headers
dovalinor | 1 Nov 2008 05:45
Picon
Favicon

Bob Parks' Halloween for BlackLight Power

From Bob Park's "What's New" series of anti-Mills diatribes:

Oct 31, 2008

4. HYDRINOS: BLACKLIGHT POWER ANNOUNCES CONFIRMATION.
No, no, not confirmation of hydrinos, of a new 50 kilowatt reactor.
What, you might ask, does it react? Good question. It all began on
April 25, 1991 when Randy Mills M.D. held a press conference in
Lancaster, PA to announce that "cold fusion" isn't fusion at all.
"It's hydrogen atoms decaying into a state below the ground state." He
called the new state "the hydrino", (WN 26 Apr 91) , and formed a
company, HydroCatalysis Inc., to exploit its wonderful properties.
Somehow, the name lacked zing, so he changed it to BlackLight Power.
Perfect! Soon, investors with deep pockets were begging him to take
their money, which he did; reportedly to the tune of about $60
million. Sales, however, have been slow; reportedly about $0. The
solution to that, Mills says, is BlackLight's new 50 kilowatt energy
generator. An engineering team from Rowan University in New Jersey,
headed by Peter Jansson, reports that, following BlackLight's
procedures using material supplied by Blacklight, it has confirmed the
energy production. But they are silent on the hydrino explanation. 

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html

[Park is a prick.  --LS]

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

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

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
john_e_barchak | 1 Nov 2008 12:31
Picon
Favicon

Hilbert's Foundation of Physics

Hilbert's 'Foundation of Physics' may provide a very rigorous 
foundation for Dr. Mills' Classical Physics.  Amazingly, it would be 
far more rigorous than anything in quantum theory.

"Hilbert himself emphasized that he actually had two separate 
starting points for his approach, Mie's electromagnetic theory of 
matter as well as Einstein's attempt to base a theory of gravitation 
on the metric tensor. Hilbert's superior mastery of mathematics 
apparently allowed him to arrive quickly and independently at 
combined field equations for the electromagnetic and gravitational 
fields. Although his use of Mie's ideas initially led Hilbert to a 
theory that was, from the point of view of later general relativity, 
restricted to a particular source for the gravitational field, the 
electromagnetic field, he is nevertheless regarded by many historians 
of science and physicists as the first to have established a 
mathematical framework for general relativity that provides both 
essential results of the theory, such as the field equations, and a 
clarification of previously obscure conceptual issues, such as the 
nature of causality in generally covariant field theories.

His contributions to general relativity, although initially inspired 
by Mie and Einstein, hence appear as a unique and independent 
achievement. In addition, Hilbert is seen by some as initiating the 
subsequent search for unified field theories of gravitation and 
electromagnetism.

In view of all these results, established within a very short time, 
it appears that Hilbert indeed had found an independent "royal road" 
to general relativity and beyond."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
dovalinor | 2 Nov 2008 14:46
Picon
Favicon

Re: Bob Parks' Halloween for BlackLight Power

I would like to point out that I didn't write "Park is a prick,"
rather that was inserted by a moderator.

[Yes, I did so without apology and took credit for it with my initials.  --LS (Luke Setzer, Moderator)]

I am well aware that Parks is THE self-appointed "King of the
ANTI-Hydrino Theory" camp, and that there is no such official position
as "Spokesperson" for the APS= American Physical Society whatzis, but
he's appointed himself that too. I know Dr. Mills has threatened to
sue him, but I also know this:

He doesn't give any FACTS as to why he hates Hydrino Theory so much.
That pegs him as self-centered IMO and OPINION does matter, very much,
but only if there is a FACTual basis on which to base said opinion.
Parks is really annoying to read for just that reason. 

A lot of this IMO goes back to that German grad student who found a
math error in the original Volume 1 of Dr. Mills book. OK, there was
an error. Parks seems to extrapolate the whole theory is wrong
therefore. That's kinda crazy, as long as the error is corrected.

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

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)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Peter Zimmerman | 2 Nov 2008 16:35
Picon

Re: Hilbert's Foundation of Physics

John,

It would have been extremely nice if you had read down another page or 
two in the article from which you quoted.  You would have found the 
following which disproves your previous post:

> In a recent paper we have shown that Hilbert actually did not 
> anticipate Einstein in presenting
> the field equations.5 Our argument is based on the analysis of a set 
> of proofs of
> Hilbert's first paper; in the following they are referred to as the 
> "Proofs."6 These Proofs
> not only do not include the explicit form of the field equations of 
> general relativity, but
> they also show Hilbert's original theory to be in many ways closer to 
> the earlier, noncovariant
> versions of Einstein's theory of gravitation than to general 
> relativity. It was only
> after the publication on 2 December 1915 of Einstein's definitive 
> paper that Hilbert modified
> his theory in such a way that his results were in accord with those of 
> Einstein.7 The
> final version of his first paper, which was not published until March 
> 1916, now includes
> the explicit field equations and has no restriction on general 
> covariance.8 Hilbert's second
> paper, a sequel to his first communication, in which he first 
> discussed causality, apparently
> also underwent a major revision before eventually being published in 
> 1917.9
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
navigator777777 | 3 Nov 2008 01:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: Predicting the impact

Hello...Newbie here....

Few of us who know about BLP can fix or understand many of the things in our daily lives.
(No disrespect to those who can)
Car engines with puters, the TV remote, the microwave etc.

I've  followed BLP for 20 years and cannot understand how Dr Mills could keep up the charade if there were a
shred of dishonesty in his positions?

Is not the proof of  Mills integrity and the failure of science to be found on the day money 
changes hands for a working unit?

If BLP is real and if it produces energy cheaper than diesel, hydro, coal  and is scalable to service
communities ... the devastation of the new technology will kill some and make 
others  wealthy.  The trick is to see the writing on the wall.

Far more devastating, IMHO, is this dawning era of "Spreading the Wealth Around"...  If I 
were Mills, I'd hibernate for at least four years.

I'd like to see home power generating units feeding back to the grid.  Hot water, home 
heating and electrical power all in one snug little bundle.
What I'm reading is enough heat to produce steam.  What happened to the direct 
conversion of heat energy to electricity promised 10 years ago?

Regardless of the safety controls available for modern steam units, I can't imagine the 
government allowing this technology in the home.  We have the right to speak freely and 
keep and bare arms ... for now ..... but not the right to enjoy steam as a motive force in 
our homes.

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Tim Perdue | 3 Nov 2008 23:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: Independent replication

Can any of the really long-time followers confirm that this replication is more important than the prior
replications that were done with the glass vacuum tube and microwave beams? I'm pretty sure I had read that
there was at least partial replication before and the "black light rocket" was also a replication of sorts.

Tim

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

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:
    mailto:hydrino-digest@... 
    mailto:hydrino-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clark Whelton | 2 Nov 2008 19:38
Picon

Re: Would it be possible for someone to build a Blacklight system for home use?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "charlie" <tooweirdtolive@...>
To: <hydrino@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:49 AM
Subject: HSG: Would it be possible for someone to build a Blacklight system 
for home use?
> The idea of patents is to allow anyone to be able to replicate
> technology, correct? So someone could theoretically build their own
> Blacklight system at home as long as they didn't try to sell it,
> correct?>
> So, as a layman, my question is, would it be feasible for someone to
> build a Blacklight system on their own?  From my perspective, while
> the process is involved, it doesn't seem like a very difficult
> engineering problem to make a Blacklight power system for a home use.
> After all, wasn't Mills planning at one time to make a space heater
> using this tech? It seems they changed their mind or postponed those
> plans for business reasons rather than some inability to engineer
> this.

Should we be making such an assumption?  If BLP needs more investment money, 
and apparently it does... if BLP wants validation from the 
scientific-scholarly community, and apparently it does... if BLP hopes to 
produce, market and license its technology to an energy-hungry planet, and 
apparently it does...  then why not build a working prototype and show it 
off?  A successful prototype would advance all of the above objectives.

Even members of this list who have doubts about BLP hope Mills is right. 
Cheaper, cleaner energy benefits everyone.  It is this hope for progress 
that tends to give revolutionary technologies the benefit of the doubt.  It 
is this hope for progress, combined with suspicions that conspiracies and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
mystic606 | 4 Nov 2008 16:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Local Realism

Hi John,

I'm glad you attributed the quotes to Hofer in your post.  Since you
challenged the reader to "be the judge" I'll have to take serious
issue with one of the principal things Hofer said:

"Electrons are waves. And if you think of them in terms of waves, you
will always end up with the right answer. Always"

Except that the EM waves associated with an electron are transverse
waves.  Even if those EM waves carried enough momentum to account for
the mass and inertia of the electron (they don't), that energy would
be dispersed at right angles to the trajectory of the electron, i.e.
the wave nature itself does not give an electron its mass or inertia.

Best,
Philip

--- In hydrino@..., "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Greg
> To answer your questions about the electron, see:
> 
> Is the Point Particle Obsolete?
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/10054
>

------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Peter Zimmerman | 2 Nov 2008 16:25
Picon

Re: Bob Parks' Halloween for BlackLight Power

I would remind the HSG that Andreas Rathke is not the only person who 
has found serious mathematical errors in not only earlier editions but 
also the current one.  It is fair to say that Mills doesn't understand 
vector addition very well, has redefined angular momentum to get the 
answer he wants, and has incorrectly solved his own "wave equation" from 
which he gets such quantization as he wants.  Park made much of this 
clear in Voodoo Science; you guys have just forgotten.  John Connett and 
I have pointed out mathematical errors; so did Aaron Barth; and so have 
many others.  It is not to much to claim that the theory does not hold 
water because the bucket has far too many logical holes in it.  One is 
left with the experiments, and Pibel, Josh/Eli, and I have picked holed 
in a lot of those including the most 'exciting' one of all, the Fifth 
Force Farce.

The APS and AIP both have official spokesmen/women.  Park is not one of 
them.

pz

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

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 | 0 comments |
headers
operationquest | 3 Nov 2008 05:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: A fundamental challenge

--- In hydrino@..., "nferguson2005" <neildferguson <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I have found a comment thread on chemistry oriented weblog where the
> participants actually started to address the claims (comparing
> Millsian computations against Spartan) of the paper
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/modeling101208S.pdf.
> 
> One comment was:  "Here's a test: try updating
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment with the
> correct (closed-form) equation and see what happens."
> 
> The comment is no doubt snark.  The paper's realm is chemistry, and
> the Wikipedia's entry is subatomic.  Yet it raises an interesting
> point.  The Wikipedia entry addresses the anomalous magnetic moment of
> the electron, "...the most accurately verified prediction in the
> history of physics".  But it also addresses the magnetic moment of the
> muon, whose measurement is said to differ from the predictions of the
> standard model by 3.4 SD.
> 
> What would be the impact if a set of "closed form" Millsian equations
> were offered that resolves the apparent error?
>

Such a closed form "solution" will probably rely on alpha (the fine
structure constant) or g (the gravitational constant), which raises
two issues.

The problem with alpha is that it is experimentally derived via
quantum mechanics, which Mills decries as false. So there is a bit of
a disconnect there.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |

Gmane