Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

SocietyforClassicalPhysics · Society for Classical Physics
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Calendar

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 161
  • Category: Physics
  • Founded: Aug 29, 2005
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages
Message #
Search:
Advanced
 Messages Help
Messages
Topics
Hot Topics
Messages 997 - 1026 of 1463   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#997 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More findings on dark matter 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
 
Brouwer's "hair ball  theorem" does not apply.  The bound electron current is not a continuous vector field in the sense of this theorem.  It is comprised of independent current loops with different densities and angular momentum vector directions that superimpose on the surface to comprise a continuous uniform current density having identical  angular velocity and  linear velocity  magnitude at each spatial position per mass (charge) density, and the angular momentum projections give rise to all the of phenomenon of electron spin.  The analytical and computational results are given in Chp 1:


and the uniformity and angular momentum projections of the analytical derivations are numerically proven by the computer program (H Distribution Renderer) posted at





On Oct 21, 2011, at 2:20 PM, wedgevw wrote:

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, amack43 <no_reply@...> wrote:

It is interesting to me that however much I test Classical Physics' conclusions, nothing so far leaps out as being directly opposed by indisputable evidence...

What about the fact as I pointed out in an earlier post, that a continuous nonzero vector field on a sphere violates Brouwer's "Hairy ball theorem".


I know John doesn't want to see a big pro and con discussion of it, but it is a well established theorem and directly contradicts the Hydrino model. Doesn't that bother anyone?

{Note from John Farrell, Moderator.
It doesn’t bother me that someone says that “it (the Hairy Ball Theorem) is well established and directly contradicts the Hydrino model”.  In part, I show my ignorance here.  First, I don’t understand the Hairy Ball Theorem.  Second, I don’t see how it contradicts the hydrino model.  Beyond my ignorance, apparent contradictions often offer the opportunity to improve the model.  After all, numerous people have told me that there cannot be sub n = 1 states for atomic hydrogen because it violates the Schrodinger equation.  Who cares if hydrinos violate the Schrodinger equation?  Certainly not me! Mills has the physical evidence that hydrinos exist (EUV spectra, dark matter emissions, NMR signatures, and so on).  If this sort of evidence can be contradicted or interpreted in a different fashion, fine, I’ll take a look at it.  But the “it violates the Schrodinger equation” routine simply goes in one ear and out the other.  

Consider the fact that the Big Bang theory maintains that the universe began with a big bang.  Most reasonably educated persons realize that the velocity of the particles in the universe would be greatest at the moment of the bang (or very shortly thereafter) and that the velocity of the particles would slow as time goes on (not to mention 14 billion years later!).  Now, it turns out that Mills thinks that this theory is incorrect and he shows, with his theory, that the rate of expansion of the universe was zero at the beginning, that the expansion slowly accelerates, reaches a maximum, and after 500 billion years, or so, the rate of expansion returns to zero.  He publishes his theory.  Later, experiments show that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing.  (I believe it has also been shown that the rate of expansion 14 billion years ago was close to zero but I don’t think there has been agreement on the interpretation of this evidence.)  That is, Mills was right.  What happens next?  Something unbelievable!  Before the ink is dry on the report of the accelerating universe, scientists are modifying the big bang theory by calling into existence “dark energy” as an explanation.  I don’t blame them for this.  Quite the contrary, it is what scientists do!  After all, science is not about what we know—science is about what we do not know.  But it does seem to me that some scientists ought to be paying a little attention to another scientist (Mills) who has made several startling predictions which have turned out to be correct.  Maybe he is just the luckiest guy to come along in a long time.  Or, maybe, just maybe, the Schrodinger equation and the Big Bang Theory were “almost” right. 

It is true—I don’t want to see an extended discussion of the Hairy Ball Theorem.  We had a lengthy discussion about the electron-electron repulsion of the “pieces” of matter and charge that comprise the electric currents on the orbitsphere.   It was not productive.  Clearly, the orbitsphere does not self-explode from such repulsions.  I came to two conclusions about those discussions at the time.  First, Mills does not simply have a new theory—he is creating a new mechanics—a way of understanding matter and energy and their interactions—mathematically and conceptually.  Second, the detractors will eventually recognize that we are beyond the “Aha! Moment” whereby the theory will be shown to be incorrect because of a failure to explain (or in their mind, correctly explain) some phenomenon.  There are aspects of Mills’ theory that may be modified but too much has been verified to deny its overall validity. 

Finally, lest anyone is inclined to misinterpret this note, I am always interested in experimental evidence.  To me, experimental evidence always trumps theory (one has to keep in mind, of course, that experiments can be misinterpreted).  Fortunately, there have been many great scientists—physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, geologists, and so on.  They should be forever remembered and cherished for their contributions and creativity.  But their equations and ideas are always open to modification.  I am certain that Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein would agree. 

So, if anyone understands the Hairy Ball Theorem chime in.  If you have the time to learn about the Hairy Ball Theorem, go right ahead and chime in when you are ready.  However, I give one warning.  In the Wikipedia explanation of the Hairy Ball Theorem it gives a section on Cyclone Consequence.  I give one sentence from that section below:

“In a physical sense, this zero-wind point will be the eye of a cyclone or anticyclone. (Like the swirled hairs on the tennis ball, the wind will spiral around this zero-wind point - under our assumptions it cannot flow into or out of the point.) In brief, then, the Hairy Ball Theorem dictates that, given at least some wind on Earth, there must at all times be a cyclone somewhere.”

