A few exciting alternative energy prospects.

[Bignose]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193v2.pdf

hydrino

 

The paper as far as I know was conceived and written in Belgium and the Author has no association with Mills. If I am wrong I will try to find more.

If this is the best you got, I guess I am pretty mild to it. From the conclusions section:

 

"The model of the hydrogen atom considered here is not the most sophisticated one. The motion of the nucleus and the spins of election and of nucleus have been neglected. The electromagnetic field should be treated in second quantisation... As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state."

 

So...... in this simplified model, which the author knows isn't complete, a hydrino isn't explicitly rejected. Yay (he says sarcastically). Too bad there are the other 3 papers cited above that do show that it is explicitly rejected by the current models.

 

Again, I will agree that the models are not 100%, and that there is plenty more to learn. But, this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement here. And it certainly isn't the independent verification of his data that would really, really, bolster the case.

I find it interesting and the more I read about it the more real it looks.

I don't really know how you can say that with a straight face. The more I read about it, the worse it looks to me. Because of the lack of independent objective verification of the data.

[ACG52]

Mills is referenced in the second paragraph, and appears in the footnotes 8 times.

[barfbag]

@

ACG52,

Mills is referenced in the second paragraph, and appears in the footnotes 8 times.

 

 

Mills coined the term Hydrinos and it is based on his Theory, how would you expect otherwise?

 

I was asked to show a paper in favor of The Hydrino Theory. There are many, but I was also asked that it not be someone known to associate or sponsored by BLP in any form.

 

I did.

 

I am not surprised it did not melt preconceived notions, but that is merely one, while the majority of papers and experimental findings were not wanted by Bignose because they are too close to the author of the Theory.

 

@ Acg52 still,

While I appreciate people like Bignose at least considering the possibility, this statement seems extremely silly and I wish you had thought it through on your own first.

Edited July 28, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

Do you not see this

"majority of papers and experimental findings ... are too close to the author of the Theory."

as a problem?

 

There is no independent verification of the theory (one paper, full of holes, and not peer reviewed, doesn't change that).

On the other hand, there have been countless experiments on the behaviour of hydrogen in arc discharges and none of them has observed the hydrino.

 

How do you explain that?

[barfbag]

TERRY M. COPELAND, PhD. - In summary, BLP has successfully fabricated and tested CIHT cells capable of producing net electrical output up to 50 times that input to maintain the process. Some cells have produced steady power for over one month. The power generation is consistant with Dr. Mills theory of energy release resulting from hydrino formation. No other source of energy could be identified.

 

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandReport.pdf

resume

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandBio.pdf

B.S., University of Delaware

Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology age 62. Currently CEO of Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc.

 

@ JohnC,

 

The above is the type of thing you are asking us to ignore. (paper linked).

 

Note: THE ABOVE CONFIRMATION IS REGARDING HYDRINO THEORY. THEY ARE NO LONGER USING CIHT CELLS AS THE POWER SOURCE.

 

We know some new solar cells can convert 80% of the captured suns energy to steam (I was not going to say capture in that sentence, but people here attack like law students) , but if you look for supporting papers you likely will not find many.

 

Why?

 

Because nobody has heard of it. I bet 99.999% of people experimenting with hydrogen have never even heard of The Hydrino theory. Who here has heard of it before this thread?

 

So the few who have heard of it and examined it are obviously those asked to replicate or verify, etc.

 

Here are validations of the current invention you want us to ignore,

 

 

By applying a high current to solid fuels, BLP has achieved a breakthrough in power and power density. Using earth-abundant and eco-friendly chemicals, explosive power of millions of watts and astonishing tens of billions of watts per liter were demonstrated. Using existing components and technologies, systems could be engineered and built into very inexpensive commercial power generators that use H2O as fuel having 100 times the volumetric energy content of gasoline.

 

from

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyReport2.pdf

 

His resume and list of over 180 publications (no reputation there)

 

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyCV.pdf

and/or

 

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf

 

 

To summarize, in all cases excess energy was produced, ranging from 49% to 216%. I recommend that additional work be done to tighten this range, but most of all I recommend that a prototype device be constructed to prove that power can be extracted from this new solid fuel and that this prototype be a reliable and scalable means of electricity generation. Remember that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I gratefully acknowledge John Lotoski, James Trevey, and Jiliang He who carried out the experiments

during my visit. They were completely open with me and seemed quite competent.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Henry Weinber PhD

 

Here is his resume PhD Chemistry - Berkeley

(over 550 papers) and his list of awards/honors reads like a book.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergBio.pdf

 

Maybe you think his BS degree means something else.

 

Those are just two of many who have seen experimental validation of The Hydrino Theory. Both of whom have good reputations.

 

I provided their CV's..

 

You can choose to ignore whatever reading materials you like.

Edited July 28, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

From

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Copeland%20December%202012%20Report.pdf

"As reported in my May 28, 2012 validation study, on November 30th, I witnessed careful

assembly of three closed CIHT cells supplied with H2O vapor entrained in an inert (argon)
carrier gas as the only mass input. The cells were run under an intermittent electrolysis condition
to provide hydrogen at the anode and oxygen at the cathode. One test cell was comprised of a
pre-oxidized porous nickel cathode, LiOH-LiBr-MgO electrolyte, and a pressed porous nickel
anode. Two other test cells used a molybdenum (Mo) anode or a Mo alloy (Haynes 242). The
startup of the cells and data collection setup was also witnessed. Initial data indicated that all
three cells showed excess energy production during discharge compared to the energy input
during short charge pulses. "

which can be summed up by saying that nickel rusts.

 

"No readily recognized reaction is expected to occur at the electrodes or the electrolyte

that could produce the observed electrical energy."

Nope, like I said, there's perfectly plausible reaction that could be providing the electricity seen.

 

Especially when you see how little power they are talking about

"Albeit these first generation CIHT cells served as a proof of principle of the breakthrough new source of electricity, the power density was low, about 0.2 mW/cm2 and correspondingly, the cell power was low, about 2-3 mW."

 

Why do you provide resumes?

Got anything that's peer reviewed?

[Bignose]

<stuff>...resume...<more stuff>

None of this matters. I don't care about anyone's pedigree. If it was kindergartner or Albert Einstein saying it, I'd still want objective third-party verification of the data. Not someone's CV.

 

This is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Bignose

[barfbag]

@ JohnC,

Got anything that's peer reviewed?

 

 

Not yet. How many new inventions/discoveries have peer reviewed data and theories right off the hop.

 

@ Bignose,

 

Earlier it was argued (cannot recall post #) that the PhD's supporting this are new and they hold no reputations. This time I showed these people were respected PhD's and not someone who has just handed in their Thesis.

 

Logically no papers should exist about The Hydrino Theory because it is not widely known. In such instances we can either look at what is available or ignore any fringe topics (even the valid ones).

 

This is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

 

 

This is a speculative topic with no substantiation in any textbooks. Thus it cannot be proven by me by citing those textbooks.

 

Actually: Isn't any citation an appeal to authority? That is why the more citations the better.

 

I think experimental validations should be considered more like proof than belief. These people are not saying they believe, they are saying they have seen proof.

 

These citations were because the paper I linked at your request (one unrelated to Mills) was being pulled apart and it is suggested that it seems like the only source of information.

 

So again you and others are asking us to ignore everyone who has seen these devices work. How does that make sense?

 

If it was kindergartner or Albert Einstein saying it, I'd still want objective third-party verification of the data.

 

 

 

First: Nobody has said this is proven or even real. I have maintained it looks promising based on a lot of things some of which is the opinions of authorities.

 

Secondly: If your insistent upon third-party verifications then you really have no business even looking at speculative alternative energies or any fringe science because new discoveries are not always verified within the first six months (as this "product" is). You might as well be looking at ghost stories unless you want to apply common sense and investigative techniques that would include looking at motivations of those standing behind it.

 

As I said in my last post.

 

Ignore any reading materials you like.

 

@ John & Bignose,

 

Those were just three of many. There are completely independent verifications as well such as the Professor from University of Illinois.

 

I could easily list another dozen with equally impressive resumes, The resumes indicate reputation/and reflect knowledge and areas of expertise. I fail to see how they would not be important.

 

EXAMPLE: Bignose gave a sample paper discrediting Hydrinos. It could have been written by a Baker for all I know. I tried to find his credentials and I'm guessing he was some kind of Geologist or is invisible to google.

Why even bother reading it if their credentials are garbage?

 

If you refuse to entertain the results of those who have experimented with The Hydrino Theory then your only alternative is to wait 20 years and see if shows up in a college textbook.

 

You want peer review this quickly. That's funny.

 

If Alexander Graham Bell had gone for peer review instead of patenting and inventing the telephone then we probably never would have heard of him. He could have ended his career working for Starbucks.

Edited July 28, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

@ JohnC,

Not yet. How many new inventions/discoveries have peer reviewed data and theories right off the hop.

 

@ John & Bignose,

 

Those were just three of many. There are completely independent verifications as well such as the Professor from University of Illinois.

 

I could easily list another dozen with equally impressive resumes.

Firstly, plenty of inventions are based on peer reviewed stuff. essentially all the physics behind any new bit of electronics is well understood.

 

 

The new ideas are, at the outset, based on carefully designed experiments that present data that challenges the old model and requires a new one.

If Blacklight wanted to do that, they could- by simply opening the books. They already have the patents so they don't stand to lose a lot.

But they can't for some reason.

One possible reason is that they are bluffing.

 

You should have realised by now that the author's pedigree is, at best, a hint at their validity.

 

Rather than telling me that "I could easily list another dozen with equally impressive resumes." why not do what I actually asked an provide something from a peer reviewed journal?

[Bignose]

Actually: Isn't any citation an appeal to authority? That is why the more citations the better.

This is why the specific citation matters. A peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable journal carries some weight that the work has been looked over by many different people.

 

A well written paper will also have the method used to derive the formulas or the the experimental methodology used to gather the data. And allows anyone else to come along and replicate the results.

 

Don't get me wrong, a papers aren't perfect. But it is incomparably better than a resume.

 

There are completely independent verifications as well such as the Professor from University of Illinois.

I ask again, citation please. Where is this published?

[barfbag]

@ Bignose,

 

Okay. I will stop here. Obviously the arguments are getting sillier (by others from my view).

 

Let's look,

 

ask again, citation please. Where is this published?

 

 

You guys just finished admonishing me for giving citations along with accompanying Resumes and now you are asking me to post more?

 

@ John and Bignose,

 

Why not do what I actually asked an provide something from a peer reviewed journal?

 

 

(John likes to make me repeat everything so I will copy paste from my last post)

 

From the first half of my last post....

If your insistent upon third-party verifications then you really have no business even looking at speculative alternative energies or any fringe science because new discoveries are not always verified within the first six months (as this "product" is). You might as well be looking at ghost stories unless you want to apply common sense and investigative techniques that would include looking at motivations of those standing behind it.

 

 

from second half of my last post,

 

If you refuse to entertain the results of those who have experimented with The Hydrino Theory then your only alternative is to wait 20 years and see if shows up in a college textbook.

 

You want peer review this quickly. That's funny.

 

If Alexander Graham Bell had gone for peer review instead of patenting and inventing the telephone then we probably never would have heard of him. He could have ended his career working for Starbucks.

 

 

Anyways. Some here have made an effort to at least investigate this for themselves and may keep an eye on it. If it is true then it would be without a doubt the greatest discover of the century and worthy of Nobel Prizes and every accolade we could think of.

 

If you do not use your common sense and look at things like motivations of the inventor (who had no need of money prior to this, and became a medical doctor .. Why - so he could scam and harm people?), and those doing the verifications then you likely won't find anything until more peer reviewed papers are published, or wait until it is taught in grade schools..

 

A lot of Chemistry and Physics PhD's have staked their reputations saying they have witnessed The Hydrino Theory working (and experiments are highly detailed if you wish to replicate). You can ignore them all.

 

Ignore them. Ignore, Ignore. No skin off my nose.

 

Anyways. I'm done here. Ive already spent more time here than I wanted, but Bignose went to some trouble a few posts back to craft a long argument that deserved a response. Now they don't

Edited July 28, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

And, once again, if you read what I wrote...

 

If Blacklight wanted to do that, they could- by simply opening the books. They already have the patents so they don't stand to lose a lot.

 

 

Rather than telling me that "I could easily list another dozen with equally impressive resumes." why not do what I actually asked an provide something from a peer reviewed journal?

 

(John likes to make me repeat everything so I will copy paste from my last post)

 

 

Anyways. Some here have made an effort to at least investigate this for themselves and may keep an eye on it.

I have tried (briefly)but I couldn't find any valid reports- they were all unreviewed and generally written by people with a clear link to the company.

Edited July 28, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Bignose]

You guys just finished admonishing me for giving citations along with accompanying Resumes and now you are asking me to post more?

All I was asking was if there was any 3rd part independent verification in the literature. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

Otherwise, yes, the conservative nature of science is that it will not just believe "fringe science" at its word. Mainstream science will always ask for evidence.

 

This does indeed mean science has been "wrong" about some things. But in the end, all the things that have been eventually right have been supported by evidence. And when you have an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.

 

That's all anyone has really been asking here, barfbag. What independent objective verifications are out there? To date, it doesn't appear much of anything.

 

And that's ok. When something is cutting edge, that is not uncommon.

 

Just don't expect people to get super excited about it, support it, give it grant money, etc. Because it doesn't have evidence to support it. Science demands evidence. It is really that simple.

[John Cuthber]

Not many people would buy a used car without seeing it run.

They probably wouldn't buy it just because the owner (who has an interest in selling it) says it runs OK.

They probably still wouldn't buy it just because the sellers friend and his brother say it's OK.

 

Either they would find a trusted third party- someone from the AA perhaps- or they would want to test drive it themselves.

 

All we are asking for is the equivalent of that common-sense approach.

A review by someone truly independent (i.e. not paid by Blacklight)

Or, even better a chance to test it ourselves.

the last of those looks unrealistic but we can get part of the way there.

A proper write up in a journal will include the sort of questions we would ask if we were there ourselves.

 

If you can't do that, do you understand why we just won't buy this car?

Edited July 28, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Earlier it was argued (cannot recall post #) that the PhD's supporting this are new and they hold no reputations. This time I showed these people were respected PhD's and not someone who has just handed in their Thesis.

 

You totally miss the point. Again.

 

No one was saying they were not credible because they had no reputation (which would the inverse of appeal to authority) but that they had nothing much to lose by commenting on this stuff.

 

You want peer review this quickly. That's funny.

 

He has been banging on about this for decades. You would think that is time enough,

 

If Alexander Graham Bell had gone for peer review instead of patenting and inventing the telephone then we probably never would have heard of him.

 

Ignoring the fact he stole the idea when he was working in the patent office (allegedly).

 

Anyway, you can't patent a scientific theory, only an invention based on it.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Strange

[CharonY]

Not yet. How many new inventions/discoveries have peer reviewed data and theories right off the hop.

The vast majority of inventions are based on known principles or have to provide evidence if new claims are made (it is part of the process). In cases where it is contrary to existing scientific knowledge, significant amount of evidence is required.

[studiot]

 

Bignose

 

Mainstream science will always ask for evidence.

 

 

 

This is not favouritism. One practitioner of Mainstream science will (or should) also always ask for evidence from another as well as from others.