headers
operationquest | 2 Jul 2008 04:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: Clues for Skeptics

--- In hydrino@..., "Eugene Wagner" <eugenewag <at> ...> wrote:
>
> operationquest wrote:
> 
> > Suppression? This was one of the biggest stories in
> > Science when it came out.
> 
> Yes suppression: it is cold fusion all over again. That was a
> big story too when it came out. Then the rotters crawled
> out of the woodwork and proceeded to publicly crucify
> Fleischman and Pons to set an example while also
> doing bogus experiments that pretended to get null
> results.
> 
> To those willing to look, low energy nuclear reactions
> (a better name for it than "cold fusion") are now an
> obvious reality supported by tons of unambiguous
> experiments. But the subject is still sidetracked away
> from mainstream journals and funding. Those active
> in the field are to a large extent old guys with little
> to lose in terms of career.
> 

A professor mentioned in class once that when the Pons and Fleischman
thing hit the news, everyone came around asking him for heavy water.
And nothing came of it. There was no cover-up. Just bad experimental
procedures and bad experimental design.

I may try setting up a LENR experiment this summer, but I remain
highly skeptical about the whole business.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Shane | 2 Jul 2008 11:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: Links to Mills patents?

--- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peter.zimmerman <at> ...> 
wrote: I do not consider John Connett's contribution to be a 
diatribe.  ........but I do
mind your using a pejorative word.

The vulgar D-word should not be used if front of children. Made me 
blush.

------------------------------------

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@...! 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
elirabett2003 | 1 Jul 2008 04:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: response to critic of Increasing Exclusion

Your claims of being wronged are really weak. Your mistake is to think
you can exhaust me.  All that will happen is that you will lose
whatever smidge of respect others have left for you.  As I said and
you cut

"Let us use doubly ionized He ion as the reference. In that case the
total energy of neutral helium lies 79.1 eV below the reference level.
This is an eigenvalue." then
>
>> "The average energy of each electron is then -39.55 eV below
>> the reference level. This is an expectation value, not an
>> eigenvalue. The average total energy of each electron includes
>> kinetic energy, and potential energy composed of attraction
>> between the electron and the nucleus and repulsion between
>> the two nuclei."

To which you reply:
>
> This is a  sort-of  CORRECT answer.  Unfortunately for the
> critic it implies major problems:
> 1.  The validity of the Shroedinger model derives from
> experiments that show the excitation energy of hydrogen
> predicted matches the measured excitation energies. 
> Theories gain validity by matching measured values. 
> And this works for the one electron version of quantum.
> Unfortunately for the critic, -39.55 eV doesn't match
> any measured value associated with helium. 
>
No, the energy of neutral He is -79.1 eV, QM does quite well on that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Mike Carrell | 1 Jul 2008 23:00
Favicon

Re: Opinion Poll

My commentary on John's reply, snipped for compactness: Mike Carrell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John E Connett

<snip> The questions are simple:
>
> 1) Do you believe or disbelieve BLP's stated claim, posted May 28,
> 2008, that they have been successful in the testing of their energy
> source? Explain succulently as possible why you believe or disbelieve
> the claims.
>

I will try to be as succulent as I possibly can.

At this point I cannot accept their stated claims as fact.
BLP has a track record of misinterpreting their own data. This
is a fairly complex experiment requiring careful measurements,
and there is room for error.

MC: "Track record...." is a sweeping allegation without supporting detail.
The necessary precision of measurments is related to the magnitude of the
effect. You do not need precision to observe that the house is burning down.
In several emails, I explained to John the calorimetric method apparently
used by BLP, particulalrly the *estimation* of the 50 kW power. The
*measurement* of the 753 Jould energy is more important. These are large
magnitude effects from a 5 mg charge of 'fuel'. Even 10% errors would still
be of great significance.

This experiment, like almost
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John E Connett | 2 Jul 2008 17:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: Opinion Poll

--- In hydrino@..., "Steven Vincent Johnson"
<orionworks <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for participating in my ad hoc opinion poll, John.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > DISCLAIMER:
> > > 
> > > My opinions are strictly my own.
> > > 
> > > I could be wrong on some, or all accounts.
> > > 
> > > We shall see.
> 
> > From John Connett
> ...
> > Shall we? If 24 months from now, there is no more 
> > tangible evidence than we now have in hand, will you
> > begin to doubt? I don't think so. I think you have
> > a deep emotional wish to believe and you will not part
> > with it easily. You are no more rational and objective
> > than Dr. Park. 
> > 
> > John C.
> 
> Is it possible that you might harbor some dyslexia? 

  Not a chance, though I do have some kind of blind 
spot when it comes to card games.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
John E Connett | 2 Jul 2008 18:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: Opinion Poll

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

  [my own, uh, diatribe, snipped]

> Which of us is being
> fair and rational in clinging to our beliefs?  Sometimes
> people don't know the roots of their own beliefs, and I
> may be as subject to that as anyone.  Here, I can only
> conjecture that you have an emotional investment in this,
> and that in fact that is the dominant factor.
> 
> [What is *your* emotional investment in this, John?  --LS]

  A fair question and I will answer it as honestly as 
I can.  But I must ask the same of you.

  I noticed 'hydrino' theory about 6 years ago through a
reference from another news group.  There were pointers to
the HSG.  I read some of the posts and thought, these are
at a fairly high level with relatively rational informed
discussion, unlike most other internet groups which all too
often deteriorate into flame wars.  So I started looking
into it.  I downloaded the current version of GUT-CQM and
started going through it.  There was a post way back there
by John Kassebaum where he undertook to give his own 
explanation of the theory.  John's writing is a lot more
accessible than Mills'.  That's when things started to 
unravel badly.  I found flaw after flaw in the theory.  A
good many of these had been found before, including a fair
number by ... Luke Setzer.  It seemed to me that Mills
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Luther Setzer | 2 Jul 2008 19:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Opinion Poll

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

> I don't like it.  I think it's wrong, very wrong.  Yes,
> there is emotional involvement.  It's a feeling of righteous
> outrage.  Here is a ridiculous theory and highly questionable
> experiments.  For some reason I am not happy to just sit by
> and let it flourish.  I am disturbed that the editing of peer-
> reviewed journals has become so careless and lackadaisical as
> to allow BLP to permit inclusion of the "theory"in paper
> after paper.  It's not right and I don't like it.  I have no
> vested interest in physics or fusion research or big oil or
> any of that.  I think there are answers, not cheap and not
> easy, to the continuing and worsening energy shortage: solar
> in particular.  It bothers me that the government is not
> aggressively trying to develop KNOWN alternative sources, and
> it bothers me that adherents here to BLP seem to think there has
> to be a free lunch.  I think that is false and pursuing it is
> a waste of time and money and emotional energy.

Shortly after I started dating my future wife back in 1990, a nosy third party asked me intimate details
about our relationship.  I rebuffed the inquisitor and walked away.  When I shared this incident with my
sweetheart later, she made a candid observation that so resonated with my soul that I decided to bond with
her even more closely:

"People who mind other people's business do not have good enough business of their own to mind."

Like John, I find false ideas distasteful and draining.  Unlike John, however, I do not expect our
government to find solutions to global energy needs.  That role properly belongs to the free market.

Moreover, while I despise a host of mysticisms ranging from creationism to conspiracy theories, I do not go
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Zimmerman | 2 Jul 2008 20:10
Picon

Re: Opinion Poll

1) I like your bride-to-be's answer.
2) Perfectly reasonable people can differ on the role of government.  
You probably expect that it should defend the country, conduct foreign 
relations,  run the justice system, deliver the mail (see the US 
Constitution) and support the manned exploration of space.  Robert 
Heinlein thought that manned space flight was something for the market 
to support or not (see /"The Man Who Sold the Moon"/ and other 
stories).  Others could legitimately add many other roles for 
government.  I would include the exploration of new scientific 
frontiers, and basic research in energy science as well as medicine and 
other fields.  By its mission statement HSG is no place to be arguing 
the limits to government.
3) I, too, think CQM is cool stuff, mainly because I wonder how a man 
can so delude himself about his genius and I have enjoyed teasing out 
the flaws in Mills' experiments and theories.  Good puzzle.
4) I think you ran Driggers out for good.

-pz

Luther Setzer wrote:

> As I commented in John's prior post, whatever its problems, I think 
> CQM is cool stuff. If others dislike it and consider it sh*t, well, I 
> hope you find better things to do than to continue to wallow in sh*t. 
> To quote Leslie Nielsen in AIRPLANE!:
>
> "Good luck. We're all counting on you."
>
> By the way, my offline flippancy today has already led Jim Driggers to 
> vow never to post here again.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom A. Milstein | 2 Jul 2008 21:20
Favicon

Re: Opinion Poll

John, you are right about almost everything except: "Hence Eugene Wagner thinking that Big Oil is
suppressing all other energy research."

Wagner may express himself in unduly paranoid terms, but if you think the biggest vested interest in the
world doesn't jealously and preemptively guard its monopoly, then you're living in an alternate
universe. It's Pollyanna political views like yours that lead directly to the crackpot anti-scientific
views we see expounded in HSG.

The whole "energy crisis" is a Cartel-generated marketing device. That's why it arises and goes away every
25 years or so. Sorry to see an otherwise sensible person such as yourself sucked in by it.

Got to go now, have to make my deposit at the Carbon Bank.

- Tom A. Milstein

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
web1 | 2 Jul 2008 23:47

Re: Links to Mills patents?

Someone was asking about links to Mills patents in a similarly-named thread.

Mills has two U.S. patents assigned to BLP:

<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=mills.INNM.&s2=blacklight.ASNM.&OS=IN/mills+AND+AN/blacklight&RS=IN/mills+AND+AN/blacklight>7,188,033

is for a computer software program, and

<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=mills.INNM.&s2=blacklight.ASNM.&OS=IN/mills+AND+AN/blacklight&RS=IN/mills+AND+AN/blacklight>6,024,935

is for "Lower-energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures."

I'm curious too. Does anyone know of any other Mills patents assigned to BLP? In any country?

I sent a request to Mike Sabel earlier today and have not yet received a response.

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane