Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

More on Hydrinos - NASA BL study, etc.

  1. Nov 14, 2005 #1
    Originally Posted 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.
    Reply by russ_watters
    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 [Broken]
    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 [Broken]
    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 [Broken] - pretty cool stuff.
    Reply by russ_watters
    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.
    Ripost by Hdeasy:
    Actually the NASA Blacklight Rocket was rather upbeat in its conclusions. To quote Marchese's final report, : -
    "Based on the quantitative results of the plasma experiments and the qualitative results obtained to date on the BLPT and BLMPT test firings, the team believes that Phase II funding is justified to continue this work"
    "Summary of Experimental Evaluation:
    The spectroscopic and calorimeter data discussed above suggests that there does indeed appear to be something unique about certain low pressure mixed gas H2 plasmas. For example, if one considers the line broadening results described above, the evidence is growing that low pressure mixed gas hydrogen plasmas can be created in which the hydrogen atoms have extremely high random translational velocity as demonstrated by the extreme levels of Doppler line broadening."
    "For the experiments performed as part of this study, the microwave discharge gas cell was submerged in the calorimeter as shown in Figure 25b and operated with H2/He mixtures, H2O vapor and a variety control gases including N2, Kr and H2/Kr mixtures. In each case, prior to submerging the gas cell, the Evenson cavity was tuned so that the microwave power supply read 70 W forward power and 16 W reflected power, as indicated by its uncalibrated power diode meters. After submerging the system in the water bath calorimeter, the temperature of the water bath was accurately measured as a function of time and the heat transfer rate was calculated to within approximately 1 W. Figure 25a shows a typical result, in which for the same operating conditions, the heat transfer rate for the control gas plasma was < 40 W, while the heat transfer rate for the H2/catalyst was between 55 and 62 W. The results shown in Fig. 25a compare the heat transfer rate for an H2O vapor plasma vs. a krypton control gas plasma, both maintained at 0.200 Torr. As shown, the measured heat transfer rate was 62.7 W for the H2O plasma and 39.8 W for the Kr plasma. Mills and coworkers (2002f) interpret the power measured by the water bath using several control gas plasmas (39.8 ± 1W in each case) as the true microwave power delivered by the microwave source and the difference between the control power and the H2/catalyst power (in this case 22.9 ± 1W) as "excess power" associated with the BlackLight process. In a variety of experiments performed as part of the Phase I study, there was indeed a clear, repeatable difference (approximately 20 W) between measured power corresponding to water bath heating rates for control gases vs. H2/catalyst gases. It is difficult to explain how (under the same microwave power input conditions) control gases and control gas/H2 mixtures only produce approximately 40 W of heating, while H2/catalyst mixtures such as H2O, H2/He, H2/Ar mixtures, etc. consistently produce 55 to 62 W. Additional studies are required to rule out all other possible explanations other than excess power for these observations."
    If the university groups listed by Hydrino.org were positive, you wonder if there are studies that showed a negative result? Maybe there were - why don't we know about them, then? And if they exist, do they really cancel the results of the positive studies?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Because a crackpot isn't going to admit to being a crackpot.
  4. Nov 15, 2005 #3
    Last resort of a lack of counter-argument - name calling

    Mills may be a bit silly in his reactionary rejection of QM, but stupid is he not. His medical patents already show that, in the field of cancer therapy etc. He may have started looking for hydrino effects and found the right effects for the wrong reasons. Some researchers just have a nose for the right hunch. So he struck lucky with results but dished up slop as theory. Tough. Dosen't alter the integrity of the results. So I repeat - if there is a 'file-drawer' then out with it!
    Note again that even Rathke, quoted everywhere as Mills' nemesis, acknowledged the wealth of experimental verifiication in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect that as theory we will ultimately have a wrinkle on the standard QM - probably using a Wheeler-deWitt type approach.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook