Another bumsteer or?

[Franklin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

 

It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.

 

Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.

[Severian]

It is interesting, especially if it has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Irrespective of his dodgy maths, the energy must be coming from somewhere, and it may well be that that 'somewhere' is a viable energy source. I suspect his calculations (and model) are wrong, but it is possible that the energy is coming from somewhere else. Could there be a topological solution to the QM equations which we have missed, for example?

 

On the other hand, his experimental set-up might be rubbish and the energy is really being input into the system from elsewhere....

[Franklin]

It would be nice to see the oil companies squirm for a change,eh.Personally I can't see it happening as all of us have heard of free energy claims and they have been disproved.

And then we have the problem of turning physics and quanta on it's head.Be nice if there's any truth in it.

[Severian]

I was alos a bit confused about his energy levels. He is claiming that there is a lower energy orbit for the hydrogen attom's electron which no-one has noticed before, but if this is true, why would the electrons in normal hydrongen not fall down to this lower level naturally?

[Franklin]

Been googling and found a coupla sites including this http://www.blacklightpower.com/

[swansont]

Blacklight power? It's bunk. "Hydrinos" having the electron drop to a level "below the ground state"

 

I ran across their stuff some years ago. The claimed to have measured power given off in a reaction, but never gave details to show that it was any different than what you'd expect from the exothermic chemical reactions involved. They never compared anything with a prediction.

 

edit to add: Oh, and the Guardian article is typical scientific journalism - i.e. poor quality. Makes it sound like it's a 50-50 proposition, instead of the "put up or shut up" nature of scence. Data talks, and claims have to be substantiated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[BhavinB]

Blacklight power? It's bunk. "Hydrinos" having the electron drop to a level "below the ground state"

 

I ran across their stuff some years ago. The claimed to have measured power given off in a reaction' date=' but never gave details to show that it was any different than what you'd expect from the exothermic chemical reactions involved. They never compared anything with a prediction.

 

edit to add: Oh, and the Guardian article is typical scientific journalism - i.e. poor quality. Makes it sound like it's a 50-50 proposition, instead of the "put up or shut up" nature of scence. Data talks, and claims have to be substantiated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.[/quote']

 

Reading a bunching of sources talking about this "hydrino power", some invited scientists say they don't believe his theory but cannot deny the results from experiments he shows them, along with these "hydrino crystals". If there really is some energy released in his experiment, there is no way it disproves QM. However, a better explanation than "QM is wrong" would need to be found.

[swansont]

From ArXiv A critical analysis of the hydrino model

 

"We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states"

 

(CQM = classical quantum mechanics, the "science" of Dr. Mills)

[bascule]

From ArXiv A critical analysis of the hydrino model

 

"We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom' date=' and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states"[/i']

 

(CQM = classical quantum mechanics, the "science" of Dr. Mills)

 

Not that I think these Blacklight Power people are anything but crackpots, but I thought I should point this out. (and please don't respond with "search the forums" because this is the only thread that seems to have anything definitive. I found it using the search feature)

 

Authors: Andreas Rathke

Journal-ref: New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505150

 

Well, the guy responded:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

 

Dr Mills's theory, known as classical quantum mechanics and published in the journal Physics Essays in 2003, has been criticised most publicly by Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency. In a damning critique published recently in the New Journal of Physics, he argued that Dr Mills's theory was the result of mathematical mistakes.

 

Dr Mills argues that there are plenty of flaws in Dr Rathke's critique. "His paper's riddled with mistakes. We've had other physicists contact him and say this is embarrassing to the journal and [Dr Rathke] won't respond," said Dr Mills.

 

Not that this constitutes anything, but I'd like another source debunking this guy if possible...