[AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0700
lol, I just barely hang in there! But I'm in. lol
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
> From: qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, March 21, 2015 11:40 am
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Dang Monroe, I'd just about given up on you until you wrote this.
> There is some sense in you after all.
>
> At 12:31 PM 3/21/2015, you wrote:
> > I understand the want for overunity and I also understand the
> > fight it creates and the want to break the law of conservation of
> > energy. Unless you have fought the fight directly for yourself. If
> > you do that you can spot overunity in a heartbeat. If you don't
> > overunity is VERY attractive! The physics involved are obviously on
> > a very high order and it is very easy to be fooled into the free
> > lunch romance. My best friend is currently "stuck" in this romance
> > himself. It is heartbreaking to watch if you've already gone down
> > that road. It does not matter if what they are selling is being
> > sold as overunity all that matters is being able to spot an
> > overunity theory in whatever is being offered. Trying to relate to
> > someone stuck in an overunity romance is like trying to separate 2
> > lovers. All you can do is let it run it's course. Some people never
> > get over that romance in their lifetime. For those I have great
> > sympathy (from a distance) My romance is with orbit still very
> > difficult for an individual and nearly impossible. But much more
> > possible than achieving overunity. That is my personal experience.
> > I may or may not achieve orbit but I am thankful I'm not working an
> > overunity theory. Take my advice if it looks like overunity walk
> > quietly away and give thanks your not stuck in that romance
> > anymore. Gravity is a stern mistress but overunity is a
> > Siren. Monroe > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject:
> > [AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment > From: Ian Woollard
> > <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, March 21, 2015 10:55 am > To:
> > arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > 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
> > <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
> >
> > > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ian Woollard
> > <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 <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> Erratum: AWG -> AHW
> > (Atomic Hydrogen Welding) > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:50
> > PM, James Bowery <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 <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 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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: