The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is not
a fundamental particle but a quasi-particle produced under the interactions
of other multiple electrons. This is also true for cooper pairs of
electrons. A fundamental particle always has an anti-particle. This hydrino
The hydrino is a variant of the hydrogen atom. It is never claimed by Mills
to be a fundamental particle. Hence it needs so low energy so that you can
maintain the bound
You can't find it using collisions of high energy, which is where most
bucks these days is targeted at. If you knock the hydrino
Yes or even better, KISS = KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. this is what I'm
head banging to.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:
*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.*
*I need that on a bumpersticker. *
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM,
Quantum mechanics applies to fundamental particles. A special case of QM
applies to hydrinos in the same why that a special case of QM applies to
cooper pairs of electrons, CQM is analogous to super conductor theory.
Care in thinking must be applied to applying this sort of theory.
Hello Stefan
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody
is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few years ago
to
a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry.
Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Most pumps do quite well at converting electrical energy into mechanical
energy. When they do only 35% or 40% conversion they are called
inefficient.
The specifications for this family of pumps says they are ~15% efficient as
I recall. That is for
*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.*
*I need that on a bumpersticker. *
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote:
Hello Stefan
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost
nobody
is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I
From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody
is looking into the theory of R.Mills.
That is not correct. Several commenters here give Mills some credit - at least
partial credit. But maybe we are “nobodies” so OK, no
See Goedecke's 1964 paper.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results
from both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart
and the first
thing
It is going to take a very long time and a lot of research before Mills' theory
will be accepted by mainstream physics provided it is a better match for
reality than quantum mechanics. I would love to see the hokus pokus of quantum
mechanics replaced with a more classical approach.
Dear Friends,
Just started to discuss how many LENRs exist and how much unity exists in
diversity.
Great LENR activity in Ukraine.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/lenr-census-how-many-species-exist.html
More next week...
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results
from both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart
and the first
thing theoretical physics should do is to try understand this epsilon and
be able to deduce it, i tried, and could not find that
In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:24:50 -0600:
Hi James,
[snip]
This is what I find really useful:-
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=differential+equation+solverlk=4num=1
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Wherever you dig up papers info about critiques of Mills theory they
generally refers to Rathke, to show that Mills
is all wrong, even today you can find references that Mills just corrects a
sign error and not have any serious rebutal
to the critique
see
Just to spam for your fun, the above was quite ok and a freeze of wikipedia
at 2006, no go to the this years edition and enjoy the intelligent
society we are living in,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:07 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:
Experimental evidence always trumps theory.
I need that on a bumpersticker.
I might want one of those.
Eric
To my tastes, Ken Shoulders ran the quintessential LENR experiment when he
photographed the development of what Ken called charge clusters (also
called exotic vacuum objects or EVOs). A spark had penetrated a sheet of
aluminum where an aluminum plasma was condensing into aluminum
nanoparticles
Hello Jones
Therefore I added the word almost. “Nobodies” :No ofcourse that is not what i
meant. You and Meulenberg are
certainly promoting the idea of DDL`s.
In my last post which i just sended I left the word “almost” out bcs i couldnt
find any quantum physicist
in the Netherlands who
take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar
to what you did:
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf
this comes from the summary of pair production on this page
I would like to add the following:
How can anyone seriously say that R.Mills is wrong and standard Quantum
Mechanics is right
if QM gives no explanation for the stability of the hydrogen atom, but only
postulates it.
Mills managed to do this very elegantly.
This shortcoming in the current atom
Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!!
If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem
with rathkes paper is.
Mills patches solution to the Maxwell equation inside and outside the
sphere, or an ellipsoid if the
hydrogene is moving, The patch is so that
Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. To
me that doesn't look like Mills is mute. You would not get a debate like
a presidential debate though, that's a stupid way to debate. No there would
of cause be an exchange of letters postings or papers. Mills has indeed
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it.
Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills
in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but
Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same
the same thing. It's a mystery, Mills did research a lot of how QM has been
used
and claim to found serious iissues. But I'm not too sure that they are
incomplete either, there are a bunch of math theorems that states that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!!
I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. My
guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on it,
I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor
and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to
Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that
we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a shame that we don't have a serious heated debate between nobell
lauriates and Mills regarding these matters, it would be a great show. In
stead there is a speaking nothing.
Mills would not say
27 matches
Mail list logo
