Dr. Mills & Blacklight Power
92 views
Skip to first unread message
JohnEB
Nov 15, 2010, 8:26:47 AM11/15/10
to Classical Physics
Classical Physics is for the discussion of everything about Dr. Mills'
Classical Physics and classical physics in general. See:
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
Classical Physics and classical physics in general. See:
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
JohnEB
Nov 19, 2010, 12:33:44 AM11/19/10
to Classical Physics
Blacklight Power on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/blacklightpower
http://www.youtube.com/user/blacklightpower
JohnEB
Nov 19, 2010, 1:14:24 AM11/19/10
to Classical Physics
BLP Updated Business Presentation Oct 2010
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/businesspresentation-web.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/businesspresentation-web.pdf
JohnEB
Nov 21, 2010, 8:57:35 AM11/21/10
to Classical Physics
The Society for Classical Physics is a discussion group sponsored by
Dr. Randell Mills:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/
Dr. Randell Mills:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/
JohnEB
Dec 6, 2010, 7:41:23 AM12/6/10
to Classical Physics
JohnEB
Dec 6, 2010, 7:50:25 AM12/6/10
to Classical Physics
New Validation Studies
http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightHydrinoElectricity112910.htm
GEN3/Harvard Report
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightHydrinoElectricity112910.htm
GEN3/Harvard Report
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
JohnEB
Dec 9, 2010, 4:35:59 AM12/9/10
to Classical Physics
Hydrino (TM) & Blacklight (TM) are registered trademarks of Blacklight
Power Inc.
Power Inc.
Luke Setzer
Dec 9, 2010, 8:19:01 AM12/9/10
to Classical Physics
On Dec 9, 4:35 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
"Hydrino (TM) & Blacklight (TM) are registered trademarks of
Blacklight Power Inc."
Where did you see this?"Hydrino (TM) & Blacklight (TM) are registered trademarks of
Blacklight Power Inc."
JohnEB
Dec 9, 2010, 9:28:46 AM12/9/10
to Classical Physics
Luke Setzer
Dec 9, 2010, 10:06:23 AM12/9/10
to Classical Physics
That's interesting. I wonder when BLP registered their trademark of
the key term hydrino. In any case, I joined the list. Thanks for the
link. We shall see what transpires.
the key term hydrino. In any case, I joined the list. Thanks for the
link. We shall see what transpires.
JohnEB
Dec 9, 2010, 4:05:27 PM12/9/10
to Classical Physics
From the hydrino listserver:
"There was much standing on dignity and looking down of noses. It was
mostly the skeptics. I did not like the repeated references to Dr
Mills being a crackpot. Also the constant references to his supposed
lack of qualifications to have a crack at the edifice of the quantum
proposition. That is not very scientific. Only one method is valid,
hypothesize, predict, check with measurements. All the rest was not
very edifying. It seemed that not content with declaring once the
hydrino a scam, we had to comeback for years to rant and shout and
denigrate. The purely constructive and quiet contributions, for or
against, were not typical."
.
.
"Considering the stakes it is a poor strategy for the academic
naysayers to avoid being helpful. Of course they think they may
become tainted by a flakey project; it is the way of things in
academe. There are two kinds of people in life, those that absorb
energy and those that give it off. Give me the energy emitters any
time. Dr Mills, right or wrong, is a strong intellectual energy
emitter. The other kind just make me tired."
"There was much standing on dignity and looking down of noses. It was
mostly the skeptics. I did not like the repeated references to Dr
Mills being a crackpot. Also the constant references to his supposed
lack of qualifications to have a crack at the edifice of the quantum
proposition. That is not very scientific. Only one method is valid,
hypothesize, predict, check with measurements. All the rest was not
very edifying. It seemed that not content with declaring once the
hydrino a scam, we had to comeback for years to rant and shout and
denigrate. The purely constructive and quiet contributions, for or
against, were not typical."
.
.
"Considering the stakes it is a poor strategy for the academic
naysayers to avoid being helpful. Of course they think they may
become tainted by a flakey project; it is the way of things in
academe. There are two kinds of people in life, those that absorb
energy and those that give it off. Give me the energy emitters any
time. Dr Mills, right or wrong, is a strong intellectual energy
emitter. The other kind just make me tired."
JohnEB
Dec 10, 2010, 11:23:44 AM12/10/10
to Classical Physics
Stephen Greener, on the Hydrino listserver, presented a very
insightful description of the old HSG. It reminded me of another
insightful description. Joseph Agassi, in the Foreword to Mendel
Sachs book "Einstein Versus Bohr" explains the difference between
"shop window" science as presented by Dr. Mills' detractors and
"workshop" science as presented by Dr. Mills:
"Foreword
In any introduction to modern philosophy in general or to the theory
of knowledge in particular, two candidates for the foundations of
science are presented: the a priori and the a posteriori (meaning the
before and the after, meaning before experience and after experience,
the deductive and the inductive, the axiomatic and the empirical).
They lead respectively to the deductive and the inductive styles of
presentation. And philosophers traditionally debate the pros and cons
of each of the two proposed views. Now how does one debate pros and
cons, deductively or inductively? Indeed, in most presentations,
whether deductive or inductive, including even Euclid's Elements, one
comes to a point where our authors leave the style of their choice and
break into debate. Debate, then, has its own style. It is called
hypothetic-deductive or, more generally, the dialectical or the
argumentative, or still more generally, the problem-oriented.
Most books follow the inductive or the deductive style, and more often
than not, a mixture of these. Few authors employ the dialectic style,
so very useful at all junctions of scientific revolutions, beginning
with Galileo's Dialogues and ending with the problem-oriented works of
Einstein and Schrodinger.
Sachs has made a valid observation: most popular science presentations
avoid problems, or present problems only after they have been solved
to the satisfaction of all concerned. Personally, I think there is
room for a broader complaint. Often individuals who have graduated
with flying colors prove to be utter failures as graduate students, or
have severe emotional and intellectual breakdowns out of which they
may emerge entirely transformed in order to be able to continue as
graduate students. This suggests that what is required of a successful
undergraduate does not suffice to qualify one as a research student.
This is what Sachs views as an insult to the intelligence of that
student. And how right he is.
It is traditional within science to have a tidy shop window and a
messy workshop. The individual who graduates well as a science student
but is not qualified, or not yet qualified, to work in the scientific
research workshop is one who has been thoroughly convinced that
science is orderly---inductive, deductive or both— but not the mess of
the problem-oriented workshop. The tradition of equating science with
the shop window is understandable; it began in the days when science
faced hostility and needed strong arguments to recruit novices
dedicated to its cause. It is no doubt paradoxical to invite people to
the workshop by pretending that science is all shop window. But the
paradox is soluble in practice. The non-scientific world outside is
impressed by success. The impressed outsider is slowly drawn in and
invited to see that success is the outcome of challenge, is challenged
to visit the workshop and at times is challenged by some item noticed
only in the workshop, and then the visitor settles down in the
workshop.
In truth, however, the division between shop window and workshop is an
artifact; in reality each item is double-faced, one face successful,
one problematic. These days every really challengeable individual must
recognize that, and the obstacle to this recognition is the fear that
when the shop window is destroyed, the ammunition science has against
its enemies is lost. Perhaps. But then, science has no real enemies
these days, and anyway, the internal concerns of science are more
important than those of its public relations.
For the two sets of concerns do clash. when a newcomer to scientific
education is troubled by some weak aspect or rough edge of science as
presented to the public—say in the classroom of the undergraduate
science class--then the old-timers have two choices: they may insist
on discussing the shop window until the newcomers graduate and then
allow them a view of the workshop; or they may admit openly that
science is all workshop and that every shop window item is also a
workshop item. Here, Mendel Sachs's observation signifies that the
concealment of the workshop is an insult.
It is a simple empirical fact that a problem-oriented presentation is
much easier to comprehend than either a deductive or an inductive one.
Presenters who are frank about the shortcomings of the material they
present make better sense to their public and are able to direct the
public's attention to where they think the action is, while
postponing, if need be, discussion of some other problematic aspects
of the materials they present. Doing this acknowledges that we cannot
solve all problems at once; we always have to postpone attending to
some problems while we attend to other problems.
When I was a student of physics I was troubled by the difficulties
presented and aired by Sachs in this book. Both the physicists and the
philosophers of science to whom I confessed my troubles—as clearly as
I could--showed me hostility rather than sympathy. I had earlier
experienced the same from my religious teachers, so that I was not
crushed by the hostility, but I was discouraged from pursuing my
scientific interests. This book has returned me to those days and
reminded me of the tremendous joys I experienced then, reading
Einstein and Schrodinger and meeting Karl Popper and Alfred Lande. All
four expressed, one way or another, the same sentiment as Sachs:
feeling difficulties about current ideas should be encouraged, not
discouraged.
Perhaps I am biased as a result. For I share the view of Lande and
Popper about a major problem in contemporary physics. Most physicists
today are indeterminists and subjectivists. I will not explain these
terms here, since Sachs does that extremely well in this book. The
minority, including Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohm, and Sachs, are
determinists and, of course, objectivists. Can one consistently be an
objectivist and an indeterminist? Lande and Popper say yes. And I hope
that they are right. But the most important thing is not so much the
correctness of a view but its rationality. For all the above views are
well-known, and each of them has many adherents, some learned and some
ignorant. Learned adherents of an erroneous view are preferable to
ignorant adherents of a view which may be right, yet which they adhere
to not because it is right but simply because they are ignorant and
because of some arbitrary choice or some chance in their lives. The
learned who are in error may learn more and improve, but the ignorant
hold their views for no good reason and then may change them for
reasons which are no better.
The problem-oriented approach is thus the best. And when we come to
contemporary physics it is essential. For, it is essential to present
competing solutions side by side and compare them. Using books each of
which presents its author's own ideas will not do, since the slightest
variations in meanings of key terms may cause the greatest
difficulties. At times, as Sachs shows, authors write at cross-
purposes because terms such as the term `hidden variable' have diverse
meanings in diverse contexts.
I do not mean to say that Sachs adjudicates correctly even concerning
accepted terminology. Even his discussion of hidden variables may be
criticized on account of his strict use of the term; I cannot say. Yet
at least he is clear. Concerning hidden variables there is the
celebrated proof—von Neumann's proof—of their exclusion from quantum
theory. Every time I raised a difficulty with quantum theory I was
told to read von Neumann's book. His proof and his book are repeatedly
mentioned in the vast literature on the trouble with quantum theory.
There is never reference to a page number, or even to a chapter
number, where the proof is given. I confess to having studied the book
very carefully both by myself and together with two famous students of
the matter, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend. I still remember the long
evenings the three of us spent together in an effort to find the proof
in that book. At least for myself I can say that I failed. I
challenged a few scholars to tell me where that proof is or to restate
it to me. One of them, Abner Shimony, whose contribution to the study
of hidden variables is by now so very justly famous, once conceded to
me in a conversation that he had attempted to meet my challenge and
failed, and then took it back in another conversation, in which he
claimed that his concession was due to my having confused him. Well,
all is well that ends well.
Sachs offers a proof which is clear, easy to follow and possibly
correct. This will force the profession, if anything will, to consider
this book seriously as offering an important clarification of a major
item in a classical dispute. And those who find fault with Sachs's
presentation I now challenge to publish a criticism and preferably
also a correction. This is the road to progress.
I have mentioned only two items on which this book is usefully
informative: determinism versus subjectivism and von Neumann's
theorem. But the book is full of clarifications, presented by the use
of the problem-oriented or dialectical style. It is a fascinating
study by any reasonable standard, but especially the standard of the
problem-oriented dialectician; it deserves careful scrutiny and, of
course, correction. It will help keep the debate moving and help to
destroy the barrier between shop window and workshop—which happens to
be the same barrier as that between by-stander and active researcher.
In this book, as in those of Einstein, Schrodinger, Lande, and Popper,
the reader can stand close to the anvil and see the sparks flying
while the workers forge their tools.
JOSEPH AGASSI
Tel-Aviv University and York University, Toronto"
insightful description of the old HSG. It reminded me of another
insightful description. Joseph Agassi, in the Foreword to Mendel
Sachs book "Einstein Versus Bohr" explains the difference between
"shop window" science as presented by Dr. Mills' detractors and
"workshop" science as presented by Dr. Mills:
"Foreword
In any introduction to modern philosophy in general or to the theory
of knowledge in particular, two candidates for the foundations of
science are presented: the a priori and the a posteriori (meaning the
before and the after, meaning before experience and after experience,
the deductive and the inductive, the axiomatic and the empirical).
They lead respectively to the deductive and the inductive styles of
presentation. And philosophers traditionally debate the pros and cons
of each of the two proposed views. Now how does one debate pros and
cons, deductively or inductively? Indeed, in most presentations,
whether deductive or inductive, including even Euclid's Elements, one
comes to a point where our authors leave the style of their choice and
break into debate. Debate, then, has its own style. It is called
hypothetic-deductive or, more generally, the dialectical or the
argumentative, or still more generally, the problem-oriented.
Most books follow the inductive or the deductive style, and more often
than not, a mixture of these. Few authors employ the dialectic style,
so very useful at all junctions of scientific revolutions, beginning
with Galileo's Dialogues and ending with the problem-oriented works of
Einstein and Schrodinger.
Sachs has made a valid observation: most popular science presentations
avoid problems, or present problems only after they have been solved
to the satisfaction of all concerned. Personally, I think there is
room for a broader complaint. Often individuals who have graduated
with flying colors prove to be utter failures as graduate students, or
have severe emotional and intellectual breakdowns out of which they
may emerge entirely transformed in order to be able to continue as
graduate students. This suggests that what is required of a successful
undergraduate does not suffice to qualify one as a research student.
This is what Sachs views as an insult to the intelligence of that
student. And how right he is.
It is traditional within science to have a tidy shop window and a
messy workshop. The individual who graduates well as a science student
but is not qualified, or not yet qualified, to work in the scientific
research workshop is one who has been thoroughly convinced that
science is orderly---inductive, deductive or both— but not the mess of
the problem-oriented workshop. The tradition of equating science with
the shop window is understandable; it began in the days when science
faced hostility and needed strong arguments to recruit novices
dedicated to its cause. It is no doubt paradoxical to invite people to
the workshop by pretending that science is all shop window. But the
paradox is soluble in practice. The non-scientific world outside is
impressed by success. The impressed outsider is slowly drawn in and
invited to see that success is the outcome of challenge, is challenged
to visit the workshop and at times is challenged by some item noticed
only in the workshop, and then the visitor settles down in the
workshop.
In truth, however, the division between shop window and workshop is an
artifact; in reality each item is double-faced, one face successful,
one problematic. These days every really challengeable individual must
recognize that, and the obstacle to this recognition is the fear that
when the shop window is destroyed, the ammunition science has against
its enemies is lost. Perhaps. But then, science has no real enemies
these days, and anyway, the internal concerns of science are more
important than those of its public relations.
For the two sets of concerns do clash. when a newcomer to scientific
education is troubled by some weak aspect or rough edge of science as
presented to the public—say in the classroom of the undergraduate
science class--then the old-timers have two choices: they may insist
on discussing the shop window until the newcomers graduate and then
allow them a view of the workshop; or they may admit openly that
science is all workshop and that every shop window item is also a
workshop item. Here, Mendel Sachs's observation signifies that the
concealment of the workshop is an insult.
It is a simple empirical fact that a problem-oriented presentation is
much easier to comprehend than either a deductive or an inductive one.
Presenters who are frank about the shortcomings of the material they
present make better sense to their public and are able to direct the
public's attention to where they think the action is, while
postponing, if need be, discussion of some other problematic aspects
of the materials they present. Doing this acknowledges that we cannot
solve all problems at once; we always have to postpone attending to
some problems while we attend to other problems.
When I was a student of physics I was troubled by the difficulties
presented and aired by Sachs in this book. Both the physicists and the
philosophers of science to whom I confessed my troubles—as clearly as
I could--showed me hostility rather than sympathy. I had earlier
experienced the same from my religious teachers, so that I was not
crushed by the hostility, but I was discouraged from pursuing my
scientific interests. This book has returned me to those days and
reminded me of the tremendous joys I experienced then, reading
Einstein and Schrodinger and meeting Karl Popper and Alfred Lande. All
four expressed, one way or another, the same sentiment as Sachs:
feeling difficulties about current ideas should be encouraged, not
discouraged.
Perhaps I am biased as a result. For I share the view of Lande and
Popper about a major problem in contemporary physics. Most physicists
today are indeterminists and subjectivists. I will not explain these
terms here, since Sachs does that extremely well in this book. The
minority, including Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohm, and Sachs, are
determinists and, of course, objectivists. Can one consistently be an
objectivist and an indeterminist? Lande and Popper say yes. And I hope
that they are right. But the most important thing is not so much the
correctness of a view but its rationality. For all the above views are
well-known, and each of them has many adherents, some learned and some
ignorant. Learned adherents of an erroneous view are preferable to
ignorant adherents of a view which may be right, yet which they adhere
to not because it is right but simply because they are ignorant and
because of some arbitrary choice or some chance in their lives. The
learned who are in error may learn more and improve, but the ignorant
hold their views for no good reason and then may change them for
reasons which are no better.
The problem-oriented approach is thus the best. And when we come to
contemporary physics it is essential. For, it is essential to present
competing solutions side by side and compare them. Using books each of
which presents its author's own ideas will not do, since the slightest
variations in meanings of key terms may cause the greatest
difficulties. At times, as Sachs shows, authors write at cross-
purposes because terms such as the term `hidden variable' have diverse
meanings in diverse contexts.
I do not mean to say that Sachs adjudicates correctly even concerning
accepted terminology. Even his discussion of hidden variables may be
criticized on account of his strict use of the term; I cannot say. Yet
at least he is clear. Concerning hidden variables there is the
celebrated proof—von Neumann's proof—of their exclusion from quantum
theory. Every time I raised a difficulty with quantum theory I was
told to read von Neumann's book. His proof and his book are repeatedly
mentioned in the vast literature on the trouble with quantum theory.
There is never reference to a page number, or even to a chapter
number, where the proof is given. I confess to having studied the book
very carefully both by myself and together with two famous students of
the matter, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend. I still remember the long
evenings the three of us spent together in an effort to find the proof
in that book. At least for myself I can say that I failed. I
challenged a few scholars to tell me where that proof is or to restate
it to me. One of them, Abner Shimony, whose contribution to the study
of hidden variables is by now so very justly famous, once conceded to
me in a conversation that he had attempted to meet my challenge and
failed, and then took it back in another conversation, in which he
claimed that his concession was due to my having confused him. Well,
all is well that ends well.
Sachs offers a proof which is clear, easy to follow and possibly
correct. This will force the profession, if anything will, to consider
this book seriously as offering an important clarification of a major
item in a classical dispute. And those who find fault with Sachs's
presentation I now challenge to publish a criticism and preferably
also a correction. This is the road to progress.
I have mentioned only two items on which this book is usefully
informative: determinism versus subjectivism and von Neumann's
theorem. But the book is full of clarifications, presented by the use
of the problem-oriented or dialectical style. It is a fascinating
study by any reasonable standard, but especially the standard of the
problem-oriented dialectician; it deserves careful scrutiny and, of
course, correction. It will help keep the debate moving and help to
destroy the barrier between shop window and workshop—which happens to
be the same barrier as that between by-stander and active researcher.
In this book, as in those of Einstein, Schrodinger, Lande, and Popper,
the reader can stand close to the anvil and see the sparks flying
while the workers forge their tools.
JOSEPH AGASSI
Tel-Aviv University and York University, Toronto"
kmarinas86
Dec 11, 2010, 10:56:02 AM12/11/10
to Classical Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://www.amazon.com/Mendel-Sachs/e/B001HPLPQU
http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Versus-Bohr-Controversies-publication/dp/B002JAIPKQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292082241&sr=8-2
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=mendel+sachs&btnG=Search+Books
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/
http://www.amazon.com/Mendel-Sachs/e/B001HPLPQU
http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Versus-Bohr-Controversies-publication/dp/B002JAIPKQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292082241&sr=8-2
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=mendel+sachs&btnG=Search+Books
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/
JohnEB
Jan 8, 2011, 9:19:47 AM1/8/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Dr. Mills' Book "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" - July 2010 Edition – is now available to read via a streamed feed with no special files required to download or install.
http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fcolor%2Flayout.xml&backgroundColor=31558B&showFlipBtn=true
http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fcolor%2Flayout.xml&backgroundColor=31558B&showFlipBtn=true
Luke Setzer
Jan 8, 2011, 12:34:44 PM1/8/11
to Classical Physics
Wow! That is awesome! Now I want to see him publish it in Kindle
format!
format!
JohnEB
Jan 19, 2011, 2:37:11 PM1/19/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
There has been significant activity on The Society for Classical Physics:
JohnEB
Jan 20, 2011, 10:00:37 AM1/20/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source” at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel & Conference Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11 conference room. For the abstract click here. A PowerPoint presentation will be available for viewing at a later date.
Bill
Jan 23, 2011, 10:54:05 AM1/23/11
to Classical Physics
Apparently, what happened was that posts-to-be-moderated were not
being forwarded to the moderator. It was a Yahoo problem and has now
been fixed. I had WONDERED why the list seemed to be silent!
Bill
On Jan 19, 2:37 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> *There has been significant activity on The Society for Classical Physics:*
> **
> *
being forwarded to the moderator. It was a Yahoo problem and has now
been fixed. I had WONDERED why the list seemed to be silent!
Bill
On Jan 19, 2:37 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> *There has been significant activity on The Society for Classical Physics:*
> **
> *
> The Society for Classical Physics is a discussion group sponsored by Dr.
> Randell Mills:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/
> *> Randell Mills:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/
JohnEB
Feb 9, 2011, 1:13:58 PM2/9/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source” at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel & Conference Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11 conference room. For the abstract click here.
Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is available for viewing.
JohnEB
Mar 16, 2011, 3:05:45 PM3/16/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Looks like BLP is getting battery development into high gear:
JohnEB
Mar 22, 2011, 10:43:02 AM3/22/11
to Classical Physics
BLP Posters:
Orbitsphere-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png
Functional-Groups-Chemistry-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Functional-Groups-Chemistry-Poster-medium.png
Periodic-Table-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png
On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a
> New Power Source” at the *Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference*<http://www.hydrogenconference.org/>on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel & Conference
>
> *Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is* *available for viewing*<http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/Mills_FCHE-Conference.pdf>.
Orbitsphere-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png
Functional-Groups-Chemistry-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Functional-Groups-Chemistry-Poster-medium.png
Periodic-Table-Poster
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png
On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a
> Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11
> conference room. For the abstract *click here*<http://nha.confex.com/nha/2011/randd/papers/viewonly.cgi?password=pr0...>.
>
> *Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is* *available for viewing*<http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/Mills_FCHE-Conference.pdf>.
JohnEB
Apr 1, 2011, 7:26:01 AM4/1/11
to Classical Physics
BlackLight Power, Inc. Overview
Includes Summary of Recent Advances & Animations
http://www.blacklightpower.com/introguide.shtml
Includes Summary of Recent Advances & Animations
http://www.blacklightpower.com/introguide.shtml
JohnEB
Apr 7, 2011, 2:55:57 PM4/7/11
to Classical Physics
JohnEB
Jul 19, 2011, 12:53:08 PM7/19/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Dr. Mills' Book "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" - July 2010 Edition - has been updated. Chp. 1: perfect spherical nature of the bound electron confirmed; Chp. 8: classical photon double slit mechanism confirmed; Chp 32: celestial objects older than the elapsed time of expansion confirmed; Chp 42: “quantum machine” shown to be classical.
JohnEB
Sep 16, 2011, 12:20:35 PM9/16/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
Obama signs 1st major patent law change since 1952
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – President Barack Obama has signed into law an overhaul of the nation's patent system. It's the first significant change in the way inventors can bring their products to market in more than two generations.
ashtonrsmiller
Sep 17, 2011, 11:03:12 AM9/17/11
to Classical Physics
On Sep 16, 12:20 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> *Obama signs 1st major patent law change since 1952*
> **
Not quite!
I guess it is too much to expect that anyone at yahoo check their
facts. Substantial changes (IE sellout to corporate interests) to the
patent laws were made in late 1999.
From:
http://www.trudelgroup.com/pwars.htm
"The so-called Patent "reform" legislation passed into law in 1999. It
was embedded in the 2,000-page budget bill that was voted on late on a
Friday night as the Senate was adjourning for the holidays in
November. See status to learn the sequence of events that led to
this.
The house version HR 1907 slipped through WITHOUT DEBATE under
"suspension of the rules" (a procedure normally used for such things
as naming bridges or building maintenance). It was passed before
Members of Congress could even read the legislation that they were
voting on! In similar fashion S. 1948 was included in HR 3194, the
budget bill. This passed by roll call vote without discussion as the
last item of business before adjournment for the 1999 Christmas
holidays. Section 4001 of this 2,000 page bill is a version of the old
HR 1907.
As Stanford's Constitutional Law Professor Larry Lessig has noted in
his several excellent books on the subject, the body of law designed
to protect "the new" has been shifted by the law to protect "the old,"
to serve vested interests and their lobbyists. The Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) has effectively been converted into a major
source of revenue. The PTO is now, in effect, a tax collector for
knowledge-based businesses."
Trudel has retired and his website unfortunately isn't being
maintained - lots of broken links.
These latest changes, like those from ten years ago, appear to advance
the interests of international corporations while further
disadvantaging the individual inventor by allowing the patent office
to set its own fees. What is the chance that the fees will be reduced
or eliminated?
JohnEB
Sep 17, 2011, 12:52:17 PM9/17/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
ashtonrsmiller
So, is Dr. Mills worse off now than before the new law?
ashtonrsmiller
Sep 18, 2011, 10:56:45 AM9/18/11
to Classical Physics
On Sep 17, 12:52 pm, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> ashtonrsmiller
> So, is Dr. Mills worse off now than before the new law?
associated with patent applications. The other shoe that dropped in
this is a change of priority from first to to invent to first to
file. This may simplify things for the courts, but IMO is absolutely
wrong from an ethical standpoint. As regards BLP, this may delay the
publication of experimental results until after any consequent patents
have been applied for. Conversely, it may accelerate patent
applications for things already reported on that, under first to
invent, they previously thought they could wait to patent. Overall, I
expect the recent changes will result in a higher degree of secrecy by
anyone doing research and development - probably not the best outcome
for society in general.
JohnEB
Nov 30, 2011, 11:25:27 AM11/30/11
to classica...@googlegroups.com
In response to SCP message:
Dr Mills replied with this SCP message:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/1021
JohnEB
Feb 28, 2012, 5:20:45 AM2/28/12
to classica...@googlegroups.com
|
Dr. Mills' Book "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" - August 2011 electronic edition is now available. Print edition coming soon. |
2/27/12 |
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages