Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

free energy update - way to rate underground physics theories

Expand Messages
  • eric krieg
    Here s someone s new cold pressure throey(counter gravitation theory)”web page (looks confused to me) http://www.coldpressure.com.cn The following is
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's someone's new cold pressure throey(counter gravitation theory)”web page (looks confused to me)
      http://www.coldpressure.com.cn

      The following is about efforts to check out Black Light Power claims:

      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 1
      Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:10:16 -0600
      From: Scott Little <little@...>
      Subject: Re: Re: Mills replication begins

      At 03:19 PM 11/30/2000 +0000, Robert L. Virkus wrote:
      >--- In hydrino@egroups.com, "Piero Andreuccetti" <pandreuccetti@y...>
      >wrote:
      > > Scott,
      > >
      > > is there any result available from the replication of Mills light
      > > water electrolysis experiment you started last week?
      >
      >I would caution everyone not to weight the results of any
      >electrolysis experiment too much as the conditions are
      >very delicate and the possibility for error is great.

      First, I have completed the first run (~200 hours long) and will be posting
      a full report in a couple of days (there's lots of data to process).

      Second, Rob Virkus is right. Only a successful replication of this
      electrolysis experiment would have significant impact. A failure to
      reproduce Mills' results proves nothing.

      We, too, are MUCH more interested in the gas plasma experiments than
      electrolysis experiments. However, despite considerable efforts on our
      part, we have failed to obtain Mills' assistance with such an
      experiment. After our own version of his gas plasma experiment failed (see
      http://www.earthtech.org/experiments.htm (bottom of page)) it is clear that
      we require his guidance in order to succeed.

      Our present effort on the electrolysis experiment is therefore a default
      position, made feasible only by the rather complete description of the
      electrolysis experiment given in Mills' 1996 book.


      Scott Little
      EarthTech International, Inc.
      4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300
      Austin TX 78759
      512-342-2185
      512-346-3017 (FAX)
      http://www.earthtech.org

      =======================================

      The following is about here-today free energy: Solar:

      Subject: Re: Some Alt Energy Stocks to Consider
      Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:19:43 -0500 (EST)
      From: Nick Pine <nick@...>
      Organization: Villanova University
      To: ljconstable@..., eric@..., sunwatt@..., dluchaco@...
      Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable, alt.energy.homepower
      References:
      1

      Bill Berggren <ad109@...> wrote:

      >...Take VSH for example, earned 1.17 last quarter and has been growing
      >5 percent sequentially. Thus, the instantaneous P/E is 4 since it is
      >priced at 20.

      I gather that's Vishay, precision resistor makers. Kinda cool company.
      As I recall, they had the Philadelphia Orchestra out to play for one of
      their Christmas parties.

      Plug Power (PLUG) now seems underpriced to me, at $11 vs 150, altho it's
      an newer and iffier company, founded by some Mech Tech employees in 1997,
      with about 500 current employees, as I recall. After reading that lots of
      people lost money on their stock, that they made $11 million and lost $33
      million last year, that GE rejected their first batch of fuel cells, and
      that they wouldn't be making the cogen (heat-producing) version any time
      soon, I called their investor relations person Steven_Zenker@...
      at (518) 782-7700.

      He said they had built 91 "RU-1" beta systems by the end of the 3rd quarter,
      and exhibited one at a show, and accumulated a total of 101K test hours,
      with 20 or 30 units at their "fuel cell farm" site, more being tested at
      DTE (Detroit Edison), and more running at employee homes and at Viallant
      (www.viallant.de), a German boiler company. Steve said Plug Power would be
      selling a commercial non-cogen product (with an inverter made by Trace or
      Advanced Energy Inc.) by the first half of 2002, later than planned but
      sooner than Idatech, and Viallant would be designing and selling the cogen
      product, buying units from Plug Power and adding the heat recovery system.

      Nick
      ==============================

      I got a really neat skeptical email on "I've invented a wonderful physics theory of everything" people (probably the above person would rate highly):

      Subject:
      E-SKEPTIC:THE PHYSICS CRACKPOT INDEX
      Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:01:09 -0800
      From: Skeptic Mag Hotline <skeptic-admin@...>


      E-SKEPTIC FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2000
      Copyright Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer
      www.skeptic.com or skepticmag@...
      -----------------------------
      THE PHYSICS CRACKPOT INDEX
      Marvin Minsky just sent me this absolutely brilliant and hilarious list--the
      "crackpot index"--from mathematical physicist John Baez, formerly from MIT
      now a professor at UC Riverside. His Web page is
      http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ and the crackpot index is at
      http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

      I hereby nominate Baez to be a presenter at the Ignobel Awards. He should
      give one out every year to the best theory of everything.

      What makes this so funny is because it is so accurate. We receive these
      manuscripts (what I call "theories of everything") about once a month. At
      first I thought it odd they sent such material to us, considering the name of
      our magazine is "Skeptic," but then I realized, of course, that these
      would-be revolutionaries see themselves skeptics of mainstream physics and
      cosmology.

      Caveat: yes, I know that outsiders to a field can make important
      contributions and even lead revolutions. But the chances of that happening
      are rather slim, especially when they meet many of the following criteria.

      THE CRACKPOT INDEX
      A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

      1. A -5 point starting credit.
      2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
      3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
      4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
      5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite
      careful correction.
      6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
      results of a widely accepts).
      8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawking" or "Feynman".
      9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is
      fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
      10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as
      if this were evidence of sanity.
      11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by
      saying how long you have been working on it.
      12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
      personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear
      that your ideas will be stolen.
      13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves
      and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
      14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good
      at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for
      someone to express it in terms of equations".
      15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory
      is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
      16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established
      theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they
      occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
      17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to
      Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are
      fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
      18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge
      of a "paradigm shift".
      19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
      20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton
      or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
      good evidence).
      21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as
      if they were fact.
      22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or
      imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
      23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
      24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender
      of the orthodoxy".
      25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly
      disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g.,
      that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced
      by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
      26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years,
      was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
      27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by
      an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
      28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to
      Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
      29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
      engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
      well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
      30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that
      a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
      31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally
      appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly
      is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which
      scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
      32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but
      giving no concrete testable predictions.
      ------------------------------------------
      Copyright 2000 by Michael Shermer and the Skeptics Society. Copies of this
      internet posting may be made and distributed in whole without further
      permission. Credit: This has been another edition of E-Skeptic Hotline, the
      internet edition of Skeptic magazine and the cyberspace voice of the Skeptics
      Society. For further information about the magazine and society, contact P.O.
      Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001; 626/794-3119 (phone); 626/794-1301 (fax);
      skepticmag@... and www.skeptic.com or send your message telepathically
      and we will respond in kind.

      For those of your not familiar with the Skeptics Society or have not seen
      Skeptic magazine, see our web page: http://www.skeptic.com

      ---
      You are currently subscribed to skeptics as: [eric@...]
      To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-skeptics-528086R@...
      If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
      the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail join-skeptics@...

      --
      http://www.phact.org/e/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.