headers
peterzaterols | 1 Aug 2006 18:40
Favicon

Re: Forget the BLP heater

All I have to say is:

"He who controls magnetism, controls the universe!"

                                         ----Diet Smith

-pz

(and if it rings no bells, then google it)

>
> These people appear to have spared BLP all that work and expense.
Unless
> USPTO has been hoaxed the future is here:
>
> http://magneticpowerinc.com/patent.html
> <http://magneticpowerinc.com/patent.html>
>
> "SEBASTOPOL, CA, USA -- Magnetic Power Inc. (MPI) announced yesterday,
> that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has published the
> Company's first patent application for an invention that opens a path
to
> the replacement of fossil and uranium fuels.
>
> "The invention, a Solid State Electric Generator, is the first in a
> series of Magnetic Power Modules™ that will produce electric power
> with no moving parts and no need for fuel".
>
> "The first product will be Demonstration Devices that sit on a desk
and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
peterzaterols | 1 Aug 2006 10:42
Favicon

New Animations on the BLP website

SCQM moderator John Farrell wrote:

Just returned from vacation to find new animations on the BLP website
(What's New, Updated Theory Presentations, Animations). They are
terrific!!! SQM has no counter part (and never will).

John Farrell
Moderator

on the SCQM group.

It would seem that the good doctor has forgotten that there is a
difference between animated cartoons and physical science.  An
animation may be useful for visualization, but it can show nothing
about physical facts.  Wile Coyote falls as soon as he leaves the
cliff; not 3 seconds later when he realizes where he is.  Mickey Mouse
doesn't split and re-split and split more and more to become a
sorcerer's apprentice.  The BLP animations are nothing but "Road
Runner physics."  [Certainly animations of true quantum phenomena are
every bit as neat.  Neater in fact.]

One thing's clear from the animation showing a vibrational mode of the
H2 molecule: it violates Mills's Rules since (as Dr. Oh has pointed
out) only one interproton distance satisfies the "physical"
conditions, and since Mills himself used the Born-Oppenheimer
fixed-nuclei *approximation*.

Oh well, we shouldn't make much of the animations, since they were
done by a 19 year old student at Reed College, Brett Holverstott, with
rather limited knowledge of physics and not by one of Dr. Mills's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clark Whelton | 1 Aug 2006 23:17
Picon

Half-life, electrons and low temperatures

Off topic, but of possible interest to group members...

Half-life, electrons and low temperatures

31 July 2006

A group of physicists in Germany claims to have discovered a way of speeding up radioactive decay that could
render nuclear waste harmless on timescales of just a few tens of years. Their proposed technique –
which involves slashing the half-life of an alpha emitter by embedding it in a metal and cooling the metal
to a few degrees kelvin – could therefore avoid the need to bury nuclear waste in deep repositories, a
hugely expensive and politically difficult process. But other researchers are sceptical and believe
that the technique contradicts well-established theory as well as experiment.

The leader of the German-based group, Claus Rolfs of Ruhr University in Bochum, is an astrophysicist and
made the discovery about alpha decay after replicating the fusion reactions that take place in the centre
of stars. Using the university’s particle accelerator he fired protons and deuterons (nuclei
containing a proton and a neutron) at various light nuclei. He noticed that the rate of fusion reactions
was significantly greater when the nuclei were encased in metals than when they were inserted into
insulators. He also observed that the effect is enhanced at lower temperatures (J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part.
Phys. 32 489). 

Rolfs believed this effect could be explained in simple terms by assuming that the free electrons in a metal
act like the electrons in a plasma, as described in a model by Dutch physicist Peter Debye. The lower the
temperature of the metal, the closer the free electrons get to the radioactive nuclei. These electrons
accelerate positively charged particles towards the nuclei, thereby increasing the probability of
fusion reactions. 

But Rolfs realized that the reverse reaction might also occur and that free electrons could enhance the
ejection of positively charged particles from a nucleus. This would reduce the half-lives of α-decay or
β+-decay, and increase half-lives for processes involving electrons (which are repelled by the free
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Willie Wong | 2 Aug 2006 23:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: The Wave Equation and the delta function

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:26:11PM -0400, Churl Oh wrote:
> <<And how would you propose a manifestly 2+1 dimensional function would
> satisfy a 3+1 dimensional wave equation?>>
> 
> It does not.  2+1 solution satisfies 2+1 wave equation.  Mills solution
> is for 2 spatial dimensions only.  That's why OS is perfectly
> 2-dimensional.

Which brings up three questions:

 a) Do you then agree with my assessment that Mill's original starting
 point of a 3+1 dimensional wave equation does not logically lead to
 his claims?

 b) If you are only looking at a 2+1 dimensional equation on the
 sphere, something external must be invoked to confine the OS to a
 sphere. What is used? (And don't answer "non-radiation". The Haus
 criterion doesn't imply the confinement, and furthermore, it is well
 known that there are charge densities on the sphere that radiate
 while rotated, while there can be charge densities distributed over 3
 dimensional space that doesn't radiate under certain motions.)

 c) What about the free electron? Mills assert that it is a disc. Does
 it also obey the 2+1 wave equation? Or some other equation? How do
 you tell which equation to use? What is the cut-off distance from the
 nucleus? 

Best, 

W
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clyde Davies | 7 Aug 2006 14:04
Picon

Re: Hydrogen-type molecules (To Will)

An open question to Dr Zimmerman (and others):
What is it exactly all you confirmed skeptics *get out* of 
participating in this discussion group?  It's not exactly as if you 
believe all of this stuff, being that it's understandable that I and 
others have formed the opinion that you have made up your minds 
already.  It's rather like as if I, a confirmed atheist, decided to 
pop along to the local Bible Study Group on a regular and frequent 
basis to point out the error of their beliefs.  If I was an agnostic 
then I might have a reason in that I might not have made up my mind 
and might be seeking to be persuaded.  But I don't have this 
impression that this is where you are collectively coming from.

If, however, you *are* seeking to proselytise, can I suggest that you 
all start addressing some of the concerns that hydrino agnostics such 
as myself have about the inconsistency between - as the skeptics 
maintain -  a deeply flawed theory and the intriguing results that 
Mills has obtained and continues to obtain?  This is the most jarring 
dissonance in the whole hydrino saga. But the kind of totally 
theoretical discussion I have seen dominate this group up to now 
would, to extend the above analogy, be tantamount to discussing the 
Creation purely in the context of Scripture while ignoring the fossil 
record. It's boring, it's sterile, and it diminishes the contribution 
that observational science has to play in bringing some clarity to 
this whole sorry saga.  There's a lot more to physics and chemistry 
than being able to manipulate differential equations, thank God.

--- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peter.zimmerman <at> ...> 
wrote:
>
> Mr. Virkus,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
rvirkus2000 | 2 Aug 2006 22:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: H-O-H Bond Angle in H2O

--- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> ...> wrote:
>

> >
> 
>   It may be worth noting as well here that the measurement
> Mills prefers is based on neutron diffraction.  Which means
> the neutron is behaving as a *wave*.  Mills has a deterministic
> explanation for the double slit experiment for electrons: as 
> they approach the two slits, currents are induced in the material
> where the slits exist, and these currents determine which slit
> the electron goes through, and the resulting pattern just 
> happens to agree with what you would get if the electron were
> behaving as a wave.  So there you are.  

Dr. Connett,

If physics were all about debating tactics you may have a couple
points here however it is not. 

First, what is important is that you believe the neutron data of 106
degrees with an error bound of 0.6 degrees is real. 

Second, we should realize that there may not be an large inconsistancy
between Mills number and the 104.5 degree number as the lower number
assumes the molecule is in vapor state so there are interactions and 
vibration and rotational states. Mills calculates the bond angle
assuming no interactions or vibrational or rotational states which
makes the angle larger. I believe the 104.5 number may be for real
water and not an isolated H2O molecule at low exitation. Mills number
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
elirabett2003 | 3 Aug 2006 16:31
Picon
Favicon

Re: H-O-H Bond Angle in H2O

--- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> ...> wrote:
>

SNIP...
> 
>   It may be worth noting as well here that the measurement
> Mills prefers is based on neutron diffraction.  Which means
> the neutron is behaving as a *wave*.  

Missed that

> Mills has a deterministic
> explanation for the double slit experiment for electrons: as 
> they approach the two slits, currents are induced in the material
> where the slits exist, and these currents determine which slit
> the electron goes through, and the resulting pattern just 
> happens to agree with what you would get if the electron were
> behaving as a wave.  So there you are.  

Except who said that the slits were cut in a conductor?  In fact,
electron (and neutron) diffraction is observed for all sorts of
materials, metals, ionic crystals, molecular crystals, etc.
> 
>   But neutrons are neutral.  Neutron diffraction cannot have
> the same explanation that Mills provides for electron diffraction. 
> Neutrons behaving as waves has a rational explanation in SQM.  
> I have seen no such explanation in CQM.  It seems a little
> ironic that Mills thinks this is a superior means of measure-
> ment when, so far as I can tell, he has no explanation for it.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Churl Oh | 4 Aug 2006 01:03
Picon

Re: Hydrogen-type molecules (To Will)

<<It would be true if you considered the molecule as a whole.  However,
you cannot consider the angular momentum of just the electrons, as Mills
does.>>
What else has the angular momentum, the central point charge?

<<This is wrong. The force is -grad U, where U is the potential. Its
apparent in the deffinition of potential energy. Force is NOT the
derivative of the total energy.>>

For electrostatic forces, you should use electrostatic potential only.
However, the positions of the protons affect not only electrostatic
potentials but the entire system.  Therefore, you have to consider the
entire energy.  This is analogous to the hydrogen atom debate where the
position of proton could be set at random if only the electrostatic
force is considered.

It is quite easy to see that if one only considers the electrostatic
potential energy in the of hydrogen atom, the minimum energy can only be
achieved at the closest proximity of the electron OS and the proton.
Obviously, this is not correct.  The same can be said for the hydrogen
molecule.

Regards,

Churl Oh

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 | 2 comments |
headers
peterzaterols | 2 Aug 2006 21:32
Favicon

Re: Half-life, electrons and low temperatures

Despite the fact that this made the Physics Web news, and even that it
got published in a Journal of Physics e-zine, I would discount it.

It's essentially impossible for electrons to get close enough to a
nucleus to affect the decay rate.  I know, I know, some of you believe
in Lenr/Can'tR, but this is even further off the deep end.  But think
how vastly much bigger even the inner orbitals of a mid-high Z atom are
than the nucleus itself.  You've got 6-8 orders of magnitude to
overcome.  And try to find a way that chilling a matrix will force its
electrons close to the electrons of another atom.  You don't even have
the oddity here that palladium really does load up heavily with
hydrogen.

-pz

-pz

--- In hydrino@..., "Clark  Whelton" <cwhelton <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Off topic, but of possible interest to group members...
>
> Half-life, electrons and low temperatures
>
> 31 July 2006
>
> A group of physicists in Germany claims to have discovered a way of
speeding up radioactive decay that could render nuclear waste harmless
on timescales of just a few tens of years. Their proposed technique
â€" which involves slashing the half-life of an alpha emitter by
embedding it in a metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees kelvin
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
rvirkus2000 | 3 Aug 2006 02:34
Picon
Favicon

Re: Hydrogen-type molecules (To Will)

--- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> ...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "rvirkus2000" <r-virkus <at> > wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Connett,
> > 
> 
>   Please, I'm just a PhD, not a real Doctor like Dr. Mills.
> John C. is sufficient.  Just don't call me John B. 

John C.,

 I do not understand the reference to John B. 

[John Barchak. --LS]

> 
> > Why are you demanding Mills model for H2 be stable under electrostatic
> > forces only? 
> 
>   In Chapter 11 Mills simply PUTS the protons at the foci
> of the ellipse.  Figure 11.1 just comes out of nowhere.  In
> a planetary system with two suns and a planet, (1) will the 
> planet follow an elliptical orbit?  Why?  (2) Assuming the 
> planet follows an elliptical orbit, why will the two suns 
> be at the foci?  Does Mills prove that must happen, or does
> he just assert it?  Can you prove it? (3) Note that Mills 
> assumes the electron-ellipsoid, just like the orbitsphere, 
> experiences no self-interaction force - in other words, 
> mass/charge points moving on the ellipsoid can "see" the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane