headers
Clyde Davies | 2 Jun 2006 19:46
Picon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

--- In hydrino@..., Marty Galyean <marty <at> ...> wrote:
>
> orionworks wrote:
> 
> >With all due respect to the revered Laws of Thermodynamics many 
are no
> >longer as intimidated as they used to be when someone infers 
ridicule
> >and shame on those who, due to their own suspicions and research, 
can
> >no longer afford to maintain the same level of blind faith in
> >following the party line. This might even include me!
> 
> Guys, if this forum is largely a "free energy" forum where 
> "alternatively logicked" members largely believe the enemy are 
those 
> pesky Laws of Thermodynamics?
> 
> Or is it a forum for scientific discussion and testing of hydrinos 
and CQM?
> 
> Please chime in if your opinion is that the Laws of Thermodynamics 
are 
> relevant.  I just don't have the time for any discussion that 
throws 
> them away.
> 
> Marty
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marty Galyean | 8 Jun 2006 16:19
Favicon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

Clyde Davies wrote:

>Well, I thought it was a forum for discussing the hydrino theory 
>versus the evidence for it, which is why I asked the question about 
>the NMR spectra last week.  But judging by the total lack of 
>response, I can now see I was totally mistaken, and that it's really 
>mainly a forum for discussing abstruse theoretical physics and how it 
>really doesn't need to dirty its hands with with this 
>pesky 'experimental evidence' notion.
>
>Silly me.  

I would really find the list you describe valuable also.

I also think the ratio of people who can publicly state, "I don't know", 
yet have a basic grasp of scientific principles, to those people who 
apparently are experts in their own minds yet repeatedly 
misapply/misunderstand some of the most basic principles of science is 
far too low for any serious scientific discussion to survive here.  Sad, 
but true.  Then there is the "can't see the forest for the trees" folks 
who have all their basic ducks in a row, and write entire pages that 
make sense within themselves, but has zero relevance to the thread even 
while they posit it proves or disproves the claim in the thread.

For the record, there are many things I don't know.  I think I do have a 
grasp of the basics from which to follow a line of argument properly.  I 
just don't see a lot of real scientific argument happening here.

Perhaps if all posts were moderated to be *strictly* related to the 
testing of hydrino theory a lot of the chaff would blow away.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clyde Davies | 10 Jun 2006 10:17
Picon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

Well said, Marty.

Let me give you some background to my whine.  About 15 years ago I 
did a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and worked with many people of 
differing interests.  Whoever, there was a coterie who regarded 
themselves very much as an elite because they were theorists and 
could gasp the many and subtle aspects of an one or more electrons 
going around one or more nuclei.  It was plain that they regarded 
this branch of study the  be-all-and-end-all of physical chemistry.  
I regarded it as the starting point.

As a result, because I tend to start with the results and work 
backwards towards the theory, I have an approach that tends to put me 
at odds with what I see going on around here.  There are 
correspondents who have already made up their minds about Mills and 
therefore would rather not talk about his awkward experimental 
results, but either ignore or attempt to derail the arguments about 
them.  Quite why they are here is open to speculation.  

I have *not* made up my mind yet and when I see a set of NMR spectra 
(which I assume have been obtained and published in good faith) then 
I would simply like to discuss their relevance to his theories.  If 
someone can come up with a counter argument as to why they should not 
be regarded as significant evidence then I would very much like to 
hear it as I can stop wasting my time and find something else to 
occupy my interest.  In other works, I would very much like to 
participate in the kind of discussion this group was set up for:  CQM 
and hydrino theory versus the evidence for it.

If Mills is right (and *I* don't know this for certain yet) then I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
JimNLori | 11 Jun 2006 00:29
Favicon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

If you search the past HSG message base you will find some discussion of the NMR spectra, including the fact
that the superconducting "orbitsphere" should not allow the penetration of a magnetic field and would
therefore render NMR useless.

On top of that, I believe there has been no replication of those experiments.

jd

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clyde Davies 
  To: hydrino@... 
  Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:17 AM
  Subject: HSG: Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

  Well said, Marty.

  Let me give you some background to my whine. About 15 years ago I 
  did a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and worked with many people of 
  differing interests. Whoever, there was a coterie who regarded 
  themselves very much as an elite because they were theorists and 
  could gasp the many and subtle aspects of an one or more electrons 
  going around one or more nuclei. It was plain that they regarded 
  this branch of study the be-all-and-end-all of physical chemistry. 
  I regarded it as the starting point.

  As a result, because I tend to start with the results and work 
  backwards towards the theory, I have an approach that tends to put me 
  at odds with what I see going on around here. There are 
  correspondents who have already made up their minds about Mills and 
  therefore would rather not talk about his awkward experimental
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marty Galyean | 11 Jun 2006 14:15
Favicon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

JimNLori wrote:

>If you search the past HSG message base you will find some discussion of the NMR spectra, including the fact
that the superconducting "orbitsphere" should not allow the penetration of a magnetic field and would
therefore render NMR useless.
>
>On top of that, I believe there has been no replication of those experiments.

Is there a vetted and pared-down version of the archive just devoted to 
true hypothesis testing?  I realize that would be a large effort on 
someone's part, but ask in case it has been done.  It would be hard to 
find the time to read the entire archive at this point.  I would 
certainly be willing to archive separately truly on topic posts from now 
onward.

Marty

[No, there is not one.  --LS]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clyde Davies | 15 Jun 2006 14:11
Picon

Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels

OK:

So the concept of an orbitsphere precludes NMR spectroscopy from 
working, does it not?  However, Mills' NMR spectra (assuming they are 
genuine) don't really appear to have a facile explanation other than 
the sub-ground-state H2 molecules he proposes.  I am therefore 
*looking* for an explanation for the spectra that plainly *exist*, 
not for a purely theoretical explanation of why they really shouldn't 
exist in the first place.  Either they are true, fabrications or 
there is some other more mundane explanation.  If the last, I would 
simply like to know why, that's all.

DCD

--- In hydrino@..., Marty Galyean <marty <at> ...> wrote:
>
> JimNLori wrote:
> 
> >If you search the past HSG message base you will find some 
discussion of the NMR spectra, including the fact that the 
superconducting "orbitsphere" should not allow the penetration of a 
magnetic field and would therefore render NMR useless.
> >
> >On top of that, I believe there has been no replication of those 
experiments.
> 
> Is there a vetted and pared-down version of the archive just 
devoted to 
> true hypothesis testing?  I realize that would be a large effort on 
> someone's part, but ask in case it has been done.  It would be hard
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane