ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 5th October 2017, 11:40 PM   #3081
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The people I know of who worked with hydrino chemistry in their own labs are Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University and Dr. Jonathan Phillips.
Oh, you mean the labs that were given (alleged) samples of hydrinos to experiment upon?

Quote:
And yes anyone who does such work must be authorized to do so and sign an IP agreement.
If research replicates an experiment solely for research purposes, rather than to make or save money, then the research exemption to patents applies and they won't need any IP agreement to legally replicate experiments covered by the patent, assuming that those replicating the experiment didn't steal any trade secrets.

Quote:
If you know of a good lab that might be interested in hydrino work, let them know and they can contact BLP to pursue further. Mills is looking for interested parties who can partner with them in research.
I would think that any lab counting as "good" would be wary of anyone who wanted an IP agreement for pure research into things that weren't trade secrets and who threatened to bring patent suits against such pure research in ignorance of or defiance of the patent research exemption.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!

Last edited by Matthew Cline; 6th October 2017 at 12:01 AM.
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:47 PM   #3082
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Oh, you mean labs that were given (alleged) samples of hydrinos to experiment upon?
non-existent. no hydrinos were ever detected. Some interesting crystalline structures, most likely due to hydrogen embrittlement were made. That's about as far as that went. The offer to provide samples to test went poof as soon as discovered there were no hydrinos in the samples, just ordinary materials.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 6th October 2017 at 12:26 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:59 AM   #3083
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,212
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Oh, you mean someone other that BLP, and someone other than the multitude of of people from outside BLP that have validated BLP experiments, and someone other than the people who have performed experiments in their own labs.

Here's a question that might provoke some meaningful thought. According to QM, what is the radius of the ground state hydrogen atom?
Does that mean after about 25 years labs can now request the sample compounds he said he would provide? If so let us know and we can spread the word!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:00 AM   #3084
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,212
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Give it the good old college try. Again, according to QM, specifically the Schrodinger equation, what is the radius of the ground state hydrogen atom.

(And yes, ground state hydrogen is pertinent. According to Mills it must be ground state hydrogen that reacts to become hydrino.)
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:38 AM   #3085
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by markie View Post
And yes anyone who does such work must be authorized to do so and sign an IP agreement.
Are the terms of that agreement public?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 05:44 AM   #3086
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Well, I suppose we could use a pen or pencil, but we really don't want to rely on such primitive, inefficient technology when we can invent something which will work much better. Our efforts will be much better directed to creating a hydrino-powered quantum dot matrix printer.
Or a quantum neural matrix imprinter which simply creates knowledge and understanding directly in the brain of those wishing to know and understand.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 05:51 AM   #3087
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Oh, you mean someone other that BLP, and someone other than the multitude of of people from outside BLP that have validated BLP experiments, and someone other than the people who have performed experiments in their own labs.

Here's a question that might provoke some meaningful thought. According to QM, what is the radius of the ground state hydrogen atom?
1) Yes, an independant research lab.
2) The Bohr radius, symbolized a , is the mean radius of the orbit of an electron around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at its ground state (lowest-energy level). The value of this radius is a physical constant; a is approximately equal to 5.29177 x 10 -11 meter (m).

,,,,aaanndd?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:05 AM   #3088
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,005
Hmmm, I was semi-correct, to deflect the simple fact that Mill's reaction between water/oxygen and silver at the reported temperatures is exothermic and therefore explains the minuscule energy effect reported we are now going back to the non-existent hydrinos.
Once that stalls (as it inevitably will, just like the last few rounds), what are you going back to then?
Incompetent engineering choices?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:27 AM   #3089
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Oh, you mean the labs that were given (alleged) samples of hydrinos to experiment upon?
No, those were other labs. Rowan labs don't need to be sent hydrino ; they are able and authorized to make their own hydrino and characterize it. See

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-co...dentReport.pdf

Quote:
If research replicates an experiment solely for research purposes, rather than to make or save money, then the research exemption to patents applies and they won't need any IP agreement to legally replicate experiments covered by the patent, assuming that those replicating the experiment didn't steal any trade secrets.
No, better to check out what it says here, my bold:

http://nysstlc.syr.edu/experimental-...-infringement/

Anyone who uses a patented invention without authorization is liable for patent infringement under patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). There is a longstanding common-law exception to this provision. The experimental use exception allows for de minimis use of a patented invention when the purpose is experimental. However, within the last twenty years, the Federal Circuit has addressed numerous experimental use issues and its decisions have made the common-law experimental use exception inoperable in most practical situations.


Quote:
I would think that any lab counting as "good" would be wary of anyone who wanted an IP agreement for pure research into things that weren't trade secrets and who threatened to bring patent suits against such pure research in ignorance of or defiance of the patent research exemption.

A good lab would respect the IP of another company and the legal precedents set by the Federal Circuit.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:34 AM   #3090
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
According to Dogbert, the answer is six.

However, according to Granny Weatherwax, the answer is sixteen, on the proviso that it is an ordinary, common or garden house pin.

On the basis that Granny Weatherwax is always right, I shall go with sixteen.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:35 AM   #3091
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,344
Originally Posted by markie View Post
No, those were other labs. Rowan labs don't need to be sent hydrino ; they are able and authorized to make their own hydrino and characterize it. See

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-co...dentReport.pdf



No, better to check out what it says here, my bold:

http://nysstlc.syr.edu/experimental-...-infringement/

Anyone who uses a patented invention without authorization is liable for patent infringement under patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). There is a longstanding common-law exception to this provision. The experimental use exception allows for de minimis use of a patented invention when the purpose is experimental. However, within the last twenty years, the Federal Circuit has addressed numerous experimental use issues and its decisions have made the common-law experimental use exception inoperable in most practical situations.





A good lab would respect the IP of another company and the legal precedents set by the Federal Circuit.
No one has ever made a hydrino.
No one has ever shown or demonstrated what might be a hydrino.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:36 AM   #3092
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
On the basis that Granny Weatherwax is always right, I shall go with sixteen.
I'll go with sixteen too, on the basis that even if Granny Weatherwax is wrong it's probably not a good idea to point it out.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:39 AM   #3093
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Are the terms of that agreement public?

Dave
Let me clarify. Does that IP agreement, for example, forbid its signatories from releasing any information other than that authorized by BLP? If so, it would be a very effective instrument for supporting a scam; laboratories that find, due to random error, a very slight excess of energy out over energy in are permitted to publish, while those that do not are forbidden. The effect of truncating the normal experimental error distribution to positive values only would inevitably produce the illusion of a real, though very small, effect where in fact none exists.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:54 AM   #3094
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
1) Yes, an independant research lab.
2) The Bohr radius, symbolized a , is the mean radius of the orbit of an electron around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at its ground state (lowest-energy level). The value of this radius is a physical constant; a is approximately equal to 5.29177 x 10 -11 meter (m).

,,,,aaanndd?

MC, JsF, LS, RBF, D and DR all had a chance to answer the question but avoided it, and only Jaydeehess gives it a try. Good on him.

However, his answer, while standard, masks a problem. According to Schrodinger equation the ground state hydrogen atom does not have a single size, not even close. That QM falls back to the Bohr radius - and declares it a constant no less! - speaks volumes about QM's internal inconsistency even on such a simple, basic matter.

For a more forthright depiction, see:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntum/hydr.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...m/hydr.html#c3

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hydrng.html#c1

I think it appropriate that skeptics - in this case defenders of what has become orthodoxy and status quo - should be familiar with the crux of the orthodoxy they defend on the simple matter of the size of the ground state hydrogen atom.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:06 AM   #3095
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by markie View Post
MC, JsF, LS, RBF, D and DR all had a chance to answer the question but avoided it, and only Jaydeehess gives it a try. Good on him.

However, his answer, while standard, masks a problem. According to Schrodinger equation the ground state hydrogen atom does not have a single size, not even close. That QM falls back to the Bohr radius - and declares it a constant no less! - speaks volumes about QM's internal inconsistency even on such a simple, basic matter.
No, it doesn't; rather, it speaks volumes on your own ignorance of quantum mechanics. It's not a failing of QM that it gives a description of the hydrogen 1s state that doesn't suit your personal taste, or that probability theory permits the mean and the mode of a distribution to have different values (which appears to be the point that you are trying, in a rather confused and incoherent manner, to make). Nor is it a problem that the Bohr radius is a constant, defined as it is in terms of other physical constants. In fact, QM gives a description of the hydrogen atom that's internally consistent and consistent with experimental results; the fact that it's not trivially simple to describe just means that it isn't a trivially simple system.

The old "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" argument is an old stalwart of QM denial. Yours is just another variant on it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:18 AM   #3096
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
From the article on the research exemption to patents:

Quote:
... Bolar used Roche’s patented active ingredient in experiments to determine if its generic product was a bioequivalent. The Federal Circuit held that the experimental use exception did not apply because Bolar intended to sell its generic product in competition with Roche’s product after patent expiration and thus conducted experimentation solely for business interests. ...

... The court recognized early precedent for exceptions for amusement, satisfying idle curiosity or strictly philosophical inquiry. [emphasis added] However, the court still held that Service Engineering Corp. had conducted the tests in furtherance of its business venture and that experimentation done expressly for commercial purposes cannot be immunized from infringement under the experimental use exemption. ...

... On remand, the lower court found that even though the use of the patented invention was for educational purposes, it was still at least in part in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose and therefore did not qualify for the exception. ...
So what I got from the article is that if a university scientist wanted to replicate the patented hydrione device in order to determine if Mill's Classical Grand Unified Theory works, that would still fall under the research exemption. And even if such research wouldn't be covered by the research exemption, I see no reason for Mills to use the law to prevent such research, as patent law isn't like trademark law, where not enforcing your rights can cause you to lose them.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:19 AM   #3097
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'll go with sixteen too, on the basis that even if Granny Weatherwax is wrong it's probably not a good idea to point it out.

Dave
LOL
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:12 AM   #3098
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, it doesn't; rather, it speaks volumes on your own ignorance of quantum mechanics. It's not a failing of QM that it gives a description of the hydrogen 1s state that doesn't suit your personal taste, or that probability theory permits the mean and the mode of a distribution to have different values (which appears to be the point that you are trying, in a rather confused and incoherent manner, to make). Nor is it a problem that the Bohr radius is a constant, defined as it is in terms of other physical constants. In fact, QM gives a description of the hydrogen atom that's internally consistent and consistent with experimental results; the fact that it's not trivially simple to describe just means that it isn't a trivially simple system.

The old "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" argument is an old stalwart of QM denial. Yours is just another variant on it.

Dave

My point is simpler than that. With the Schrodinger equation, the ground state hydrogen atom can be just about any size at all. The difference between mode and mean is no big deal. The big deal is that the size of ground state hydrogen is on a probability distribution in the first place. Perhaps you can tell me : where are the experiments that obtain all different kinds of sizes for the ground state hydrogen atom, in agreement with that theoretical distribution? And what are the repercussions of such supposed differences in size in, say, machine-like biological processes?
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:20 AM   #3099
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by markie View Post
No, those were other labs. Rowan labs don't need to be sent hydrino ; they are able and authorized to make their own hydrino and characterize it. See

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-co...dentReport.pdf
In one experiment Rowan labs did a reaction which BLP claims produces hydrinos and obtained a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of the post reaction products (from page 26 of the PDF):

Quote:
There was a clear additional large upfield shifted peak at ‐3.85 ppm, which was not due to the solvent. BLP has previously attributed the upfield shifted peaks at ‐3.85 ppm to H–¼. This upfield shifted NMR peak had been observed by us, in our compounds in reactions involving hydrogen gas in presence of catalyst and an alkaline salt at high temperature. BLP has attributed this 1H NMR peak to the formation of hydrino hydride, H–¼ in the reaction.
In a different experiment (from page 3 of the PDF):

Quote:
Samples synthesized using chemicals provided by BLP [emphasis added] also yielded similar MAS 1H NMR spectral features.
So it would seem that they still need to be provided purified/concentrated hydrino samples by BLP. What they can make for themselves is "post reaction products" that contain... something.

