----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A historical walk on the wild side
To make it a little clearer that I have no beef directed specifically
against Randall Mills, I should, perhaps, point out that I've actually
applied some (reasonably) objective criteria here.
There are three things which, when they're _all_ present, raise a
"Suspicious situation!" red flag for me with regard to a new discovery or
invention.
1) Does it violate fundamental laws of physics or thermodynamics, as we
currently understand them?
BLP does not violate thermodynamics: there is a defined fuel, which is
consumed. It does not violate fundamental laws of physics, but validates
them [the argument is about what is really "fundamental" or just "familiar"]
2) Has there been no independent replication of the results? (I.e., does
all the evidence come from exeriments done by the same researcher and/or
his employees?) [NB -- A working "device" which is actually on the market
would be de facto "independent replication", since every device owner
could see that it worked.]
The degree of "independence" is in question. Mills does not manipulate the
equipment and take the readongs. Other labs have done experiments funded by
Mills, some not funded. Due diligence study of Mills' work is under way but
not publicized.
3) Does the discoverer/inventor have a significant financial stake in the
outcome of the experiments which support the claim?
In BLP's case, of course, but that in itself does not falsify the work.
Again, it's when _all_ _three_ are present that I tend to turn away and
look for something else to spend time on.
****************************
Let's take a brief glance at a few other discoveries and see how they
stack up under these criteria.
<snip>
c) Cold fusion -- Doesn't necessarily break any laws of physics (though it
violates what we might call "engineering laws" all over the place but so
what, those are really just rules of thumb), and it certainly doesn't
break any laws of thermodynamics, so I'd say it passes (1). Though no
single experiment has been duplicated exactly by a second lab AFAIK, none
the less the general effect has been detected at many labs, so I'd say it
passes (2). Not all the researchers who've seen the effect had a
financial stake in its being "true" so it passes (3), too. So, CF is 0/3
and it's pretty clearly on the level.
I'd agree with you on these points.
d) The perpetual motion shyster who was hanging around Vortex a while
back -- His rolling-ball gadget violated 1st law of thermo and some laws
of E&M, so it failed (1). Nobody else made it work, so it failed (2). He
was selling the things, so it failed (3). So he was 3/3 and was pretty
clearly a f****.
You mean Greg Watson. An interesting case, oozing sincerity. Not much money
on his part. I never got a gadget, and didn't fuss about getting my money
back.
e) Randal Mills -- Violates the laws of QM, so it fails (1).
Just how does it volate 'laws' of QM and just what are these 'laws?'. The
attacks on the orbitsphere model are not based on QM.
Nobody outside his lab has replicated his results AFAIK so it fails (2).
But you said you have not studied the papers, so how do you know? Phillips
has been a close associate, but his recent papers have been from his post at
U New Mexico, where he works in a lab supported by LANL. Conrads is in
Germany. Private, unpublished replications of effects have been seen.
He's
got a major $$$ stake in continuing to show his theory works so it fails
(3). So, he's 3/3 and I'm not going to spend a lot of time reading his
material until something changes.
Is not the hope of economiuc gain the motivation for a lot of technical
enterprises? Which billionaire do you support wioth your computer " Gates or
Jobs?
And that's it. Simplistic, perhaps, and certainly not "proof" of
anything, but we all need to do triage on what we're willing to spend time
on, and this is part of how I do it.
And so do I, but I based my decisions on experiments and context.
Mike Carrell
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
