Physics Forums

Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Power source that turns physics on its head (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98326)

Human Being Nov4-05 10:45 AM

"Power source that turns physics on its head"
 
Welcome. I am curious about what you knowledgable folks here at PF think, regarding this current event. I searched for any threads which already regard the topic, but found only two with very limited discussion.

Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...627424,00.html

A meaty excerpt:

Quote:

Quote by Alok Jha, Guardian Unlimited science correspondent
What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy.

Here are some previous articles about Dr. Randell Mills, and the "hydrino".

Randell Mills: Hydrinos - http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm

Hydrogen is potential new energy resource - http://www.keelynet.com/energy/hydmills.htm

Harvard M.D.Challenges Big Bang Theory
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...er_000522.html

Hydrino Theorist Gets Nod From NASA-Funded Investigation
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/025...d,40444,1.html

Hydrino Study Group - http://www.hydrino.org

Before anyone mentions it, I will - the second link is a 1997 AP story dated April 1st. I don't know that this fact is relevant.

Lastly, here is a presentation (in PDF form) from the 2005 ACS Fall Meeting.

Catalysis of Atomic Hydrogen to Novel Hydrides as a New Power Source
http://www.blacklightpower.com/prese...005%20Fuel.pdf

So... what do y'all think about Dr. Randell Mills and/or hydrinos?

ZapperZ Nov4-05 10:52 AM

This hydro stuff is SO OLD, I'm surprised this is a news. And the fact that it's been around that long and STILL, nothing has been produced, should say something.

I'm sending this to S&D.

Zz.

ZapperZ Nov4-05 10:58 AM

.. and here are a few references from Bob Park regarding this hoax, who has followed this from its very inception.

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN00/wn102700.html
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn062102.html
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html

.. and more if anyone cares to read his column.

Zz.

Human Being Nov4-05 04:11 PM

Quote:

Quote by ZapperZ
This hydro stuff is SO OLD, I'm surprised this is a news. And the fact that it's been around that long and STILL, nothing has been produced, should say something.

"SO OLD"? Are you being serious? How long is 25 years compared to, say, centuries? Forgive me, but your statement's just a "little" dogmatic. Should I list some examples of scientific research that took far longer than 25 years to "produce"? I sense you committing a logical fallacy based on the "authority of time", for lack of better terms.

The links you provided are nothing more than terse commentary regarding a single person's opinion. Far from an "ironclad debunking", which is what you seem to imply those links entail. Perhaps I should say that since this hydro stuff is so old, you should have been able to provide far more convincing evidence against it than you have. That would say something, too...

I agree that you have appropriately moved this thread - that is not an issue.

If hydrinos and Randell Mills are "so old", then why did my searches reveal virtually no discussion at PF? If you pointed me to other threads here in which either were debated at length, I could appreciate that type of assistance. To point me in the direction of "hoax", without sufficient "proof", gives the appearance of dogmaticism.

Forgive me if I seem put off. I hope that someone out there in PF land will choose to spend some time on a response to my initial post. Maybe we all have better things to do, but I'd like to believe that there's better evidence *either* for or against Mills' work, than has been presented thus far.

russ_watters Nov4-05 05:15 PM

Quote:

Quote by Human Being
"SO OLD"? Are you being serious? How long is 25 years compared to, say, centuries? Forgive me, but your statement's just a "little" dogmatic.

For an outright hoax, that is quite a while.
Quote:

Should I list some examples of scientific research that took far longer than 25 years to "produce"?
No need. They wouldn't be relevant comparisons to a hoax.
Quote:

I sense you committing a logical fallacy based on the "authority of time", for lack of better terms.
No, he was just expressing surprise. That wasn't his argument. What is important about that 25 years is that this hoax has been debunked many, many times - including with public humiliation - in those 25 years. It is surprising, the gullibility of a "science correspondent", that allows this guy to lay-low for a few years until people forget that he's a crackpot, then resurface with exactly the same claim that he had before. Did this reporter even care enough to google it?
Quote:

The links you provided are nothing more than terse commentary regarding a single person's opinion. Far from an "ironclad debunking", which is what you seem to imply those links entail.
That one person happens to be the spokesperson for the APS. He speaks for them.
Quote:

Forgive me if I seem put off. I hope that someone out there in PF land will choose to spend some time on a response to my initial post.
What do you want? This is a pretty obvious hoax, with a very simple flaw.

