headers
rvirkus2000 | 1 Nov 2006 23:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mills Radio Interview

Another possible reality is that the scientific community could
fracture into different approaches where one approach does not
generally dominate over another as long as each approach provides
a framework in which to interpret the world. I could see a Millsian
physics camp, an "Old QM" camp and others emerging and co-existing.
The current approach is for one view to dominate at the expense of 
the other views being "discredited". For example, the DeBroglie-Bohm
Causal approach to QM has been out there for decades and is a more
real and causal approach but has generally been marginalized by the
physics community except as a comparison to the standard view and 
perhaps by a few adherents. For those who don't know, De Broglie is
the same physicist who came up with the matter wave concept, a core 
value of SQM, but it seems he did not like what it evolved into. 

--- In hydrino@..., "Marty Galyean" <marty <at> ...> wrote:

> 
> I don't have a horse in the Mills race.  But it seems reasonable to
entertain a
> non-probablistic approach to QM.  Science merely narrows empirical
data into a
> would-be model via statistics.  But for statistics to *be* the model
is so
> entirely unintuitive to the scientific mind that I'd think looking a
> non-statistical model would be not only scientifically paramount, but
> inherently prudent.
> 
> Mills might not have it exactly, but he could be on the right track.
 It is saddening
> that even entertaining the possibility he may be onto something that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
rvirkus2000 | 5 Nov 2006 02:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: The Einsteinians

--- In hydrino@..., "will.link" <will.j.link <at> ...> wrote:
>
> You should trust yourself to study the ideas and decide. 

Well obviously I try. At least to some extent as best I can. Even
with my limits I feel I can filter out bias.

> If you go
> through Mills book and the math honestly makes sense to you, fine. 
> I, and others, assert that nearly every page of Mills book has some
> mathematical or physical mistake in it.  

Or perhaps a misunderstanding on the reader's part? 

> My problems with Mills in no way stem from quantum physics,
> but from his understanding of classical physics. 

I think he understands a lot more that you think.

> You claim to have learned some quantum physics in a university, andI
> suggest revisiting it, and comparing and contrasting.

Obviously you must think that if I did I would admit that Mills' work
is flawed and that the critics are correct. 

Do you think an understanding of QM means someone will not
accept Mills' work? What you and other critics seem to miss is that
you are trusting a mathematical formalism (QM) to evaluate what 
physics could possibly be real (lower states than n=1 in Hydrogen 
atom) and not evaluating QM in light of Mills discovery of lower
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
rvirkus2000 | 1 Nov 2006 23:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mills Radio Interview

"It has been shown" boils down to a matter of interpretation and opinion. Having a "majority viewpoint"
does not make you correct. But if it would make you happy you can point me to a couple of messages that I can
review (the reference numbers would be helpful).

--- In hydrino@..., "elirabett2003" <elirabett2003 <at> ...> wrote:

> Sorry rvirkus, there have been more than a few times on this list when
> it has been shown that Mills' spectral analyses were wrong.

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@... 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
kleml29 | 2 Nov 2006 03:45
Picon

Re: Gauss vs. Coulomb

--- In hydrino@..., "Churl Oh" <churloh <at> ...> wrote:
>
> <<Somehow, they are not the same.>>
>  
> I don't know what you are trying to point out.  However, this is
> precisely what I am trying to point out.  Coulomb's and Gauss' 
laws are
> neither interchangeable nor equivalent. 
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Churl Oh
>
I could be looking at my own ignorance here, but Coulomb thought
of electricity as a fluid. Less of it here meant more of it
somewhere else (as charged bodies). Faraday's concept of electric
field was commensurate with this idea. In Coulomb/Faraday's world
there were no electric monopoles and the conservation of charge
law was total charge=zero. The Gauss imagery requires only a
finite point charge and an infinitesimal charge. The latter is not
a counter charge so the finite charge is a monopole. This gives a
different charge conservation law but it is the one that appears
in Maxwell's equations.

Bob Lowry

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
rvirkus2000 | 1 Nov 2006 23:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: New Book

I agree with Luke. Tom's work should be of interest to our rather
small community and informing us is no moral compromise.

--- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peter.zimmerman <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> I did not know that advertising and self-promotion were permitted on
> this list.
> 
> [This book is relevant to this list -- and profit is moral.  --LS]

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@... 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John E Connett | 2 Nov 2006 02:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Gauss vs. Coulomb

--- In hydrino@..., "Churl Oh" <churloh <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I am going to point out a couple of things.  It seems that we agreed not
> to agree on each other's point, so I will stop here.
>  
> <<Precisely. And the only point of the inner sphere that S2 does *not*
> enclose is P itself. Of course the single point P has measure zero,
> i.e., its contribution to the field is infinitesimal.>>
> 
> The kind of Gaussian surface that you invented is of no use because of
> the lack of any symmetry.  Refer to Gaussian surface here about how to
> construct one properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_surface
> 

  There are two surfaces involved here.  One is the inner 
sphere.  The other is the outer sphere.  You may
say, the inner sphere is not a Gaussian surface because 
it is missing a point.  It is not a closed surface.  I agree!  
But I am not applying Gauss' law to the inner sphere.  I am 
applying it to the outer sphere.  That was the whole point of
my argument, which must have gone right over your head.  Why
did you think I was considering the outer sphere in the first
place?  The outer sphere is a complete sphere, no missing points.  
It encloses a charge, that on the inner sphere.  I see no reason 
Gauss's law should not apply to it.

  As your reference says:

     "A Gaussian surface is a closed two-dimensional surface 
      through which a flux or electric field is to be calculated."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Wolstenholme | 2 Nov 2006 19:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mills Radio Interview

But I understand - from a comment in Stolper's book, page 304 - that although a high power has been achieved,
400 W - it only works for a short time, and not continuously. Perhaps it did not like having the plasma
getting too hot? I wonder if the process would oscillate, if carefully designed not to melt the apparatus first?
  I think various other, previous,  tests showed good power production for short times.
     Time will tell....
      Peter W. 

rvirkus2000 <r-virkus@...> wrote:
          Mills has already stated that the power density achieved is on the
order of that in commercial reactors though on bench scale devices.

--- In hydrino@..., Peter Wolstenholme <peterwolst83 <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> It often takes as much as 30 years to apply basic physics to
engineered products. Look at the gap between Maxwell and Marconi, for
example. And think of the huge Manhattan project, causing a sudden
change in 1945 to our perceptions of nuclear physics and stimulating a
nuclear engineering discipline without which nuclear power plants
might have not appeared until the 1970's.
> 
> But on a more practical note, just suppose that Mills is right
about the hydrino. If a working device is to have a high power
density, then it could be hard to stop those hydrinos re-absorbing
energy, and returning to the normal ground state or even conventional
excited states, don't you think? I found it significant that his UV
discharge experiments were done in a very low electrical field
strength, so helping to avoid such excitation. So it could take a
quite brilliant scientific and engineering team a few years to get the
process working properly, with the power extracted by some cunning tricks.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clark Whelton | 2 Nov 2006 01:45
Picon

Re: Mills Radio Interview


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Marty Galyean
>>>>>>>Mills might not have it exactly, but he could be on the right track. 
>>>>>>>It is saddening
that even entertaining the possibility he may be onto something that is 
contrary
to the consensus is seemingly too difficult for oligarchy of the consensus.

Everyone on this list hopes Mills has invented a cheaper and cleaner source 
of energy.  Such an invention would benefit us all.  The geo-political 
implications alone would be enormous.  But Mills seems to have put his 
public relations cart before his scientific horse, which is standard 
practice in the world of free energy cults.  This does not mean BLP is such 
a cult, but it does raise questions that only a working prototype can 
answer.  If Mills chooses to fight it out in the realm of theory, then he 
must be prepared for theoretical objections and criticisms.

Clark W. 

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@... 
Yahoo! Groups Links
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
rvirkus2000 | 1 Nov 2006 23:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

Thank you Jim. I appreciate that.

--- In hydrino@..., "JimNLori" <jamloraus <at> ...> wrote:

> I concede your points.  I get 1/2 the radius,
> but you are essentially right.

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@... 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:hydrino-digest@... 
    mailto:hydrino-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Carrell | 6 Nov 2006 05:06
Favicon

Re: Mills Radio Interview

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clark Whelton" <cwhelton@...>
Subject: HSG: Re: Mills Radio Interview

<snip>
> Everyone on this list hopes Mills has invented a cheaper and cleaner 
> source
> of energy.  Such an invention would benefit us all.  The geo-political
> implications alone would be enormous.  But Mills seems to have put his
> public relations cart before his scientific horse, which is standard
> practice in the world of free energy cults.  This does not mean BLP is 
> such
> a cult, but it does raise questions that only a working prototype can
> answer.  If Mills chooses to fight it out in the realm of theory, then he
> must be prepared for theoretical objections and criticisms.

Clark is drawing conclusions from admittedly fragmentary data, namely a 
radio interview. The strategy Mills is following is quite complex with the 
real action going on behind closed curtains. Behind those curtains has been 
real, hard evaluations by and negotiations with a variety of industrial 
interests, where others have run BLP experiments in their own labs. All is 
in flux and in private until some defintie arrangements are made.

In due time, the fight will be in public when Mills and his advisers think 
the time is ripe. Meanwhile all else is speculation.

Mike Carrell

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane