Clearance Items

  • You might not like your results, but you need to learn to live with them

    Richard Feynman:

    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

    What I cannot create, I do not understand.

    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

    It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

    I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.

    Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.

    If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.

    Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which 'are' there.

    Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.

    You want to beleive that LENR is particles smashing into each other an fusing. But in reality, this is not the case. LENR involves the creation of particles that gain energy and imparts that energy to the matter that surrounds. You might not like it, but get real, nature is going to do what it needs to do no matter what you think.

  • The Nature article closes this way:


    It is unclear whether the project will restore the salmon. A bumper run of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010 came two years after a volcanic eruption in Alaska sent a layer of iron-rich ash over the ocean, fertilizing a plankton bloom3. But many scientists remain sceptical.

    Whether the Haida experiment worked won’t be known for two years, when the youngest of the salmon feeding in the ocean today return home to spawn. John Nightingale, president of the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada, says that will be a chance to glean some science from the project. The work may have lacked scientific rigour, he says, but the HSRC has now agreed to make all of its data available to scientists. It has “done something unique”, Nightingale says. “I want the maximum information, the maximum analysis, the maximum debate.”

    Seems perfectly calm and reasonable to me, hardly defamatory or corrupt. Perhaps this could be discussed in a new thread or in the clearance section? I don't understand Mr. George's virulent animosity nor why it is directed at the messenger ( Ahlfors ). He didn't write the article.

    ETA and also OTC: That was 2010. What did the research since then show? Has the experiment been extended or repeated? Do lab tests say anything that helps elucidate the issue?

  • Shane D.


    So I stay semi-neutral, and play it like a politician. If he comes through one day, I can say I supported him. If instead, his investors accuse him of deceit, then I can say I never believed much in him.

    Shane, you seem pleasant and smart but do you think anyone related to Mills or anyone working on his research or funding will care, years from now, what you (or me) said? Did anyone apologize, when Rossi failed and took millions of dollars from IH, for all the abuse heaped on critics of Rossi previously? All the insulting and reviling posts I know of are still up in surviving forums and private web sites.

    The best one can hope is that strong contrasting views on the internet might influence prospective investors to do more vetting and better tests before giving inventors money. But people like Rossi always seem to be able to fool at least one rich source regardless of how much information they can find on the internet and from consulting the right people. At least they can be fooled for a while. In Rossi's case quite long enough.



    That story also sheds some light on the problem Mills has. He has to pay independent labs for an analysis because nobody wants to touch this "pseudoscience". Conrads, despite being a well respected plasma physicist for 40 years, was not allow to conduct these experiments at the university where he was employed. That is a serious problem for true independant validation.

    The reason Mills has so much trouble with free sources of testing is that his claims are not convincing to most people with a critical view. There is nothing stopping Mills, who claims his latest machine makes incredible amounts of thermal and light energy and power, from getting a paid for believable test. There are many private labs in the US, some like Earthtech (Scott Little and company) who are quite friendly to unusual claims yet quite competent and credible. There are many others. Mills could also market a reduced scale model or testing kit. I bet thousands of his enthusiasts would buy one and publicize any positive results that they get.

    Mills is puzzling but the best explanation for his lack of acceptance is that he is wrong about all the critical aspects of his theories and practice.

  • Mills is puzzling but the best explanation for his lack of acceptance is that he is wrong about all the critical aspects of his theories and practice.

    seven_of_twenty : Are you the man to give this answer or are you just a messenger?

    Did you ever read a single formula of Mills and tried to reproduce it?

    If not, I would, in your case, start all sentences with: "in my opinion.." this would make it clear, that you know nothing, but have an important opinion!

  • Shane D.


    If your premise is that LENR is not real...which it is, then it naturally follows that you would think anyone, or any group, who validate are "not believable".

    Yabut that it not my premise. I think LENR is unproven, not necessarily unreal. I know that some people have difficulty understanding the concept of the unknown or unproven. That thought process is hardwired into the human brain with, shall we say, interesting consequences.

