headers
elirabett2003 | 1 Jun 2006 04:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

--- In hydrino@..., "Mark Underwood" <mark.underwood <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peter.zimmerman <at> > 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dave, 
> > 
> > Ya still can't get back more energy than you put in.  It is true 
> that
> > injecting H2 into another combustion process can improve it, if O2 
> is
> > also added.  But Aquygen is claiming that it can electrolyze water
> > with less energy than the energy of combustion.  That's obviously a
> > load of smelly BS.  Even injecting H2 into another fuel cannot get
> > more energy out than you put in.
> > 

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I don't recall reading from the website that the Aquygen process is 
> claiming overunity. It did say however that it produces the gas from 
> water at about one tenth the energy required to vapourize water.
>
The heat of vaporization of water is +40.7 kJ/mole, that is it takes
40.7 kJ of energy to vaporize one mole of water (we can have small
arguments about the temperature dependence of the heat of
vaporization).  one tenth of that is 4.1 kJ/mole

The heat of reaction for splitting a mole of water into a mole of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clyde Davies | 2 Jun 2006 19:46
Picon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

--- In hydrino@..., Marty Galyean <marty <at> ...> wrote:
>
> orionworks wrote:
> 
> >With all due respect to the revered Laws of Thermodynamics many 
are no
> >longer as intimidated as they used to be when someone infers 
ridicule
> >and shame on those who, due to their own suspicions and research, 
can
> >no longer afford to maintain the same level of blind faith in
> >following the party line. This might even include me!
> 
> Guys, if this forum is largely a "free energy" forum where 
> "alternatively logicked" members largely believe the enemy are 
those 
> pesky Laws of Thermodynamics?
> 
> Or is it a forum for scientific discussion and testing of hydrinos 
and CQM?
> 
> Please chime in if your opinion is that the Laws of Thermodynamics 
are 
> relevant.  I just don't have the time for any discussion that 
throws 
> them away.
> 
> Marty
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
novel_compound | 4 Jun 2006 00:22
Picon
Favicon

Leopoldo Soto is Chile's Bob Park


Off topic, but I amused myself a little by drawing the analogy: Soto is to 
Salinas as Park is to Mills.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060522-robots.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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@...
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
will.link | 4 Jun 2006 22:47
Picon

Need Help Understanding

Hi, I've recently stumbled across the hydrino theory and begun reading
the book on the blacklight power website.  However, right in the first
section (1.1 the one electron atom) I'm stumbling.  I want to remedy
this confusion before I move on, as this seems to be the foundation
for what is to follow.  I joined this group thinking someone here
probably understands the theory well enough to help me.

The first problem I'm having is this: I was under the impression the
hydrino theory started from first principles (those principles between
Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations).  However, right at the start
Mills seems to assert that the electron charge distribution follows a
classical wave equation.  (This is essentially the first equation,
1.1).  This equation isn't derived from first principles, but seems
asserted.  It also doesn't seem to encorporate the electric force
between the electron and the proton.  

Any help resolving this confusion would be appreciated.
                                  -Will 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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 | 8 comments |
headers
john_e_barchak | 8 Jun 2006 14:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: Need Help Understanding

--- In hydrino@..., "will.link" <will.j.link <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Hi, I've recently stumbled across the hydrino theory and begun 
reading the book on the blacklight power website.  However, right in 
> the first section (1.1 the one electron atom) I'm stumbling.  I 
want to remedy  this confusion before I move on, as this seems to be 
the foundation
> for what is to follow.  I joined this group thinking someone here
> probably understands the theory well enough to help me.
> 
> The first problem I'm having is this: I was under the impression the
> hydrino theory started from first principles (those principles 
between
> Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations).  However, right at the start
> Mills seems to assert that the electron charge distribution follows 
a
> classical wave equation.  (This is essentially the first equation,
> 1.1).  This equation isn't derived from first principles, but seems
> asserted.  It also doesn't seem to encorporate the electric force
> between the electron and the proton.  
> 
> Any help resolving this confusion would be appreciated.
>                                   -Will
>

Hi Will
If you try to understand Dr. Mills' "spherically symmetrical shell" 
from just from that equation, you will probably have difficulty 
understanding CQM. The "spherically symmetrical shell" has a history 
that dates back to Einstein and Lorentz.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Matt Person | 9 Jun 2006 19:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: The Quantum Muddle

I have to ask:  Does John Barchak actually type these, or are they 
cut-and-pasted from somewhere?

Matt Person

From: "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak@...>
Reply-To: hydrino@...
To: hydrino@...
Subject: HSG: The Quantum Muddle
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:20:33 -0000

Mara Beller, in "Quantum Dialogue: the making of a revolution",
shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is essentially nonsense.
At no time was a consistent, coherent structure presented to the
physics community for analysis.   If it had been attempted, the
quantum muddle would have been shown to be exactly that--the quantum
muddle.  Even Bell was never able to make any sense of Bohr's ideas
concerning quantum mechanics.

Note: AHQP = Archive for the History of Quantum Physics

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
kleml29 | 8 Jun 2006 16:31
Picon

Re: Machine turns water into gas, fuels car

--- In hydrino@..., "marcuso369" <marcuso369 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> This is yet another system for producing a quasistable form of 
water
> otherwise known as hydroxy or Brown's gas.  I presume the article 
is
> about Stanley Meyers Water fuel cell technology.
> 
> See my other response on this date.
> 
> Hydreno Guy
> 
> --- In hydrino@..., "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> >
> wrote:
> >
> > See
> > http://www.cnn.com/
> > Latest News
> > Machine turns water into gas, fuels car
> >
Viewing both Mills' and 'Klein Gas' as speculative
outcomes from similar processes (pulsed electrolysis),
it is recalled that Mills' looked for an incremental
temperature rise superposed on the waste heat from
the process. Any metastable (energetic), volatile
product from the process would have to show up as
less waste heat, which takes us back to the bag of
worms called calorimetry. Alternatively, while Mills'
looked for something other than H2 and O2 by a
nickel diffusion experiment, Klein Gas advocates
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Marty Galyean | 8 Jun 2006 16:19
Favicon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

Clyde Davies wrote:

>Well, I thought it was a forum for discussing the hydrino theory 
>versus the evidence for it, which is why I asked the question about 
>the NMR spectra last week.  But judging by the total lack of 
>response, I can now see I was totally mistaken, and that it's really 
>mainly a forum for discussing abstruse theoretical physics and how it 
>really doesn't need to dirty its hands with with this 
>pesky 'experimental evidence' notion.
>
>Silly me.  

I would really find the list you describe valuable also.

I also think the ratio of people who can publicly state, "I don't know", 
yet have a basic grasp of scientific principles, to those people who 
apparently are experts in their own minds yet repeatedly 
misapply/misunderstand some of the most basic principles of science is 
far too low for any serious scientific discussion to survive here.  Sad, 
but true.  Then there is the "can't see the forest for the trees" folks 
who have all their basic ducks in a row, and write entire pages that 
make sense within themselves, but has zero relevance to the thread even 
while they posit it proves or disproves the claim in the thread.

For the record, there are many things I don't know.  I think I do have a 
grasp of the basics from which to follow a line of argument properly.  I 
just don't see a lot of real scientific argument happening here.

Perhaps if all posts were moderated to be *strictly* related to the 
testing of hydrino theory a lot of the chaff would blow away.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Clyde Davies | 10 Jun 2006 10:17
Picon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

Well said, Marty.

Let me give you some background to my whine.  About 15 years ago I 
did a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and worked with many people of 
differing interests.  Whoever, there was a coterie who regarded 
themselves very much as an elite because they were theorists and 
could gasp the many and subtle aspects of an one or more electrons 
going around one or more nuclei.  It was plain that they regarded 
this branch of study the  be-all-and-end-all of physical chemistry.  
I regarded it as the starting point.

As a result, because I tend to start with the results and work 
backwards towards the theory, I have an approach that tends to put me 
at odds with what I see going on around here.  There are 
correspondents who have already made up their minds about Mills and 
therefore would rather not talk about his awkward experimental 
results, but either ignore or attempt to derail the arguments about 
them.  Quite why they are here is open to speculation.  

I have *not* made up my mind yet and when I see a set of NMR spectra 
(which I assume have been obtained and published in good faith) then 
I would simply like to discuss their relevance to his theories.  If 
someone can come up with a counter argument as to why they should not 
be regarded as significant evidence then I would very much like to 
hear it as I can stop wasting my time and find something else to 
occupy my interest.  In other works, I would very much like to 
participate in the kind of discussion this group was set up for:  CQM 
and hydrino theory versus the evidence for it.

If Mills is right (and *I* don't know this for certain yet) then I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Willie Wong | 10 Jun 2006 00:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: Need Help Understanding

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:30:40PM -0000, john_e_barchak wrote:
> > Hi, I've recently stumbled across the hydrino theory and begun 
> reading the book on the blacklight power website.  However, right in 
> > the first section (1.1 the one electron atom) I'm stumbling.  I 
> want to remedy  this confusion before I move on, as this seems to be 
> the foundation
> > for what is to follow.  I joined this group thinking someone here
> > probably understands the theory well enough to help me.
> > 
> > The first problem I'm having is this: I was under the impression the
> > hydrino theory started from first principles (those principles 
> between
> > Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations).  However, right at the start
> > Mills seems to assert that the electron charge distribution follows 
> a
> > classical wave equation.  (This is essentially the first equation,
> > 1.1).  This equation isn't derived from first principles, but seems
> > asserted.  It also doesn't seem to encorporate the electric force
> > between the electron and the proton.  
> > 
> > Any help resolving this confusion would be appreciated.
> 
> Einstein wrote about Dr. Mills' Orbitsphere in 1919. Einstein
> states "For, if we specialize (1) for the spherically symmetrical
> static case we obtain one equation too few for defining the g[(mu)
> (nu)] and phi[(mu)(nu)], with the result that *any spherically
> symmetrical distribution* of electricity appears capable of
> remaining in equilibrium."
> 
> Dr. Mills has found a way around Einstein's difficulty with "one
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane