What is Digg?73 Comments
- niccha, on 12/12/2008, -1/+28Oh man, I'd love it if this is true, but, being the skeptical sonofabitch that I am, I'll believe it when I see it.
- inactive, on 12/12/2008, -0/+21I have some powdered water for sale. just add water and mix!
- samoan27, on 12/12/2008, -2/+20Not sure what a Hydrino is but here's a few things:
1. The possible positions of an electron is determined by standing waves, the ground state of hydrogen is by definition the 'fundamental frequency' if you will of these wave states. It cannot be lower and stable for any amount of time.
2. Even if there was some possible way to alter hydrogen, and perhaps it's just a chemical reaction (again I'm not familiar with Hydrinos), you cannot start with a substance, extract energy from it, and expect it to remain. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Now I'm all for the abolishment of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, if someone wants to build an energy generator utilizing Maxwell's Demon I'd be all ears (skeptical ears, but not immediately dismissive). I may not have a Ph.D but apparently I know more fundamental physics than the dozen working at Blacklight Power. - autorock, on 12/12/2008, -0/+18I'm so tired of hearing about this company. Basically this same press release/article comes up on the web every couple of years. Every time it resurfaces, the progress made by the company is at the same place: absolutely nowhere. Enough white papers: Deliver the goods or die already.
- carlosjhr64, on 12/12/2008, -3/+19Hydrino, a hydrogen atom with a lower energy state than ground state? In violation of Q&M? You can't pack an electron any tighter and not run into the momentum/position uncertainty violations... it would take energy to pack the electron closer than ground state. Bury!
- Angaino, on 12/12/2008, -0/+16Hydrinos violate quantum mechanics. To account for this the founder of the company (Randell Mills, MD) proposes classical quantum mechanics, which is described in his 1000 page book "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics", which according to Aaron Barth, PhD, Astronomy from UC Berkley, said that "What he found initially were "mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts. This has been the object of a great deal of discussion from Mills's Hydrino Study Group. Mills seems not to understand what the fuss is all about." (from Wikipedia page on 'Hydrino'). Furthermore, no one has claimed to observe evidence of a hydrino who is not associated with Mills (i.e. the only ones to see it will profit from it monetarily, no independent researcher has seen it). This is, like so many other free energy claims, BS. Please stop digging anything that gives energy for nothing. It gives these creeps more attention so that they can do more of a money grab from people who don't know any better.
If this stuff were valid and actually overturned quantum mechanics, it would be winning him a Nobel Prize (really, no exaggeration, it would), not getting him little contracts and getting published in obscure physics journals. - arid, on 12/12/2008, -0/+12I sucked at physics, but this just doesn't sound right.
- chosenone1, on 12/12/2008, -0/+10Blacklight is old. They've had this same claim since 2001. Nothing has happened yet....I wonder why.
I've researched enough to know that they are less than worthy of any attention.
This guy has been peer-reviewed by many and him and his team's research was found to have more errors to
count. Many investors have been dooped by this company. I think that's enough said. - Ac1dburn, on 12/12/2008, -3/+12I don't know about this one. It would be really cool, but I don't see it working at least not right now
- Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -1/+10Bury him down, idiots. The guy's right. Mills' supposed hydrino theory is based on a solution to a differential equation that isn't even remotely correct. Mills is a quack who can't even do basic math. Anyone that has a real education can read Rathke's paper on the matter and see that.
- pitchblack16, on 12/12/2008, -1/+10making progress and claims, either one does not make it proven. Keep workin at it boys.
- seeversjm, on 12/12/2008, -0/+8So do you think when whoever thought of the bong that a blacklight popped up over his head? - Mitch Hedburg -
- Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -1/+8"Mills theory says that 80 years ago Bohr got it wrong"
Between Bohr and a guy that can't solve a differential equation right, I'll trust Bohr. - Modestexcuse, on 12/12/2008, -1/+7Hydrino Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino
I'm very skeptical. We see new ways of "making" energy weekly on here. - zarex, on 12/12/2008, -1/+6Enough with this nonsense. This is a BS scam, pure and simple. Why do people cling to hope so much with this crap?
- Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -1/+6Randall Mills can't even solve a basic differential equation without ***** it up. Mills is an idiot and a quack, and people need to stop giving him and his fraud free press. The guy's work has failed peer review every time it's been tested independently, and to justify his work, he had to create a new theory of quantum mechanics. He's as bad a "scientist" as they come. Hell, the idiot's patents on his supposed energy process even got revoked because they were found to have no scientific merit whatsoever, a move that's almost unheard of.
- halfdeadcat, on 12/12/2008, -0/+5I love free energy bunk. I've been following Black Light Power since '97. They claimed perpetually that they are one year from a comercial product. I'm not sure how they have managed to garner the press coverage of the last year or so.
- davidg11, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4I agree. I remember these claims from 2000-2001.
If they had it, surely it would have not taken 8 years to produce.
C'mon CNET...wise up. Or at least do a google search. - Locupleto, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4I saw a similar story about this company several months ago.
- MpVpRb, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4It's amazing that people actually fund this stuff.
It's even more amazing that reporters report on it.
Looks like everybody wants a miracle, even if it violates the laws of physics. - hlehmann, on 12/12/2008, -1/+5They're making progress... All they need is a few more suckers, I mean investors, to give up some cash. But they're getting closer all the time, promise.
- Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -1/+5"... and yet he has produced results verified by others."
Only when Mills won't let them look at what's inside his equipment. When people were actually allowed to look into his stuff, a la the NASA tests, his power source failed independent review.
"And his theory accurately predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe before it was observed."
Oh, I'd really love to see proof of that claim. - lalalalamppost, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4Paging Pons and Fleischmann ....
- davidg11, on 12/12/2008, -0/+3This is almost as newsworthy as MIT coming out with some energy breakthrough every 3 months. And yet it never materializes.
Alert the masses when you have something Blacklight OR MIT. Not "by 2011 we expect...yadda yadda yadda".
I expect to be a multi-milllionaire by 2011. Maybe it will happen. Maybe it won't. But I'll tell you now that I expect to be one. - Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -2/+5"I'm not an expert but according to the article the energy comes from a solid fuel in the form of nickel."
FTA: The company has developed a reactor that uses a solid fuel--a form of nickel called Raney nickel--that starts a chemical reaction that brings a hydrogen's electron closer its nucleus, releasing energy, he explained.
So, the basis for his ***** energy process is his supposed hydrinos, not nickle.
"Look, just because someone thinks outside the box and is considered a crack pot doesn't mean he won't be successful."
There's thinking outside the box, and then there's creating a process that you have to invent a whole new theory of quantum mechanics to prove, despite the fact that quantum mechanics is an extremely well proven theory. That's not thinking outside the box, that's just pure quackery.
"Just because something challenges your perception of possible doesn't mean it isn't. "
Just because some quack says he has a new form of magic free power, doesn't mean he has it. The guy has failed independent review time and time again. He's a quack. - Mothrog, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3"Einstein sucked at math, too."
http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html
No, he didn't. Anyone remotely familiar with the work he did knows otherwise.
"Besides, we KNOW Bohr was wrong."
Which Bohr himself acknowledged and refined. That's what a scientist does. - Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -1/+4So, how much is Mills paying you? Or are you just really that stupid?
- partrow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3Check the math and chemistry and physics. Others have, and he is nothing but a quack.
What is truly disappointing here is that some people believe him. Someone who believes this B.S. is making a very uninformed conclusion, and you have to feel sorry for them. - jbmcb, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Theories that haven't been disproved by counter-evidence. Nobody has reproduced a phenomenon that violates the first law of thermodynamics. Ever.
- inactive, on 12/12/2008, -1/+3What's hilarious about their opponents is that they simply cannot explain where the extra energy is coming from. And if what Mills says is true, then the means with which he is consistently "proven" wrong are inherently wrong to begin with.. and thus hold no value.
- roho76, on 12/12/2008, -0/+2Oh Mitch how I miss you.
- OldDrtySapper, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2sir i think breaking the laws of physics might just take more then 8 years.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/10/rowan-university- ... - jbmcb, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2> and yet the really good physicists admit there are places in nature where these laws break down.
Absolutely. Those areas have been defined by rigorous scientific inquiry and experimentation. Some wackjob who says everything we know about quantum physics is wrong, and providing no hard evidence, data, or an experiment to back up his claim isn't helping anything. He's either incredibly misguided, nuts, or a charlatan looking for VC. I'm guessing the latter.
> assume that humans know everything about something as complicated as physics is arrogance.
It's equally as arrogant thinking some shoddy reasoning backed up with no data is going to overturn sixty years of exhaustive experimentation and research. - partrow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2All you need to do is read MpVpRb just above. Thanks for your post, MpVpRb.
You have to feel sorry for the investors and the one power company that bought it hook, line, sinker, and just a little bit of the reel . . . - thomboui, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Lets start with the source of Raney Nickel. Molten metallic Nickel is alloyed with Aluminum 50/50, and then the Aluminum is leached out with Sodium Hydroxide leaving the remaining Nickel structure, within which the hydrogen atoms released from the NaOH surface bond to the Nickel. The remaining structure is somewhat like Swiss Cheese in that it has an amazing molecular volume of voids. Raney Nickel is commonly used as a catalyst in hydrogenating benzene to cyclohexane, the first step of process toward making nylon. Given the combined metallic and chemical values, it is a quite costly product to make. Once the process of leaching out the Aluminum has begun, it must be kept under a compatible liquid as Raney Nickel is quite pyrophoric, that is, it readily reacts with oxygen bursting into flame and popping off like little miniature fireworks as the large volume of hydrogen that it contains is burned.
Keep in mind that the primary industrial use of Raney Nickel is as a catalyst, which by definition do not participate in the target reaction. To store Raney Nickel, it must be kept under either a hydrocarbon liquid or deionized distilled water as ordinary water can contain too many free Oxygen radicals and other contaminants which could cause a violent reaction with the adhered hydrogen.
If you look at the underlying costs and chemistry, I think you will see that the Blacklight Power claims are most likely to be a chemists Ponzi scheme where the energy from the reactive hydrogen is none other that that obtained during the Aluminum leaching process, which has been carried forward and oxidized in a subsequent controlled rate of reaction.
The properties of Raney Nickel have been studied quite extensively at the W.R. Grace Washington Research Center, In Clarksville, Maryland by Dr. Richard Diffenbach and others. What is clear from the Grace research, is that Raney Nickel has an extraordinary intramolecular volume, hence it can hold an extraordinary volume of hydrogen, though not enough to levitate its metallic containment.
If Dr. Diffenbach is still alive and reads this, I hope that he will post a more detailed explanation. I would add that Raney Nickel is most commonly in use under industrial processes under quite high pressures, 3,000 psi would not be unusual for a reactor. To achieve a shift in hydrogen state without out a reaction would consume energy rather than produce energy. Thus I label the hydrino production claims of this company to be unlikely. - Angaino, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1It's easy to get taken in by the hope of free energy, so I thought I'd respond to your earlier post.
If he wants to overturn about a hundred years of physics, that is, ever since wave particle duality was discovered with the photoelectric effect that Einstein won the Nobel prize for, he has to prove it. Someone over turning that would be doing research, not starting his own company.
While I have a PhD in Chemistry and not Physics/Astronomy, and cannot be called an expert on this (the list of people who can is short indeed) I know that you can find someone to back up almost any claim as long as you have enough complicated words around it.
I do not deny this claim just because it is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, that COULD simply mean quantum mechanics is wrong (any real scientist will agree that it COULD someday be proven wrong), I deny (okay, am ragingly skeptical of) it based on the fact that there is a HEAVY financial incentive to have this right, with basically NO scientific incentive to have this be right (as he has published little of his work in high impact factor journals). Also, Mills appears to have basically no background in quantum mechanics theoretical research apart from material that has been reviewed by peers to be inconsistent or incorrect (the unified theory he talks about), while all of his other areas of expertise (MRI, NMR, Mossbauer spectroscopy) have little or nothing to do with particle/wave interactions, especially the type discussed here, and in fact all depend on quantum mechanics, it it current form, being accurate.
Furthermore, Rowan may have found something 'interesting', but unless they publish it in a peer reviewed journal with a significant impact factor, it should be regarded with the utmost skepticism. - Andysan, on 12/12/2008, -0/+1You'll know it is true when Billy Mays is selling it on TV for $19.95. Never mind all the science stuff.
- inactive, on 12/12/2008, -4/+5Mills theory says that 80 years ago Bohr got it wrong: a bound-electron is not a wave/particle orbiting a nucleus, rather it is a sphere of charge with waves along its surface. And hydrinos and 2nd law of thermodynamics get along just fine.
- Suricou, on 12/12/2008, -0/+1By paying for it, I suspect. It's also a good time for people who like clutching at energy straws.
- pln2bz, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfre ...
- Mothrog, on 12/12/2008, -2/+3"Mills predicted it back in 1998."
Oh really? Well I proved that cats and dogs are really the same animal back in 1990!
Saying he proved it is quite a bit different from actually doing so. You do get that, right? And FYI, the first derivation of an oscillatory universe was done in the 1700's. Kinda hard to say that Mills beat anyone to that theory. - QubitTarutaru, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1"These utilities would use an electrolyzer to split the hydrogen from water..."
But electrolysis takes energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. The amount of energy attainable using the hydrogen, oxygen, or both, would be less than the energy used originally; a net-loss. The only way energy can enter the system is if a portion of mass somehow becomes energy; which only happens in nuclear reactions. The description of the device is vague, but as far as I can tell, it's impossible. Recycling fuel won't work without first recharging the fuel. Does it require a fresh source of hydrogen? Is there any source of fuel injected into the system that isn't recycled?
I can understand how they may have gotten funding. Investors would have no idea about how it works, nor the physics involved... I'm not even quite sure what they are talking about, so I can't be sure if it's real or fake... - MWeather, on 12/13/2008, -2/+3Einstein sucked at math, too. The only difference was he was smart enough to withhold his papers until he had a mathematical proof.
I think at least some of his unpublished theories have turned out to be right, but they'd be laughed at if they were based on his crappy math.
I doubt this guy is an Einstein, but I won't discount someone that has some interesting results because of for poor math explaining it. Not that I'd invest.
Besides, we KNOW Bohr was wrong. The ground state is zero. The Bohr model says otherwise. - MWeather, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1"Only when Mills won't let them look at what's inside his equipment."
I'm pretty sure NASA used their own equipment in the NIAC study. - pln2bz, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, I found the MIT paper by Roger Mallove to be a rather clear argument for fraud *AGAINST* the scientists claiming they discovered cold fusion.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfre ...
I suspect that Mallove will be vindicated. - OldDrtySapper, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Here are the claims of the independant research
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/10/rowan-university- ...
never heard of that university. figured id post that instead of going on a physics rant. - partrow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Why skeptical?
Look at the science and you will be able to go ahead to the conclusion stage. - angryredplanet, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1If their 5kW prototype unit is operational as Mills says it is, then "progress" and "claims" are largely rendered moot by something that can physically demonstrate the process - a huge leap towards being proven. That's a big "if" though.
I'd be most interested in viewing it. - OldDrtySapper, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1and yet the really good physicists admit there are places in nature where these laws break down. we live on a very small rock in the big scheme of things to assume that humans know everything about something as complicated as physics is arrogance. at one point the earth was flat and the center of the universe as far as we(humans) knew. if you just except the status quo then there is never room for advancement.
- OldDrtySapper, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1hes not just using hydrogen. he claims that he puts the hydrogen in a lower then grounded state (i wont even pretend to know wtf that means.) and in this state it produces like 200x the engery of normal H2 (in theory). i posted a link below to some ***** i found. most likley its all ***** just because it violates the laws of physics. however human physics is far from infalliable (has issues explaining the moment of the big bang and what happens at the event horzion of a black hole for example.) the link is to some "independnt research" still could be ***** but if its not it shows proof of concept and at that point its kinda like what gallieo told the catholic church when they were dragging him off you can kill me if you want, but its still true. personally im in the middle on this one.
"BLP's 50,000 watt reactor generated over one million joules of energy in a precise measurement made by Rowan University engineers, led by Dr. Peter Jansson. The independent study included full characterization of a proprietary solid fuel to generate the energy, before and after the reaction."
just seems to good to be true. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is