10 Jun 2006 10:17
Re: H2 boosts combustion efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels
Clyde Davies <clyde.davies@...>
2006-06-10 08:17:15 GMT
2006-06-10 08:17:15 GMT
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@...