I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the electron to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental verification of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma rays produced to account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the anti-hydrino interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a hydrino is emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and combinations of interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated involving the hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote: > Orionworks, > > Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any > replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there > enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to create > hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for example > cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can with > great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why can't I > hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are we > servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or are the > folks there cooked into their theory that is wrong. I think that there is > huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so already > experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know about > atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all. > Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole > fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling > excited about this opportunity, is amazing. > > Have Fun > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Stefan, >> >> >> >> Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same "stefan" >> who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion group. >> >> >> >> As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective... >> >> >> >> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. * >> >> >> >> I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM interesting, >> perhaps even tantalizing, see: >> >> >> >> http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm >> >> >> >> ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM theory. I >> need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report & analysis. It >> is my personal take on an upstart brave new theory which seems to have a >> lot going for it. I tried to remain as objective as I could concerning a >> highly controversial theory for which I have insufficient mathematical >> expertise to either confirm or disprove. >> >> >> >> Let me change gears here. To be honest I am getting tired listening to >> yet another argument that Mills' CQM theory is better than QM. Such >> arguments will resolve nothing. The solution is both paradoxically simple >> while admittedly being technologically challenging. BLP needs to cobble >> together an experimental prototype which definitively verifies the fact >> that the technology is capable of self-running while generating lots of >> excess electricity. I have repeatedly suggested BLP demonstrate an >> EXPERIMENTAL prototype as a precursor to creating a commercial prototype. I >> have done so because I am under the opinion that assembling the first >> commercial system may still be many years off into the future. BLP bravely >> implies that a commercial system is just around the corner... but I don't >> believe it. Nevertheless, I would love to be proven wrong on this point. >> But until I'm proven wrong, I have to continue to rely on my own gut >> instincts based on my own 36 years of personal experience in the software >> industry. In my experience developing brand new software (and hardware), >> particularly a new product that has never developed before tends to take a >> lot longer than originally anticipated. >> >> >> >> See my personal posts: >> >> >> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4330 >> >> and >> >> >> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4345 >> >> >> >> So far, Dr. Mills as repeatedly ignored the primary concerns expressed in >> my above posts. He has said nothing about the possibility of assembling a >> more definitive experimental prototype within BLPs' lab walls. IMO, he >> seems to be evading the question. Mills has instead deflected conversation >> towards the fact that BLP continues to accumulate independent scientific >> reports that appear to verify various aspects of his CQM theory. All the >> peanut gallery knows at the moment is the fact that BLP has contracted with >> outside engineering firms to assemble the first commercial system. The >> first delivery was supposed to have occurred in December of last year. >> That, of course, never happened. We have yet to hear when a new revised >> delivery date is to be expected. We have, in fact, no idea. That is another >> reason why I tend to think the actual delivery date for a real commercial >> system is likely to be years, not months off into the future. >> >> >> >> Let me end by saying I don't fault BLPs' efforts. I have no reason to >> think BLP or Mills are acting in less honorable ways. My primary concern is >> that, IMHO, if BLP wants to be taken more seriously, sooner rather than >> later, then I suggest the company cobble together an experimental prototype >> that self-runs and produces excess electricity ASAP. The prototype does not >> have to run long. Just long enough to prove their point. I say this because >> I am under the impression that the anticipated commercial system is >> probably going to take a lot longer than BLP had originally anticipated... >> perhaps as long as several more years. I say this because I suspect that if >> BLP attempted to cobble together nothing more deceptively simple as just an >> EXPERIMENTAL prototype (a prototype not meant for commercial applications) >> such attempts will also likely to turn out to be an equally formidable >> challenge. In fact I suspect the challenge is precisely why Mills has not >> directly replied to my suggestion. >> >> >> >> I would nevertheless be thrilled to be proven wrong on these last points. >> ...and perhaps Mills doesn't care to be taken more seriously sooner rather >> than later. Focus on developing the commercial system, and be damned with >> assembling another intermediate experimental demo. If BLP's financial >> backers remain in the loop... if they remain satisfied with the progress >> they are seeing, running a more stealthy operation is a perfectly >> legitimate strategy. Granted it's a bummer for the rest of us who reside in >> the peanut gallery, but it's not my call. ;-) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven Vincent Johnson >> >> svjart.orionworks.com >> >> zazzle.com/orionworks >> >> >> > >