EDIT: Also, I'm curious as to why BLP would care about nuclear magnetic resonance, given that the difference between a hydrino and regular hydrogen atom is the electron shell, not the atomic nucleus. I don't know enough about NMR to know if a difference in the radius of the electron orbital would make a difference to how the nucleus responded to NMR.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!

Last edited by Matthew Cline; 6th October 2017 at 08:28 AM.
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:32 AM   #3100
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by markie View Post
My point is simpler than that. With the Schrodinger equation, the ground state hydrogen atom can be just about any size at all.
That's a misrepresentation. It has a probability function with a specifically known and well-understood mathematical form.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The difference between mode and mean is no big deal.
You've posted definitions of the average electron orbital radius and the most probable electron orbital radius, stated that they're different and claimed that this is an inconsistency in quantum mechanics. Now, suddenly, when it's stated in terms that make it obvious that the difference isn't an inconsistency, you're retreating from that position and saying it's no big deal. I think you need to take ownership of your own misunderstandings, and stop blaming them on QM.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The big deal is that the size of ground state hydrogen is on a probability distribution in the first place.
The big deal is not that it's a probability distribution, it's that you don't like the idea of it being a probability distribution. Well, tough; reality doesn't need to conform to your prejudices.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Perhaps you can tell me : where are the experiments that obtain all different kinds of sizes for the ground state hydrogen atom, in agreement with that theoretical distribution?
Putting aside your carefully constructed strawman, the basic principles of quantum mechanics are sufficiently descriptive of reality that we have yet to find any experiments that disagree with them. Beyond that, I can only suggest you find an introductory physics course, and try not to waste your and everyone else's time arguing with the tutor.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
And what are the repercussions of such supposed differences in size in, say, machine-like biological processes?
Again, this is your own personal strawman, which has no relevance to the actual predictions of quantum mechanics. If you want to criticize it, I suggest you learn the basics of it rather than try to refute your own carefully constructed misunderstandings. I'll leave that to you, as I have no responsibility to rectify your defective education.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:27 AM   #3101
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,005
If Mills is right, the Earth should not exist.

After all, in every subduction zone water is brought into contact with liquid silver and oxygen liberated from rocks. Given the amounts and Mill's claims the energy released there should be in the megatonnes/second range, ripping the earth apart at its core.
This does not happen. Mills is wrong.

Of course, being an ordinary scammer, he does not NEED to extrapolate his 'theories' to reality, as that would just scare off investors.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:30 AM   #3102
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's a misrepresentation. It has a probability function with a specifically known and well-understood mathematical form.
No misrepresentation. It's the truth about SE, and you can't seem to handle it. I'll say it again : the ground state hydrogen atom can be just about any size according to the SE. It has different probabilities of being different sizes.

Quote:
You've posted definitions of the average electron orbital radius and the most probable electron orbital radius, stated that they're different and claimed that this is an inconsistency in quantum mechanics. Now, suddenly, when it's stated in terms that make it obvious that the difference isn't an inconsistency, you're retreating from that position and saying it's no big deal. I think you need to take ownership of your own misunderstandings, and stop blaming them on QM.

I never once stated that the most probable orbital size and the average orbital size are different or inconsistent. In fact I expect that from a probability distribution of that type.

The inconsistency I am referring to is claiming a single "Bohr radius" while at the same time holding to the Schrodinger equation that yields no fixed radius at all.

Isn't it fascinating that given all the different sizes the hydrogen atom ground state can take according to the SE, it has but one ionization energy. Among other things.

But don't think of such things, it will disturb your sleep.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:32 AM   #3103
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
If Mills is right, the Earth should not exist.

After all, in every subduction zone water is brought into contact with liquid silver and oxygen liberated from rocks. Given the amounts and Mill's claims the energy released there should be in the megatonnes/second range, ripping the earth apart at its core.
This does not happen. Mills is wrong.

Of course, being an ordinary scammer, he does not NEED to extrapolate his 'theories' to reality, as that would just scare off investors.

You really have no idea.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:35 AM   #3104
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
In one experiment Rowan labs did a reaction which BLP claims produces hydrinos and obtained a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of the post reaction products (from page 26 of the PDF):

In a different experiment (from page 3 of the PDF):

So it would seem that they still need to be provided purified/concentrated hydrino samples by BLP. What they can make for themselves is "post reaction products" that contain... something.

EDIT: Also, I'm curious as to why BLP would care about nuclear magnetic resonance, given that the difference between a hydrino and regular hydrogen atom is the electron shell, not the atomic nucleus. I don't know enough about NMR to know if a difference in the radius of the electron orbital would make a difference to how the nucleus responded to NMR.
At least you dig into things. Yes the radius will make a difference in NMR as the coupling of the electron to the nucleus is different. A worthy area of investigation.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:40 AM   #3105
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,295
Markie, which patent would a lab be infringing if were to create hydrinos?
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:59 AM   #3106
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,661
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Markie, which patent would a lab be infringing if were to create hydrinos?
Wait, is Markie asserting one of BLP's patents may be enforceable?

Did he skip the pages upon pages of discussion highlighting how incompetently their patents were filed?

The most absurd thing about the entire Mills / BLP story is the fantasy that they'll ever turn a profit from their inventions, even IF hydrinos turn out to be real. The moment there's verifiable independent proof of their existence, the lack of enforceable patents will result in every major and minor player rushing their own units to market. Ingersoll Rand isn't going to spend decades engineering just the right sci-fi aesthetic. They'll find a cheap and reliable way to harness the heat and go to market, exactly as Mills would do if he were competent and his science were real.

Who will YOU buy a generator from?

1. An established manufacturer whose diesel generators you've used before
2. Some no-name outfit from New Jersey?

The best case scenario for Mills is as the next "inventor of the fidget spinner on verge of bankruptcy" sob story for when newspapers need a human interest fluff piece.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:03 AM   #3107
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,005
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You really have no idea.
So, enlighten me.

Why does Mill's reaction NOT occur where it should in nature?

Because from my perspective you keep handwaving this away.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:19 AM   #3108
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by markie View Post
No misrepresentation. It's the truth about SE, and you can't seem to handle it. I'll say it again : the ground state hydrogen atom can be just about any size according to the SE. It has different probabilities of being different sizes.
Which are governed by a well known probability function with well understood properties, in accordance with a theory that has been found to be consistent with every experimental test ever devised for it. If you can't handle that concept, that isn't reality's problem; it's yours.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The inconsistency I am referring to is claiming a single "Bohr radius" while at the same time holding to the Schrodinger equation that yields no fixed radius at all.
There is no inconsistency. The Bohr radius is simply a unit of measure, that corresponds to a particular statistical property of the electron cloud and is defined in terms of other known physical constants. It happens to correspond to the radius of the electron orbit in an earlier, now discarded, theory; again, not an inconsistency.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Isn't it fascinating that given all the different sizes the hydrogen atom ground state can take according to the SE, it has but one ionization energy.
I take it you don't understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle either, then.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 11:27 AM   #3109
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by markie View Post
MC, JsF, LS, RBF, D and DR all had a chance to answer the question but avoided it, and only Jaydeehess gives it a try. Good on him.

However, his answer, while standard, masks a problem. According to Schrodinger equation the ground state hydrogen atom does not have a single size, not even close. That QM falls back to the Bohr radius - and declares it a constant no less! - speaks volumes about QM's internal inconsistency even on such a simple, basic matter.

For a more forthright depiction, see:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntum/hydr.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...m/hydr.html#c3

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hydrng.html#c1

I think it appropriate that skeptics - in this case defenders of what has become orthodoxy and status quo - should be familiar with the crux of the orthodoxy they defend on the simple matter of the size of the ground state hydrogen atom.
Even if I was foolish enough to take the bait to your red herring, it wouldn't make me a physicist familiar with quantum physics. My formal physics education is 30 years old and never included Quantum physics.

What you see as a fault is actually some hard won wisdom. If you don't know, certainly don't become a google and Wikipedia warrior. You'll be sniffed out here for sure as displaying Kruger Dunning. We use those wiki'd and googled citations to back up what we already know,(or even to ask others) not as a source of our primary education.

Talk about what you know, because BS'ers will be spotted and properly overwhelmingly put in their place, and their ignorance displayed to all. As yours was here when people that really are educated in quantum physics point out your mistakes.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 6th October 2017 at 11:32 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:14 PM   #3110
PeterWol62
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
If Mills is right, the Earth should not exist.

After all, in every subduction zone water is brought into contact with liquid silver and oxygen liberated from rocks. Given the amounts and Mill's claims the energy released there should be in the megatonnes/second range, ripping the earth apart at its core.
This does not happen. Mills is wrong.

Of course, being an ordinary scammer, he does not NEED to extrapolate his 'theories' to reality, as that would just scare off investors.
Lukraak Sisser:
Hydrino formation is not that easy, and I think it needs hydrogen atoms, not molecules and not as water. Derived from water: yes, a possibility. So your question is rather like asking why the salt from the salt cellar is not glowing bright orange - it contains sodium atoms, does it not?

The conditions for hydrino formation involve a catalyst at a specific energy, and this process is similar to what happens in certain phosphors, in fluorescent lights for example. The only natural conditions seem to be in the corona of the sun, and if dark matter is hydrinos, then there is plenty around in the universe.

Don't be surprised if I don't continue the argument, as I have a lot to do in real life right now.
PeterWol62 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:39 PM   #3111
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'll go with sixteen too, on the basis that even if Granny Weatherwax is wrong it's probably not a good idea to point it out.

__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:44 PM   #3112
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Perfect timing for that reply!
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:17 PM   #3113
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Even if I was foolish enough to take the bait to your red herring, it wouldn't make me a physicist familiar with quantum physics. My formal physics education is 30 years old and never included Quantum physics.

What you see as a fault is actually some hard won wisdom. If you don't know, certainly don't become a google and Wikipedia warrior. You'll be sniffed out here for sure as displaying Kruger Dunning. We use those wiki'd and googled citations to back up what we already know,(or even to ask others) not as a source of our primary education.

Talk about what you know, because BS'ers will be spotted and properly overwhelmingly put in their place, and their ignorance displayed to all. As yours was here when people that really are educated in quantum physics point out your mistakes.

If you are referring to Rogers pointing out mistakes, he did nothing of the sort. Mere handwaving, and he knows it. And notice he still can't bring himself to say it : Schrodingers equation gives the ground state hydrogen atom very different possible sizes, according to a probability distribution.


It is people who are really in the know about quantum theory who are most aware of its shortcomings. Like Christianity, ministers who are versed in scholarship well know the problems in their sacred text, but they present a simplistic, sanitized version which the masses are all too eager to swallow. And what's worse, the congregants then presume they have the truth.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:29 PM   #3114
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,661
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Even if I was foolish enough to take the bait to your red herring, it wouldn't make me a physicist familiar with quantum physics. My formal physics education is 30 years old and never included Quantum physics.

What you see as a fault is actually some hard won wisdom. If you don't know, certainly don't become a google and Wikipedia warrior. You'll be sniffed out here for sure as displaying Kruger Dunning. We use those wiki'd and googled citations to back up what we already know,(or even to ask others) not as a source of our primary education.

Talk about what you know, because BS'ers will be spotted and properly overwhelmingly put in their place, and their ignorance displayed to all. As yours was here when people that really are educated in quantum physics point out your mistakes.
If you are referring to Rogers pointing out mistakes, he did nothing of the sort. Mere handwaving, and he knows it. And notice he still can't bring himself to say it : Schrodingers equation gives the ground state hydrogen atom very different possible sizes, according to a probability distribution.


It is people who are really in the know about quantum theory who are most aware of its shortcomings. Like Christianity, ministers who are versed in scholarship well know the problems in their sacred text, but they present a simplistic, sanitized version which the masses are all too eager to swallow. And what's worse, the congregants then presume they have the truth.
Congratulations Red Baron Farms. Your hypothesis was proven VERY quickly.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 02:03 PM   #3115
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,339
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If you are referring to Rogers pointing out mistakes, he did nothing of the sort. Mere handwaving, and he knows it.
No, what I know is that you don't possess the required knowledge to criticise QM, because you can't follow the basic concepts it's based on.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
And notice he still can't bring himself to say it : Schrodingers equation gives the ground state hydrogen atom very different possible sizes, according to a probability distribution.
Because that's a stupid way of looking at it. The electron has a probability distribution that is well-known. The whole concept of "size" is very different to that of a hard-edged object with a specific extent. And in fact, the whole point of QM is that this probability distribution predicts the properties of the hydrogen atom to a level of accuracy that at least exceeds that of any measurement we've been able to do. In short, QM works.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
It is people who are really in the know about quantum theory who are most aware of its shortcomings.
I see you're trying your best to demonstrate the converse.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Like Christianity, ministers who are versed in scholarship well know the problems in their sacred text, but they present a simplistic, sanitized version which the masses are all too eager to swallow.
Nope. You'll find that QM textbooks present the full version of the theory in detail.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
And what's worse, the congregants then presume they have the truth.
IT IS NOT TRUTH, for FSM's sake. It's an extremely powerful and successful scientific theory that has been successful in every prediction it has made, and doesn't need to be protected from scrutiny by the IP agreements of rogues, cheats and charlatans.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 02:03 PM   #3116
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,059
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If you are referring to Rogers pointing out mistakes, he did nothing of the sort. Mere handwaving, and he knows it. And notice he still can't bring himself to say it : Schrodingers equation gives the ground state hydrogen atom very different possible sizes, according to a probability distribution.


It is people who are really in the know about quantum theory who are most aware of its shortcomings. Like Christianity, ministers who are versed in scholarship well know the problems in their sacred text, but they present a simplistic, sanitized version which the masses are all too eager to swallow. And what's worse, the congregants then presume they have the truth.
LOLZ Very funny. You really think that redirect yet again to a red herring matters one bit? I already have plenty enough knowledge to know this is a scam without getting tangled up in the argument between you and anyone at all who understands Quantum Physics.
As I pointed out at the top of last page, I don't even need to invoke quantum physics.
Just on the lack of actually producing any hydrinos NEVER not once, is plenty enough to not require knowledge of QM to know it is a scam.
Just on my knowledge of metallurgy, burning metals and welding alone I can easily show the scam.
Just on my knowledge of heat transfer it is enough to know this is a scam.
Just on my knowledge of pluming it is enough to know this is a scam.
Just on my knowledge of steam engines it is enough to know this is a scam.
Just on my critical thinking skills alone examining his business models I can be certain it is a scam.
Just on my knowledge of well known overunity scams and how Mills uses well known tricks of misdirection that any illusionist uses, I can be fairly sure it is likely a scam.
Just on my knowledge of high dollar high risk venture capital scams, I can know this is pretty likely a scam.

If after all these separate lines of lines of evidence all of which have been discussed over and over with all kinds of supporting evidence, I still haven't convinced you? Well that's just dumb, but ok. You are entitled to believe in fairy tails if you wish.

You still wish to discuss voodoo physics that are internally inconsistent like requiring hydrogen to be in an excited state (the electrical spark that starts the plasma reaction does that) then proclaiming it cant be in an excited state to make a hydrino...
Originally Posted by markie View Post
(And yes, ground state hydrogen is pertinent. According to Mills it must be ground state hydrogen that reacts to become hydrino.)


You still wish to talk QM? Ok fine. Then since I do have knowledge of a lot, but also have gaps in my knowledge. I can't know everything. One of the things I don't know is QM. I will then fall back on the old ask a true QM expert, that has been peer reviewed by other real QM experts.

