The phenomenon described in the below video by Mark Jeffery about Stephen Wolfram is also what accounts for Dr. Randell Mills' work: the greatest advances in science almost always come from outsiders
I appreciate all of you who have commented here, regardless of your position. I only remove comments that are machine-generated gibberish or use offensive language. Thank you all for actively engaging; Randell Mills is a controversial figure, to be sure. He's always been a lightning rod for criticism, deserved or not. As I stated in my reply below, I have chosen to do whatever I can to help him close the gaps and look for ways to bridge his weaknesses, to try to (finally) get a product to market. He is brilliant and sincere, filled with a wide-ranging curiosity and intensity in focus, and through the years that has kept me engaged with him, despite his flaws and despite the critics. More to come here and elsewhere; Mills is now doing some podcast interviews, which I may be able to help facilitate in the coming months as well.
Here's a thought experiment that will explain how I came to my current state of skepticism.
Long ago say late 1980's after Pon's released his famous Utah "experiment' on cold-fusion, I was asked by a group that I attended to give a presentation on what the big deal was about "cold fusion", I like you at the time was a fanatic, I thought it was a tremendous idea, and never gave much thought that it was all 100% bullshit;
So the meeting goes on, non science people mainly, during my lecture a very hard-core guy says to me', "Have you actually done this experiment? Have you verified this work?", to which in total honesty I said "I had not".
Then he went on to ask how I could state all this new information about 'cold fusion' without having verified it myself. To which I just replied "1,000's of reputable scientists are in support", to which he said, "Have you yourself validated the experimetn", again I had not;
...
So given I had all the materials in my home lab, I spent a few months dabbling around, and sure enough 'no excess energy', and no radioactivity;
The more I studied and negative results the more it appeared to me that it was all bullshit;
...
In mid 1990's like I already mentioned "Randall Mills" came to town, I went to all his lectures and even stuck around after and asked him some personal questions;
While from a theory point of view his stuff was 'entertaining' there was nothing concrete at that time;
...
Now here we are say almost 25 years later, and 'where is the beef?"
At least with Pons, when he published he laid out a complete process, where people if they had the materials could 'verify' and repeat;
But in the case of Randall Mills & friends, all I ever see is "I cant't tell you the details because patents are pending", ....
You would think that 25 years later and 1,000's of cold-fusion nut cases fucking around in lab's that something would have stuck to the wall and created 'excess energy', you would think?
...
But this is how the fusion game is cold or hot, look at big-hot fusion $100's of $100 of Billions of USD over 50 years, and NADA, I think recently think claim to have gotten 'fusion' one nanosecond, but again it was not repeatable;
Something is very rotten in the 'fusion' business, gig, and game;
Here's a thought experiment that will explain how I came to my current state of skepticism.
Long ago say late 1980's after Pon's released his famous Utah "experiment' on cold-fusion, I was asked by a group that I attended to give a presentation on what the big deal was about "cold fusion", I like you at the time was a fanatic, I thought it was a tremendous idea, and never gave much thought that it was all 100% bullshit;
So the meeting goes on, non science people mainly, during my lecture a very hard-core guy says to me', "Have you actually done this experiment? Have you verified this work?", to which in total honesty I said "I had not".
Then he went on to ask how I could state all this new information about 'cold fusion' without having verified it myself. To which I just replied "1,000's of reputable scientists are in support", to which he said, "Have you yourself validated the experimetn", again I had not;
...
So given I had all the materials in my home lab, I spent a few months dabbling around, and sure enough 'no excess energy', and no radioactivity;
The more I studied and negative results the more it appeared to me that it was all bullshit;
...
In mid 1990's like I already mentioned "Randall Mills" came to town, I went to all his lectures and even stuck around after and asked him some personal questions;
While from a theory point of view his stuff was 'entertaining' there was nothing concrete at that time;
...
Now here we are say almost 25 years later, and 'where is the beef?"
At least with Pons, when he published he laid out a complete process, where people if they had the materials could 'verify' and repeat;
But in the case of Randall Mills & friends, all I ever see is "I cant't tell you the details because patents are pending", ....
You would think that 25 years later and 1,000's of cold-fusion nut cases fucking around in lab's that something would have stuck to the wall and created 'excess energy', you would think?
...
But this is how the fusion game is cold or hot, look at big-hot fusion $100's of $100 of Billions of USD over 50 years, and NADA, I think recently think claim to have gotten 'fusion' one nanosecond, but again it was not repeatable;
Something is very rotten in the 'fusion' business, gig, and game;
“... his insights are equally applicable to many areas of our world—including government and politics—where groupthink and conformity-to-advance have become entrenched, which is then responsible for slowing down or completely stalling forward progress”.
The VICTORS write the schooled daze texts and then over-full and narrow the curriculum to prevent teachers from adding their idiosyncratic gems. The schooled daze program locks-in the youth’s gullible minds ‘CORRECT’ answers. Acceptance guaranteed via peer and gatekeepers lockstep. The questioners, relegated to detention/re-education programs after school.
Welcome to Detention!
100 reasons water is not H2O by Peter Peterson should be a classic and have started an avalanche of scrutiny into every foundational FACT.
(Smashwords free eBook)
We learn water is an insulator
Then in the next breath it’s a conductor.
Only the truth is, water is inert, always the medium, never reacting, exactly why water can cycle.
Water will not conduct a current unless there is a salt added.
If no salt is added over a few days the water will decompose the electrodes.
Only when there is TDS does a current flow.
It’s the added salts or decomposition of the electrodes that conduct, not the water.
Water has three states
Air
Water
Ice
Air is the gaseous form of water
Air is composed of bubbles
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Air carries stuff
For example: smoke
Bubbles carry soot into the air as smoke
Water is liquid or full bubbles or drops
If water is heated bubbles form and leave first as steam and then transform to air
Ice contains both water and air
Drops and bubbles
Oxygen and nitrogen are made from air.
They are not constituents of air.
Oxygen is calibrated by its dryness
Medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Industrial oxygen has 0.5ppm of water contamination
Nitrogen is just dirty oxygen
Or oxygen with carbon particles added to smother the combustible effect oxygen has next to sparks and flames.
Both oxygen and nitrogen only exist in manmade vessels contained under pressure.
I hope you are sufficiently interested to read my article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I have a new take on lung and blood physiology
There is no gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, an absolute absurdity if re-examined.
Instead the RBCs are rehydrated in the alveoli capillary beds.
Just as the ubiquitous and miraculous saline drip rehydrates RBCs
RBCs have two states
Dehydrated: dark and contracted
Hydrated: bright and plump
The red light monitoring is looking at hydration, not oxygen levels, by monitoring light reflection.
Yes, but here as an experimentalist who who almost died many a time with so called non-conductive h2o, I can tell you that store bought distilled water is 5ppm salt;
Whereas my well water averages about 450ppm, my rain water is 15ppm
I like to do hyrdroponics, so I follow my salt content very closely.
Even at 5ppm you drop a Potential at 440v of two electrodes in water and you have an explosion; Sure as fuck in hell you might find 0 ppm h20, but here on earth I have not seen the bitch.
Excerpt: An electric spark is an abrupt electrical discharge that occurs when a sufficiently high electric field creates an ionized, electrically conductive channel through a normally-insulating medium, often air or other gases or gas mixtures. Michael Faraday described this phenomenon as "the beautiful flash of light attending the discharge of common electricity".
Nice to see two new articles in such a short time after your absence while getting moved. I hope your new, remote home continues to be inspirational for more writing. I just happened to watch this documentary this evening before reading your new article. https://www.theepochtimes.com/it-runs-on-water_5324995.html. You might enjoy it. Looking forward to your writings on your recent visit with Dr. Mills.
Jun 17, 2023·edited Jun 17, 2023Liked by CognitiveCarbon
Thomas Kuhn, "The structure of scientific Revolutions" 1970's
Then there is Persig "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance", same-same 1970's
Both of these books go deep into the dogmatism & moronity of "GOV Science"
IMHO the greatest era of 'science' was when rich men like Benjamin Franklin, took up 'electricity' as hobby, then obsession, because of their wealth, they would build their own research labs; Same for Edision, ... Faraday finding rich men to support them.
Now today, you have GOV science, which is the Worst kind of Ayn Rand dystopian 1984 people making all decisions in Science, which is how we end up with mRNA still being debated, and global-warming, and the entire earth being MANAGED by HOMO assholes
Love both books. read Kuhn while in college (about the same time mentioned) doing nuclear grad work. Was given a pretty good PhD gig but passed, partly because of kuhn. I occasionally give University speeches and use the following that makes a similar point. "When I was doing grad physics we thought we knew a lot. Universal field theory was almost solved. Fusion power was tens years away. Now we know we missed 95% of the universe, UFT is not solved. and Fusion power is still ten years away". My last speech to systems engineering grads and undergrads was about how people come to conclusions, I started it with the line " We don't know much, and a lot of what we do know is wrong". Basically be humble and avoid one of man's greatest sin. Hubris. Afterwards I had lunch with heads of undergrad and grad students, and offered teach for free a class going into greater depth than a one hour presentation. During the lunch they got into a discussion that perfectly illustrated my point, thinking you know stuff you don't. When I proved to them they were doing exactly what I was warning the students about, the table went dead silent. It was undeniably obvious that not only was I correct but the students were in desperate need of such a program, and so were the highly credential program heads. After a long pause, the head of grad students said "It takes two years to get a program approved by the program committee." Thank God I dodged that insanity.
I will temper my comments if appropriate that after looking at some of those mentioned above. I haven't studied them.
You sound like Feynman, a real science physics person knows we don't anything, even Feynman the father of Quantum Chroma Dynamics in his time said "I don't understand quantum mechanics', but yet you have all these experts who think they understand the greatest admit they dont' understand, which is why I love Persig;
He said, people will claim they don't believe in 'ghosts', yet they'll talk about an 'electron' likes it a real thing :)
Socrates argued that we all are all ignorant, to think that you know is the ultimate ignorance.
Thanks for the great comment. Feynman was a true hero of mine, so I am humbled and honored. My Dad, who nurtured my love of learning, also taught me to be very humble and never get a big head. He used to say “If you think you’re smart, remember, everyone in the room knows something you don’t. Learn from them.” I gave him a copy of “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” and he loved it. Thanks again. FYI love your name. The Trilogy are my favorite books. Bilbo would love you.
We have some things in common. I loved Persig's Zen. I too spent some time working in the software field, after designing hardware for more than a decade. So you must know the truth of this: "It is often easier to criticize someone else's work (code) than to innovate on your own."
When I came across Mills' work more than a decade ago, I was initially dismissively skeptical. 99% of the claims about "alternative energy" are pure delusion, grift, or distraction.
Unlike most others making claims about "alternative energy", however, Mills showed his work: he published his books (and made them available for free, to University students at his lecture) and his papers are meticulous in identifying the test fixtures and setups he uses. This is how science is meant to be: here are my claims, here's my setup, and here's my data. His latest journal publication is compelling.
As for why others haven't seriously attempted to replicate his experiments and invalidate them: one reason is captured in the video in my article. Dogma, which you grasp. I have spoken to several PhDs in both Chemistry and Physics over the years, and a few Master's degree types who cannot touch this "hydrino" topic for fear of losing their positions or tenure or status or peer acceptance.
The psychology of their reactions is interesting to observe: a deep-seated loathing and fear, almost visceral and existential in nature. OK, so you're skeptical of Mills' work; I get it. You can choose to do your own research and experiments and innovate something different; you can stand on the sidelines and criticize; you can just ignore his work as irrelevant and move on; or you can attempt to help him.
I've chosen the latter path. He may be wrong about the theory; or he may be right but unable to bring a product to market because he lacks certain skills or doesn't know how to navigate the remaining obstacles. Having talked to him at length through the years, I believe it's the latter.
That said, decentralized and "clean" energy production is too important a matter, given what is going on in our world with regard to creeping collectivist politics, "climate change", money printing, and centralization of power generation to stand on the sidelines. Pressure will ratchet up sharply in 2023 because of the shrieking climate alarmists pointing to lots of new scary charts.
Whether they are right about the causes or not, it won't matter: quod Fieri will take over with typically disastrous results for humanity. We're about to go over one or another precipice as a society.
I've chosen to actively try to help Mills, whether or not that leads to a successful product. I have no financial interest in his work; I'm not a shareholder. I simply feel compelled to try to make a better world possible for my children and grandchildren.
As far as "ego" is concerned with Wolfram: that might be the case. That's a weakness of a lot of humanity, including really bright people. But we need to focus on the message, not the man. On the ideas, not the personality. This is difficult for a lot of people to do.
Yep, I agree with you, but on the observation of 'criticism'
I find that its easier for most people to 'criticize' than actually "DO", and/or make something
Yes, I spent a lot of time in Software, and spent a lot of time doing hardware and 'inventing' shit and marketing shit, and running biz;
...
U seem to be defensive of Mills, but show me him just once explain an experiment that can be done by anybody with a garage & $10K usd of equipment :), and that actually generates 'excess energy', I'm waiting
Sure its easy to criticize, and my point was not to criticize common con-artists and flim-flam men, my point was "SHOW ME THE BEEF"
Lastly, I'm of the old school, and maybe you don't give it any thought, but my Physics/Math training, and software/hardware implementation is "Prove that something works, make it work, then show the world and beat your drum"
These con-artists of planet earth all have one thing in common, they beat the drum, but they never show shit all of anything that actually works
...
Not visceral at all, I spent years working in computational physics and most of it in wave equations, I don't find anything that Mill's posts 'startling' or ground-breaking;
Again, your long post completely ignore my ONLY complaint of MILLS
Yep, majored in physics too, and like Wolfram after working in 'physics' a few years, just went 100% software; Safer, cleaner, ...
Butttttttt having followed 'cold fusion' closely since Utah BS and every since, name one thing that Randall Mill's has 'made' that 'works'??? Nada, sure he has a his theory of everything, but its no unlike 'string theory' where nothing is useful
Then there is Wolfram, a guy who claims he invented 'complexity math' and recursive imaging; The greeks were doing this stuff 300BC; All that Wolfram ever did was steal a software package at Caltech, and then commercialize it, made some money running 'wolfram' and then wrote a book 'new science', which is just just Greeks did in 300BC, and note they called it 'peering into the eye of the devil', same with Mandelbrot, who wrote earlier books than Wolfram not really give much credit to the greeks who were doing 'mandlebrot' graphs;
Sort of like saying Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1500's, while chinese had 'moveable type' +3,000 years ago
Wolfram didn't invent 'complexity' or chaos, it has been around forever. I can did the man-love of Wolfram, cuz he made $100's of millions off of his cal-tech SW, not unlike GATES steals DOS from Seattle-Computer Products and making Trillions of USD on Microsoft;
Randall Mills, I'm not even sure the deal man-love there??? He's sort of a flamboyant version of "TESLA" tall, dark, mysterious self-promoting, but Tesla actually made shit;
I can appreciate the stagnation in Physics for the past 40 years, I studied and earned a BSc in Physics and Astronomy in the 80s, and worked for researchers/academics for about 10 years as a research assistant.
There has been a culture of absolute "conformity" in the sciences since the middle ages but especially since early 20th century, this expresses itself in the form of "peer-review" and if you're a maverick you had better be good or else you'll end up shutout completely from the academic world.
Outsiders can't understand the system at first glance because it resembles that of the medieval European academic system(where the system of tenure and aristocratic patronage descended from).
There are "high priests" and "gatekeepers" within that system and those are the "reputable" professors and academics of high standing with ironclad employment guarantees and absolute power over lesser ranked academics and students.
Academics who dared go against the grain usually ended up with little academic funding, few students willing to work with them and their research frozen out and ignored, this is if you're lucky enough to make the rank of associate professor or professor, if you're lower than this you end up never getting tenure though you might live on as a zombie postdoc for years.
As a student I learned early on not to question dogma if you wanted to a good grade, if you did it a little too much, no matter how smart you were you ended up S.O.L.
You especially didn't do it if you wanted to get into graduate school to earn a Masters and PhD and then follow the tenure track.
Those people who are part of a powerful blue collar union can probably relate, you don't question or cross the shop stewards or the upper ranked members of the union, unless you want to get frozen out and end up with little to no protection, also fellow members are more likely to turn on you as a threat to the "system".
BTW, Not a fan of Wolfram. He might be an original thinker but the basic unit of ego is called the Wolfram for a very good reason. He burned a lot of bridges and potential allies along the way because of his attitude and they simply wanted nothing to do with him after that.
"Wolfram, as usual, didn't help his case by being arrogant and pushy. He "stepped on a lot of toes," says Norman Packard, former director of the Center for Complex Systems Research that Wolfram ."
-God, Stephen Wolfram, and Everything Else, Michael S. Malone, 11.27.00
Having said that Wolfram and his company have come out with some very good mathematical tools which are time savers, Wolfram Alpha certainly is a good general purpose mathematical tool, we'll have to see how it stacks up against AI models in the coming years.
BTW: A lot of laymen viewed Einstein as an outsider because of his radical theory of relativity and because he worked as a patent clerk, he wasn't.
Einstein was still accepted in the physics community because he did have a lot contacts in the academic arena and he didn't really make waves with his colleagues.
Even then his theories were considered very radical at the time but he had a clean record so most scientists eventually accepted it after some experiments proved him correct.
The same goes for another "radical", Richard Feynman, who wasn't a radical at all, it was his larger than life personality and his autobiography, that cemented that reputation, plus it didn't hurt that he stomped on the 1986 Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger Accident and refused to endorse it's findings and called it a whitewash unless his own conclusions were included as a separate appendix in the report.
Successful outsiders in a field are very rare and increasingly hard to find, they're usually culled and eliminated before they can get very far in any area of science.
Well, well...contrarianism has arrived. THAT is the REAL “spice” of progress 😉😏
Mills being g a lightning rod for criticism makes me like him even more.
You are aware of Miles Mathis I presume...the ultimate outsider
http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
I appreciate all of you who have commented here, regardless of your position. I only remove comments that are machine-generated gibberish or use offensive language. Thank you all for actively engaging; Randell Mills is a controversial figure, to be sure. He's always been a lightning rod for criticism, deserved or not. As I stated in my reply below, I have chosen to do whatever I can to help him close the gaps and look for ways to bridge his weaknesses, to try to (finally) get a product to market. He is brilliant and sincere, filled with a wide-ranging curiosity and intensity in focus, and through the years that has kept me engaged with him, despite his flaws and despite the critics. More to come here and elsewhere; Mills is now doing some podcast interviews, which I may be able to help facilitate in the coming months as well.
