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

Power source that turns physics on its head

  1. Nov 4, 2005 #1
    "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

    A meaty excerpt:

    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

    Hydrino Theorist Gets Nod From NASA-Funded Investigation

    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/presentations/ACS Meeting Fall 2005 Fuel.pdf

    So... what do y'all think about Dr. Randell Mills and/or hydrinos?
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 4, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.

  4. Nov 4, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

  5. Nov 4, 2005 #4
    "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.
  6. Nov 4, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For an outright hoax, that is quite a while.
    No need. They wouldn't be relevant comparisons to a hoax.
    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?
    That one person happens to be the spokesperson for the APS. He speaks for them.
    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:
    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!
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2005
  7. Nov 4, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    - Warren
  8. Nov 4, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Now, just where the heck have you been, mister?
  9. Nov 4, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :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.
  10. Nov 6, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Now here is a bold claim:


    In the absence of evidence, it's somewhat true? :uhh: :rolleyes: :biggrin:
  11. Nov 6, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "arguably true to some degree"

    well im almost kinda somewhat thinking about nearly being convinced
  12. Nov 7, 2005 #11
    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.


    And... http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00subjectx.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!!
  13. Nov 7, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    No it isn't.

    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.

  14. Nov 9, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    '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.
  15. Nov 9, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.

  16. Nov 9, 2005 #15
    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.
  17. Nov 9, 2005 #16
    Experimental evidence accumulating repudiates dogmatic rejection

    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.

    Hugh Deasy
  18. Nov 9, 2005 #17
    Other groups HAVE reproduced the effect

    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/1367-2630/7/1/127/njp5_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/9951,baard,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
  19. Nov 9, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
    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.
  20. Nov 9, 2005 #19

    Do not pick on the source; address specific passages in the text.
    Do not pretend that today's PTB have changed from yesterday's.
    Do not pretend that scientists aren't below being "underhanded".

    Petroleum and Drugs are paramount to the American way of life.
    Research that jeopardizes the massive profits of those markets,
    regardless of supporting evidence, can be and often is "killed"...

    Remember the golden rule? Those who fund mainstream science
    have the gold and thus they like to make the rules. Which have
    it better: those stuck in the paradigm, or those forced outside?

    Glad to see that some people ARE willing to examine Mills' work.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2005
  21. Nov 9, 2005 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The source is everything in this case. Do you have any good sources to back up any of this? And I don't mean the accepted physics, I mean proof of the "other" equations.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar Discussions: Power source that turns physics on its head
  1. Its the Physics! (Replies: 7)