novel_compound | 2 Jun 00:15 2007
Picon

Re: Helium and the Solar Wind

For hydrinophiles, this was the most interesting part of the article:

"'It's still not clear... why more helium is found as the solar wind 
speed increases, but it's a clue that we are missing something 
fundamental about what makes the solar wind blow,' said Kasper. It's 
also unknown what gets the solar wind blowing again once it falls 
below its minimum speed, but there are hints the process may be 
related to violent eruptions of plasma from the sun called coronal 
mass ejections, or CMEs. CMEs have five to 10 times the amount of 
helium seen in the solar wind, according to the team. As the solar 
wind stagnates, helium builds up until the plasma is explosively 
released as a CME in this scenario."

--- In hydrino@..., "Eugene Wagner" <eugenewag <at> ...> wrote:
>
> The following article notes that the solar wind is
> fastest when it contains relatively much helium,
> and slow when there is hardly any helium.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530114957.htm
> 
> Interesting. No hydrino catalyst, no solar wind...

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@... 
(Continue reading)

rvirkus2000 | 5 Jun 19:57 2007
Picon

Re: Earthtech

--- In hydrino@..., "Eugene Wagner" <eugenewag <at> ...> wrote:
>
> rvirkus2000 wrote:
> 
> > To put things in perspective, the folks at Earthtech spend a lot of
> > time looking for things like Zero Point energy. They also write and
> > publish papers in decent journals regarding Gravitation. My point is
> > that they are the type of group that would generally want Mills to
> > succeed.
> 
> Given the preceding discussion you sound very definite. I suppose
> you have deployed your telepathic powers to read their true intent.
>

I tried to use my observational powers, not my telepathic powers in
this case.

 Anyone who looks at the Earthtech website and reads a few of their
papers can quickly see they do not fall into the "hostile to new
ideas" camp. They just cannot get Mills' stuff to work. They do not
claim Mills is wrong they just say they have not succeeded in making 
it work. 

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@...
(Continue reading)

Mike Carrell | 6 Jun 23:33 2007

Re: Earthtech

Earth Tech has not seen the Mills BLP effects because that did not do the 
experiments correctly, as I have noted.

Mike Carrell

--- In hydrino@..., "Eugene Wagner" <eugenewag <at> ...> wrote:
>
> rvirkus2000 wrote:
>
> > To put things in perspective, the folks at Earthtech spend a lot of
> > time looking for things like Zero Point energy. They also write and
> > publish papers in decent journals regarding Gravitation. My point is
> > that they are the type of group that would generally want Mills to
> > succeed.
>
> Given the preceding discussion you sound very definite. I suppose
> you have deployed your telepathic powers to read their true intent.
>

I tried to use my observational powers, not my telepathic powers in
this case.

Anyone who looks at the Earthtech website and reads a few of their
papers can quickly see they do not fall into the "hostile to new
ideas" camp. They just cannot get Mills' stuff to work. They do not
claim Mills is wrong they just say they have not succeeded in making
it work.

________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. 
(Continue reading)

ccwatson73 | 7 Jun 15:19 2007
Picon

CQM Wiki Proposal

Hi,

I am long time lurker who is neither a true believer or purblind 
sceptic but rather (like many others I suspect) caught uniquely 
between a rock and a hard place with respect to CQM. 

Like all alt.energy schemes CQM offers the golden promise of a non-
polluting energy source and more (i.e. secures the future of human 
civilisation as we know it). For 99% of all such schemes I can dig up 
on the Internet my education, intelligence and intuition, such as 
they are, can file them away in a large drawer labeled "fools gold". 
Fortunately/unfortunately for me CQM just doesn't fit the profile, I 
can't put Mills in the same box. He just pushes so hard and has been 
pushing for so long an putting so much material out there for all to 
see(1000+ page treatise? 60+ papers) that you have to examine his 
motives.

If he is a conman then with the investor money in his pocket why 
doesn't he just keep his head down a bit more, why update his book so 
regularly and with so much zeal and make it freely available, why 
expose himself to so much scrutiny? 
If its not a con then is it that he is just deluded and ploughing his 
own little fantasy furrow? He is obviously not a stupid guy and his 
self-discipline, productivity and sober delivery of material indicate 
that he is not obviously mentally ill, and what of the people he has 
working for him wouldn't one of them blow the whistle if he'd lost 
his marbles (or was on the long con for that matter). 
The final analysis for me then is that he has the behaviour of a man 
who might just have cracked it, it wouldn't be the first time a 
controversial theory wasn't accepted by the establishment; but then I 
(Continue reading)

Tstolper | 10 Jun 07:24 2007
Picon

Re: Earthtech

In HSG message 12501 dated May 29, 2007, Rob Virkus wrote:

> To put things in perspective, the folks at Earthtech spend a lot of
> time looking for things like Zero Point energy.

That in particular.

> They also write and
> publish papers in decent journals regarding Gravitation. My point is
> that they are the type of group that would generally want Mills to
> succeed.

That wasn't my conclusion at all from the years when I kept an eye on EarthTech's work as it was posted and
reported on the Web and elsewhere (mostly 1996 through 2001).   To the contrary, I came to believe that they
regarded Mills as a dangerous rival.

Tom Stolper

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@... 
Eugene Wagner | 9 Jun 10:53 2007
Picon

Re: Earthtech

rvirkus2000 wrote:

> I tried to use my observational powers (...)
>  Anyone who looks at the Earthtech website and reads a few of their
> papers can quickly see (...)

So what you said they are was merely based on what they claim
to do? I suppose you also believe that Fox brings you fair
and balanced news. They say they do.

Seriously though, statements made by people that are likely to
have an incentive to lie should be treated with a little more caution.

People publishing papers on energy technologies or theories are
likely to have such an incentive, just as politicians do, or the
media, banks, historians, and so on.

Consider that it is easy to generate theoretical papers that are
just bunk, or write down experimental claims that do not match
what was actually observed.

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@... 
(Continue reading)

Mike Carrell | 10 Jun 20:15 2007

Re: CQM Wiki Proposal

My advice to Craig is to keep chewing. He has done a quite reasonable 
assement of the HSG/BLP scene based on what he can read in the recent 
months. I and others grow somewhat impatient waiting for the egg to hatch. I 
will repeat my perspective on the scene. I have some advantage in an 
indirect pipeline which gives me a sense of what has been going on without 
specific details. The following comments are no sense 'official' and are 
only an informed opinion.

Mills has positioned BLP as a license laboratory. He has neither the staff 
or resources to produce a commercial 'product'. I had a careet with a 
world-class electronics firm [RCA] in positions which gave me a perespective 
on what it costs to launch a commercial product based on available 
technology; it is in the hundreds of millions, back when a million dollars 
was real money. To attract licensees to do product development, Mill must 
have a very strong patent base, for his potential clients will be betting 
their companies. Thus the long list of journal papers, experimental reports, 
and his magnum opus are all part of a "reduction to practice" necessary for 
strong patents. So far the patent office is listening to crtitics who on 
'theoretical' grounds deny the validity of CQM, and therefore devices based 
on that theory. I would not be surprised if a very noisy legal battle ensues

Mills and BLP have been in active dialogue with some number of interested 
parties. There has been duplication of BLP experimental effects in other 
laboratories. There have been visits by 'experts' on 'due diligience' 
missions.

Scaling up of reactor performance is the nubbin and very possibly a very 
expensinve problem to solve. It is one thing to produce a small-scale effect 
in a lab, and even verify the the energy density is astonishing. It can be 
quite another matter to produce the effect on a kilowatt scale, with on/off, 
(Continue reading)

john_e_barchak | 10 Jun 22:17 2007
Picon

Re: CQM Wiki Proposal

Hi Craig
I think your proposal is quite interesting.  In my opinion, Dr. Mills 
should lay a proper historical foundation for CQM.  Many of the ideas 
are certainly not new or unique.  I do not understand his reluctance 
to do this.

