Hydrino theory... a crock?

[sao123]

Text
Text

energy is released as the electrons of atomic hydrogen are induced to undergo transitions to lower energy levels producing plasma, light, and novel hydrogen compounds. BlackLight uses a chemically generated plasma to form atomic hydrogen, and a catalyst to form lower-energy hydrogen atoms called hydrinos. Since hydrinos have energy levels much lower than uncatalyzed hydrogen atoms, the energy release is intermediate between conventional chemical and nuclear energies. The net energy released may be over one hundred times that of combustion with power densities like those of fossil fuel combustion and nuclear power plants.

I thought hydrogen electrons already orbited in the lowest energy state.

 

[DrPizza]

As far as I'm concerned, it's garbage. It's been too long since I took QM, but even at a "lower energy" level, I can't see the amount of energy (in this mythical process) as being significant.

The quickest way I can point to evidence showing this guy is a fraud: since the process produces "light", I'm going to assume visible or the part of the spectrum near visible light. (guessing possibly low frequency ultraviolet radiation, given the name "blacklight") Now, we can all use E=hf to figure out that we're not dealing with a significant amount of energy.

If this guy is completely changing EVERYTHING, including a photon being released in the drop to the lower energy level, the concept that the drops be in discrete amounts, etc., then why hasn't *anything* been mentioned in the real scientific community?

In regards to "I thought hydrogen electrons already orbited in the lowest energy state", I think this quack is saying that he's discovered a state lower than the ground state. Gee, I wonder what we would do with hydrogen in that state? We'd have to use a ton of energy to get it back up to the ground state again. Or does it just spontaneously generate its own energy to return to the ground state?

 

[DrPizza]

Wow, I've gotta say, with a nice research facility like they have in NJ, with the well-manicured lawns, I'm a believer now

however, I guess I have to point out that in the previous post, I thought the light was generated when the electron dropped into the lower energy level. After reading further, it appears that the light comes from the plasma.


Wait a second... quoting from the site:

The power from the BlackLight Process forms a plasma (a hot, glowing, ionized gas)

So, it has an electron in a lower than ground state orbit, but it's an ion at the same time. Righhhhhhhht.

Nice lawns though.

 

[Gibsons]

I'm surprised it doesn't cure cancer.

 

[Soccerman06]

Oh guy dont be so optimistic. Not like we thought the universe revolved around us, oh wait we did. And wasnt it suppose to be impossible to break the sound barrier at another point in time? QT has many holes in it, so there is a small chance this could be real. I doubt it myself, but I cant prove any of this theories wrong because I dont know any QT or math/physics/chem to that degree, and I doubt most any of you know the math either.

If this works, say goodbye to gasoline, nuclear and coal power, ect ect. but if it doesnt work, there goes millions of $.

 

[klah]

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html

In response to criticism from theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, Mills says: "I?ll have demonstrated an entirely new form of energy production by the end of 2000..."

From 1997: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/hydmills.htm

He says a 200-horsepower car engine the size of a suitcase could power a vehicle four times around the world on a single tank of water.

Looks as if Mills trots out these "almost there" press releases every few years when he runs out of VC.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Oh guy dont be so optimistic. Not like we thought the universe revolved around us, oh wait we did. And wasnt it suppose to be impossible to break the sound barrier at another point in time? QT has many holes in it, so there is a small chance this could be real. I doubt it myself, but I cant prove any of this theories wrong because I dont know any QT or math/physics/chem to that degree, and I doubt most any of you know the math either.

If this works, say goodbye to gasoline, nuclear and coal power, ect ect. but if it doesnt work, there goes millions of $.

The problem is that people *have* proved this guy's theories wrong.
"Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a robust and incredibly well tested piece of physics," he told The Register. "A vast number of our everyday devices including lasers and computers are based on its predictions and they work 'as expected from QM theory' to incredibly high degrees of accuracy.

"In contrast, the experimental evidence for the existence of 'Hydrinos' is very weak and has not stood up well to the acid test of scientific peer review and publication in mainstream literature."

That's the polite way of saying <cough>bullsh!t<cough>

Mills response is typical of the response of every crackpot:
"they just don't want to give up what they believe in."

He says resistance to the idea is the result of people's vested interests in the status quo.

Any real scientists who thought for even a moment that there was some truth to this would be in a hurry to do research in this area. There are billions (trillions?) of dollars to be made if this were true. Where's the competition? I haven't heard of other labs doing research in this area.

To contrast it with a *real* scientific development,
Around 1985-86, high temperature superconductors were discovered. Superconductors were known of before that time, however none existed which worked at temperatures of readily available liquid nitrogen. Following the discovery in one lab, dozens (hundreds?) of other labs directed a great deal of effort into furthering the research. (The result to me was TA's who couldn't speak English teaching some of my engineering classes. Of course, though, in labs, we also directed some of our efforts into further research.) While researchers were trying to get higher and higher temperature superconductors, they still didn't really even have a solid theory on why they worked.

For what it's worth, this crackpot (Mills) can't patent the hydrino (edit: if such exists). He may be able to patent a small range of the technology he uses to produce the hydrinos. However, if there were one single shred of truth to his "science", then I guarantee that other labs would be
A) Trying to replicate his experiments
B) Trying to improve upon his methods. As it is, I noticed some reference to electrolysis in his website. I believe that there are already more efficient ways of separating hydrogen from oxygen in water. He's apparently *behind* in technology.


edit: Added "if such exists" to the concept of patenting a hydrino

 

[the splat in the hat]

can l have a meatlovers pizza ?

 

[makken]

bleh i want a roasted garlic chicken pizza.

 

[imported_Tick]

I want a pizza at least in it's ground state. That subterranian pizza sucks.,

 

[Xyo II]

This reminds me of that cold fusion fad a couple years ago, I haven't heard much about that unproduceable experiment again. And I could go for some cheeze pizza, with stuffed crust, and ranch sauce. Extra sauce, please.

 

[Xyo II]

It's nearly universally agreed that a free-floating hydrogen atom is in what's called "the ground state"--you can't bring its electron closer into its nucleus. Telling physicists that they've got that wrong is like telling mothers across America that they've misunderstood apple pie. It's that fundamental.

"If you could ****** around with the hydrogen atom, you could ****** around with the energy process in the sun. You could ****** around with life itself," claims Dr. Phillip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics at Princeton University. "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud." ?

There we go.

 

[BigPoppa]

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

It's nearly universally agreed that a free-floating hydrogen atom is in what's called "the ground state"--you can't bring its electron closer into its nucleus. Telling physicists that they've got that wrong is like telling mothers across America that they've misunderstood apple pie. It's that fundamental.

"If you could ****** around with the hydrogen atom, you could ****** around with the energy process in the sun. You could ****** around with life itself," claims Dr. Phillip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics at Princeton University. "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud." ?

There we go.

The ***'s of that post just made it more funny. I just imagined a Nobel laureate saying f.v.c.k three times to a reporter.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: BigPoppa

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

It's nearly universally agreed that a free-floating hydrogen atom is in what's called "the ground state"--you can't bring its electron closer into its nucleus. Telling physicists that they've got that wrong is like telling mothers across America that they've misunderstood apple pie. It's that fundamental.

"If you could ****** around with the hydrogen atom, you could ****** around with the energy process in the sun. You could ****** around with life itself," claims Dr. Phillip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics at Princeton University. "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud." ?

There we go.

The ***'s of that post just made it more funny. I just imagined a Nobel laureate saying f.v.c.k three times to a reporter.

I was laughing for the exact same reason. If you rarely use the word, it works great for emphasis. If the reporter had limited scientific knowledge, a nobel laureate tossing in a few f-bombs in that manner would completely emphasize the certainty that the whole hydrino thing is made up, and it would eliminate follow-up questions that begin with "what if", "is it possible", etc. (the answers to which would be no, no, no)

 

[DrPizza]

What's really scary is the building they're allegedly located in. That's some nice real estate. I wonder who's losing their life savings in that investment?

 

[Eeezee]

Seriously, the people investing in this are about to lose a lot of money. The chances of this being real are so slim, but when you have an engineer standing there and saying "I have the solutions to all of our problems, I'm going to be rich, and you can be rich too if you give me money," a lot of people are sure to fall for it. None of these people investing even understand an inkling of quantum, so it's no surprise that the engineer can dazzle them into a large investment.