As far as I know, there are times when there is wind on Earth but there is no cyclone.  Does this mean that the Hairy Ball Theorem is incorrect?  Does this mean that cyclones can be so small that no one knows they are there?  Or, am I once again showing my ignorance?} 


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:



Reply | Messages in this Topic (8)
#998 From: "wedgevw" <kurtz@...>
Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: More findings on dark matter 		wedgevw
Send Email Send Email
  
--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "Luke" <luthersetzer@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "wedgevw" <kurtz@> wrote:
>
> << I know John doesn't want to see a big pro and con discussion of it, but it
is a well established theorem and directly contradicts the Hydrino model.
Doesn't that bother anyone?
>
> {Note from John Farrell, Moderator.
> It doesn't bother me that someone says that "it (the Hairy Ball Theorem) is
well established and directly contradicts the Hydrino model."  In part, I show
my ignorance here.  First, I don't understand the Hairy Ball Theorem.  Second, I
don't see how it contradicts the hydrino model. >>
>
> It is my understanding that the current loops of the orbitsphere act as
superconducting currents.  One unique and experimentally proven aspect of such
currents is that they can physically pass through each other.  So the cited
theorem would seem to have limits surpassed by the nature of superconductivity. 
At least, that is how someone who interned at BLP explained it to me.
>
> Luke Setzer
>

The "Hairy Ball" theorem says you can't have a continuous non-zero vector field
on a sphere. It doesn't say you can't have a vector field on a sphere, just that
such a vector field must either be discontinuous somewhere or zero somewhere. I
assume the principle of superposition is valid, so that at any time and any
point on the orbitsphere, you have a resultant vector, yielding a vector field.
This represents a problem for the orbitsphere unless one of these three
conditions are met:

1. The principle of superposition somehow doesn't apply. I don't know if Luke's
comments above suggest that.

2. It is OK for the vector field to be discontinuous.

3. It is OK for the vector field, and hence the resultant current, to be zero at
a point (the location of which may vary with time).

If Dr. Mills would clarify that any one of these three conditions is not a
problem, then I will agree that the "Hairy Ball" theorem is not a problem.
Otherwise it is.

--Lynn

[Note to the Moderator not meant to be part of the post]: John, thank you for
allowing my previous post and, hopefully this one. It will be my last post on
this subject. I hope Dr. Mills will respond.

Regarding Wikipedia's comment that there would have to be a cyclone somewhere,
that is just silly. Any region(s) of calm air nullify the hypotheses. Also, I
don't think this issue is comparable to the question of whether equations such
as Maxwell's or Shrodinger's model physical reality accurately or need
additional tweaking.

Anyway, all the best to you and yours during the upcoming holiday seasons.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (8)
#999 From: "opticalphysicist06" <markviverson@...>
Date: Sat Nov 5, 2011 7:52 pm
Subject: Electro-magnetic Universe with Plasma Gas Filaments? 		opticalphysi...
Send Email Send Email
  
Continuing this discussion, dark matter does not emit or reflect light that can
be measured. Many models assume a uniform mass distribution from the Big Bang. 
Dr.  Mills oscillates the universe over a very long time period.

According to Eric Lerner in his book, "The Big Bang Never Happened", the mass
distribution for the universe is nonuniform; electromagnetic forces must be
included; and plasma gas filaments can transfer charged particles between
galaxies.

Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I conjecture that
hydrinos should form/emit light in these filaments between galaxies or in our
very active northern lights.

Mark

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#1000 From: amack43
Date: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:45 pm
Subject: CP and Matter/Antimatter Mystery 		amack43
  
The mainstream keep on choosing not to look to Classical Physics for answers and
to be sure they don't provide any of their own on matter/antimatter asymmetry:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109161336.htm

Dr. Mills' Classical Physics predicts that the domination of matter arises
naturally during the contraction phase of the universe. See GUT-CP 2011 edition,
Chapter 32 page 1504-1505:

"...during the contraction phase of the oscillatory cycle, the electron neutrino
causes neutron production from a photon, and the production of protons and
electrons occurs by neutron beta decay. Typically, antimatter and matter are
created in the laboratory in equal amounts; yet, celestial antimatter is not
observed. The reason is that electron neutrinos of only one type (electron
neutrinos) exist at the initiation of spacetime contraction. Thus, spin
conservation requires that antineutron production does not occur as a separate
symmetrical reaction, and particle production from a neutrino and a photon
prohibits production of the antimatter twin."

Thus only 1 type of neutron during contraction of the universe can be created
and decay to a proton, electron, an electron antineutrino and .7835 MeV

So is this prediction correct and how do we prove/disprove it? Is there some way
to test this prediction in a collider in some way?

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1001 From: mixent@...
Date: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More findings on dark matter 		rvanspaa
Send Email Send Email
  
In reply to  wedgevw's message of Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:55:22 -0000:
Hi,

My 2 cents:

I suspect that there are 2 zero points, one representing each magnetic pole of
the atom. I further suspect that these poles are continually randomly shifting,
and over time and many atoms average out to zero. Only in an externally applied
magnetic field do they reveal themselves through alignment with the field.

>
>
>
>
>
>--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "Luke" <luthersetzer@...>
wrote:
>>
>> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "wedgevw" <kurtz@> wrote:
>>
>> << I know John doesn't want to see a big pro and con discussion of it, but it
is a well established theorem and directly contradicts the Hydrino model.
Doesn't that bother anyone?
>>
>> {Note from John Farrell, Moderator.
>> It doesn't bother me that someone says that "it (the Hairy Ball Theorem) is
well established and directly contradicts the Hydrino model."  In part, I show
my ignorance here.  First, I don't understand the Hairy Ball Theorem.  Second, I
don't see how it contradicts the hydrino model. >>
>>
>> It is my understanding that the current loops of the orbitsphere act as
superconducting currents.  One unique and experimentally proven aspect of such
currents is that they can physically pass through each other.  So the cited
theorem would seem to have limits surpassed by the nature of superconductivity. 
At least, that is how someone who interned at BLP explained it to me.
>>
>> Luke Setzer
>>
>
>The "Hairy Ball" theorem says you can't have a continuous non-zero vector field
on a sphere. It doesn't say you can't have a vector field on a sphere, just that
such a vector field must either be discontinuous somewhere or zero somewhere. I
assume the principle of superposition is valid, so that at any time and any
point on the orbitsphere, you have a resultant vector, yielding a vector field.
This represents a problem for the orbitsphere unless one of these three
conditions are met:
>
>1. The principle of superposition somehow doesn't apply. I don't know if Luke's
comments above suggest that.
>
>2. It is OK for the vector field to be discontinuous.
>
>3. It is OK for the vector field, and hence the resultant current, to be zero
at a point (the location of which may vary with time).
>
>If Dr. Mills would clarify that any one of these three conditions is not a
problem, then I will agree that the "Hairy Ball" theorem is not a problem.
Otherwise it is.
>
>--Lynn
>
>[Note to the Moderator not meant to be part of the post]: John, thank you for
allowing my previous post and, hopefully this one. It will be my last post on
this subject. I hope Dr. Mills will respond.
>
>Regarding Wikipedia's comment that there would have to be a cyclone somewhere,
that is just silly. Any region(s) of calm air nullify the hypotheses. Also, I
don't think this issue is comparable to the question of whether equations such
as Maxwell's or Shrodinger's model physical reality accurately or need
additional tweaking.
>
>Anyway, all the best to you and yours during the upcoming holiday seasons.
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Reply | Messages in this Topic (8)
#1002 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: CP and Matter/Antimatter Mystery 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:45 PM, amack43 wrote:

> The mainstream keep on choosing not to look to Classical Physics
> for answers and to be sure they don't provide any of their own on
> matter/antimatter asymmetry:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109161336.htm
>
> Dr. Mills' Classical Physics predicts that the domination of matter
> arises naturally during the contraction phase of the universe. See
> GUT-CP 2011 edition, Chapter 32 page 1504-1505:
>
> "...during the contraction phase of the oscillatory cycle, the
> electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon, and the
> production of protons and electrons occurs by neutron beta decay.
> Typically, antimatter and matter are created in the laboratory in
> equal amounts; yet, celestial antimatter is not observed. The
> reason is that electron neutrinos of only one type (electron
> neutrinos) exist at the initiation of spacetime contraction. Thus,
> spin conservation requires that antineutron production does not
> occur as a separate symmetrical reaction, and particle production
> from a neutrino and a photon prohibits production of the antimatter
> twin."
>
> Thus only 1 type of neutron during contraction of the universe can
> be created and decay to a proton, electron, an electron
> antineutrino and .7835 MeV
>
> So is this prediction correct and how do we prove/disprove it?

Search for an astrophysical signature of neutron production and decay
such as the formation of protons, electrons, electron antineutrinos,
and the 0.7835 MeV energy.

> Is there some way to test this prediction in a collider in some way?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1003 From: "opticalphysicist06" <markviverson@...>
Date: Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:01 am
Subject: Pristine Hydrinos? 		opticalphysi...
Send Email Send Email
  
http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-shed-light-early-stars-cosmos-190114667.html

Mark

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1004 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:37 am
Subject: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
  
Hi All,

My name is David Shields. I am 47 years old.
I am ex-Military with 10 years Avionics traning/experience, followed by 20 odd
years in IT/Software Development.

While I have no formal education in Physics and Chemistry other than that
required to design electronic circuits, I have been self-learning as fast as I
can.

I developed a intense interest some 20 years ago, but, never made it to
University. (A regretful mistake)

I recently discovered Black Light Power and am enamoured with concept and
science behind it all.

I first discovered Dr. Mills when I recently found a report from the early 90s
(Thermacore and USAF) which referenced Dr. Mills and the concept of the Hydrino.

I am very keen to reproduce that experiment, but, now having discovered this
information, will decipher the information and approach it a different way.

I am hoping that I will be able to create an experiment around the Hydrino and
then present it, along with supporting science, using Dr. Mills papers and
information on the internet for all to see.

To me, this is the way to win the "public" over.

Kindest Regards and Respect
David Shields

Aspiring toolbag caddy for Dr. Mills :-)

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1005 From: "martin_g.walter" <martin_g.walter@...>
Date: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:07 am
Subject: Bohr loses to Einstein 		martin_g.walter
Send Email Send Email
  
I am writing a short paper on the infamous double slit experiment. As far as
I can see it the classical approach has prevailed(Einstein would be proud).
However, I would like one final clarification. A diffraction pattern is
predicted over time as long as an additional device is not implemented. When the
experiment was repeated with some sort of device that allowed data to be
collected to determine which slit the electron went through, the photons that
were emitted and collected by that new device interacted with the electrons in
such a way so that the orientation of the final angular momentum vector matches
the initial angular momentum vector.(straight path, two slits, two bands)
Meaning the device itself altered the electrons path, not that the electron
"knew" it was being watched and then "decided" to act like a particle again.
Is this interpretation correct?

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1006 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:45 am
Subject: Re: Bohr loses to Einstein 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:07 PM, martin_g.walter wrote:

>     I am writing a short paper on the infamous double slit
> experiment. As far as I can see it the classical approach has
> prevailed(Einstein would be proud). However, I would like one final
> clarification. A diffraction pattern is predicted over time as long
> as an additional device is not implemented. When the experiment was
> repeated with some sort of device that allowed data to be collected
> to determine which slit the electron went through, the photons that
> were emitted and collected by that new device interacted with the
> electrons in such a way so that the orientation of the final
> angular momentum vector matches the initial angular momentum vector.
> (straight path, two slits, two bands)
> Meaning the device itself altered the electrons path, not that the
> electron "knew" it was being watched and then "decided" to act like
> a particle again.
> Is this interpretation correct?
>

yes

>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1007 From: amack43
Date: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:58 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		amack43
  
Perhaps you could try the following as a simple hydrino experiment?

The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has
an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating
nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction
causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface.

At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating one hopes a
population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity which can
undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface.

Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO -> C + CO2
reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of CO dominates -
a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to create a self
regulating reactor.

The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO would work best
to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy transfers
appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of catalyst and
the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together to trigger
transitions.

antony

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
<david.shields@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> My name is David Shields. I am 47 years old.
> I am ex-Military with 10 years Avionics traning/experience, followed by 20 odd
years in IT/Software Development.
>
> While I have no formal education in Physics and Chemistry other than that
required to design electronic circuits, I have been self-learning as fast as I
can.
>
> I developed a intense interest some 20 years ago, but, never made it to
University. (A regretful mistake)
>
> I recently discovered Black Light Power and am enamoured with concept and
science behind it all.
>
> I first discovered Dr. Mills when I recently found a report from the early 90s
(Thermacore and USAF) which referenced Dr. Mills and the concept of the Hydrino.
>
> I am very keen to reproduce that experiment, but, now having discovered this
information, will decipher the information and approach it a different way.
>
> I am hoping that I will be able to create an experiment around the Hydrino and
then present it, along with supporting science, using Dr. Mills papers and
information on the internet for all to see.
>
> To me, this is the way to win the "public" over.
>
> Kindest Regards and Respect
> David Shields
>
> Aspiring toolbag caddy for Dr. Mills :-)
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1008 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:49 am
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
CIHT cell validation involves electrical power measurements rather
than calorimetry.  We will eventually be disclosing our results, but
haven't decided on when yet.


On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:58 PM, amack43 wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps you could try the following as a simple hydrino experiment?
>
> The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst.
> Nickel has an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700
> degrees Celsius heating nickel first releases CO and around 400
> degrees Celsius a dominant reaction causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on
> an abradided nickel surface.
>
> At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating
> one hopes a population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close
> proximity which can undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface.
>
> Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO ->
> C + CO2 reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic
> formation of CO dominates - a nifty self regulating physical
> mechanism that could be used to create a self regulating reactor.
>
> The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO
> would work best to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of
> resonant energy transfers appear particularly dependent on exact
> conditions for each type of catalyst and the manner in which H and
> the catalyst are brought close together to trigger transitions.
>
> antony
>
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
> <david.shields@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My name is David Shields. I am 47 years old.
>> I am ex-Military with 10 years Avionics traning/experience,
>> followed by 20 odd years in IT/Software Development.
>>
>> While I have no formal education in Physics and Chemistry other
>> than that required to design electronic circuits, I have been self-
>> learning as fast as I can.
>>
>> I developed a intense interest some 20 years ago, but, never made
>> it to University. (A regretful mistake)
>>
>> I recently discovered Black Light Power and am enamoured with
>> concept and science behind it all.
>>
>> I first discovered Dr. Mills when I recently found a report from
>> the early 90s (Thermacore and USAF) which referenced Dr. Mills and
>> the concept of the Hydrino.
>>
>> I am very keen to reproduce that experiment, but, now having
>> discovered this information, will decipher the information and
>> approach it a different way.
>>
>> I am hoping that I will be able to create an experiment around the
>> Hydrino and then present it, along with supporting science, using
>> Dr. Mills papers and information on the internet for all to see.
>>
>> To me, this is the way to win the "public" over.
>>
>> Kindest Regards and Respect
>> David Shields
>>
>> Aspiring toolbag caddy for Dr. Mills :-)
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1009 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:52 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
 

I can understand that you have to be careful what is published and when.

However, moving on with the concept, if I go for the elements CO2 + H2 + Ni + heat and pressure. (CO2 and H2 gas and Ni powder.)

If I have read the right documents and have understood them well enough:

CO2/O

        CO2 Bond Energy : 5.52 eV

        Oxygen IP1: 13.618 eV

        Oxygen IP2: 35.117 eV

        Oxygen IP3: 54.935 eV

        Oxygen IP4: 77.413 eV

        Oxygen IP5: 113.89 eV

This has Hydrino reactions at:

        IP2 -> 54.26 eV ~ 2*27.2 eV

        IP3 -> 109.19 eV ~ 4*27.2 eV

        IP5 -> 300.5 eV ~ 11*27.2 eV

Hydrinos of the order 1/3, 1/4, 1/6  should be created from the above

Ni

        Ni IP1: 7.638 eV

        Ni IP2: 18.168 eV

        Ni IP3: 35.166 eV

        Ni IP4: 54.93 eV

        Ni IP5: 76.074 eV

        Ni IP6: 107.788 eV

This has Hydrino reactions at:

        IP2 -> 25.800 eV ~ 27.2 eV (Is this close enough?)

        IP3 -> 60.972 eV ~ 2*27.2 eV (Is this close enough?)

        IP5 -> 191.96 eV~ 7*27.2 eV

        IP6 -> 299.96 eV ~ 11*27.2 eV

Hydrinos of the order 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/7 should be created from the above.

 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1010 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
  
Awesome. A

And it just so happens that I have all I need to do this as well. (I have a kilo
of a couple of um Ni Powder)

I will write it up along with the maths etc. then give it a shot!

Thanks so much for the help.

I was just taking the math and running an algorithm over the tables for
Ionisation energy etc. and had just come to the Hydrogen vs. CO2 idea, but had
not worked it all through yet.

I must be understanding at least the very basic stuff so far then :-)

Kindest Regards

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, amack43 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Perhaps you could try the following as a simple hydrino experiment?
>
> The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has
an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating
nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction
causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface.
>
> At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating one hopes
a population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity which can
undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface.
>
> Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO -> C + CO2
reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of CO dominates -
a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to create a self
regulating reactor.
>
> The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO would work best
to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy transfers
appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of catalyst and
the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together to trigger
transitions.
>
> antony
>
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
<david.shields@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > My name is David Shields. I am 47 years old.
> > I am ex-Military with 10 years Avionics traning/experience, followed by 20
odd years in IT/Software Development.
> >
> > While I have no formal education in Physics and Chemistry other than that
required to design electronic circuits, I have been self-learning as fast as I
can.
> >
> > I developed a intense interest some 20 years ago, but, never made it to
University. (A regretful mistake)
> >
> > I recently discovered Black Light Power and am enamoured with concept and
science behind it all.
> >
> > I first discovered Dr. Mills when I recently found a report from the early
90s (Thermacore and USAF) which referenced Dr. Mills and the concept of the
Hydrino.
> >
> > I am very keen to reproduce that experiment, but, now having discovered this
information, will decipher the information and approach it a different way.
> >
> > I am hoping that I will be able to create an experiment around the Hydrino
and then present it, along with supporting science, using Dr. Mills papers and
information on the internet for all to see.
> >
> > To me, this is the way to win the "public" over.
> >
> > Kindest Regards and Respect
> > David Shields
> >
> > Aspiring toolbag caddy for Dr. Mills :-)
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1011 From: "keithc137036" <keithcaceres@...>
Date: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:47 am
Subject: Nature 479: Quantum physics: Shaking photons out of the vacuum 		keithc137036
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi All,

I just saw this news article referencing an article just published in Nature:

Non-free Nature article for those that have access:

The news article is pretty short on the details of the experiment and I don't have a subscription to Nature.  I'm trying to understand how to explain this result using a Classical Physics interpretation.

From what I gather in the news article, it sounds like they generated the microwave photons not in a vacuum, but in an electrical circuit -- OR if in a vacuum, in the presence of moving charges in an electrical circuit.  This doesn't seem too extraordinary to me as I would expect vibrating electrical charges to radiate.

I'm hoping someone with access to Nature, some time to read the article, and a deeper understanding than I, could shed some light on this, especially with regards to experimental setup and a CP explanation.

Thanks so much,

Keith



{Moderator's note, John Farrell. I suspect that Keith has it right, "vibrating electrical charges." I, too, do not have access to Nature. I think it is highly unlikely that a photons spring from a vacuum. If they did, there would be a lot more photons around.}

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#1012 From: amack43
Date: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:04 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		amack43
  
I don't think that Nickel itself can act as a hydrino catalyst although the
numbers might appear to stack up on the ionisation energies- I suppose the
nickel lattice energies would prevent a single Ni atom from acting as a catalyst
even if the ionisation energies are a perfect match. The important thing in this
CO2 experiment as I see it is that the nickel catalyst creates the proximity of
atomic H and CO2 by forming them at the same time in the same location - it
catalyses the H2 into H and 2CO into C + CO2 and places them in close proximity.

Also BLP's early experiments were very dependent on gas ratios and pressures so
you might need to methodically work out a way of trying various combinations. I
would start with CO and H2 and nickel and heat the nickel until some of the CO
begins to form CO2 at the nickel surface and then see if there is any evidence
for anomalous heat. (applying all necessary safety precautions for using
hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide, superheated glass etc)

As you know BLP are working on CIHT technology - even if you get a positive
result for CO2 as a hydrino catalyst, all other iterations of BLP technology may
become redundant by this direct conversion technology which aims to effectively
use catalyst induced hydrino transitions to effect charge separation and thereby
create an extremely powerful but simple fuel cell.

antony

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
<david.shields@...> wrote:
>
> Awesome. A
>
> And it just so happens that I have all I need to do this as well. (I have a
kilo of a couple of um Ni Powder)
>
> I will write it up along with the maths etc. then give it a shot!
>
> Thanks so much for the help.
>
> I was just taking the math and running an algorithm over the tables for
Ionisation energy etc. and had just come to the Hydrogen vs. CO2 idea, but had
not worked it all through yet.
>
> I must be understanding at least the very basic stuff so far then :-)
>
> Kindest Regards

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1013 From: "novel_compound" <novel_compound@...>
Date: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:09 pm
Subject: Re: Pristine Hydrinos? 		novel_compound
Send Email Send Email
  
The Yahoo link no longer works, but the same story can be read at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45243100/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/astronome\
rs-shed-light-early-stars-cosmos/



--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "opticalphysicist06"
<markviverson@...> wrote:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-shed-light-early-stars-cosmos-190114667.html
>
> Mark

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1014 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:17 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
  
Antony,

Thanks for that. I started writing up a long email about how I would proceed.
But, I think I need to study this up a bit more.