    My issue with most groups trying to "validate" LENR is that they rarely enlist mainline scientists to replicate and improve on their results. In some cases which I won't detail so as not to provoke heated side discussions, I also disagree on their methodology for making measurements. Rossi, of course, is the best example of someone who was given credence by many LENR validators and who, evidence suggests, was a prolific liar who had nothing of value. Bad measurement method after bad measurement method made his relative success possible. In fact, one could argue that only an accidental controlled test with an accidentally blank (empty) reactor settled the issue of Rossi's veracity, once and for all, for Darden. That's sad!


    Skeptic motto: "if it looks good, it can't be, because LENR is not real. We may as well shut LF down now. Anything original you would like to add?

    Sure. There is no skeptic motto and certainly not that one. I have no desire to see LENR experiments shut down. Quite the contrary. I want to see them improved. You can't prove a general negative like "LENR will never work" but it is possible to collect very reliable evidence about companies like GEC and Brillouin to show whether their claims are valid or not. In my opinion, this has not been done and far as I know from the internet, is not being done.


    And don't you think it insulting to the many that have done the validating of Mills work, when you indirectly accuse them of not being "competent and credible"? Simply because they had a positive result, instead of the negative result you felt more appropriate, because of you do not believe in LENR?

    Compound sentence and entirely wrong. I don't either believe or disbelieve in LENR. It shouldn't be a matter of "belief." Belief is about religion, not science. Mills always chooses minor players, most of whom he pays, in order to get his stuff evaluated. Naturally, I don't think much of this. IMO, his claims to have made excess heat with his fancy bright light machine is as wobbly as any of Rossi's outrageous claims were. Why would I think that? Because I have never seen calorimetry from Mills. Certainly none done by reliable others and replicated. If Mills is so sure he has an energy producer, why not have it tested at Sandia? Or by UL? Or by Earthtech? Or any one of dozens of reliable sources that can't be swayed by the offer of support.


    As to the kit, Mills mentioned in an update about 6 months ago his goal is to put one out. I expect that soon.

    I very strongly suspect, you will again be disappointed as you apparently have always been when you believed poorly substantiated claims.

  • stefan

    I hope you're right but I doubt it. That is based on the dismal history of any testable, tangible device or compound coming from Mills' shop over a period of at least twenty years! I dimly remember some years ago (3 maybe? 5?) he provided a fuel mix of some sort to Rowan University chemists. Indeed, they found... well, basically it burned and made heat. But nothing was said about how much energy it took to make the stuff nor what its properties were. This is a bit similar to Rossi's recent dog and pony show in which he had a one ohm resistor in series with his circuit and didn't even bother to measure the voltage drop across it (or something similar, I don't recall the detail) but IIRC. this was the first time I became highly suspicious about Mills. Responsible investigators don't do that. Either they make a release of good information or they say nothing. What Rossi did with his latest demo and what Mills does suggest... well, you know.

  • I am generally sceptical of LENR results, but if your rice-sized pellet of metal was given to an independent lab and found to be giving off bursts of gamma bursts at room temperature (or at any temperature for that matter) then I would say that this is compelling evidence for the world that LENR is real.

    But -- going back to my usual sceptical self now -- I predict that this will never happen.

  • lobservable: Entanglement, regardless of being in LENR or in HENR or in MTNR ( or in UHENR ), has nothing do to with electromagnetism.

    axil : @lobservable : Lets be fair : All mass - nuclear & particles - is defined by electro magnetism, thus Axil is partly correct.

    The remaining part is a metaphysical question: Currently physics has no clue how to separate a nested spin functions and thus two particle are e.g. indistinguishable spin entangled. Shal we call this a QM effect: Obviously not, because QM is an engineering simplification of Maxwell equations as shown, in all mathematical details, by Silvestri.



    ..mass ? I thought, this is due to the Higgs Boson...


    In Bohmian mechanics, the pilot wave must be an electromagnetic wave. There is a limited number of wave types. The gravitational wave can be discounted since the gravitational wave is a fluctuation in space/rime.


    In Bohmian mechanics, the pilot wave must be an electromagnetic wave. There is a limited number of wave types. The gravitational wave can be discounted since the gravitational wave is a fluctuation in space/rime.



    ...any reason for this detour ? Or just begging for attention, once more ?....