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 
put my trust in the scientific method to find out.  There is a huge 
amount of material he has generated that is worth talking about from 
this aspect, much of it chemistry-based, and before we write him off 
and start talking about relativistic quantum mechanics, zero-point 
energy or any other irrelevancies then it would be polite, at the 
very least, to remember that scientists other than quantum physicists 
have a valuable contribution to make to this discussion.  

DCD

--- In hydrino@..., Marty Galyean <marty <at> ...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> 
> There are hundreds of "zero point energy" and "alternative energy" 
lists 
> out there.  If I'm not mistaken this list was started to discuss 
*real 
> work* proving or disproving hydrino/CQM theory.  The ratio of real 
work 
> to armchair work is too low.  And scientifically silly armchair 
work at 
> that.
> 
> I normally a big fan of allowing non-topic content on a list, but 
this 
> list is different in that the intended focus is very very unique 
and 
> specific and in that this list actually has a *function* rather 
than 
> just being a "place to chat about X".  This list function, if I 
> understand correctly, is very specifically to organize 
proof/disproof of 
> hydrino/CQM theory.  I recommend a scorched earth policy of 
moderation 
> is required here if the list is to serve its intended purpose.   
Science 
> is not a public demonstration with signs waving and crowds chanting 
> whose basis of "science" is that it is whatever they "believe 
strongly", 
> nor is it a closed canon to be quoted cryptically by a sneering 
priest 
> with zero vision from a book who takes zero time to address the 
actual 
> question at hand.
> 
> I refuse to single any one out, but I think everyone will recognize 
what 
> I'm indicating.  Maybe two lists?  One for general discussion and 
the 
> other for a true series of posts directly related to   specific 
proposed 
> experiments in CQM theory and tests of hypotheses and the posting 
of 
> results? 
> 
> Anyway, I thought the discussion in the spectra thread was an 
excellent 
> overall sign of health for this forum, or at least in the right 
> direction and agree with Clyde on this 100%
> 
> Marty
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/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@... 
 List owner:   hydrino-owner@...
 Complaints:   hydrino-unsubscribe@...