Among the site http://www.blacklightpower.com there is some pretty interesting stuff. There is a claim of a new "Grand Unified Theory" which includes what looks like a new atomic model represented at the top of this page....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
Once I get home to my own computer I will probably download the e-book...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
This will get nowhere with physicists since the guy is an EE.
But thanks for posting it. Looks like a lot of interesting reading.
But thanks for posting it. Looks like a lot of interesting reading.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 04:38 PM)
Among the site http://www.blacklightpower.com there is some pretty interesting stuff. There is a claim of a new "Grand Unified Theory" which includes what looks like a new atomic model represented at the top of this page....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
Once I get home to my own computer I will probably download the e-book...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
Crackpot theory.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
Once I get home to my own computer I will probably download the e-book...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
Crackpot theory.
QUOTE
Crackpot theory.
That happens to explain a working model which has been independently verified.
I may even get this....
http://www.millsian.com/index.shtml
Also looks to be pretty interesting...
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 05:03 PM)
Crackpot theory.
One wonders that when it rains after a long drought if you'd insist that it was just a change in humidity.
One wonders that when it rains after a long drought if you'd insist that it was just a change in humidity.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:22 PM)
One wonders that when it rains after a long drought if you'd insist that it was just a change in humidity.
Hey, when a medical doctor "publishes" a lot of papers denying mainstream and follows up with his own "GUT", what else can I call his "theories"?
If you disagree, you can always waste your money buying his self-published "book".
Hey, when a medical doctor "publishes" a lot of papers denying mainstream and follows up with his own "GUT", what else can I call his "theories"?
If you disagree, you can always waste your money buying his self-published "book".
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:30 PM)
Hey, when a medical doctor "publishes" a lot of papers denying mainstream and follows up with his own "GUT", what else can I call his "theories"?
If you disagree, you can always waste your money buying his self-published "book".
I'm happy to admit that the links looked interesting and hope that I find the time to read up on it. I'm glad dihydrous posted it. It's clear to me that one thing he's managed to do is convince some other people (or he's just promoting that he's convinced) that he's onto something.
I doubt commercial entities would jump into the money bed if he didn't have some measurable and repeatable results. Whether those results come from his "new classical atomic model" or not is certainly open to question.
I'll happily admit that I'm no where near qualified or versed enough to make such judgements. Which is why I try to keep an open but skeptical mind.
My impression is that you are cynical ... hence the "rain - humidity" denial analogy.
And he (nor anyone else) will see any of my money for such a book.
If you disagree, you can always waste your money buying his self-published "book".
I'm happy to admit that the links looked interesting and hope that I find the time to read up on it. I'm glad dihydrous posted it. It's clear to me that one thing he's managed to do is convince some other people (or he's just promoting that he's convinced) that he's onto something.
I doubt commercial entities would jump into the money bed if he didn't have some measurable and repeatable results. Whether those results come from his "new classical atomic model" or not is certainly open to question.
I'll happily admit that I'm no where near qualified or versed enough to make such judgements. Which is why I try to keep an open but skeptical mind.
My impression is that you are cynical ... hence the "rain - humidity" denial analogy.
And he (nor anyone else) will see any of my money for such a book.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:37 PM)
Whether those results come from his "new classical atomic model" or not is certainly open to question.
No, it isn't open for discussion, he's totally ignorant of the standard model, he's making up his own BS. In other papers he's published, he showcases his fringe ideas about: QM and relativity. So, he's a crackpot, no doubt about it.
No, it isn't open for discussion, he's totally ignorant of the standard model, he's making up his own BS. In other papers he's published, he showcases his fringe ideas about: QM and relativity. So, he's a crackpot, no doubt about it.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:43 PM)
No, it isn't open for discussion, he's totally ignorant of the standard model, he's making up his own BS. In other papers he's published, he showcases his fringe ideas about: QM and relativity. So, he's a crackpot, no doubt about it.
As I hope I implied or stated, his assertions are new to me. I haven't yet looked at much beyond the first pages of the links supplied.
When I do ... I'll certainly keep in mind that Trout says he's a crackpot. Just like other physicists in the room kept it in mind when Neils Bohr called Feynman an idiot.
From my perspective I can do nothing but grant your judgements about such things a certain amount of respect.
As I hope I implied or stated, his assertions are new to me. I haven't yet looked at much beyond the first pages of the links supplied.
When I do ... I'll certainly keep in mind that Trout says he's a crackpot. Just like other physicists in the room kept it in mind when Neils Bohr called Feynman an idiot.
From my perspective I can do nothing but grant your judgements about such things a certain amount of respect.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 09:04 PM)
When I do ... I'll certainly keep in mind that Trout says he's a crackpot. Just like other physicists in the room kept it in mind when Neils Bohr called Feynman an idiot.
First off, there is no comparison between Feyman and Mills. Second off, the story isn't true. So, it is not a good idea to keep repeating it.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 09:27 PM)
First off, there is no comparison between Feyman and Mills. Second off, the story isn't true. So, it is not a good idea to keep repeating it.
Wow. You get hung up on amazingly picayune stuff. Fine ... I can go down that road.
Here's the appropriate passage from your link claiming that Bohr didn't call Feynman an idiot ..
So Feynman doesn't directly say that Bohr called him an idiot. Big Whoop ... he used the word "they" instead of "he" in recounting the incident to the author ... it's a small matter. My point in using the example isn't to impugn Neils Bohr so much as to illustrate that dogmatic beliefs cause reactionary responses. You may (or may not) deny such reactions in this forum on your part. But I think we've all seen them many times over.
Is it raining outside your house? Or did the humidity just change? For a person dedicated to reason (and I admire that) you certainly have some unreasonable tendencies here. That's the whole point. Unlike you, I decided to express it with a common (but imperfect analogy) instead of just calling you an arse.
Wow. You get hung up on amazingly picayune stuff. Fine ... I can go down that road.
Here's the appropriate passage from your link claiming that Bohr didn't call Feynman an idiot ..
QUOTE
He (Bohr) sternly informed Feynman that there was a lot more to physics than what you get off the top of your head. "They didn't understand it ver well," Feynman said. "It was too much stuff to explain. So Bohr said that we already knew in nineteen-whenever that we can't talk about trajectories and the quantum mechanical laws don't permit that any more. I realized - sort of, I mean- I suddenly said, 'That's enough.;" He (Feynman) laughed, sharply and intensely. "They said that this idiot didn't understand quantum mechanics at all. My ideas were consistent" I knew his objection was wrong. I realized that I'm going to have to write it for them. That the way I remember it, okay?"
So Feynman doesn't directly say that Bohr called him an idiot. Big Whoop ... he used the word "they" instead of "he" in recounting the incident to the author ... it's a small matter. My point in using the example isn't to impugn Neils Bohr so much as to illustrate that dogmatic beliefs cause reactionary responses. You may (or may not) deny such reactions in this forum on your part. But I think we've all seen them many times over.
Is it raining outside your house? Or did the humidity just change? For a person dedicated to reason (and I admire that) you certainly have some unreasonable tendencies here. That's the whole point. Unlike you, I decided to express it with a common (but imperfect analogy) instead of just calling you an arse.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 09:44 PM)
So Feynman doesn't directly say that Bohr called him an idiot. Big Whoop ... he used the word "they" instead of "he" in recounting the incident to the author ...
Classic crackpot-defender answer, comparing people that are clear crackpots with the "misunderstood" of their times: Bruno, Galilei, Feynman, etc.
QUOTE
But I think we've all seen them many times over.
We? You couldn't have because you can't tell correct physics frome pure crackpottery. By your own admission.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 09:57 PM)
Classic crackpot-defender answer, comparing people that are clear crackpots with the "misunderstood" of their times: Bruno, Galilei, Feynman, etc.
And by "crackpot-defender" of course you mean "skeptically open-minded person". As you are well aware, I have clearly indicated (over and over) since my arrival at this forum that I'm a neophyte. How in FSM's name could I be capable of defending a crackpot when I'm not qualified to judge one?
Now ... what fooking part of "grant your judgements a certain amount of respect" and my stated admiration of your dedication to reason did you skip over when reading my responses?
Ok Ok ... I know this is what you really want.
You're an arse.
Now we're on the same page eh?
I'd say it's been a pleasure conversing with you ... if I had 30mg of Valium in me.
And by "crackpot-defender" of course you mean "skeptically open-minded person". As you are well aware, I have clearly indicated (over and over) since my arrival at this forum that I'm a neophyte. How in FSM's name could I be capable of defending a crackpot when I'm not qualified to judge one?
Now ... what fooking part of "grant your judgements a certain amount of respect" and my stated admiration of your dedication to reason did you skip over when reading my responses?
Ok Ok ... I know this is what you really want.
You're an arse.
Now we're on the same page eh?
I'd say it's been a pleasure conversing with you ... if I had 30mg of Valium in me.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 09:57 PM)
We? You couldn't have because you can't tell correct physics frome pure crackpottery. By your own admission.
Physics knowledge isn't required to recognize your reactionary insults. And you'll note by my above response to your unfinished post that my admission of and your confirmation of my inabilities with regard to physics completely and entirely obviates your definition of me as a "crack pot defender".
Thanks for playing ... your consolation prizes can be picked up on your way out.
Physics knowledge isn't required to recognize your reactionary insults. And you'll note by my above response to your unfinished post that my admission of and your confirmation of my inabilities with regard to physics completely and entirely obviates your definition of me as a "crack pot defender".
Thanks for playing ... your consolation prizes can be picked up on your way out.
I have a query about independently funded research facilities. Not things funded by governments.
I went surfing the site and found this bit of info
Currently, the Company has 24 employees and 20 consultants. The majority of employees are scientists and engineers, including 8 PhD.D.s.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/facilities.shtml
On a second reading I notice that it doesn't say 8 Scientist Ph D's.
However, the only comparison I could make was to this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/About/People/People_at_PI/
Which on simple inspection has way more physics credibility. (It was also in between my dorm and the liquor store.)
My question is: What other facilities, reputable and not, are out there for possible comparison?
I went surfing the site and found this bit of info
Currently, the Company has 24 employees and 20 consultants. The majority of employees are scientists and engineers, including 8 PhD.D.s.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/facilities.shtml
On a second reading I notice that it doesn't say 8 Scientist Ph D's.
However, the only comparison I could make was to this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/About/People/People_at_PI/
Which on simple inspection has way more physics credibility. (It was also in between my dorm and the liquor store.)
My question is: What other facilities, reputable and not, are out there for possible comparison?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 17 2009, 05:46 PM)
I have a query about independently funded research facilities. Not things funded by governments.
It's worth pointing out that government research funding often comes with a lot less strings attached than private funding. If you're a company like GSK and you're funding a bunch of biochems to test a new family of drugs you'll often stipulate that should any of them turn out to be a miracle cure GSK have total ownership of the patent and all the students get is their PhDs. Sure, a PhD is no small thing but just think how much the patent to anti-HIV drugs or erectile dysfunction drugs are worth. An outlay of $20,000/year for a PhD student is peanuts compared to billions which might be earnt. Same goes for aerospace designing or particular areas of mathematics (number theorist working on cryptography are a particular favourite of the CIA).
Governments generally say "Here's a pile of money, its up to the research councils how it is distributed.' There's talk in the UK of this being changed such that 25% of all research money is put towards areas which will have a definite market/economic value 5~10 years down the line. Personally I think this is a danger path to go down as some of the greatest discoveries were accidents and came from utterly different initial ideas.
He's being that way because it was me that presented this to the forums.
It's worth pointing out that government research funding often comes with a lot less strings attached than private funding. If you're a company like GSK and you're funding a bunch of biochems to test a new family of drugs you'll often stipulate that should any of them turn out to be a miracle cure GSK have total ownership of the patent and all the students get is their PhDs. Sure, a PhD is no small thing but just think how much the patent to anti-HIV drugs or erectile dysfunction drugs are worth. An outlay of $20,000/year for a PhD student is peanuts compared to billions which might be earnt. Same goes for aerospace designing or particular areas of mathematics (number theorist working on cryptography are a particular favourite of the CIA).
Governments generally say "Here's a pile of money, its up to the research councils how it is distributed.' There's talk in the UK of this being changed such that 25% of all research money is put towards areas which will have a definite market/economic value 5~10 years down the line. Personally I think this is a danger path to go down as some of the greatest discoveries were accidents and came from utterly different initial ideas.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 17 2009, 05:46 PM)
Currently, the Company has 24 employees and 20 consultants. The majority of employees are scientists and engineers, including 8 PhD.D.s.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/facilities.shtml
On a second reading I notice that it doesn't say 8 Scientist Ph D's.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/facilities.shtml
On a second reading I notice that it doesn't say 8 Scientist Ph D's.
Whether any of them are PhD students could matter, 4 students under a single supervisor could do work very close to the level of 5 PhDs and would cost a lot less money. Since its a company rather than a faculty in a v university that's probably not the case.
I think I have been a bit naive... In some ways PI can viewed as an appendage of the university.
And here I was thinking about government spending on NASA...
And here I was thinking about government spending on NASA...
QUOTE
My impression is that you are cynical ... hence the "rain - humidity" denial analogy.
He's being that way because it was me that presented this to the forums.
H2O, get used to it -I made the same mistake of showing limited support for the Mills data and it is like waving a red flag. I was disagreeing with his theory since the hydrino or any othe atom can not have a sub zero ground state but the moment you mention "hydrino" you are agreeing with Mill's theory since he defined the term as a hydrogen atom with a physical fractional quantum state. Jan Naudts suggested a relativistic interpretation for the hydrino that would side step the sub ground state controversey and in 2007 Ron Bourgoin solved for these 137 fractional states using the Poincare group (normally reserved for photons that can occupy the same state and spatial coordinates). This was controversial and based on "Cavity QED" that proposes gravitational isotropy is broken by a Casimir cavity (pores in Rayney nickel) allowing application of the math from an external perspective where hydrogen atoms inside the cavity can seemingly occupy the same spatial coordinates due to time dilation. This supported the 137 states implied by the Mills DATA but it was wrongly assumed to support the Mills THEORY.
You would do better to cite work by Arrata in Japan, Pam Bosse at SPAWAR and a handfull of other companies that are investigating the same anomally under different labels (LENR, CF, sonofusion, bubble fusion) because it is no coincidence that they all use of monatomic hydrogen confined inside Casimir geometry(even if the miniscui is only transitory).
Regards
Fran http://www.byzipp.com/hydrino/
You would do better to cite work by Arrata in Japan, Pam Bosse at SPAWAR and a handfull of other companies that are investigating the same anomally under different labels (LENR, CF, sonofusion, bubble fusion) because it is no coincidence that they all use of monatomic hydrogen confined inside Casimir geometry(even if the miniscui is only transitory).
Regards
Fran http://www.byzipp.com/hydrino/
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 16 2009, 05:38 AM)
Among the site http://www.blacklightpower.com there is some pretty interesting stuff. There is a claim of a new "Grand Unified Theory" which includes what looks like a new atomic model represented at the top of this page....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
Once I get home to my own computer I will probably download the e-book...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
That happens to explain a working model which has been independently verified.
I may even get this....
http://www.millsian.com/index.shtml
Also looks to be pretty interesting...
Turns out there's some pretty good reasons for disregarding hydrinno's.
This link
http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm
Starts out with highschool physics, then assumes only that the uncertainty principle is true (which we have really good experimental evidence to support), and uses these two things to disprove the idea behind hydrinos.
In other words:
If classical mechanics is correct,
And if the uncertainty principle is correct,
And if calculas works,
Then the idea behind hydrinos (as posited by mills) is quite simply, impossible.
To try and quiet the fact-based community they make science-like noises and commission a report of some tame researchers who are prevented from even looking inside the thing they test. And all this while they are still paying for electricity from coal and gas.
What would shut up their critics instantly on the hydrino hypothesis:
1) A sample of ground state hydrinos or
2) a clear method of preparing the above
What would shut up their critics instantly on the power source hypothesis:
1) A long-running working prototype, where the length of time it has to work is inversely proportional to power output and proportional to mass and volume., or
2) A well-documented end to paying for gas and coal and nuclear electric power.
Neither of these is announced, pending, or expected by their foolish investors.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
Once I get home to my own computer I will probably download the e-book...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 16 2009, 06:07 AM)
That happens to explain a working model which has been independently verified.
I may even get this....
http://www.millsian.com/index.shtml
Also looks to be pretty interesting...
Turns out there's some pretty good reasons for disregarding hydrinno's.
This link
http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm
Starts out with highschool physics, then assumes only that the uncertainty principle is true (which we have really good experimental evidence to support), and uses these two things to disprove the idea behind hydrinos.
In other words:
If classical mechanics is correct,
And if the uncertainty principle is correct,
And if calculas works,
Then the idea behind hydrinos (as posited by mills) is quite simply, impossible.
It might help if you were to ask meaningfull questions, rather than making brash statements like "The rest seems to come from theory rather than experiment". If you don't know what the data shows (presumably why they asked the question in the first place), you shouldn't then turn around and tell us what the data do not show.
QUOTE (Tcr+Nov 2 2009, 04:46 PM)
It might help if you were to ask meaningfull questions, rather than making brash statements like "The rest seems to come from theory rather than experiment". If you don't know what the data shows (presumably why they asked the question in the first place), you shouldn't then turn around and tell us what the data do not show.
Except the basic theory pretty much contradicts the principles it claims to be founded on.
Except the basic theory pretty much contradicts the principles it claims to be founded on.