This is why I can be sure: A critical analysis of the hydrino model

Which I already explained to you in post #2996

After all that evidence of either a scam and/or simply won't ever work bad idea, you still wish to hopefully follow Mills like a hero worshiping fan girl, by all means. But please stop trying to convince me.

If you want to convince me, produce a hydrino for examination. OOPS you have none.

As I repeatedly explained to you before. There is no such thing as a hydrino

Full Stop

ETA: conclusion from the above physics paper:
Quote:
Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics.
Which means BTW no hydrinos, but rather a mundane explanation like the metals burning. What I deduced a long time ago and explained repeatedly to you going back months now. Get it?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 6th October 2017 at 02:52 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 05:42 PM   #3117
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Because that's a stupid way of looking at it. The electron has a probability distribution that is well-known. The whole concept of "size" is very different to that of a hard-edged object with a specific extent. And in fact, the whole point of QM is that this probability distribution predicts the properties of the hydrogen atom to a level of accuracy that at least exceeds that of any measurement we've been able to do. In short, QM works.
Ptolemy's epicycles worked quite well too. It's fascinating that you can't tolerate the term 'size'. To me, as the electron radius distance from the proton increases, so does the atom's size. But since you can't quite tolerate that, I'll put it in different terms. Schrodinger's equation has the distance a point electron (itself a bad idea) can be from the proton as a matter of probability. The point electron may be found much closer or much further from the proton than the Bohr radius for the ground state hydrogen atom, according to SE. And no, I don't find that supported by experiment.

Quote:
Nope. You'll find that QM textbooks present the full version of the theory in detail.
And yet no one except JDH attempted to answer the question. I suspect that nobody here knew the 'answer'. Yes even you. Why? Having different electron distances from the nucleus of ground state hydrogen is not something to be advertised in QM is it.

Quote:
IT IS NOT TRUTH, for FSM's sake. It's an extremely powerful and successful scientific theory that has been successful in every prediction it has made, and doesn't need to be protected from scrutiny by the IP agreements of rogues, cheats and charlatans.
Dave
Yeah, well, I was talking about people in church when I mentioned 'truth'.

Singing the praises of QM as you do, you seem to be in a choir of some kind.

Last edited by markie; 6th October 2017 at 05:43 PM. Reason: quote
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:28 PM   #3118
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by markie View Post
MC, JsF, LS, RBF, D and DR all had a chance to answer the question but avoided it, and only Jaydeehess gives it a try. Good on him.

However, his answer, while standard, masks a problem. According to Schrodinger equation the ground state hydrogen atom does not have a single size, not even close. That QM falls back to the Bohr radius - and declares it a constant no less! - speaks volumes about QM's internal inconsistency even on such a simple, basic matter.

.
Perhaps you did not read what I posted. The Bohr radius is the "mean" radius.
The mean remains constant.
Supposedly your hydrinos then orbit with a mean radius less than the Bohr value.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:35 PM   #3119
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If you are referring to Rogers pointing out mistakes, he did nothing of the sort. Mere handwaving, and he knows it. And notice he still can't bring himself to say it : Schrodingers equation gives the ground state hydrogen atom very different possible sizes, according to a probability distribution.


It is people who are really in the know about quantum theory who are most aware of its shortcomings. Like Christianity, ministers who are versed in scholarship well know the problems in their sacred text, but they present a simplistic, sanitized version which the masses are all too eager to swallow. And what's worse, the congregants then presume they have the truth.
ROFLMFAO
Comparing quantum physics to spiritual belief. Good thing I wasnt drinking coffee.

Yeah yeah, you're here all week, try the fish......
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:37 PM   #3120
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by markie View Post
MC, JsF, LS, RBF, D and DR all had a chance to answer the question but avoided it, and only Jaydeehess gives it a try.

I think it appropriate that skeptics - in this case defenders of what has become orthodoxy and status quo - should be familiar with the crux of the orthodoxy they defend on the simple matter of the size of the ground state hydrogen atom.
I, personally, am not defending quantum mechanics. Rather, it's that Mills' efforts seem like a scam to me, and I find the evidence he's presented to be unconvincing.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.