Jump to content

A few exciting alternative energy prospects.


barfbag
 Share

Recommended Posts

"We are 25 comments into this and you don't seem to have a clue as to how it "allegedly" operates."

Because I watched the video you cited.

This one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bomq8S0ynQ

 

 

 

Did you forget that you posted it?

 

So, as I said, you seem to be deliberately missing the point. That video, which you cited as evidence in support is produced by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Do you think that you should have not posted it?

 

 

 

You say

"I listened to it all, and watched most of it, and I do not recognize anything like what your position states."

well, others can listen too and we can see what they say but I heard this:

At 5 min 25 sec he says "we have demonstrated reproducible heat bursts of a very high magnitude"
At 5:44 he says "it's of very large magnitude"

 

And what I said was

"they show that they don't know what they are talking about because they claim the heat production "of a very large magnitude"."

 

Once again,did you actually watch the video you cited?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Johnc,

 

Yes. I said

 

You seem stuck on your notion that they want to run a power station, so please show me where you got this misleading information and I will fit it into correct context for you. You seem stuck on that. Show me where that information was because it certainly is not their intention to say that. I further think you took the validators either out of context or in reference to CIHT cells or something.

 

 

I was showing that various Doctorates like the one in video are staking their reputations on this. I AM SPEAKING OF HYDRINO THEORY!!!!!!!!!

 

At that point of the discussion I was showing BLP had many PhD' supporting their findings over the years, and that they would also need to be in on the fraud if it is one.

 

This video is FIVE(5) YEARS OLD! This is not where they are now.

 

BLP was pursuing the CIHT Cell even up to the end of last year. Their creation of the Plasma Bursts had them take a different route.

 

This was explained repeatedly, and repeatedly throughout this thread.

 

I was wondering why you were calling a Physics Doctorate a Chemist Doctorate, it is because you were referencing an old video. I thought you were mentioning the Physics PhD from the OP videos

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Barfbag, from what I have been able to gather Blacklight in only producing millisecond events and then extrapolating out. They use high current at low voltage to produce a millisecond event that they then claim is consistently repeatable over time and the energy from it can be collected at 100%. Photovoltaic cells don't work at even 50% muchless 100% though. As for the heat being produced it takes energy to produce heat and photo cells don't capture heat.

 

My general impression is that they discovered a means of producing a millisecond event that on paper appears to be producing more energy than it takes to create. Problem they are having is that there is not a 100% efficient way to collect that energy, it takes a lot of power to create that event, and they haven't figured out how to keep it going for any truly testable or useable amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG52,

These are new PhDs. They have no reputation to stake.

 

 

When you say "these". Whom are you referring to. Name some. Most of them seem fairly old and well respected or Professors at Universities.

 

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

 

each validation on that link has accompanying RESUME

 

such as

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

 

or

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

 

Some are even companies with teams of PhD's, such as...

 

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

 

These Doctorates seem very reputable and not new.

 

(I am not endorsing this technology as real, but so far most posts trying to discredit the idea are not being accurate (always) in their discreditation, and I am responding with what I know as I have followed this topic for some time before considering it a possible contender for breakthrough energy.)

 

@ Ten,oz,

 

produce a millisecond event that they then claim is consistently repeatable over time and the energy from it can be collected at 100%. Photovoltaic cells don't work at even 50% muchless 100% though. As for the heat being produced it takes energy to produce heat and photo cells don't capture heat.

 

 

The Plasma Bursts are so terribly blinding cameras could not do justice to it and the brightness is (they claim) 1000 times brighter than the sun from the point of view of a PV (solar ) cell. You are correct that PV cells only work at a fraction of their capacity in direct sunlight, but that can be increased through the use of mirrors.

 

A normal PV cell like the ones on my boat would work at 100% with this blinding light, and they are looking at higher quality versions that can handle more light. For now I think they are using just regular solar panel cells.

 

As for the heat being produced it takes energy to produce heat and photo cells don't capture heat.

 

 

They do not want any heat. This might have been confused with a few recent posts. Blacklight was after heat capture in the past, but they have been at this 25 years. They are ONLY wanting light.

 

They use high current at low voltage to produce a millisecond event that they then claim is consistently repeatable over time

 

 

Exactly! they claim they can speed up the flashes and have been doing so. This is their third demo and was said to be demonstrating

 

a) Specific events included: ignition of H2O-based solid fuel in air

b) a unit that demonstrated those elements of the fast ignition and regeneration

 

So speeding up the flashes is what is required. You are the first person to look at the problems they still face if their theory is correct.

 

They need to keep the flashes going and speed them up otherwise it's a paperweight, although they address these issues in depth in the demo. It still remains to be seen.

 

Kudo's Ten Oz for at least considering the alternate theory with some effort. It's appreciated. We won't know if this will work, but making bright plasma flashes from water fuel is pretty impressive (if true).

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I watched the video you cited.

This one

 

Christ, that video is embarrassing. He is clearly being paid a lot to sound as if he is endorsing the technology but struggling not to say anything too stupid.

 

Barfbag, the only thing he states unequivocally is that their calorimetry experiments are very accurate (although he doesn't quantify that). He fudges around the issue of how much energy is produced. He admits he has no idea what he is seeing.

 

I assume this is pretty typical of your testimonials and why there is no point watching them.

 

That is the problem with getting your information from videos and corporate press releases. It is far too easy to be vague but make exciting-sounding statements. If Mills published a scientific paper, he would not be able to get away with vague unquantified claims, mixing up power and energy, etc.

 

And, of course, that is why none of his hogwash has been published in the scientific literature.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I was wondering why you were calling a Physics Doctorate a Chemist Doctorate,

I didn't.

What I said was

"They then have a bloke who says "I know about photovoltaics etc" (i.e. he's a physicist) and then says "based on the chemistry involved..."

So, he may have a PhD, but it's not in the subject he is talking about.

That's not a good sign"

 

So, once again, you have completely missed the point. he said that his background was in physics. I took it from that that he was a physicist. (Actually, he's described elsewhere as an engineer.)

The thing I was pointing out was that

 

HE IS NOT A CHEMIST SO HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS CHEMISTRY ANY MORE THAN I AM QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS KNITTING.

he plainly does not know what he is talking about.

 

 

BTW, Strange, unless I have missed your point, I wonder if I could trouble you to edit the bit that says "Christ, that is embarrassing." to read

"Christ, that video is embarrassing." to clarify what is hogwash.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Johnc,

 

Again you are confusing and mixing my words.

 

I didn't.

What I said was

"They then have a bloke who says "I know about photovoltaics etc" (i.e. he's a physicist) and then says "based on the chemistry involved..."

So, he may have a PhD, but it's not in the subject he is talking about.

 

 

But I had said this...

 

I was wondering why you were calling a Physics Doctorate a Chemist Doctorate, it is because you were referencing an old video. I thought you were mentioning the Physics PhD from the OP videos

 

 

Let me say it again in BOLD

 

I thought you were discussing the PHYSICS PhD from the other video. YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE ROWAN UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY PhD

 

Okay.. I'm getting confused. I do not know if the Rowan University guy (cant even recall his name) is a Chemistry or Physics PhD. The Physics PhD I was referring to was one of three validators in the original OP demonstration.

 

If he is a Phd in Physics then who better to look at experiments proving the current model of hydrogen is flawed and that it has a more stable version.

 

(Actually, he's described elsewhere as an engineer.)

 

 

Yes. If you consider a Professor of Engineering (The Rowan University Video) the same as an Engineer.

 

J

ansson completed his doctoral thesis on high-resolution infrared spectroscopy.His first optics-related job was with Perkin-Elmer, where he designed an early commercial digital spectrocolorimeter.Dr. Jansson earned a B.S. in Physics from Stevens Institute of Technology (1964), and a Ph.D. in Physics from Florida State University

 

 

So it is a Physics Doctorate in both videos. Who better to confirm Hydrogen has a more stable version than a Physics PhD?

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A normal PV cell like the ones on my boat would work at 100% with this blinding light

Of course it wouldn't. The very best technologies are less than 50% efficient. Typical devices are less than 20%. This may be increased by a few percentage points if you increase the light levels by a factor of 100, but you will never get anywhere near 100%.

I AM SPEAKING OF HYDRINO THEORY!!!!!!!!!

And hydrino "theory" is very obviously a load of bull.

 

This video is FIVE(5) YEARS OLD! This is not where they are now.

 

BLP was pursuing the CIHT Cell even up to the end of last year. Their creation of the Plasma Bursts had them take a different route.

It is still based on hydrinos so it still bollocks. Time won't change that. Making animations of ever more complicated perpetual motion machines to fool the punters won't change that.

 

It is all bogus. End of story.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Strange

 

Barfbag,

I have only referred to two people, both in the same Rowan Univ video.