Even if hydrogen had a ground state which was different than the accepted ground state of the diatomic molecule, the BlackLightPower people propose a closed system for their power system. Such a closed system is not a power source -- at best it is power conversion from another power source.
A closed system is like a water wheel, with high and low energy states standing in for high and low parts of the wheel. But as the wheel turns, the same amount of wheel is high and the same amount of wheel is low, and no net power is available unless something is actively turning the wheel. The same is true for a closed turbine system. The same is true for the hypothetical closed hydrogen-hydrino system. The authors emphasize the red herring of the "inexplicability" of their system and their claims of the tens of electron volts per atom (the impressive height of their claimed wheel), but ignore the conservation of number that dooms all such wheels as a power source.
A closed system is like a water wheel, with high and low energy states standing in for high and low parts of the wheel. But as the wheel turns, the same amount of wheel is high and the same amount of wheel is low, and no net power is available unless something is actively turning the wheel. The same is true for a closed turbine system. The same is true for the hypothetical closed hydrogen-hydrino system. The authors emphasize the red herring of the "inexplicability" of their system and their claims of the tens of electron volts per atom (the impressive height of their claimed wheel), but ignore the conservation of number that dooms all such wheels as a power source.
CODE
+---------+
| ___ |
| / \ |
| | O | |
| \___/ |
| |
+---------+
| ___ |
| / \ |
| | O | |
| \___/ |
| |
+---------+
To try and quiet the fact-based community they make science-like noises and commission a report of some tame researchers who are prevented from even looking inside the thing they test. And all this while they are still paying for electricity from coal and gas.
What would shut up their critics instantly on the hydrino hypothesis:
1) A sample of ground state hydrinos or
2) a clear method of preparing the above
What would shut up their critics instantly on the power source hypothesis:
1) A long-running working prototype, where the length of time it has to work is inversely proportional to power output and proportional to mass and volume., or
2) A well-documented end to paying for gas and coal and nuclear electric power.
Neither of these is announced, pending, or expected by their foolish investors.
Link to where they claim it is a closed system...
The process and papers by both BLP and Rowen are clear. They accept anyone who is willing to replicate it. They claim to have detected the dihydrino gas by means of some means of spectroscopy.
Also a working prototype is pending.
As for the process itself
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
This is the latest dated Oct 8 at the BLP site.
The process and papers by both BLP and Rowen are clear. They accept anyone who is willing to replicate it. They claim to have detected the dihydrino gas by means of some means of spectroscopy.
Also a working prototype is pending.
As for the process itself
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
This is the latest dated Oct 8 at the BLP site.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 5 2009, 09:31 AM)
Link to where they claim it is a closed system...
The process and papers by both BLP and Rowen are clear. They accept anyone who is willing to replicate it. They claim to have detected the dihydrino gas by means of some means of spectroscopy.
Also a working prototype is pending.
As for the process itself
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
This is the latest dated Oct 8 at the BLP site.
None of which is anything more than handwaving, and does nothing to change the fact that the proposed mechanism contradicts the very physics it claims to be founded on.
As I have already said, that the ground state is the minimum energy level can be derived by considering classical physics combined with the heisenberg uncertainty principle (you would understand this had you followed the link).
The heisenberg uncertainty principle can be derived also from classical physics by considering the gamma ray microscope thought experiment, which derives the HUP from classical physics by considering what happens when a gamma ray photon, behaving as a classical particle undergoes a classical elastic collision with an electron behaving as a classical particle in an effort to accurately measure the position and momentum of the electron.
So the theory (regarding the mechanism), as it stands is bunk. Hockum. Hogwash, because it contradicts itself.
The process and papers by both BLP and Rowen are clear. They accept anyone who is willing to replicate it. They claim to have detected the dihydrino gas by means of some means of spectroscopy.
Also a working prototype is pending.
As for the process itself
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
This is the latest dated Oct 8 at the BLP site.
None of which is anything more than handwaving, and does nothing to change the fact that the proposed mechanism contradicts the very physics it claims to be founded on.
As I have already said, that the ground state is the minimum energy level can be derived by considering classical physics combined with the heisenberg uncertainty principle (you would understand this had you followed the link).
The heisenberg uncertainty principle can be derived also from classical physics by considering the gamma ray microscope thought experiment, which derives the HUP from classical physics by considering what happens when a gamma ray photon, behaving as a classical particle undergoes a classical elastic collision with an electron behaving as a classical particle in an effort to accurately measure the position and momentum of the electron.
So the theory (regarding the mechanism), as it stands is bunk. Hockum. Hogwash, because it contradicts itself.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.