"near limitless power" "turns physics on its head"

RoscoHowOriginal said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

Is this one of those "too good to be true" things?

This looks like cold fusion all over again.

Quoting A. Rathke in A critical analysis of the hydrino model,
4. <b>Conclusion</b>
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis,
both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were
originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that
CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are
the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen
atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that
CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum
mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently
attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino
hypothesis.
 
We already know exactly how the sun, moon, and planets move.

DON'T LOOK THROUGH THAT TELESCOPE!
 
So from what I can gather, Dr. Mills is trying to create (or has created?) a water molecule using a form of hydrogen (hydrinos) and oxygen, in which the hydrinos contain 1000x more energy (or potential?) than the standard isotope of hydrogen we know (protium). By what means is he harvesting this energy? Is he breaking the bonds between the proton and its electron? It is an interesting concept, but does have holes in its theory. How is he able to force or create an orbital that exceeds the lowest electron level while still being able to maintain stability? More questions to ensue... :confused:
 
This guy has been around since at least 1997, and mass production of working energy machines has always been just a few years away. He always just needs a little more money...
 
I wonder if he can be held criminally responsible for bilking investors in such a way.
 
The "debunking" of cold fusion was almost entirely fraudulent.

I will believe this theory when someone builds a testable machine.
 
MetaKron said:
The "debunking" of cold fusion was almost entirely fraudulent.
QUOTE]

Did you actually mean that as you wrote it????? That the debunking was a fraud and not the cold fusion itself? :bugeye:
 
Yes, that's what I meant, Light. The debunkers are usually frauds and they are in this case. Cold fusion has not been refuted at all. It may have been "easily refuted" but the only easy refutations are big lies.
 
A little more detail:

This guy basically claims that it’s possible for an electron around a nucleus to have a fractional quantum number that's less than 1. If that were true it would indeed be possible to extract a whole lot of energy by causing an electron to drop from a principle quantum number n of 1 (the lowest possible value for n) to, say, n=1/2. The problem with this is that it's nonsense. n represents the number of nodes that an electron's wave function has around a nucleus. The number of nodes = n-1. So, for example, if an electron's orbital had three nodes then n would equal 4. n=1 means that the electron has no nodes (n-1=0, so 0 nodes). So that would mean that n=1/2 would mean that the electron had...-1/2 nodes? That doesn't make any sense.

Of course, it’s always possible that this guy has discovered some incredible new phenomenon that quantum physics is unable to explain. The thing is, if he has had a working prototype for at least seven years he has had more than enough time to just start selling his amazing super-energy producing machines and say "Theorize about THAT, bitches!" to the physics community. But instead, he just keeps collecting more money from investors...
 
Last edited:
MetaKron said:
Yes, that's what I meant, Light. The debunkers are usually frauds and they are in this case. Cold fusion has not been refuted at all. It may have been "easily refuted" but the only easy refutations are big lies.

Really? Then tell me exactly why do one has ever been able to reproduce the so-called "breakthrough" that the fellows at the University of New Mexico had? So far, they are the only ones that ever offered what looked like a real process - and they couldn't even repeat it themselves.

So just where is the fraud that you're claiming?
 
A lot of people have reproduced cold fusion. Fraudulent debunkers, preying on the gullibility of the public, have denounced these people by simply claiming, falsely, that all cold fusion claims are fraudulent, therefore the reproductions are fraudulent. At least two governments have found enough substance in the claims to invest money in them to try to find out.

The objections to the hydronium phenomenon are pretty near brain-dead, too. The lowest energy level that we are used to seeing in the electron of a hydrogen atom is not the lowest level physically possible. It is just the lowest level that physicists admit has been observed. There is still a lot of physical room for lower levels. You certainly have no idea if a hydrogen atom can go below "ground state."

Also, if you want to kvetch about no one having replicated the results of Pons and Fleischman, you could leave off the manufactured contempt of deliberately getting their university wrong. You could also bother to find out if there have been other replications, which there have been. There is a lot more to producing credible refutations than playing dirty politics and having a mushmouth, Light. Your credibility is also not helped by your habit of making false statements about subjects like this. You are certainly in a position by now to know that there have been many replications of cold fusion. You are not honest enough to tell people that there have been these replications, but that you are personally in contempt of them. It doesn't sound the same if you say it that way, does it? You just wave your arm and use the phrase "there is no evidence." That's garbage. If you don't know it, learn to read and read up on the subject.
 
Maybe we can't make cold fusion work, but it looks like the little green men have:
We have had enough of these uninvited inspections, please mind your own business and leave us alone to develop our own technologies including the continued use of cold fusion using the frozen core of our planet.

For the full story, see Martians Forge Ahead with Nuclear Cold Fusion .
 
Anyone desiring to give cold fusion a FAIR trial can Google :"cold fusion" and read evidence with their own eyes and decide for themself if it sounds successful or fraudulent.

Somebody once told me that an important part of the scientific method is to examine the evidence. Is that still one of the rules or did they change them?
 
"Counters this paper" is rather too generous a phrase, don't you think. All I see is a lot of handwaving and a baseless dismissal of the sound physical arguments made elsewhere against hydrino states. The number of physical effects the author has swept out of sight with his handwaving is truly staggering.

Here's a simple one for starters. Why aren't all hydrogen atoms in this special magic state at room temperature? Magic protection from radiative transfer? Come on.
 
Back
Top