One is R L Mills of Blacklight and I referred to him because I felt that his fronting a video rather detracted from the notion that it was independent.

The other is Peter Jansson, who is an engineering prof and therefore unqualified to discuss chemistry.

 

I would like you to explain why you posted that video.

Is it because you think it constitutes some sort of support for the Blacklight enterprise?

 

Incidentally, since the efficiency of solar PV cells falls as they get hotter and none of them is 100% efficient, they get less efficient as the incident light level increases.

 

Anyone who knows about PV cells should have pointed that out.

One might wonder why Prof Jansson didn't explain it to Dr Mills.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Ten,oz,

 

 

 

The Plasma Bursts are so terribly blinding cameras could not do justice to it and the brightness is (they claim) 1000 times brighter than the sun from the point of view of a PV (solar ) cell. You are correct that PV cells only work at a fraction of their capacity in direct sunlight, but that can be increased through the use of mirrors.

 

A normal PV cell like the ones on my boat would work at 100% with this blinding light, and they are looking at higher quality versions that can handle more light. For now I think they are using just regular solar panel cells.

45% efficentcy is considered record break for photovoltaic cells. They are not getting 100%.

 

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/6501/Record-Breaking-Solar-Cell-Approaches-45-Efficiency.aspx

 

 

They do not want any heat. This might have been confused with a few recent posts. Blacklight was after heat capture in the past, but they have been at this 25 years. They are ONLY wanting light.

They only want light but they are producing heat which is why a heat exchanger is one of the functions they listed as neccessary. Heat is this case is wasted energy. It isn't collected. They are calculating it as part of what they can produce but it isnt useful if it isn't useable.

 

 

Exactly! they claim they can speed up the flashes and have been doing so. This is their third demo and was said to be demonstrating

 

a) Specific events included: ignition of H2O-based solid fuel in air

b) a unit that demonstrated those elements of the fast ignition and regeneration

 

So speeding up the flashes is what is required. You are the first person to look at the problems they still face if their theory is correct.

 

They need to keep the flashes going and speed them up otherwise it's a paperweight, although they address these issues in depth in the demo. It still remains to be seen.

They are using low volt high amp electrodes. Something like 12k Amps and are producing a lot of heat. That is at a millisecond. Replicate that a hundred times back to back and they probably melt the down their whole lab. They have some serious challenges.

 

Kudo's Ten Oz for at least considering the alternate theory with some effort. It's appreciated. We won't know if this will work, but making bright plasma flashes from water fuel is pretty impressive (if true).

Nothing wrong with guys trying to develop new sources of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ John,

 

I would like you to explain why you posted that video.

 

 

At this point the discussion had turned to fraud. I was saying that if it is fraud then many reputable PhD's like the one in the video we are NOW discussing. Go back and see this in context.

 

@ Strange,

 

So you are saying Hydrino theory is impossible. You also say that a Physics PhD is outside his area of expertise when confirming Hydrinos are real?

 

Pretend for a second that Hydrinos were real. What type of PhD would you suggest then if not a Physics PhD to examine if the Hydrogen atom could exist in a more stable state?

 

Or are you saying Chemistry is never used to confirm physics?

 

yet ignores all the scientists with relevant expertise who say it is bull.

 

 

No. I'm still on the fence about this.

 

I will not accept anyones opinion though that has not looked at this. If someone is just quoting the known Bohr radius for hydrogen in its currently accepted ground state without looking at the papers then no I will not simply accept their opinion.

 

I would like to mainly hear from experts who have considered both sides and reviewed experimental data.

 

I still believe there is stuff out there for mankind to learn.

 

@ strange and ten oz,

 

45% efficentcy is considered record break for photovoltaic cells. They are not getting 100%.

 

 

Okay. Fair enough. It is still better than 17% with direct sunlight. There are also another type of PV cells in discussion, but I'm not aware of the differences except its claimed they can handle sunlight 1000 times brighter (or something like that. I will edit if I locate (stumble across) but I'm not looking, ok I am)

 

Found something (no citations at moment)

Triple Junction CPV SJ3 cell claims ~40% continuous at 1k suns. These will require a cooling system to maintain 25C optemp. The Azur Space ADAM CPV system utilizes an active liquid cooling system (e.g. water) at similar efficiency though lower, (700) sun peak. Mills notes an operating temp of 600C at the ignition electrodes - not ambient for unit

 

 

40% efficiency at a brightness of 1000 suns.

 

We must also not that Fiber Optics can move light to cooler areas outside the devices

http://www.techfragments.com/1944/multijunction-solar-cell-sets-world-record-for-efficiency/

In November 2012, the 43.5% efficiency record at 415 suns was exceeded, with 44% efficiency at 947 suns. Concentrator photovoltaic technology (CPV) increases efficiency by using low-cost lenses to multiply the sun’s intensity, which scientists refer to as numbers of suns.

 

 

 

@ Ten oz,

 

So if this is real (Mills device not PV cells) and they can harness 40% of 1000 X suns brightness then that would help.

 

If the fuel is simply moisture though then just achieving over unity would be enough.

 

 

@ all,

 

There are possibilities of error that include things like BLP is burning aluminum in a water vapor causing Thermolysis, the splitting of the water into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the hydrogen as well as the aluminum.

 

Things like the above to me are more valid arguments than "That's Bull"! (Can you spot the difference?)

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so the context was that a man who was prepared to take money to talk about something, even though he wasn't qualified was in some way evidence that what he didn't understand wasn't fraud.

 

Would you like to buy Tower Bridge?

 

"I would like to mainly hear from experts who have considered both sides and reviewed experimental data."

I'm a spectroscopist and I read the sort of literature where any such evidence would be published.

it hasn't.

So, the fact is that only one side has "experimental data" and it's not the side that agrees with Dr Mills.

 

Do you understand that?

There is no evidence supporting this.

None

Zippo.

Nill.

 

If all the people who know about these things are telling you it's bull and you are still "on the fence" then you are ignoring us.

 

 

"There are also another typreof PV cells in discussion, but I'm not awae of the differences except its claimed they can handle sunlight 1000 times brighter (or something like that..."

Would you like to Buy Buckingham Palace as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not read the review in regards to Hydrinos, instead of watching a video that advertises it. Might as well look at the real science behind it, making decisions based on a video used to advertise Hydrinos is like listening to a used car salesman. I would much prefer to look at the reviews and get another opinion. Any smart buyer would.

 

 

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0631.pdf

 

the title should say it all,

 

"in summary, a very simple and general criterion has been presented to reject
hydrino states in the context of the standard quantum mechanics"

 

by the way the patent was rejected and so was the appeal to have it reinstated.

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Mordred,

 

Yes I have read theories for and against. I would not be an expert either way. I am an Engineer but everything I need analyzed is sent to a lab and I am more of a glorified driver these days (feels that way) and half my paycheck seems to be in gas reimbursements. This allows me time to listen to lectures and videos of interest, but I'm not about to tackle the math in the paper you quoted, especially since I would not recognize the alternative maths in comparison.

 

This fellow also says the The known Bohr's Radius and Uncertainty principle should be enough to discount this.

 

I am not endorsing this technology.

 

Okay here is what I actually believe about this.

 

a) I believe Mills is not a fraud. I think his intentions are true.

b) I believe he could be making a fundamental error (like i listed in my last post)

There are possibilities of error that include things like BLP is burning aluminum in a water vapor causing Thermolysis, the splitting of the water into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the hydrogen as well as the aluminum.

 

 

c) I do not believe he is 4 months away from a 100kW reactor. If it is true I suspect as many years.

d) I believe the company believes they have something (same as "a" I guess)

 

You've listed one paper, and at least that is someone who has considered Hydrinos.

 

I googled him. Is he a Geologist? I cannot find the authors credentials, but there are many supporting papers as well, and not as many rebuttals from anyone intelligent enough to pen a paper

 

Yes. I am looking from both sides. I had given a valid argument against in my last post before even reading yours.

@ John c,

 

"There are also another typreof PV cells in discussion, but I'm not awae of the differences except its claimed they can handle sunlight 1000 times brighter (or something like that..."

Would you like to Buy Buckingham Palace as well?

 

 

Why do I always need to repeat things for you. This thread could be much shorter.

 

http://www.techfragments.com/1944/multijunction-solar-cell-sets-world-record-for-efficiency/

In November 2012, the 43.5% efficiency record at 415 suns was exceeded, with 44% efficiency at 947 suns. Concentrator photovoltaic technology (CPV) increases efficiency by using low-cost lenses to multiply the sun’s intensity, which scientists refer to as numbers of suns.

 

 

So YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN (but can you admit it)! They can capture sunlight 1000 times brighter.

 

Now you claim you own Buckingham Palace?

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair enough you don't know the math involved, however it should still be a consideration when the US courts refuse to reinstate his patent. Doesn't take a mathematician to understand the degree of criteria for that to occur. The US courts essentially confirmed the idea does not conform to physics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why do I always need to repeat things for you. This thread could be much shorter.

 

So YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN (but can you admit it)! They can capture sunlight 1000 times brighter.

 

Now you claim you own Buckingham Palace?

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and I accept that I was unduly pessimistic about the photovoltaic cells.

I'd love to see how they kept them cool.enough to work and whether they figured that cooling into the efficiency calculation. My guess would e "no" and it would make the results a lot less impressive if they did- especially if you consider how it would work on a large scale.

A thousand suns is roughly a million watts per square metre and if about 50% of that is converted to electricity then the rest must be wasted as heat.

So the cells have to shed 500Kw per m^2.

To shift that radiatively (i.e without active cooling) they would need to heat up to about 1700K

They wouldn't work at that temperature.

 

However, because I can count, I have to say that it looks like I'm wrong rather than "WRONG AGAIN"

Can you show where I was actually wrong before?

And in answer to your question, it seems that the usual reason you have to repeat yourself is that you have not read what I posted.

(I'm happy to show examples if you want. )

 

And, for the record I did not (and do not) claim to own Buckingham palace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ John,

 

What brightness can Fiber optics handle? I do not know.

 

Yes cooling would be an issue and heat would be a problem if such a machine could exist.

 

Fiber optics could route some light to cooler areas, but likely not near that magnitude.

 

in my humble (cough) opinion I think you were also wrong thinking they were powering a power plant with heat. I understand you were misled by video of hydrino theory and CIHT cells, but you should have known what we were discussing from post 1, otherwise why even comment.

 

I count two. Plus there is a remote chance you may have been wrong before on a myriad of topics during your life, so "Wrong Again" would equally be valid.

 

 

Also what is the cost of these super solar cells? Would they even be cost effective if this device worked?

 

If this device is indeed harnessing the energy of a Hydrogen atom falling to a more stable state and moisture is the fuel, then any over unity can be celebrated.

 

@ Mordred,

 

Yes. Fair enough. Patents are years away though because they just applied recently. I think confirmation will simply be if they cannot get this to work. I do appreciate the paper you linked, but there are arguments currently in discussion groups I have seen that speak in terms of of the maths and theories and it seems to be a bitter war. I must sit on the fence because both sides are pitching a good game. Watch the validators in 2nd demo video and you will see what I mean.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems that, once again, you have not read what I wrote.

 

I have repeatedly explained that I was not referring to what they hoped to do with this. I was pointing out that the bloke in the video, on whom you were relying, did not know what he was talking about. The comment bout a power station stands because it doesn't matter how you do it, if it takes a kilo of magic beans to make a million joules of energy, it doesn't matter what you do with that, it's still a very low energy density and, you may wish to look at some of the earliest videos you posted in this thread which refer to Blacklight as a power company.

 

"but you should have known what we were discussing from post 1,"

Nope, since I referred directly to the video, you should have realised i was talking about it.

So, as I say, the reason this thread is so long is (in part) that you don't read.

 

As for "I must sit on the fence because both sides are pitching a good game."

Only on side is pitching.

 

And, of course, it doesn't make a difference how many things I was wrong about elsewhere, they wouldn't have made this thread shorter

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Barfbag, I don't believe hydrinos is legit thing. I believe they are taking advantage of excited hydrogen electrons loosing photons to move to a ground state. Electrons can either gain or lose energy in the form of photons to change orbits. However a ground state can not be lowered.

 

"Each orbital has a specific energy associated with it. For an electron to be boosted to an orbital with a higher energy, it must overcome the difference in energy between the orbital it is in, and the orbital to which is is going. This means that it must absorb a photon that contains precisely that amount of energy, or take exactly that amount of energy from another particle in a collision.

The illustrations on this page are simplified versions of real atoms, of course. Real atoms, even a relatively simple ones like hydrogen, have many different orbitals, and so there are many possible energies with different initial and final states. When an atom is in an excited state, the electron can drop all the way to the ground state in one go, or stop on the way in an intermediate level."

 

"Electrons do not stay in excited states for very long - they soon return to their ground states, emitting a photon with the same energy as the one that was absorbed."

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-atoms.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Ten oz,

 

Yes. I understand the concept of a Hydrino is not fitting with known physics. Physics is not yet 100% defined, and there are papers supporting both versions.

 

People still doubt LENR aka cold fusion, but there are over 20 major corporations claiming they are doing LENR including NASA (yes they have a half million dollar LENR budget (sue your congress if you think its a waste), Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volvo, MIT (Prof. Hagelstein), University of Illinois, and many more.

There are a half dozen good theories about why the coloumb barrier is not an issue in LENR but if you talk to most people they will say Coloumb barrier this and coloumb barrier that. There is enough LENR evidence and papers that people should be accepting it already but for some reason science has roadblocks nowadays.

“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

 

 

Read above quote from 2011 and then note Authors Name and Job description.

more here

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf

 

Yet here LENR is in speculations trash can section.

 

So forgive me if I do not believe every paper that comes out supporting either views. Obviously someone is making errors. Obviously some physics is going to be turned on its head.

 

I may be on the fence about Mills, but LENR is real.

 

By the way. I'm not off topic, this was part of the OP at the bottom.

 

I'm sure some will paint The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley as a hack now for supporting such "nonsense", but I think someone getting paid to research LENR who is the chief Research Scientist at an organization that sends people to space is likely more believable than someone here who reads about it for 10 minutes and then mentions the coloumb barrier ten times.

 

So conventional physics is not always right. There is still something to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to mainly hear from experts who have considered both sides and reviewed experimental data.

Physics is not yet 100% defined, and there are papers supporting both versions.

So, you've posted this twice now, yet have failed to back it up. Can you please post citations to the papers that support hydrinos? Not YouTube videos, not media from a company, but other peer reviewed papers that support this idea? Most preferably, papers not including Mills as an author in order to get some independent verification of his claims?

 

There is always more to learn, but if this effect is as real as is claimed, any decent scientist knows it needs to be written up and subjected to peer review and if they wanted any kind of famousness, research like this would be worth of Nobel prizes. If someone is trying to get the word out on their great invention, having a Nobel prize in hand really helps convince the venture capitalists. I guess what I am saying is that there are papers published against it -- per the link above plus http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/ and http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608095.pdf -- but I don't see any that don't include Mills for hydrinos. Not to mention that if it were real, Mills should be doing his utmost to rebut the publications above.

 

The fact this is all one sided makes it hard to swallow. You have to remember that science is very conservative, and before extraordinary claims are accepted, a great deal of extraordinary evidence needs to be presented, verified, and replicated. I know you are saying that this is happening, but if it is really as extraordinary as it is claimed, the papers should be flowing out of the groups and this ought to be giant news.

 

I guess what I am really saying is: all the member here who aren't accepting of the paucity of evidence that has been presented to date are just fulfilling the skeptical conservative nature of science. And if someone really is defending their idea, then the response to that is to present more data. None of this other stuff about how much money he is or isn't making, other similar examples like cold fusion, his pedigree, or any of that matters.

 

All that matters is evidence. And I'm sorry, but what is out there to date is a lot like that Patterson blurry shake film of Bigfoot. Sure, there could be something there. But what you see isn't enough to jump in full force with both feet.

 

A lot, lot, lot more evidence needs to be presented. Our best models to date don't seem to think it very likely (again see the links I posted above), but that is the great thing about science -- almost all of our models are wrong at least in some way (in that they are at least incomplete)-- but a large amount of compelling evidence will help create the next models. But you can't get ahead of it and talk about new energy sources and rewriting physics without that evidence.

 

So, barfbag, I think I speak for a lot of us when we're saying: we need to see a lot more evidence before giving it a lot more credence. I don't think that that is too much to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is trying to get the word out on their great invention, having a Nobel prize in hand really helps convince the venture capitalists.

 

 

I was done with this thread, but a lengthy post like that deserves a response. I had said in the OP,

 

 

Fringe Science is not always supported by facts. Cutting edge research is not always placed on a full page spread in the New York Times. Sometimes the companies like to keep their breakthroughs to themselves.

 

 

Some inventors barely make it to the patent office before their competitors.

 

If Alexander Graham Bell had published instead of inventing/patenting it is likely you may never have heard of him.

 

I thought it was common sense that most companies don't give away their research for free.

 

please post citations to the papers that support hydrinos? Not YouTube videos, not media from a company, but other peer reviewed papers that support this idea? Most preferably, papers not including Mills as an author

 

 

Okay.

 

Here is one.

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Note: I have not endorsed this Theory. I find it interesting and the more I read about it the more real it looks.

 

Happy? :)

 

Note: But taking away my Youtube videos and known BLP associates takes the fun out of it.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.