In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:25
-0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin wrote:
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:11 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported
seeing emission lines he associates with
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In 1917, to promote
wartime production, the government stepped in and forced all patent
holders
to accept a standard fee, so that any manufacturer could get free
access to
the technology. I imagine something similar would happen with the
Mills device.
...and how
- Original Message -
From: Robin van Spaandonk
Jones, you are no slouch yourself. Why not give Mills a
hand, and do your own hydrino reactor design, and send it to
him, no strings attached?
I would be happy to do this, if he would provide some detail
about the rate of hydrino
Mike,
The last time I talked to Mills, several years ago, he
said he was
about a factor of 4 away from a closed loop.
...and a 1000 fold improvement from fusion would put him
over the top by a
factor of 250.
How?
We seem to be talking past each other here.
The alternative to a Mills'
thomas malloy wrote:
All Randall would have to do is demonstrate a working model of any
of the above, and I'll hold my piece.
Peace! I do not even what to think about what holding your piece might
mean.
- Jed
Holding a gun, er I mean a weapon, I would expect. Thanks for the
correction.
Mike Carrell wrote:
Jed is terminally pessimistic
about Mills' business prospects,
since Mills is not following Jed's favorite buisness model, but neither
is
anyone in the CF community.
And no one in the CF community is getting anywhere either! I rest my
case.
Seriously, I think it is too early
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:28:11 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
factor in LENR. That may be so, but it is not useful. Mills has reported
seeing emission lines he associates with p = 7 hydrinos, and maybe p =16,
but I suspect the population is small. Mills has enough problems
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:34:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Not at all, and that isn't what I said. This technology is conservatively
worth trillions. JB suggested that it be taken by the government, and
Mills be paid what it's worth. I am
Jones wrote:
Mike,
Mills' is reluctant to have any association with CF, LENR,
CANR and nuclear phenomena.
Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like the
well-considered logic of a person committed to solving our
looming ecological crisis?
I gave reasons from his earliest days.
Jones Beene posted
One of the most frustrating things about the internet, especially to
any alternative energy advocate who seeks to find, weed-out and
support, in every reasonable way,
Having seen one after another scam artist come and go over the past
1/3 century, I know what you mean Jones.
thomas malloy wrote:
All Randall would have to do is
demonstrate a working model of any of the above, and I'll hold my
piece.
Peace! I do not even what to think about what holding your
piece might mean.
- Jed
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:36:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800:
[snip]
Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. The primary reason being that
you don't get 70 V until n=1/16, by which time
One of the most frustrating things about the internet, especiallyto
any alternative energy advocate who seeks to find, weed-outand support, in
every reasonable way, or even try to replicate ... the *best reasonable*
solutions available which address the looming fossil-fuel-reliance
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if you
do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the extra
fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps keep you
Robin wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:58:28 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
here, mixed in with lots of potential BS. Caveat Lector. But remember, if
you do not adequately separate the wheat from the chafe... well, you get the
extra fiber, so that is not all bad, and helps
I just finished with Robin and I find some of the same ideas here form
Jones. (Deep breath) here we go again:
snip
Instead the really frustrating information is the tantalizing stuff which
appears from brilliant, well funded, probably genius-level researchers like
Mills/BLP who will publish
Mike,
Mills' is reluctant to have any association with CF, LENR,
CANR and nuclear phenomena.
Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like the
well-considered logic of a person committed to solving our
looming ecological crisis?
The cynic might say that it sounds more like an egoist
17 matches
Mail list logo