+30 years of COLD FUSION, +50 years of HOT-FUSION
Where's the Beef??
Ok, let's deal with this Randall Mills Issue
Here's a thought experiment that will explain how I came to my current state of skepticism.
Long ago say late 1980's after Pon's released his famous Utah "experiment' on cold-fusion, I was asked by a group that I attended to give a presentation on what the big deal was about "cold fusion", I like you at the time was a fanatic, I thought it was a tremendous idea, and never gave much thought that it was all 100% bullshit;
So the meeting goes on, non science people mainly, during my lecture a very hard-core guy says to me', "Have you actually done this experiment? Have you verified this work?", to which in total honesty I said "I had not".
Then he went on to ask how I could state all this new information about 'cold fusion' without having verified it myself. To which I just replied "1,000's of reputable scientists are in support", to which he said, "Have you yourself validated the experimetn", again I had not;
...
So given I had all the materials in my home lab, I spent a few months dabbling around, and sure enough 'no excess energy', and no radioactivity;
The more I studied and negative results the more it appeared to me that it was all bullshit;
...
In mid 1990's like I already mentioned "Randall Mills" came to town, I went to all his lectures and even stuck around after and asked him some personal questions;
While from a theory point of view his stuff was 'entertaining' there was nothing concrete at that time;
...
Now here we are say almost 25 years later, and 'where is the beef?"
At least with Pons, when he published he laid out a complete process, where people if they had the materials could 'verify' and repeat;
But in the case of Randall Mills & friends, all I ever see is "I cant't tell you the details because patents are pending", ....
You would think that 25 years later and 1,000's of cold-fusion nut cases fucking around in lab's that something would have stuck to the wall and created 'excess energy', you would think?
...
But this is how the fusion game is cold or hot, look at big-hot fusion $100's of $100 of Billions of USD over 50 years, and NADA, I think recently think claim to have gotten 'fusion' one nanosecond, but again it was not repeatable;
Something is very rotten in the 'fusion' business, gig, and game;
Ok, let's deal with this Randall Mills Issue
Here's a thought experiment that will explain how I came to my current state of skepticism.
Long ago say late 1980's after Pon's released his famous Utah "experiment' on cold-fusion, I was asked by a group that I attended to give a presentation on what the big deal was about "cold fusion", I like you at the time was a fanatic, I thought it was a tremendous idea, and never gave much thought that it was all 100% bullshit;
So the meeting goes on, non science people mainly, during my lecture a very hard-core guy says to me', "Have you actually done this experiment? Have you verified this work?", to which in total honesty I said "I had not".
Then he went on to ask how I could state all this new information about 'cold fusion' without having verified it myself. To which I just replied "1,000's of reputable scientists are in support", to which he said, "Have you yourself validated the experimetn", again I had not;
...
So given I had all the materials in my home lab, I spent a few months dabbling around, and sure enough 'no excess energy', and no radioactivity;
The more I studied and negative results the more it appeared to me that it was all bullshit;
...
In mid 1990's like I already mentioned "Randall Mills" came to town, I went to all his lectures and even stuck around after and asked him some personal questions;
While from a theory point of view his stuff was 'entertaining' there was nothing concrete at that time;
...
Now here we are say almost 25 years later, and 'where is the beef?"
At least with Pons, when he published he laid out a complete process, where people if they had the materials could 'verify' and repeat;
But in the case of Randall Mills & friends, all I ever see is "I cant't tell you the details because patents are pending", ....
You would think that 25 years later and 1,000's of cold-fusion nut cases fucking around in lab's that something would have stuck to the wall and created 'excess energy', you would think?
...
But this is how the fusion game is cold or hot, look at big-hot fusion $100's of $100 of Billions of USD over 50 years, and NADA, I think recently think claim to have gotten 'fusion' one nanosecond, but again it was not repeatable;
Something is very rotten in the 'fusion' business, gig, and game;
🧐
“... his insights are equally applicable to many areas of our world—including government and politics—where groupthink and conformity-to-advance have become entrenched, which is then responsible for slowing down or completely stalling forward progress”.
The VICTORS write the schooled daze texts and then over-full and narrow the curriculum to prevent teachers from adding their idiosyncratic gems. The schooled daze program locks-in the youth’s gullible minds ‘CORRECT’ answers. Acceptance guaranteed via peer and gatekeepers lockstep. The questioners, relegated to detention/re-education programs after school.
Welcome to Detention!
100 reasons water is not H2O by Peter Peterson should be a classic and have started an avalanche of scrutiny into every foundational FACT.
(Smashwords free eBook)
We learn water is an insulator
Then in the next breath it’s a conductor.
Only the truth is, water is inert, always the medium, never reacting, exactly why water can cycle.
Water will not conduct a current unless there is a salt added.
If no salt is added over a few days the water will decompose the electrodes.
Only when there is TDS does a current flow.
It’s the added salts or decomposition of the electrodes that conduct, not the water.
Water has three states
Air
Water
Ice
Air is the gaseous form of water
Air is composed of bubbles
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Air carries stuff
For example: smoke
Bubbles carry soot into the air as smoke
Water is liquid or full bubbles or drops
If water is heated bubbles form and leave first as steam and then transform to air
Ice contains both water and air
Drops and bubbles
Oxygen and nitrogen are made from air.
They are not constituents of air.
Oxygen is calibrated by its dryness
Medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Industrial oxygen has 0.5ppm of water contamination
Nitrogen is just dirty oxygen
Or oxygen with carbon particles added to smother the combustible effect oxygen has next to sparks and flames.
Both oxygen and nitrogen only exist in manmade vessels contained under pressure.
I hope you are sufficiently interested to read my article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I have a new take on lung and blood physiology
There is no gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, an absolute absurdity if re-examined.
Instead the RBCs are rehydrated in the alveoli capillary beds.
Just as the ubiquitous and miraculous saline drip rehydrates RBCs
RBCs have two states
Dehydrated: dark and contracted
Hydrated: bright and plump
The red light monitoring is looking at hydration, not oxygen levels, by monitoring light reflection.
Please take the journey and read my article
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
There is always salt in water, unless its so called distilled water, I measure my ground water, rain water et-al frequently,
Too many times I have had submersible pump leak and 'blow up' because of the dead-short, no such thing as pure water, it all has salt;
Well yes, expose anything to water and it will decompose it into its parts or salts
The distinction between distilled or pure water and water in contact with matter is the total dissolved solids
Distilled water or pure water has zero TDS
No electrolysis takes place
Water is the parter of stuff into smaller part icles
Never the reactor in the reaction
But the neutral medium or container of stuff
Just as air contains us
Yes, but here as an experimentalist who who almost died many a time with so called non-conductive h2o, I can tell you that store bought distilled water is 5ppm salt;
Whereas my well water averages about 450ppm, my rain water is 15ppm
I like to do hyrdroponics, so I follow my salt content very closely.
Even at 5ppm you drop a Potential at 440v of two electrodes in water and you have an explosion; Sure as fuck in hell you might find 0 ppm h20, but here on earth I have not seen the bitch.
The high voltage jumps the gap
Bullshit
Excerpt: An electric spark is an abrupt electrical discharge that occurs when a sufficiently high electric field creates an ionized, electrically conductive channel through a normally-insulating medium, often air or other gases or gas mixtures. Michael Faraday described this phenomenon as "the beautiful flash of light attending the discharge of common electricity".
Example: lightning
Wiki pedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_spark
The comments on this article are amazing.
Have you ever heard of Nassim Haramein? He’s an “outsider” physicist who’s got some really interesting theories!
Nice to see two new articles in such a short time after your absence while getting moved. I hope your new, remote home continues to be inspirational for more writing. I just happened to watch this documentary this evening before reading your new article. https://www.theepochtimes.com/it-runs-on-water_5324995.html. You might enjoy it. Looking forward to your writings on your recent visit with Dr. Mills.
Thomas Kuhn, "The structure of scientific Revolutions" 1970's
Then there is Persig "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance", same-same 1970's
Both of these books go deep into the dogmatism & moronity of "GOV Science"
IMHO the greatest era of 'science' was when rich men like Benjamin Franklin, took up 'electricity' as hobby, then obsession, because of their wealth, they would build their own research labs; Same for Edision, ... Faraday finding rich men to support them.