There is no point in experimentation if I do not understand the science
properly.

Will post again when I have a complete end to end understanding of the process.

I was hoping to keep it to easliy obtainable elements, temperatures and
pressures so that specialist laboratory equipment would not be required. (Read
$$$ as I do not have access to this technology)

I can source:

H2,He,H2C2,N,Ar,CH4,N2O,CO2,Fe,Ni,Cu,Pb,NaOH,H2O2,KOH, W and other common
materials

Temp ~ 700 Deg. C as a heater, but using Tungsten Wire, maybe a lot more.

Pressure at a few hundred PSI - I am using threaded equipment, stainless Steel
316 Food Grade.

Thermocouples, Multimeters, RF Sig Gen, AF Sig Gen, 200 MHz Scope, DC Power
Supply, components plus electronic experience.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1015 From: amack43
Date: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:36 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		amack43
  
You sound like you know the basics. While there is detailed maths behind why
electrons do and don't radiate and form stable states and hydrinos based on the
unique properties of electrons arising from Dr. Mills' theory (all available in
the 2011 book), it can be simplified down to:

The ground state of H can't radiate because the extended, two dimensional but
spherical electron is balanced between the competing forces of the proton and
electron.

It can't radiate energy to collapse closer to the proton but it can couple to an
energy sink that can remove multiples of 27.2eV. Each loss of 27.2eV corresponds
to a +1 increase in the effective nuclear charge of the proton (can also be
modeled by the removal of energy forming a photon inside the electron shell that
adds integer increments to the charge of the proton). The electron will then
shrink, emitting photons in the UV range or higher until the electron is once
again balanced in a hydrino (below ground) state. The theory also explains
normal excited states of H in which the capture of a photon decreases the
effective charge of the proton, causing the electron shell to expand its radius.

People complain that the theory claims a huge range of catalysts and this is
true, including atoms, ions and molecules which may use molecular bond energy
plus ionization energies to achieve catalyst energy matches. But it is not
enough to simply have a match. The conditions in which H or D and the catalyst
are brought together to achieve usable reactions rates are just as important.

People also complain that it has taken BLP too long to produce a saleable
product. I disagree. What BLP has achieved is equivalent to asking Einstein to
build a nuclear bomb from his own resoures. BLP has rewritten physics to
incorporate reality and reinstate cause and effect as a central principle of
science. At the same time they have committed to an intense research project to
convert findings and predictions from that theory not only into peer reviewed
scientific papers but also engineer a safe, reliable, cheap direct conversion
electrical product that (hopefully) will one day be available out of the box.

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
<david.shields@...> wrote:
>
> Antony,
>
> Thanks for that. I started writing up a long email about how I would proceed.
But, I think I need to study this up a bit more.
>
> There is no point in experimentation if I do not understand the science
properly.
>
> Will post again when I have a complete end to end understanding of the
process.
>
> I was hoping to keep it to easliy obtainable elements, temperatures and
pressures so that specialist laboratory equipment would not be required. (Read
$$$ as I do not have access to this technology)
>
> I can source:
>
> H2,He,H2C2,N,Ar,CH4,N2O,CO2,Fe,Ni,Cu,Pb,NaOH,H2O2,KOH, W and other common
materials
>
> Temp ~ 700 Deg. C as a heater, but using Tungsten Wire, maybe a lot more.
>
> Pressure at a few hundred PSI - I am using threaded equipment, stainless Steel
316 Food Grade.
>
> Thermocouples, Multimeters, RF Sig Gen, AF Sig Gen, 200 MHz Scope, DC Power
Supply, components plus electronic experience.
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1016 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:56 am
Subject: Re: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
  
Antony,

Once again I am humbled by your comprehensive and supporting responses to my
queries.

You mentioned that people complain about BLP and the lack of commercial output
to date. I find this astounding. The science is clearly and generously provided
by BLP for all to review and pretty much do with as they will. (E.g. these
people have the ability to try themselves)

As you mention, parts of 'mainstream' science has been rewritten to comply with
rules set by the 'gods' whose shoulders we stand upon. It will take some time
for people to:

1. Understand that it is correct
2. Understand the impact/ramifications.

There is also the false measure of success that says that "commercialisation =
money = success". I'm not convinced this is a trueism. If I could earn a good
salary just experimenting then I would be a happy chappy.

Anyway, I have just ordered the last components for the experimentation which
should put me in good stead for starting in a few weeks.

Kind Regards

David Shields

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, amack43 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> You sound like you know the basics. While there is detailed maths behind why
electrons do and don't radiate and form stable states and   .....

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1017 From: "phoo" <phooqu2000@...>
Date: Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:03 am
Subject: hydrinos as dark matter? 		phooqu2000
Send Email Send Email
  
Dr. Mills has hypothesized that hydrinos are dark matter.
I see that a new paper describes the limits for the WIMP
as 40 giga electron volts.  How does that square with Dr. Mills's
prediction?

Here is a link to an article about the limit on dark matter particles.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Physicists_set_strongest_limit_on_mass_of_dark\
_matter_999.html

If the two jive it would be way cool.

{Moderators (John Farrell) note:  As far as I know there is no experimental
evidence to connect high-energy events with the identity of dark matter.  Mills,
who predicted that the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing long
before it was observed experimentally, has shown that spacetime increases (or as
the layman might prefer, the tug of gravity decreases) as matter is converted
into energy.  Thus, any attempt to identify dark matter by emission of energy
ought to focus on the extreme ultraviolet (EUV).}

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)
#1018 From: amack43
Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:23 pm
Subject: Re: hydrinos as dark matter? 		amack43
  
snipped

As an aside when someone attempted to edit the wikipedia site on Blacklightpower
to show that Mills predicted the accelerated expansion over 15 years ago from
his theory it was removed by those now controlling that entry on the basis that
lots of people all predicted an accelerated expanding universe. That piece of
tosh is accompanied by the removal any evidence that supports the theory, but
includes excepts from the Gospel of Bob Park whose "What's New" column
apparently passes as a top tier journal. Flawed theoretical papers from
opponents (without the accompany responses from Dr. Mills pointing out their
flaws) are trotted out as is the usual gaggle of Nobel Prize winners and QM
celebrities making comments in complete ignorance as to what they are actually
commenting on.

The editors of wiki make it plain in the discussion page that their mission is
to denigrate and expose BLP. It is falsely claimed by wiki that there has been
no peer reviewed publication or that any publication has been in journals not
worth mentioning. Claims of independent verification is rejected on the basis
that wiki claims every attempt was not really independent which in my view
borders on libel for the institutions and persons concerned.

Does it matter? Not really. This is a battle that can't be won by educating the
general public. Unfair as it is, especially as it is never applied to big
science sucking at the rather large teat of the public purse, it can only be won
by the success of BLP in producing a safe, powerful cell that produces
electricity. Then watch these people falling over themselves to claim how they
knew all along that hydrinos were real.


> {Moderator's (John Farrell) note:  As far as I know there is no experimental
evidence to connect high-energy events with the identity of dark matter.  Mills,
who predicted that the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing long
before it was observed experimentally, has shown that spacetime increases (or as
the layman might prefer, the tug of gravity decreases) as matter is converted
into energy.  Thus, any attempt to identify dark matter by emission of energy
ought to focus on the extreme ultraviolet (EUV).}
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)
#1019 From: "apteryxoz" <david.shields@...>
Date: Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: Introduction 		apteryxoz
Send Email Send Email
  
BTW - is GUT CP available in print?

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
<david.shields@...> wrote:
>
> Antony,
  .....

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1020 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:46 am
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
We are working on getting a current edition in print by Spring.


On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:16 AM, apteryxoz wrote:

> BTW - is GUT CP available in print?
>
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "apteryxoz"
> <david.shields@...> wrote:
>>
>> Antony,
>  .....
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1021 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hydrinos as dark matter? 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
It is not true that lots of people predicted the acceleration of the
expansion of the universe.  It was a foregone conclusion that the
universe started as a big bang and would end in a big crunch or cold
death.

I understand their reaction to the GUTCP and BLP.  The GUTCP
theoretical predictions and data actually disproves quantum mechanics
that is only based on a postulated mathematical probability wave
equation for a singularity over all space.   In closed form equations
having fundamental constants only, the competing classical theory
solves the central enigmas of quantum mechanics and the fundamental
problems of chemistry and physics physically, from first principles
over 85 orders of magnitude of scale.  Furthermore, in addition to
vast amounts of known phenomena, classical physics has successfully
solved many intractable problems including ones before they were
observed such as the masses of fundamental particles including the
mass of the top quark, the acceleration of the expansion of the
universe, the absence of the Higgs boson, absence of time dilation
for highly red shifted quasars, zero dipole moment of the bound
electron, the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift, the physical mechanism of
the double slit interference pattern regarding transverse photon
displacement and momentum change, and the prediction of hydrino
states that match the identity of dark matter.  Indeed, data supports
that celestial hydrogen transitions to hydrino form with the
ubiquitous emission of continuum radiation such as that from white
dwarf stars, interstellar medium, and the solar corona matching that
reported in our recent EUV paper [1].  There are many astrophysical
observations that are solved by the transition to and existence of
lower-energy hydrino states such as a solar coronal temperature of
T~106 K given the 4000 K surface temperature.  Even Bahcall in his
Nobel lecture regarding solar neutrinos considered that there may be
an undiscovered energy source in the Sun [2].  Moreover, data
supports that most of the hydrogen in the universe is in dark lower-
energy hydrino form consistent with expectations.


1. R. L. Mills, Y. Lu, Hydrino Continuum Transitions with Cutoffs at
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 35 (2010), pp.
8446-8456, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.098.
2. http:// nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/

On Nov 28, 2011, at 6:23 PM, amack43 wrote:

>
>
> snipped
>
> As an aside when someone attempted to edit the wikipedia site on
> Blacklightpower to show that Mills predicted the accelerated
> expansion over 15 years ago from his theory it was removed by those
> now controlling that entry on the basis that lots of people all
> predicted an accelerated expanding universe. That piece of tosh is
> accompanied by the removal any evidence that supports the theory,
> but includes excepts from the Gospel of Bob Park whose "What's New"
> column apparently passes as a top tier journal. Flawed theoretical
> papers from opponents (without the accompany responses from Dr.
> Mills pointing out their flaws) are trotted out as is the usual
> gaggle of Nobel Prize winners and QM celebrities making comments in
> complete ignorance as to what they are actually commenting on.
>
> The editors of wiki make it plain in the discussion page that their
> mission is to denigrate and expose BLP. It is falsely claimed by
> wiki that there has been no peer reviewed publication or that any
> publication has been in journals not worth mentioning. Claims of
> independent verification is rejected on the basis that wiki claims
> every attempt was not really independent which in my view borders
> on libel for the institutions and persons concerned.
>
> Does it matter? Not really. This is a battle that can't be won by
> educating the general public. Unfair as it is, especially as it is
> never applied to big science sucking at the rather large teat of
> the public purse, it can only be won by the success of BLP in
> producing a safe, powerful cell that produces electricity. Then
> watch these people falling over themselves to claim how they knew
> all along that hydrinos were real.
>
>
>> {Moderator's (John Farrell) note:  As far as I know there is no
>> experimental evidence to connect high-energy events with the
>> identity of dark matter.  Mills, who predicted that the rate of
>> the expansion of the universe is increasing long before it was
>> observed experimentally, has shown that spacetime increases (or as
>> the layman might prefer, the tug of gravity decreases) as matter
>> is converted into energy.  Thus, any attempt to identify dark
>> matter by emission of energy ought to focus on the extreme
>> ultraviolet (EUV).}
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)
#1022 From: "novel_compound" <novel_compound@...>
Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:24 pm
Subject: Re: Introduction 		novel_compound
Send Email Send Email
 

apteryxoz wrote,

< is GUT CP available in print? >

 

If you can't wait for a newer edition, here's one for $46: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0963517155/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_1

(I believe it's the 2001 edition.)


Reply | Messages in this Topic (14)
#1023 From: amack43
Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:37 am
Subject: Question on hydrino hydrides 		amack43
  
It appears that a hydrino hydride ion (being a hydrino that has strongly
captured an electron) can capture a proton and form a dihydrino molecule with
the emission of significant energy. The dihydrino molecule consists of two
indistinguishable electrons in a shell surrounding two protons separated but
balanced inside the orbitspheres.

My hypothetical question is what happens when a hydrino hydride ion encounters a
much larger nucleus? For instance does the positively charged nucleus attempt to
take the outer electron which then forms an orbitsphere around both the neutral
hydrino and the nucleus? Is it possible that as the orbitsphere binds to the
larger nucleus and its radius decreases it could force the neutral hydrino and
the larger nuclei together? I'm thinking along the lines of a collapsing
orbitsphere version of sonofusion where rapid changes in minute bubbles
triggered by sound in liquid appear to induce fusion.

I don't know the answer but I am intrigued as to whether the multitude of "cold
fusion" claims of detectable small amounts of fusion or transmutation, if not
artifacts or contamination, could arise from a hydrino hydride chemistry
triggered mechanism, or whether such claims are expressly unsupported by CP.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1024 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 4:21 pm
Subject: Re: Question on hydrino hydrides 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
In order to be thermodynamically favorable, the energy levels of the
electrons participating in a bond must be similar.  This criterion
also restricts ion size regarding formation of molecular ions.


On Nov 29, 2011, at 8:37 PM, amack43 wrote:

> It appears that a hydrino hydride ion (being a hydrino that has
> strongly captured an electron) can capture a proton and form a
> dihydrino molecule with the emission of significant energy. The
> dihydrino molecule consists of two indistinguishable electrons in a
> shell surrounding two protons separated but balanced inside the
> orbitspheres.
>
> My hypothetical question is what happens when a hydrino hydride ion
> encounters a much larger nucleus? For instance does the positively
> charged nucleus attempt to take the outer electron which then forms
> an orbitsphere around both the neutral hydrino and the nucleus? Is
> it possible that as the orbitsphere binds to the larger nucleus and
> its radius decreases it could force the neutral hydrino and the
> larger nuclei together? I'm thinking along the lines of a
> collapsing orbitsphere version of sonofusion where rapid changes in
> minute bubbles triggered by sound in liquid appear to induce fusion.
>
> I don't know the answer but I am intrigued as to whether the
> multitude of "cold fusion" claims of detectable small amounts of
> fusion or transmutation, if not artifacts or contamination, could
> arise from a hydrino hydride chemistry triggered mechanism, or
> whether such claims are expressly unsupported by CP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1025 From: "Mark" <mhuemoeller@...>
Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:23 pm
Subject: BLP reactor news 		mhuemoeller
Send Email Send Email
  
Hi Dr Mills,

It has been just over 1 year since your 11/29/10 press release announcing
production of electricity.  When you BLP do a follow-up to this or perhaps a
full blown roll-out?

Please update us with whatever information you can share.  I realize the process
of brining new technology to market is long, but anything you can update us on
will be appreciated.

Mark

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#1026 From: Randell Mills <RMills@...>
Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 11:29 pm
Subject: Re: BLP reactor news 		drrandellmills
Send Email Send Email
  
We are making great progress and will most likely announce our
results before the next patent in a series publishes.

On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Mark wrote:

> Hi Dr Mills,
>
> It has been just over 1 year since your 11/29/10 press release
> announcing production of electricity.  When you BLP do a follow-up
> to this or perhaps a full blown roll-out?
>
> Please update us with whatever information you can share.  I
> realize the process of brining new technology to market is long,
> but anything you can update us on will be appreciated.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
Messages 997 - 1026 of 1463   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Copyright 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help