[AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment

  • From: qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:34:55 -0600

James Mills has be at this "we just about got it" for 25 years He continues to pull in unsuspecting investors and people that can't do 

the math with "we got this far but we need this to get there".
Don't get me wrong. I would like nothing more than to see some back room mad scientist to come up with something that throws a wrench into the ordered state of the scientific community but unless Mills does something radically different he's not going to be the one. He gives demonstrations of what his machine might be capable of and then throws oranges to apples comparisons to make big low voltage high amperage spark into the worlds next saviour. In fact, it's just the continuation of another charlatans work, William Lynn. 
with Atomic Hydrogen.

At 12:05 PM 3/21/2015, you wrote:
You seem to be saying that it cannot emit any radiation during the transition to the dark matter state otherwise it wouldn't be dark.
Its hard to tell if you're being absurd because you think the whole thing is a joke so you don't need to make sense, or if you really are that irrational.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Ian Woollard <<mailto:ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
Dark matter? Further lols.
Hydrinos aren't supposed to lose their electrons and would be electrically charged, and so would still interact with electromagnetic waves. Whereas dark matter is... dark... so it can't be electrically charged. 

That means it can't have a 3.48keV peak, otherwise it wouldn't be dark! 8-)
If we could actually see dark matter at 3.48 keV, that would be amazing; but no.
Incidentally, the proponent of this, Randell Mills is a medical doctor, not a doctor of physics. 

It's a scam.

You've been had.

Sorry.
On 21 March 2015 at 17:03, James Bowery <<mailto:jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: "A broad X-ray peak with a 3.48 keV cutoff was recently observed in the Perseus Cluster by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and by the XMMNewton [32-33] that has no match to any known atomic transition. The 3.48 keV feature assigned to dark matter of unknown identity by BulBul et al. [32] matches the 1/4+1/1=>1/17 transition and further confirms hydrinos as the identity of dark matter." 

<http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf>http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ian Woollard <<mailto:ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
A lower ground state of hydrogen that can be reached at low energy?

Nah.
If hydrinos existed, huge amounts of hydrogen in the universe should already be hydrinos. We should be knee deep in the stuff. It should form, and be very stable. 

Where the heck is all this stuff if it exists?

Nowhere, because it's nonsense, sorry.
On 20 March 2015 at 21:52, James Bowery <<mailto:jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
Erratum: Â AWG -> AHW (Atomic Hydrogen Welding)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, James Bowery <<mailto:jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
Such questions are beyond my competence, which is why my approach is simple:
Replace the 2 tungsten electrodes of an AWG rig with titanium and measure the resulting temperature.
If the factor of 7 gain reported in the cite obtains, the result should be unambiguous.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:46 PM, David Spain <<mailto:david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
On 3/20/2015 1:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Arguing against arithmetic showing specific energy that is orders of magnitude lower than nuclear by parading a litany of rhetorical if not polemical "wisdom", isn't even wrong. 

James,
What is your stand on the viewpoint that because Mills' theory of fractional Rydberg states are not square-integrable in the Dirac expression, they are therefore to be considered in the quantum realm as non-physical? That has been the traditional view at least until Jan Nault's paper: 

<http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193.pdf>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193.pdf
Also don't these n < 1 states lead to non-resonant wave function solutions? (Isn't that just another way of stating the above?) 

Dave









--
-Ian Woollard





--
-Ian Woollard

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2015