I don't know how many perpetual motion hoax articles you've read, but they are so alike, they are practically form letters. Just fill-in the blanks for the appropriate hoaxster, random "expert" who supports it, and the name of the hoax. Everything else is the same.

edit: One quote in the article was particularly funny:
Quote:

According to Prof Maas, the first product built with Blacklight's technology, which will be available in as little as four years, will be a household heater.
Of course! The great thing about electric heaters is that they are all 100% efficient. If I could find a way to convince people to buy an overly complicated, needlessly expensive heater that works exactly the same as every other one in existence, I'd probably do it to!

chroot Nov4-05 05:28 PM

Quote:

Quote by Human Being
How long is 25 years compared to, say, centuries?

Well, I'm not good with dates, but I believe 25 years is about a quarter of a century.

- Warren

russ_watters Nov4-05 05:46 PM

Now, just where the heck have you been, mister?

Pengwuino Nov4-05 06:53 PM

Quote:

Quote by chroot
Well, I'm not good with dates, but I believe 25 years is about a quarter of a century.
- Warren

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And really, how many things haven taken centuries to show results? I don't think they had plans for IC engines back in the 1300's and im pretty sure NASA and its rocket program isnt older then the United states. I mean really, when this kinda stuff comes out, it normally gets put into real things with real results somewhat quickly. Now the time it takes for these kinda things to reach economical/practical levels is another story.

Astronuc Nov6-05 08:18 PM

Now here is a bold claim:

Quote:

Dr. Mills unifies the theories of Bohr, de Broglie, Maxwell, Einstein, Newton, etc. via a new insight into the nature of the atom. Mills takes advantage of a 1986 Herman Haus paper that explains how charged particles may undergo acceleration without radiation. He then applies the mathematics of this insight into a new analysis of the hydrogen atom. His new model treats the electron, not as a point nor as a probability wave, but as a dynamic two-dimensional spherical shell surrounding the nucleus. The resulting model, called the "orbitsphere", provides a fully classical physical explanation for phenomena such as

1. Quantization
2. Angular momentum
3. Bohr magneton

Essentially, the electron orbitsphere is a "dynamic spherical resonator cavity" that traps photons of discrete frequencies. Broader implications of GUT-CQM include the possibility of catalytically shrinking the hydrogen atom to below "ground" state, releasing useful energy in the process. Unification of the electron orbitsphere radius formula with General Relativity (GR) provides a quantum explanation for gravity as well. This leads to a novel explanation for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the cosmos.
Quote:

This entire theory makes one central but tenuous assumption that the free electron is an extended, internally fluidized, two-dimensional "disk" particle with a radius comparable to that of a hydrogen atom. We are looking for experimental evidence to corroborate or refute this assumption. An inarguable refutation would destroy the entire theory, although the laboratory data may still require new physics to explain. Otherwise, the theory remains arguably true to some degree.
:rofl:

In the absence of evidence, it's somewhat true? :uhh: :rolleyes: :biggrin:

Pengwuino Nov6-05 08:40 PM

"arguably true to some degree"

well im almost kinda somewhat thinking about nearly being convinced

Human Being Nov7-05 10:18 AM

Quote:

Quote by Astronuc
In the absence of evidence, it's somewhat true?

Isn't that how mainstream science already works?

For example, suppression of evidence gathered by Deep Impact... IS 'absence'.
Thus, mainstream scientists can continue parroting the "dirty snowball" theory.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...redictions.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...impression.htm

And... http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ctx.htm#Comets

Look, I understand that there ARE such things as hoaxes. YET... I understand
also that sometimes, mainstream scientists will look away from data that calls
into question certain theories. Big Bang & Dirty Snowball are but 2 examples...
Sure, it's difficult to know what's "viable" science versus what isn't, especially
when the economics/politics of mainstream scientists, and who they work for,
becomes more important than dealing honestly with any and all data collected
experimentally. I guess time will have to pass before anything really changes!!

ZapperZ Nov7-05 11:48 AM

Quote:

Quote by Human Being
Isn't that how mainstream science already works?

No it isn't.

Quote:

For example, suppression of evidence gathered by Deep Impact... IS 'absence'.
Thus, mainstream scientists can continue parroting the "dirty snowball" theory.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...redictions.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...impression.htm

And... http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ctx.htm#Comets

Look, I understand that there ARE such things as hoaxes. YET... I understand
also that sometimes, mainstream scientists will look away from data that calls
into question certain theories. Big Bang & Dirty Snowball are but 2 examples...
Sure, it's difficult to know what's "viable" science versus what isn't, especially
when the economics/politics of mainstream scientists, and who they work for,
becomes more important than dealing honestly with any and all data collected
experimentally. I guess time will have to pass before anything really changes!!
How are you able to make blatant judgements on how or what "mainstream scientists" do? How many scientific conferences have you attended? How often do you interact with "mainstream scientists" to know what goes on and how things are worked out?

And since WHEN are things surpressed when they don't match with things we already know? Should I cite to you high-Tc superconductors, CP-violation, fractional quantum Hall effect, etc... etc.? Or are you completely ignorant about the ground-breaking, earth-shattering, myth-destroying impact those had on physics? Yet, none of these things got "surpressed".

You have a very jaundice view of how science is practiced. I seriously question whether you have enough information to draw up an accurate conclusion. If this is how you judge things, no wonder you are so hyper in trying to champion flimsy pseudoscience such as this.

Zz.

rpg Nov9-05 03:21 AM

Quote:
'I seriously question whether you have enough information to draw up an accurate conclusion. If this is how you judge things, no wonder you are so hyper in trying to champion flimsy pseudoscience such as this.'

ZapperZ, Do you have enough information to draw a conclusion then? Yesterday I spent some time to really investigate this 'hoax', but if it is a hoax it is a damned good one. This guy, really published several articles and what I read about them was not just crap, and I know enough about quantum mechanics to say this. First he has got a theory. What I saw he uses a different Schrodinger like equation to calculate wave functions. From only a theory you can never say if it is wrong I think, unless the equations are really flaw, which I do not believe. What was really convincing me is that I also saw a lot of experimental proof as well, and that is what really proofs a theory in the end. I saw graphs with emission spectra with peaks at points that were impossible to come from normal hydrogen states. This really looks more promising then the Pons and Fleischman cold 'fusion' experiments. I am a really sceptic guy as well but this feels a bit different to me. Let's just hope we have new physics here. You can never rule that out.

ZapperZ Nov9-05 03:48 AM

Quote:

Quote by rpg
Quote:
'I seriously question whether you have enough information to draw up an accurate conclusion. If this is how you judge things, no wonder you are so hyper in trying to champion flimsy pseudoscience such as this.'
ZapperZ, Do you have enough information to draw a conclusion then? Yesterday I spent some time to really investigate this 'hoax', but if it is a hoax it is a damned good one. This guy, really published several articles and what I read about them was not just crap, and I know enough about quantum mechanics to say this. First he has got a theory. What I saw he uses a different Schrodinger like equation to calculate wave functions. From only a theory you can never say if it is wrong I think, unless the equations are really flaw, which I do not believe. What was really convincing me is that I also saw a lot of experimental proof as well, and that is what really proofs a theory in the end. I saw graphs with emission spectra with peaks at points that were impossible to come from normal hydrogen states. This really looks more promising then the Pons and Fleischman cold 'fusion' experiments. I am a really sceptic guy as well but this feels a bit different to me. Let's just hope we have new physics here. You can never rule that out.

I have followed this thing since it first broke in the 90's. As a graduate student back then, I relied on others with more expertise to evaluate the validity of the claim - and it IS still a claim with no experimental verification, I might add, after ALL these years. I did not trust my grasp of the content of Mills papers at that time.

But what turned this into a spectacle was when he threatened to SUE all the physicists that actually wrote rebuttals that contradicted and challenged the validity of this work. This is unheard of in academic circles where scientists challenge and question the work of others routinely. To add to that, the US Patent Office denied one of his patent application and open a review of an earlier patent that was awarded.

The thing about physics is this - as years progress, if something is valid, you tend to know more and more about it. The ultimate understand of it may take a long time, but along the way, you get more snippets of what that thing is. You learn more about it, you get more experimental verification of certain aspects of it, etc. In other words, Mother Nature will keep throwing more clues at you as you continue to try to understand and verify it. We see this VERY often in very difficult and complex systems - high Tc superconductors are prime examples.

Now look at this hydrino, and even the Podkletnov effect. There isn't a progress at all towards either the understanding or the verification of such claims, after all these years and after all the money being poured in. I have heard of no other independent groups that is even seriously looking at the hydrino. It is THAT discredited. Even the Podkletnov effect does not suffer from such shame - NASA and the University of Alabama actually did seriously studied it.

Unfortunately, whenever I point this out, people start claiming that physicists are closed minded and don't want to rattle their understanding. This is of course a bogus claim. By the nature of our profession, we ARE hired to study things that are new, unverified, have no current explanation, etc. We are never hired to do things that we already know.

There are tons of theoretical ideas being published each month in various physics journals. One only needs to skim through all of the Physical Review collection to be convinced of this. Many do not lead to anything. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is only the first, minimal step in being taken seriously with respect to conveying one's ideas or discovery. It is NOT a guarantee that one has made a valid and verified contribution to the body of knowledge. I would suggest you look at the citation for all of Mills papers and see where they lead to see for yourself if his work has been addressed and considered as valid.

Zz.

dgoodpasture2005 Nov9-05 05:19 AM

Many mainstream physicists and scientists are biased and close minded about new technologies and theories. They remind me of hiring a pastor or a priest to investigate alien claims... well 9/10 of them will calim they don't exist before even gaining evidence because the Bible doesn't say so.

Hdeasy Nov9-05 06:22 AM

Experimental evidence accumulating repudiates dogmatic rejection
 
Quote:

Quote by ZapperZ
I have followed this thing since it first broke in the 90's. As a graduate student back then, I relied on others with more expertise to evaluate the validity of the claim - and it IS still a claim with no experimental verification, I might add, after ALL these years. I did not trust my grasp of the content of Mills papers at that time.
But what turned this into a spectacle was when he threatened to SUE all the physicists that actually wrote rebuttals that contradicted and challenged the validity of this work. This is unheard of in academic circles where scientists challenge and question the work of others routinely. To add to that, the US Patent Office denied one of his patent application and open a review of an earlier patent that was awarded.
The thing about physics is this - as years progress, if something is valid, you tend to know more and more about it. The ultimate understand of it may take a long time, but along the way, you get more snippets of what that thing is. You learn more about it, you get more experimental verification of certain aspects of it, etc. In other words, Mother Nature will keep throwing more clues at you as you continue to try to understand and verify it. We see this VERY often in very difficult and complex systems - high Tc superconductors are prime examples.
Now look at this hydrino, and even the Podkletnov effect. There isn't a progress at all towards either the understanding or the verification of such claims, after all these years and after all the money being poured in. I have heard of no other independent groups that is even seriously looking at the hydrino. It is THAT discredited. Even the Podkletnov effect does not suffer from such shame - NASA and the University of Alabama actually did seriously studied it.
Unfortunately, whenever I point this out, people start claiming that physicists are closed minded and don't want to rattle their understanding. This is of course a bogus claim. By the nature of our profession, we ARE hired to study things that are new, unverified, have no current explanation, etc. We are never hired to do things that we already know.
There are tons of theoretical ideas being published each month in various physics journals. One only needs to skim through all of the Physical Review collection to be convinced of this. Many do not lead to anything. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is only the first, minimal step in being taken seriously with respect to conveying one's ideas or discovery. It is NOT a guarantee that one has made a valid and verified contribution to the body of knowledge. I would suggest you look at the citation for all of Mills papers and see where they lead to see for yourself if his work has been addressed and considered as valid.
Zz.

I too am a physicist who has been following this since the 1990's but my conclusion has been rather different. You can't really compare Hydrinos with Podkletnov, as the latter never really reproduced his effect. But the point of being around many ryears in Mills' case is that a growing body of independent verification has built up. That started when differnt universites tested his set-up and overwhelmingly confirmed an effect of some sort. The last and most prominent of these was Marchese's Blacklight Rocket study for NASA. This study, only funded up to Phase 1, got as far as building a test BL Rocket which essentially worked - apart from the exhaust directionality problem. They also confirmed excess heat. In the last 2 years Mills' group of physicists at blacklight have published several peer reviewed experimental results papers in prestigious mainline physics and chemistry journals where they present spectroscopic evidence of inverse Lyman and Balmer series. Thus there is indeed, aginst the odds of being pilloried by Parks and his ilk, a growing body of evidence for an effect. That says nothing about the theory - theough there are those who say the Wheeler DeWitt equation allows fractional quantum numbers for the Hydrogen atom.

Ciao,
Hugh Deasy

Hdeasy Nov9-05 09:23 AM

Other groups HAVE reproduced the effect
 
Quote:

Quote by ZapperZ
I have followed this thing since it first broke in the 90's. As a graduate student back then, I relied on others with more expertise to evaluate the validity of the claim - and it IS still a claim with no experimental verification, I might add, after ALL these years. I did not trust my grasp of the content of Mills papers at that time.
<snip> The thing about physics is this - as years progress, if something is valid, you tend to know more and more about it. The ultimate understand of it may take a long time, but along the way, you get more snippets of what that thing is. You learn more about it, you get more experimental verification of certain aspects of it, etc. In other words, Mother Nature will keep throwing more clues at you as you continue to try to understand and verify it. We see this VERY often in very difficult and complex systems - high Tc superconductors are prime examples.
Now look at this hydrino, and even the Podkletnov effect. There isn't a progress at all towards either the understanding or the verification of such claims, after all these years and after all the money being poured in. I have heard of no other independent groups that is even seriously looking at the hydrino. It is THAT discredited. Even the Podkletnov effect does not suffer from such shame - NASA and the University of Alabama actually did seriously studied it.
Zz.

I too am a physicist following this since 90's . But I think wrong to imply that other groups have not reproduced Mills' results - in his introduction, Rathke of ESTEC advanced concepts at least states that the experimental evidence is good - http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2...jp5_1_127.html he himself refers to the NASA Blacklight Rocket study - whose conclusions were positive and supported excess heat and a potential rocket effect. Let's hope NASA now funds Phase II - refining the rocket and further investigation of the process. That is beeter than for Podkletnov. Back to Rathke:

"4. Conclusion

In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. 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, with the properties currently attributed to them. 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. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al , it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups."

Also other universities have reproduced Mills stuff - some mention of it here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/995...d,11218,1.html
The BL site used to list the universities that had studied it, but nowadays they figure the peer reviewed papers are better, though those only refer to their own work and maybe that of Marchese. Ahhh - here is one of old lab reports from Penn State uni etc. http://www.hydrino.org/labreports.php - pretty cool stuff.

Y'know, google searches used to throw up only a few hits - this hydrino study group, the Vilage Voice articles and the BL site itself and one or two others. By comparison, the spin-off from the Guardian article has been an explosion of hits on the web. Apparenetly the beeb also did a bit on Hydrinos a few days ago: http://www.focusmag.co.uk/cover.asp

Hugh Deasy

russ_watters Nov9-05 10:57 AM

Quote:

Quote by Hdeasy
Rathke of ESTEC advanced concepts at least states that the experimental evidence is good - http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2...jp5_1_127.html he himself refers to the NASA Blacklight Rocket study - whose conclusions were positive and supported excess heat and a potential rocket effect.

Actually, he does not say (in that link, anyway) that the conclusions of NASA were positive - probably because they weren't! The conclusion of the original study was "inconclusive". http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn062102.html
Quote:

Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al , it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups."
Also other universities have reproduced Mills stuff - some mention of it here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/995...d,11218,1.html
The BL site used to list the universities that had studied it, but nowadays they figure the peer reviewed papers are better, though those only refer to their own work and maybe that of Marchese. Ahhh - here is one of old lab reports from Penn State uni etc. http://www.hydrino.org/labreports.php - pretty cool stuff.
That's just it - "The Hydrino Study Group" - which crank.net calls a 'hydrino fan club' is not a reliable source and a few studies that showed anomalous energy doesn't give you the big picture if others studied it and found nothing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums