessed spirited exchanges 
between Nora
> >and myself, a defender of BLP's experiments but not of CQM, which 
I must
> >leave to others. Nora has not accused Mills & Co. of falsehood. 
Being a
> >mathematician, she is unable to correctly evaluate discussions of 
the
> >experiments between supporters and critics. Like other critics, 
having 
> >found
> >one or more perceived flaws in BLP's work, all is suspect until 
confirmed 
> >by
> >some disinterested third party. This is a perfectly safe, if 
unproductive,
> >position. It is no guarantee of of being 'true'.
> >

(Continue reading)

headers

P.J van Noorden | 2 Jun 2005 16:50

Re: Re: Superposition of Complementary Descriptions

Hello
I wanted to comment on some issues raised in the last email from NoraBaron
Peter van Noorden
Although claims regarding a
power heater have faded in the last few years, the BLP
website has for quite some time now described in detail
plans for a hydrino battery with truly miraculous
capabilities. Yet no such battery has been produced.
What's stopping Mills in this case?
I.m.o is isolation of a non radioactive "hydrino compound" out of a mixture of other compounds
much more difficult than isolating e.g Radium out of pitchblende.
With NMR analysis one can see abnormal upfield shifted peaks in the samples,.
These new reaction products are generating distinct disturbances in the NMR signal. According
to Prof Kentgens (University of Nijmegen the Netherlands) it looks as if the protons are shielded from the
magnetic field.

The experiments hinge critically upon Mills' claim that
catalysts are elements which have energy transitions which
are multiples of 27.2 eV. Thus, for example, Mike has made
the point that in some of Mills' experiments, potassium
compounds yield elemental potassium as a catalyst because, as
shown in Table 5.2 of GUT-CQM, potassium can undergo a
transition totalling 81.777 eV, and 81.777 = 3.0065 * 27.2.
Thus Mills used as controls similar sodium compounds,
putatively because sodium is a non-catalyst. This 27.2 eV
business really fits in with "Mills' Rules" - Mike says, I
believe, the theory might be wrong, but Mills' Rules seem to
work. There is just one little problem with this example,
which Mike has touted highly as proof that Mills' Rules work
and Mills' experiment was shown to be valid by the sodium

(Continue reading)

headers

P.J van Noorden | 2 Jun 2005 19:52

respons on email from NoraBaron 2-6-05 14:21


I wanted to comment on some issues raised in the last email from NoraBaron
This time the layout of the email is improved.
Peter van Noorden
the Netherlands

  Although claims regarding a
  power heater have faded in the last few years, the BLP
  website has for quite some time now described in detail
  plans for a hydrino battery with truly miraculous
  capabilities.  Yet no such battery has been produced.
  What's stopping Mills in this case?  

> I.m.o is isolation of a non radioactive "hydrino compound" out of a mixture of other compounds 
> much more difficult than isolating e.g Radium out of pitchblende.
> With NMR analysis one can see abnormal upfield shifted peaks in the samples,.
> These new reaction products are generating distinct disturbances in the NMR signal. According
> to Prof Kentgens (University of Nijmegen the Netherlands) it looks as if the protons are shielded from the
> magnetic field. 

    The experiments hinge critically upon Mills' claim that
  catalysts are elements which have energy transitions which
  are multiples of 27.2 eV.  Thus, for example, Mike has made
  the point that in some of Mills' experiments, potassium
  compounds yield elemental potassium as a catalyst because, as
  shown in Table 5.2 of GUT-CQM, potassium can undergo a
  transition totalling 81.777 eV, and 81.777 = 3.0065 * 27.2.
  Thus Mills used as controls similar sodium compounds,
  putatively because sodium is a non-catalyst.  This 27.2 eV
  business really fits in with "Mills' Rules" - Mike says, I

(Continue reading)

59	December 2008
72	November 2008
101	October 2008
89	September 2008
146	August 2008
118	July 2008
192	June 2008
166	May 2008
67	April 2008
37	March 2008
45	February 2008
80	January 2008
39	December 2007
123	November 2007
36	October 2007
50	September 2007
29	August 2007
90	July 2007
27	June 2007
56	May 2007
71	April 2007
84	March 2007
40	February 2007
53	January 2007
41	December 2006
48	November 2006
119	October 2006
40	September 2006
95	August 2006
278	July 2006
124	June 2006
171	May 2006
186	April 2006
309	March 2006
191	February 2006
307	January 2006
214	December 2005
395	November 2005
56	October 2005
64	September 2005
171	August 2005
35	July 2005
96	June 2005
131	May 2005
115	April 2005
91	March 2005
25	February 2005
63	January 2005
35	December 2004
64	November 2004
454	October 2004
122	September 2004
221	August 2004
188	July 2004
60	June 2004
116	May 2004
137	April 2004
20	March 2004
32	February 2004
41	January 2004
71	December 2003
130	November 2003
239	October 2003
320	September 2003
206	August 2003
162	July 2003
261	June 2003
524	May 2003
118	April 2003
120	March 2003
154	February 2003
193	January 2003
103	December 2002
32	November 2002
31	October 2002
66	September 2002
50	August 2002
92	July 2002
110	June 2002
93	May 2002
176	April 2002
209	March 2002
104	February 2002
207	January 2002
128	December 2001
102	November 2001
37	October 2001
51	September 2001
164	August 2001
521	July 2001
460	June 2001
320	May 2001
103	April 2001
177	March 2001
42	February 2001
124	January 2001
37	December 2000
76	November 2000
194	October 2000
161	September 2000
157	August 2000
33	July 2000
232	June 2000
203	May 2000
157	April 2000
45	March 2000

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30