free energy update - way to rate underground physics theories
- Here's someone's new cold pressure throey(counter gravitation theory)”web page (looks confused to me)
The following is about efforts to check out Black Light Power claims:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "Piero Andreuccetti" <pandreuccetti@y...>First, I have completed the first run (~200 hours long) and will be posting
> > 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.
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.
EarthTech International, Inc.
4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300
Austin TX 78759
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
Bill Berggren <ad109@...> wrote:
>...Take VSH for example, earned 1.17 last quarter and has been growingI gather that's Vishay, precision resistor makers. Kinda cool company.
>5 percent sequentially. Thus, the instantaneous P/E is 4 since it is
>priced at 20.
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.
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):
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
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
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
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
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@...