Steven,
Let me jump in here make a comment:
I disagree that a self running prototype is what he needs. Why bother? It
would just generate more distracting controversy much as Rossi's tests
have done. Like Rossi Mills thinks the best way is to commercialize a
product. Waiting also has the
I wrote:
In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had
in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not
get it off the ground.
Orville Wright had experience flying gliders. Nobody had experience flying
airplanes in 1903!
Actually making
Randy Mills said:
*A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to
being a commercial device.*
I do not like to be dismissive, but that is ridiculous. That's an
incredibly ignorant thing to say. Here is a famous photo of the first
transistor:
Jed,
I was wondering if you might find reason to complain about Mills current
development strategy.
All I can say is that I pretty much agree. I still don't buy Mills' contention
that... A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent
to being a commercial device.
Jones,
Jones, you give me the impression that you perceive Mills as remaining
stalwart in his actions while bravely staying at the helm of a mortally
wounded ship he knows is sinking. To me is actions strike me more like that
of a political campaign manager who feels the need to constantly
The issue here is that no matter what the science says, and what the
experiment shows, ramping up an effect to a usable product is never
certain, and lots of REALLY useful known facts fall apart when you try to
make a product out of them. This is why we MAKE proof of concepts. Not to
prove the
Imagination yes, if there was no real quantities calculated. But by
calculated many 100 of experimentally measurements one could just say that
his theory has 100:s or is it not 1000:s of validation experiments. This
would not be strange if there was a bunch of factors that was estimated
in the
I guess that you don't get grants to investigate the hydrino. My take on
this whole story is by some reason Mills theory and results are downplayed
due
to political reasons, not scientific reasons, maybe people are just stupid,
and are hindering open minded physists doing coperations with Mills to
I tell you guys what is the greatest problem and mystery with the hydrino.
I was in very good relationship with Randy till the Rossi affair- then he
got angry with me because I dared to suppose that yes, Rossi has excess
heat ...but after a while we both forgot this incident. Randy has told with
Forget mathematics, what's with the compounds?
For mathematics etc see what Samsonenko has concluded.
Even if true, using hydrino is very much as converting lightnings in useful
usable electric energy.
Peter
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
Thanks, Axil.
I browsed the Wikipedia article. I'll need to go through it several more times
before I'm even close to a point of saying anything reasonably intelligible.
What I can say is that I find some interesting concepts that, once again,
remind me of a certain branch of computer
I will go through my primus in detail, one point after the other with
references for your convenience.
First, stating my primus is simple terms as follows:
There is more than one way to confine an electron. First, there is the way
that most people know about, that is, an electron can orbit a
Peter,
I still don't know what to make of Randy's bold hydrino theory and whether BLP
will eventually be able to pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. I don't have
sufficient mathematical expertise to parse out all the complex mathematical
equations Randy has used in order to justify his
I recently had some interesting interactions over at Dr. Mills' SCP group.
After repeated postings I finally got Dr. Mills to respond to a suggestion I
wanted to make. See:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations
/messages/4652
The point I keep harping
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
* Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: A device that runs
on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial
device.. Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two cents to this
matter? Pro or con.
Randell
Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof
positive/negative than the experiment. ...
The proof of hot fusion looks us in the face every day. Replication
with efficacy eludes us still.
Dear Steven,
see here paper no 1- is in English:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/russian-cnt-seminar-of-january-29.html
The author is a world class physicist.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
Ø
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Your glib balanced harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated
support. Your incessant repetition of POC shows an ignorance of the gold
standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times,
Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills
theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need
to explain new
phenomena to develop a new theory and it is advisable to drop that
principle as a lone principle. The reason is, of cause if you
I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified
imaginative misinterpretation of his experimental data. I now think that
I understand how this is mistake happening, When it comes to understanding
what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is
Peter,
The paper in your link appears to be very recent. Looks like it might have been
a Power Point presentation in its original incarnation.
On page 8, specifically the hand drawn graphic of the Hydrino atom... there is
not enough information within the 2D chart for me to understand
21 matches
Mail list logo
