Mike Carrell wrote:
----- 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.
Right.
It does not violate fundamental laws of physics, but validates
them [the argument is about what is really "fundamental" or just
"familiar"]
Um ... I'm a little rusty on QM but claiming to have found sub-ground
states for H is a pretty serious whack to the basic laws. In
particular, IIRC, below-ground H states violate the uncertainty
principle: the electron's wave function isn't allowed to be as localized
as those states would require it to be.
Last time this came up I was led believe that Mills isn't happy with the
uncertainty principle... be that as it may, this seems to me like a
violation of fundamental physical law as currently understood. If he's
right, a lot of current theory will be stood on its head.
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.
Yeah, that's right. But there was a lot wrong with Greg beyond the
basic fact he was peddling perpetual motion machines of the first kind.
He reminded me strongly of someone I knew when I was growing up, right
up to and including the mysteriously missing video which would have
proved his claims had it ever actually existed.
Whatever one may say about Mills, good or bad, he's not in Greg's class,
and I really shouldn't have suggested he was.
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.
Again, I may be off base, but I believe that claiming to have found an
arbitrary chain of sub-ground states for hydrogen violates the
uncertainty principle and that's pretty fundamental.
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?
Say what?
Replications would not be in Mills's papers, they'd be published by
outside sources. Reading a paper of his will not tell me if someone
else subsequently duplicated the result discussed in that paper.
As to how I know, I don't, I'm basing this on what I've read on Vortex
and what I haven't read anyplace else, which is any reference to anyone
replicating his work.
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.
Interesting!
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?
Financial interest in showing a particular result doesn't invalidate
that result, but it introduces a motive to cheat.
As I'm sure you understand.
And in any case Gates and Jobs were not scientists and there was never
an issue of any "experiment" carried out by them. (Gates wasn't even an
engineer, as I understand it, just a marketing guy. A brilliant
marketing guy, I grant you.) Jobs started out by producing products
using off-the-shelf components (except for the power supply, which was
innovative), and Gates started out peddling a Basic interpreter and a
primitive operating system to IBM and followed up with amazing
negotiating skill to parley that wedge into a world empire. This is all
quite different from producing an unexpected result and claiming it as
support for a new theory, and then going on to claim the new theory can
be harnessed to make profitable products some time in the future, and
then inviting in investors to support further experiments, which
continue to show positive results and hence continue to draw in new
investment money without obviously leading to a product.
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.
Right, you sent money to Greg... I would like to spend more time
investigating all the intellectual byways but I haven't got enough of
it, so I am slightly more picky about the paths I wander down.