Now today, you have GOV science, which is the Worst kind of Ayn Rand dystopian 1984 people making all decisions in Science, which is how we end up with mRNA still being debated, and global-warming, and the entire earth being MANAGED by HOMO assholes
Love both books. read Kuhn while in college (about the same time mentioned) doing nuclear grad work. Was given a pretty good PhD gig but passed, partly because of kuhn. I occasionally give University speeches and use the following that makes a similar point. "When I was doing grad physics we thought we knew a lot. Universal field theory was almost solved. Fusion power was tens years away. Now we know we missed 95% of the universe, UFT is not solved. and Fusion power is still ten years away". My last speech to systems engineering grads and undergrads was about how people come to conclusions, I started it with the line " We don't know much, and a lot of what we do know is wrong". Basically be humble and avoid one of man's greatest sin. Hubris. Afterwards I had lunch with heads of undergrad and grad students, and offered teach for free a class going into greater depth than a one hour presentation. During the lunch they got into a discussion that perfectly illustrated my point, thinking you know stuff you don't. When I proved to them they were doing exactly what I was warning the students about, the table went dead silent. It was undeniably obvious that not only was I correct but the students were in desperate need of such a program, and so were the highly credential program heads. After a long pause, the head of grad students said "It takes two years to get a program approved by the program committee." Thank God I dodged that insanity.
I will temper my comments if appropriate that after looking at some of those mentioned above. I haven't studied them.
You sound like Feynman, a real science physics person knows we don't anything, even Feynman the father of Quantum Chroma Dynamics in his time said "I don't understand quantum mechanics', but yet you have all these experts who think they understand the greatest admit they dont' understand, which is why I love Persig;
He said, people will claim they don't believe in 'ghosts', yet they'll talk about an 'electron' likes it a real thing :)
Socrates argued that we all are all ignorant, to think that you know is the ultimate ignorance.
Thanks for the great comment. Feynman was a true hero of mine, so I am humbled and honored. My Dad, who nurtured my love of learning, also taught me to be very humble and never get a big head. He used to say “If you think you’re smart, remember, everyone in the room knows something you don’t. Learn from them.” I gave him a copy of “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” and he loved it. Thanks again. FYI love your name. The Trilogy are my favorite books. Bilbo would love you.
great comment, thank you.
We have some things in common. I loved Persig's Zen. I too spent some time working in the software field, after designing hardware for more than a decade. So you must know the truth of this: "It is often easier to criticize someone else's work (code) than to innovate on your own."
When I came across Mills' work more than a decade ago, I was initially dismissively skeptical. 99% of the claims about "alternative energy" are pure delusion, grift, or distraction.
Unlike most others making claims about "alternative energy", however, Mills showed his work: he published his books (and made them available for free, to University students at his lecture) and his papers are meticulous in identifying the test fixtures and setups he uses. This is how science is meant to be: here are my claims, here's my setup, and here's my data. His latest journal publication is compelling.
As for why others haven't seriously attempted to replicate his experiments and invalidate them: one reason is captured in the video in my article. Dogma, which you grasp. I have spoken to several PhDs in both Chemistry and Physics over the years, and a few Master's degree types who cannot touch this "hydrino" topic for fear of losing their positions or tenure or status or peer acceptance.
The psychology of their reactions is interesting to observe: a deep-seated loathing and fear, almost visceral and existential in nature. OK, so you're skeptical of Mills' work; I get it. You can choose to do your own research and experiments and innovate something different; you can stand on the sidelines and criticize; you can just ignore his work as irrelevant and move on; or you can attempt to help him.
I've chosen the latter path. He may be wrong about the theory; or he may be right but unable to bring a product to market because he lacks certain skills or doesn't know how to navigate the remaining obstacles. Having talked to him at length through the years, I believe it's the latter.
That said, decentralized and "clean" energy production is too important a matter, given what is going on in our world with regard to creeping collectivist politics, "climate change", money printing, and centralization of power generation to stand on the sidelines. Pressure will ratchet up sharply in 2023 because of the shrieking climate alarmists pointing to lots of new scary charts.
Whether they are right about the causes or not, it won't matter: quod Fieri will take over with typically disastrous results for humanity. We're about to go over one or another precipice as a society.
I've chosen to actively try to help Mills, whether or not that leads to a successful product. I have no financial interest in his work; I'm not a shareholder. I simply feel compelled to try to make a better world possible for my children and grandchildren.
As far as "ego" is concerned with Wolfram: that might be the case. That's a weakness of a lot of humanity, including really bright people. But we need to focus on the message, not the man. On the ideas, not the personality. This is difficult for a lot of people to do.
Yep, I agree with you, but on the observation of 'criticism'
I find that its easier for most people to 'criticize' than actually "DO", and/or make something
Yes, I spent a lot of time in Software, and spent a lot of time doing hardware and 'inventing' shit and marketing shit, and running biz;
...
U seem to be defensive of Mills, but show me him just once explain an experiment that can be done by anybody with a garage & $10K usd of equipment :), and that actually generates 'excess energy', I'm waiting
Sure its easy to criticize, and my point was not to criticize common con-artists and flim-flam men, my point was "SHOW ME THE BEEF"
Lastly, I'm of the old school, and maybe you don't give it any thought, but my Physics/Math training, and software/hardware implementation is "Prove that something works, make it work, then show the world and beat your drum"
These con-artists of planet earth all have one thing in common, they beat the drum, but they never show shit all of anything that actually works
...
Not visceral at all, I spent years working in computational physics and most of it in wave equations, I don't find anything that Mill's posts 'startling' or ground-breaking;
Again, your long post completely ignore my ONLY complaint of MILLS
"SHOW ME THE FUCKING BEEF".
Yep, majored in physics too, and like Wolfram after working in 'physics' a few years, just went 100% software; Safer, cleaner, ...
Butttttttt having followed 'cold fusion' closely since Utah BS and every since, name one thing that Randall Mill's has 'made' that 'works'??? Nada, sure he has a his theory of everything, but its no unlike 'string theory' where nothing is useful
Then there is Wolfram, a guy who claims he invented 'complexity math' and recursive imaging; The greeks were doing this stuff 300BC; All that Wolfram ever did was steal a software package at Caltech, and then commercialize it, made some money running 'wolfram' and then wrote a book 'new science', which is just just Greeks did in 300BC, and note they called it 'peering into the eye of the devil', same with Mandelbrot, who wrote earlier books than Wolfram not really give much credit to the greeks who were doing 'mandlebrot' graphs;
Sort of like saying Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1500's, while chinese had 'moveable type' +3,000 years ago
Wolfram didn't invent 'complexity' or chaos, it has been around forever. I can did the man-love of Wolfram, cuz he made $100's of millions off of his cal-tech SW, not unlike GATES steals DOS from Seattle-Computer Products and making Trillions of USD on Microsoft;
Randall Mills, I'm not even sure the deal man-love there??? He's sort of a flamboyant version of "TESLA" tall, dark, mysterious self-promoting, but Tesla actually made shit;
I can appreciate the stagnation in Physics for the past 40 years, I studied and earned a BSc in Physics and Astronomy in the 80s, and worked for researchers/academics for about 10 years as a research assistant.
There has been a culture of absolute "conformity" in the sciences since the middle ages but especially since early 20th century, this expresses itself in the form of "peer-review" and if you're a maverick you had better be good or else you'll end up shutout completely from the academic world.
Outsiders can't understand the system at first glance because it resembles that of the medieval European academic system(where the system of tenure and aristocratic patronage descended from).
There are "high priests" and "gatekeepers" within that system and those are the "reputable" professors and academics of high standing with ironclad employment guarantees and absolute power over lesser ranked academics and students.
Academics who dared go against the grain usually ended up with little academic funding, few students willing to work with them and their research frozen out and ignored, this is if you're lucky enough to make the rank of associate professor or professor, if you're lower than this you end up never getting tenure though you might live on as a zombie postdoc for years.
As a student I learned early on not to question dogma if you wanted to a good grade, if you did it a little too much, no matter how smart you were you ended up S.O.L.
You especially didn't do it if you wanted to get into graduate school to earn a Masters and PhD and then follow the tenure track.
Those people who are part of a powerful blue collar union can probably relate, you don't question or cross the shop stewards or the upper ranked members of the union, unless you want to get frozen out and end up with little to no protection, also fellow members are more likely to turn on you as a threat to the "system".
BTW, Not a fan of Wolfram. He might be an original thinker but the basic unit of ego is called the Wolfram for a very good reason. He burned a lot of bridges and potential allies along the way because of his attitude and they simply wanted nothing to do with him after that.
"Wolfram, as usual, didn't help his case by being arrogant and pushy. He "stepped on a lot of toes," says Norman Packard, former director of the Center for Complex Systems Research that Wolfram ."
-God, Stephen Wolfram, and Everything Else, Michael S. Malone, 11.27.00
https://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_5.html
Having said that Wolfram and his company have come out with some very good mathematical tools which are time savers, Wolfram Alpha certainly is a good general purpose mathematical tool, we'll have to see how it stacks up against AI models in the coming years.
BTW: A lot of laymen viewed Einstein as an outsider because of his radical theory of relativity and because he worked as a patent clerk, he wasn't.
Einstein was still accepted in the physics community because he did have a lot contacts in the academic arena and he didn't really make waves with his colleagues.
Even then his theories were considered very radical at the time but he had a clean record so most scientists eventually accepted it after some experiments proved him correct.
The same goes for another "radical", Richard Feynman, who wasn't a radical at all, it was his larger than life personality and his autobiography, that cemented that reputation, plus it didn't hurt that he stomped on the 1986 Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger Accident and refused to endorse it's findings and called it a whitewash unless his own conclusions were included as a separate appendix in the report.
Successful outsiders in a field are very rare and increasingly hard to find, they're usually culled and eliminated before they can get very far in any area of science.