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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 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 list >>>> of done experiments where hydrinos should be detected, any such list >>>> out there, it could help in the discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. There are no convincing independent confirmations of the Mills >>>> experiments. >>>> I think that if you are interested and want to verify the existence of >>>> hydrinos and talk to Mills, he can probably be helpful. I don't see people >>>> complaining >>>> that they are hindered. No this is probably hindered with a lack of >>>> funding and interests, It's a valid point but it's a critique against main >>>> stream physics that >>>> does not take Mills theory seriously. >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