If Fermi had not been side-tracked into the A-bomb, he might have 
even reached the molecular modeling done by Dr. Mills.  By 1923, 
Fermi had certainly laid the foundation for the Classical 
Electromagnetic Mass Theory as a TOE.  Fermi was actively trying to 
find the unification of relativity and quantum theory and he also did 
not buy into all of the Copenhagen hype of quantum theory. 

Are you suggesting that a Wiki approval board be selected from the 
HSG?

Best- John B.

--- In hydrino@..., "ccwatson73" <ccwatson1 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> I am long time lurker who is neither a true believer or purblind
> sceptic but rather (like many others I suspect) caught uniquely
> between a rock and a hard place with respect to CQM.
> 
> Like all alt.energy schemes CQM offers the golden promise of a non-
> polluting energy source and more (i.e. secures the future of human
> civilisation as we know it). For 99% of all such schemes I can dig 
up
(Continue reading)

rvirkus2000 | 11 Jun 18:32 2007
Picon

Re: Earthtech

--- In hydrino@..., "Eugene Wagner" <eugenewag <at> ...> wrote:
>
> rvirkus2000 wrote:
> 
> > I tried to use my observational powers (...)
> >  Anyone who looks at the Earthtech website and reads a few of their
> > papers can quickly see (...)
> 
> So what you said they are was merely based on what they claim
> to do? I suppose you also believe that Fox brings you fair
> and balanced news. They say they do.

I am not going to speculate into peoples motives. The more important
point regarding Earthtech and Dr. Mills is that Dr. Puthoff bases his
entire views on the existence of exactly the  quantum fluctuations
which Dr. Mills insists is fiction. Both views can be wrong but both
cannot be correct.  

The Casimir force is experimental evidence for the existence of the
so-called Zero Point Fluctuations or ZPF also referred to sometimes as
Zero Point Energy ZPE. I have not seen Dr. Mills CQM interpretation of
this yet as it is not listed in the index of his book. 

But all this brings up the question in my mind as to whether or not
I really want to abandon the modern view of the quantum vacuum esp.
since it may be possible to extract energy out of it but that is still
a big *maybe* and not a certainty.

> 
> Seriously though, statements made by people that are likely to
(Continue reading)

pktr5 | 11 Jun 12:31 2007
Picon

What is the electron equation(s) of motion in CQM?

Hello everyone,

is anyone able to actually write down the WHOLE equation(s) of motion
of the electron that CQM implies? 

(I don't mean the wave equation that Mills starts with, because AFAIK
that's only a part of the story: it only governs what happens inside
the electron ("internally fluidized", www.hydrino.org) and not how
external forces act upon it, and how the orbitosphere deforms when
acted upon by external forces -- ther's no place in it for that.)

First we have to say what describes the state of the electron, then
say what the time evolution is, i.e. (nth) time derivative of that
state. This equation would include the forces acting upon the
electron. Upon integration, we know everything we want :) So, from the
initial conditions we would (in theory, or numerically) compute how
the orbitosphere/surface deforms, flows, etc.

Now in more detail what I would like to see:
1. The state: at time t, the state of the electron will probably be
given by
 - rho(x,y,z,t) charge density (a planar delta function, actually)
 - j(x,y,z,t) current density (or, alternatively, d/dt rho(x,y,z,t))
 (these two are not independent, div j + d/dt rho = 0 ties them together.)

2. Equation of motion: something like
  d/dt or d^2/dt^2 j(x,y,z,t) = 
    ...attraction/repulsion between charge elements of different
particles... +
  + ...electrodynamical forces between those elements... +
(Continue reading)


Gmane