RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 advantage of avoiding competition which would surely be stimulated by a self running model. I agree with Peter. If Mill's has hydrino hydride compounds why have they not been characterized by their chemical properties; density, melting point, etc. that would be proof positive of his discovery. He has done a lot of good experimental work over the years but getting the power density up to a decent level is daunting. For his suncell he needs to switch kilo amps at micro second frequencies and have it be durable, which from an engineering standpoint, will likely be difficult. And that is just one of many challenges he faces like recycling the catalysts etc. Ron --On Monday, February 02, 2015 1:18 PM -0600 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: 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. When I read that claim I, too, thought about the first transistor and Wright's first self-powered aircraft. I hope Mills knows what he is doing. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 four flights with that particular airplane in high, gusty winds at the beach in December was an astounding accomplishment in its own right -- never mind inventing an airplane. Wilbur later said that after they become experienced pilots they would never think of hazarding a test with a new aircraft in such weather. After the fourth test, a gust of wind blew the airplane over and wrecked it. I have witnessed similar reckless tests of cold fusion, such as with an open beaker of boiling toxic electrolyte. The Wrights were superb athletes. They were the first in a long line of death-defying aviators described by Tom Wolfe. Orville was nearly killed playing hockey, when his teeth were bashed out. The two of them used to race bicycles at high speed on dirt roads after sunset. In the 1930s Orville drove a souped-up luxury car at high speeds. Legend has it that the Dayton police were told to look the other way and not issue many speeding tickets. They were also brilliant engineers, and well-versed in physics, similar to Neil Armstrong. (Armstrong was one of the go-to experts about the Wrights: he read their papers; he knew several people who knew them; and he wrote the Forward to the book by H. Combs.) A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this type. I should say a mass-produced *consumer* commercial device . . . Some mass-produced devices can only be used by experts, such Boeing 747s and gas fired electric power plants. A cold fusion device will be a consumer device, I hope. It would not be of much use to the world if only experts could use it. I suppose it might be the core of a gigawatt electric power generator. Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not produced irrefutable proof of existence. I realize he claims that he has. I do not understand this proof. I do not think it would be difficult for him to provide proof that I do understand. Doing a clear demonstration does not seem to be a priority for him. Or for Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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: http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/transistor1.jpg Does that look like it has the sophistication equivalent to a commercial device? Here is the first airplane flight in history. The machine barely got off the ground, and was incredibly unstable and difficult to fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#mediaviewer/File:First_flight2.jpg 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. Here is the same machine three days earlier, after an unsuccessful attempt to fly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wilbur_Wright_after_unsuccessful_flight_trial.jpg Does that look like a commercial device to Mills? There are several stages to developing a commercial product: Proof of existence. A device proves that an effect is real. Any cold fusion reactor that produces measurable anomalous heat does this. Proof of principle. A device proves that in principle the effect can be useful. A cold fusion device that produces high temperatures and high power density does this. A cold fusion device that produces three times input power, or output with no input power, proves that in principle you might generate electricity with cold fusion. Further proof of principle. A cold fusion device powering a thermoelectric device is additional proof of principle that cold fusion generators are possible. This is true even when the cold fusion device consumes more power than the thermoelectric device outputs. Prototype. For space heating applications, this would be a device that actually produces fairly stable palpable heat. Note that the smallest space heaters produce about 500 W. For electric power this would be a device that produces electricity with no external input power (a self powered unit). This may be a crude prototype similar to the first transistor, which could not possibly be of any practical use. It is a step beyond proof of principle because it actually does the full application. Commercial prototype. A device that can be mass-produced in principle, and that can be submitted to safety agencies for testing. Commercial device. Something that has actually been produced in some reasonable quantity, such as 100 units, and that has passed safety licensing and inspection. It may require intense handholding and babysitting by the company that manufactures it. The first commercial computers were like this. The first 100 Tesla automobiles probably fit this description. They were very expensive and impractical for most people. Mass-produced commercial device. Something that can be made in the thousands or millions, and that can be sold for a profit. A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this type. Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not produced irrefutable proof of existence. Between the first proof of existence and the initial proof of principle devices, all the way up to a mass-produced commercial device, you may have to spend billions of dollars. The first hybrid automobiles were made around 1912. The first practical commercial hybrid automobile was the Toyota Prius, which cost about $1 billion for RD. Compared to cold fusion this was a minor incremental improvement to an existing technology. I expect the first commercial cold fusion device of any type will also cost about $1 billion, or more. It will cost huge sums just to ensure the thing is perfectly safe. Modern society demands very high levels of assurance that a product is safe before it can be used. We demand that a new product be far safer than the older product it replaces. I expect that self driving automobiles will have to pass far more rigorous safety standards than human driven cars do. This is not rational, but it is what society demands. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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. When I read that claim I, too, thought about the first transistor and Wright's first self-powered aircraft. I hope Mills knows what he is doing. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 beat back a storm of threatening waves - doing his best to make sure his ship remains afloat. As we all know, Mills has had to do a lot of bailing for decades. Granted, it's understandable that many observers, perhaps you as well, find the bailing behavior less convincing these days. I get that. At present I'm still willing to cut BLP some slack here. I want to see how the yet to be proven SunCell technology might possibly develop within the next year or two of intense RD effort. I thought the 2014 December delivery date of a commercial prototype was unrealistic. The fact that it has come and gone concerns me little. I've learned to be a patient man. Often, Mills standard response against skepticism of his claims can be found in the following comments recently posted: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4660 We have plenty of POC demonstrations such as calorimetry by multiple manufacturers and academics on commercial instruments. We have plenty of proof of hydrino with 12 analytical tests run at multiple labs, EUV continuum spectroscopy , and astrophysical data. We have plenty of theory confirmation on predictions of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, mass of the top quark, muonic hydrogen Lamb shift, absence of time dilation in highly redshifted quasars, double slit mechanism, identity of dark matter, analytical solutions of molecules with match to AFM imaging, etc. I think Mills has repeated such claims many times in the past. If one is willing to dig through some of the recent You Tube videos BLP posted last summer for the interested, we appear to see some credible individuals residing in universities or labs confirming some of these controversial energy findings. I'm not in a position to judge the veracity of such claims. Perhaps others on this list can. In the meantime I see no reason to doubt these alleged independent findings, not without hard evidence to suggest deliberate cheating was occurring. So far, I see none. My beef with Mills, a beef that Jed also appears to have expressed, is that BLP has contracted out to engineering firms with a goal to build a commercial prototype before first suggesting said firms might first want to assemble a more forgiving self-running experimental prototype - a prototype whose only goal would be to prove the fact that SunCell technology can run on its own and generate excess electricity without the need of an external power source. The prototype does not have to run long... just long enough to prove their point. I think it is unwise of BLP not to have taken this intermediate step. I have said so over at SCP. Apparently, Mills disagrees. So, that's where it stands for me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 concept TRUE, but to prove it EXPLOITABLE!. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: 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 is that it seems to me that assembling a proof of concept (POC) prototype before tackling an honest-to-god commercial prototype would be a more immediate, realistic and safer goal to reach for at this developmental stage of the game. Seems to me that it would accomplish the same goal of convincing financial backers that SunCell technology worth sinking fortunes in. I finally got a response from Dr. Mills which I will post here. But first, and for your enjoyment, here's what one ardent supporter had to say about my attempts to post my suggestion multiple times: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4657 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, indeed, in published peer reviewed journals. Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof positive/negative than the experiment. Dr Mills theory in all its determinisitic and pleiotropic applications computes, predicts and creates experimental results that are impossible for the BIG SCIENCE to approach. Indeed there is not greater scale than the 85 order of magnitude that Dr Mills GUT makes knowable. That reproducible fact immediately and permanently bastardizes, yes deliberately used, the BIG SCIENCE adherents and all their entire financial ecosystem, politicians, granting agencies, grant administrators, colleges/universities, physic department funding, right down to the lowly TA. The proven fact that BIG SCIENCE is professionally bereft to match the experimental result is all the POC you ever need. If Dr Mills did not have the published derivation, the experimental results but was still advocating an energy technology then maybe your harangue would be valid; it is not and never has been. Yeah. Whatever... Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4660 *A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device.* I remain unconvinced. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier and wiser to initially attempt to assemble an experimental self-running POC as a preliminary step towards putting together what I assume has to be a much more ambitious commercial device. Seems to me an experimental POC would accomplish the same results: Convincing financial backers it would be a wise decision continue funding BLP's plans... generously so. But maybe I'm wrong. So, I'm looking for feedback. Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two cents to this matter? Pro or con. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does not matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are small. Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that needs to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with the development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions of the model and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values, therefore there is not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of overfitting. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct. Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our minds eye must suffice. At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever. The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits. Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as form an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of space. This strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid or SPP is an exact fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme ultraviolet. I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills sees in his experiments. From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R, Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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 assume a very limited number of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line to get a spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such and then maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid. Over to the critique, 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated; Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a high degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note to deduce the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the axioms
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 independently verify hydrinos, like cutting grant and pulling political strings, just as with cold fusion. The oposite of stupidity I wouldn't call it malice, but I'm sure that a new theory that makes a lot of things tractable will cause people in charge to sweat and want to keep the development behind curtains. Or scientist who know how to evaluate Mills theory want to keep it as fringe to let Mills work in peace, from the politician. There is a lot of things that can be happening behind closed doors besides people being stupid. Personally I think that the whole issue is due to QM getting so much traction so that everything is evaluated with that as a base, and then you can invent all kinds of abstract reasons on why Mills theory is wrong, that after some hard work can be nullified. People love to use abstract thinking as their base of argument, that have no ground in reality. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: 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 total sincerity what he thinks about cold fusion; it is on my Blog. The TROUBLE: hydrino has compounds, that by elemental analysis coupled with NMR show beyond doubt that the hydrino is there. It could be expected that tens of the best laboratories would analyse tha hydrino compounds and publish the results in the Analytical Chemistry and other high rank journals. CCan you cite a single paper of this category? Mike Carrell and I have visited Randy's lab in 2000 and have seen a great collection of hydrino compounds. I don't understand the situation. Peter On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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 data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does not matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are small. Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that needs to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with the development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions of the model and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values, therefore there is not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of overfitting. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct. Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our minds eye must suffice. At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever. The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits. Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as form an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the electrons and light to follow a circular
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 total sincerity what he thinks about cold fusion; it is on my Blog. The TROUBLE: hydrino has compounds, that by elemental analysis coupled with NMR show beyond doubt that the hydrino is there. It could be expected that tens of the best laboratories would analyse tha hydrino compounds and publish the results in the Analytical Chemistry and other high rank journals. CCan you cite a single paper of this category? Mike Carrell and I have visited Randy's lab in 2000 and have seen a great collection of hydrino compounds. I don't understand the situation. Peter On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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 data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does not matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are small. Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that needs to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with the development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions of the model and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values, therefore there is not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of overfitting. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct. Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our minds eye must suffice. At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever. The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits. Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as form an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of space. This strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid or SPP is an exact fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme ultraviolet. I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills sees in his experiments. From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R, Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 orionwo...@charter.net wrote: 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 position on the matter. Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective. Unfortunately I realize I haven't got a clue what he's trying to say either, and most likely I never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed to have his issues with some of Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe Storms often critiqued some Axil's perspectives as not being sufficiently backed up with scientific evidence. Axil can correct me if I am mistaken, but as best as I can parse it out Axil believes Randy has gotten significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and that he has ended up creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical hydrinos. Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also appear to voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. There also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a deluded theoretician. So, it's par for the course. Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is either bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his POV the CF field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers which, ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group. Don't get me wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking difficult questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel the evidence collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But the group also has its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get rather feisty at times when they feel their superhero has been trashed in some way. It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as primarily a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying: Accept no other brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in the name of marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be incompatible with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can do about the matter. At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of the game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a completely different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times before. We have seen all this behavior before. I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that some minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my repeated suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an experimental POC before assembling a commercial product was effectively haranguing the good name of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately, it would appear that Dr. Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated suggestions personally. All I know is that it seemed to have taken repeated postings on my part to finally get Randy to respond directly to my suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came away with the feeling that Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my query. Meanwhile, some of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap what any SCP minion might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad irritated. Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 simulation work I did on my own time a couple of years ago involving Celestial Mechanics. Some of my own simulations showed a unique and totally unexpected definitive boundary forming as a particle bounced around within fields. I would say my orbiting particle was definitely boxed in. The shape of the boundaries formed were fascinating to me. This is going to me take several days to digest. But for now, I need to step back and temporarily lower my IQ about 10 - 15 points. This is useful as it helps me watch the Super Bowl game with friends at a traditional Chinese New Year feast. I enjoy it. There will be multiple Chinese dishes served spanning a duration of 4 - 6 hours. http://www.etiquettescholar.com/dining_etiquette/toasting_etiquette/international_toasts.html Read the part about Chinese Toasts. kai pay! No one gets out alive. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 nucleus. This is what R. Mills assums in his theory. There is another way for an electron to be confined, that is in a box, o in other words in a potential well. This is basically what is happening in cold fusion and reflected in R. Mills experimental results. Here is something to read about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box When you understand this concept we can go further... On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: 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 position on the matter. Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective. Unfortunately I realize I haven't got a clue what he's trying to say either, and most likely I never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed to have his issues with some of Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe Storms often critiqued some Axil's perspectives as not being sufficiently backed up with scientific evidence. Axil can correct me if I am mistaken, but as best as I can parse it out Axil believes Randy has gotten significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and that he has ended up creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical hydrinos. Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also appear to voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. There also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a deluded theoretician. So, it's par for the course. Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is either bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his POV the CF field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers which, ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group. Don't get me wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking difficult questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel the evidence collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But the group also has its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get rather feisty at times when they feel their superhero has been trashed in some way. It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as primarily a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying: Accept no other brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in the name of marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be incompatible with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can do about the matter. At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of the game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a completely different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times before. We have seen all this behavior before. I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that some minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my repeated suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an experimental POC before assembling a commercial product was effectively haranguing the good name of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately, it would appear that Dr. Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated suggestions personally. All I know is that it seemed to have taken repeated postings on my part to finally get Randy to respond directly to my suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came away with the feeling that Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my query. Meanwhile, some of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap what any SCP minion might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad irritated. Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 position on the matter. Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective. Unfortunately I realize I haven't got a clue what he's trying to say either, and most likely I never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed to have his issues with some of Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe Storms often critiqued some Axil's perspectives as not being sufficiently backed up with scientific evidence. Axil can correct me if I am mistaken, but as best as I can parse it out Axil believes Randy has gotten significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and that he has ended up creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical hydrinos. Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also appear to voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. There also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a deluded theoretician. So, it's par for the course. Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is either bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his POV the CF field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers which, ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group. Don't get me wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking difficult questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel the evidence collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But the group also has its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get rather feisty at times when they feel their superhero has been trashed in some way. It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as primarily a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying: Accept no other brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in the name of marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be incompatible with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can do about the matter. At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of the game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a completely different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times before. We have seen all this behavior before. I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that some minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my repeated suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an experimental POC before assembling a commercial product was effectively haranguing the good name of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately, it would appear that Dr. Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated suggestions personally. All I know is that it seemed to have taken repeated postings on my part to finally get Randy to respond directly to my suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came away with the feeling that Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my query. Meanwhile, some of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap what any SCP minion might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad irritated. Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 is that it seems to me that assembling a proof of concept (POC) prototype before tackling an honest-to-god commercial prototype would be a more immediate, realistic and safer goal to reach for at this developmental stage of the game. Seems to me that it would accomplish the same goal of convincing financial backers that SunCell technology worth sinking fortunes in. I finally got a response from Dr. Mills which I will post here. But first, and for your enjoyment, here's what one ardent supporter had to say about my attempts to post my suggestion multiple times: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4657 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, indeed, in published peer reviewed journals. Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof positive/negative than the experiment. Dr Mills theory in all its determinisitic and pleiotropic applications computes, predicts and creates experimental results that are impossible for the BIG SCIENCE to approach. Indeed there is not greater scale than the 85 order of magnitude that Dr Mills GUT makes knowable. That reproducible fact immediately and permanently bastardizes, yes deliberately used, the BIG SCIENCE adherents and all their entire financial ecosystem, politicians, granting agencies, grant administrators, colleges/universities, physic department funding, right down to the lowly TA. The proven fact that BIG SCIENCE is professionally bereft to match the experimental result is all the POC you ever need. If Dr Mills did not have the published derivation, the experimental results but was still advocating an energy technology then maybe your harangue would be valid; it is not and never has been. Yeah. Whatever... Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4660 A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device. I remain unconvinced. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier and wiser to initially attempt to assemble an experimental self-running POC as a preliminary step towards putting together what I assume has to be a much more ambitious commercial device. Seems to me an experimental POC would accomplish the same results: Convincing financial backers it would be a wise decision continue funding BLP's plans... generously so. But maybe I'm wrong. So, I'm looking for feedback. Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two cents to this matter? Pro or con. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 Mills sounds and acts defeated. He may end up being remembered as his own worst enemy, should LERN prevail - which is most ironic since the new LENR looks a lot like the old hydrino-tech. Mills seems to have put most of his resources into the SunCell of late. Therefore, even though he could be correct on the point that you mention: that to make a SunCell self-powered is equivalent to a commercial device --- it is equally true that the glaring lack of anything at all, other than hot air and vapor-ware, is the main characteristic of BLP in 2015. They appear to have missed the boat. There have been many other BLP devices which were as highly promoted as the SunCell but then dropped off the planet with no explanation. Many of these could have led to the self-powering proof you seek - if they were not total BS. But apparently they were BS. We are still waiting to see some of that gigawatt of electrical power that BLP licensed to several New Mexico Utilities. See this 7 year old evidence of Mills propensity to overstate his capabilities: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.htm l This kind of unexplained failure mode has happened half a dozen time in recent memory. I do not envy his investors. They seem to have misunderstood what due diligence is supposed to mean.
Fwd: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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.
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 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 Mills sounds and acts defeated. He may end up being remembered as his own worst enemy, should LERN prevail – which is most ironic since the new LENR looks a lot like the old hydrino-tech. Mills seems to have put most of his resources into the SunCell of late. Therefore, even though he could be correct on the point that you mention: that to make a SunCell self-powered is equivalent to a commercial device --- it is equally true that the glaring lack of anything at all, other than hot air and vapor-ware, is the main characteristic of BLP in 2015. They appear to have missed the boat. There have been many other BLP devices which were as highly promoted as the SunCell but then dropped off the planet with no explanation. Many of these could have led to the self-powering proof you seek - if they were not total BS. But apparently they were BS. We are still waiting to see some of that gigawatt of electrical power that BLP licensed to several New Mexico Utilities. See this 7 year old evidence of Mills propensity to overstate his capabilities: *http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.html* http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.html This kind of unexplained failure mode has happened half a dozen time in recent memory. I do not envy his investors. They seem to have misunderstood what “due diligence” is supposed to mean. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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, indeed, in published peer reviewed journals. Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof positive/negative than the experiment. ... Hi Steven, The retort above is unbalanced enough that the fellow may be a troll on that forum. In that case, he would be having fun at both your and Mills's expense, and not just your expense. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 assume a very limited number of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line to get a spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such and then maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid. Over to the critique, 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated; Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a high degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note to deduce the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the axioms of quantum mechanics, lorenz invariance fitting with current observation etc. So what is the axioms? Basically you can take solutions of linear combinations and get a new solution. to find the expected value you sum the square the resonans values for a quantity. The thing is that you can take a theory take an aproximate theory and then mathematically transform it so that you get the axioms of quantum mechanics, that Mills theory can put through such a machinery is not dissproved or anything close to be not possible in order to take this critique seriously atm. Also you cannot just add solutions ontop of each other, you do have the pauli exclusion principle that violate that e.g. for normal atoms the axioms of quantum mechanics is not valid. So you need to add the pauli priciple that there can only be one particle at a certain number of quntum numbers, something i find disturbing and unclean. 2. The major part of solutions contains singularities and they are not normalisable. Why not singularities? We have basically tuned out of theories that are lorenz invariant and regular. What's left is lorenz invariant and unregular. For example the creation of particles from photons comes from sheering the space so much that the nature of space basically shifts like a continental drift. This means that information that is normally not interacting will interact at this anomaly, and that anomaly is through a surface. The good question is why on earth this is stable and maintains it's state e.g. Mills theory set's up a fine balance and any disturbance of this balance looks like it will destroy it, there are no mathematical truths so what on earth makes it stable, that is the real good question. My suggestion are that we do have a higgs like field that have the same booring intensity at all directions, it can be a soup of solutions to the actual wave equation of nature but you cant see them, because there is no variation in the electrical potential, Because we can't see them we does not take it into account when we deduce the Maxwells equations, Think of a B field with no electrical potential, you can invent it and add it to the maxwell equations if you have the same value in all directions, it will sum to zero and not be detectable. But hang on, what about the anomaly at the continental shaft, there it might interact and you would nicely get some extra physics that can with some play of the mathematics create a reason that stabalizes the Mills solution and voila it is not unthinkable to have a non normalized theory, on the contrary all things speaks for the theory not to be regular e.g. normalisable. 3. It is not yet clear, why the Bohr orbits electrons did not fall down into the hydrino orbits during the whole life of the universe. hydrino are dark matter, there are plenty of dark matter that indicates that the hydrgene, to a good part have declined the ladder to a hydrino state, it is unclear that you have so much chemistry so that you will produce so much dark matter that all hydrogen declines, Mills have tried for 24 yrs, it does look like it's difficult to get to these states. After all there is a barrier that needs to be overcome, it looks like the electrical field is morphologically different than for the normal and excited states, forcing this change is like getting cold fusion to work - not easy, but perhaps easier. 4. Up to now the hydrino states were not discovered in the direct experiments. Detectors for spectra that you can get from hydroinos is not common, and also the energys used in quite many experiments is too high, you need the correct chemistry at moderate energies in the bouncing, you need to call a mechanic, not a billiard player to see the hydrinos. I want' to see a
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct. Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our minds eye must suffice. At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever. The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits. Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as form an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of space. This strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid or SPP is an exact fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme ultraviolet. I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills sees in his experiments. From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R, Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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 assume a very limited number of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line to get a spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such and then maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid. Over to the critique, 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated; Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a high degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note to deduce the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the axioms of quantum mechanics, lorenz invariance fitting with current observation etc. So what is the axioms? Basically you can take solutions of linear combinations and get a new solution. to find the expected value you sum the square the resonans values for a quantity. The thing is that you can take a theory take an aproximate theory and then mathematically transform it so that you get the axioms of quantum mechanics, that Mills theory can put through such a machinery is not dissproved or anything close to be not possible in order to take this critique seriously atm. Also you cannot just add solutions ontop of each other, you do have the pauli exclusion principle that violate that e.g. for normal atoms the axioms of quantum mechanics is not valid. So you need to add the pauli priciple that there can only be one particle at a certain number of quntum numbers, something i find disturbing and unclean. 2. The major part of solutions contains singularities and they are not normalisable. Why not singularities? We have basically tuned out of theories that are lorenz invariant and regular. What's left is lorenz invariant and unregular. For example the creation of particles from photons comes from sheering the space
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
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 what the graphic is supposed to represent other than it's suppose to represent electron volts at different distances. The U shaped curve puzzles me. Its' not what I would have expected. When I look at the graphic what I personally see a mathematical representation a (-1/x + 1/x^2... or -1/x^2 + 1/x^3) involving two different forces simultaneously at play here: Let's say one is a positive force, whereas the second forces is one power higher and of the opposite/negative power. The chart reminds me of a number of computer simulations I have done over the years involving my own eccentric research into orbital mechanics. I hope someday in the future to post some of my analysis. I was intrigued by what some my simulations seemed to suggest. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
