Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Merck Cuts Back (Again) | Main | Publish And Be Damned, Most Likely »

October 24, 2008

BlackLight Power Responds

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

After my post the other day, I’ve heard from some folks at Blacklight Power, including their founder, Randell Mills. He says that I have a number of details wrong about their system, and wrote with more information. I’ll quote from Mills:

”We do not add water to R-Ni. Any water present after drying is in the form of Bayerite or Gibbsite (Al(OH)3) which is quantified by XRD and TPD. Regarding the Rowan University team validation, the maximum theoretical heat from the measured content was 1% of the observed energy as stated with the analytical results given in the Rowan report which is on-line at our website.”

He also takes exception – as well he might – to my line about the correlation of the company’s activities to their fund-raising needs, stating that Blacklight currently has no need to raise any money at all. And as for the NMR figure that I could make no sense of, that appears to have been mislabeled. The one I was looking at, Mills says, is indeed a solution NMR and was actually Figure 45 in the document. Figure 58, he says, has now been fixed, although I have to say that it still looks like a duplicate of Figure 45 this morning at this link. Update: here's the correct version,

But as best I understand it now, the fundamental claim of the Blacklight work is that formation of their lower-energy states of hydrogen is extremely exothermic. Alkali metal hydrides, they say, are particularly good catalysts for this, giving you hydrinos and sodium metal (see equations 32 through 34 in their PDF). So the Raney nickel in these experiments is being used as a source of atomic hydrogen, and forming small amounts of sodium hydride on its surface gives you a system to see all this in action. Figure 17 would seem to be one of these, and Figure 21 is the same thing on a kilo scale.

I’ll not comment on these just yet, but will continue to see if I can make sense of what’s going on. I’ll invite readers to do the same if they wish, and to post queries about the stuff in the comments here (or to e-mail them to me). We’ll come back for another round as the process goes on.

Mills has been good enough to offer to help me out with any aspects of the data that they’ve published, and to get in contact with the company should I be in the area, which is a good sign, and much appreciated. They’re also supposed to have a video of the reaction up shortly, and we’ll see what we can learn from that as well. Against all this, I have to put the fact that I still find the physics behind the company quite odd and improbable. And one has to remember that the track record of odd, improbable physics breakthroughs that promise huge supplies of energy is. . .not good. And that’s putting it very mildly indeed.

But all it takes is one. And all Blacklight has to do to quiet the skeptics (many of whom are much more vitriolic than I am) is to throw that big switch at some point and have the kilowatts (or megawatts) come streaming out. That’ll do it, for sure, and the company assures everyone that this is their goal. I wish them luck with it, because a huge and unexpected new source of energy would be a good thing indeed. I’m actually glad to live in a country where ideas this wild can raise tens of millions of dollars, but (for the time being) I’m also glad that none of that money is mine.

Update: I'm already getting queries about how I can come down on the likes of Kevin Trudeau or Matthias Rath but not give Blacklight the same treatment. One reason is that Blacklight doesn't seem to be trying to extract money from the general public, which is, of course, Kevin Trudeau's whole reason for living. Another related reason is that Rath, Trudeau and their ilk are preying, in many cases, on people who are already ill and urging them to do things which will actually make them worse. Blacklight, as far as I can tell, is not urging people to chop down their power lines and send off for Home Hydrino Kits.

I find Blacklight's physics weird and unconvincing, too. But proposing weirdo physics theories is no crime.

Comments (156) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Current Events


COMMENTS

1. Sili on October 24, 2008 8:33 AM writes...

I have to admit that I'd rather have seen such 'vitriol' on this blog too.

I'm afraid I couldn't find an index in their paper. Would someone be kind enough to point me to the section where they solve the Schrödinger equation to get these new quantum numbers? It's been ages since I had QM, but as I vaguely recall it having 1 as the number of the lowest state comes directly from solving a differential equation. I think the solution starts as a power series, so it doesn't even make sense to have non-integer values.

If nothing else, I'd like to see a sample of this 'depleted hydrogen' they must be producing after extracting the zeropoint energy. Or does it instantaneously recharge so that we can extract more and more and more energy for free out of thin air?

Permalink to Comment

2. Derek Lowe on October 24, 2008 8:43 AM writes...

Sili, if I'm reading them right, they claim that they can use that stuff to make unusual new compounds and materials. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those myself, if they exist.

I'd have been nastier if the company were out beating the drum for money from the general public, but they don't seem to be. Anyone who puts serious cash into them can do their own due diligence (and they'd better!) But since Blacklight doesn't seem to be in "call-now-operators-are-standing-by" mode, I'll give them a little slack for now.

I still don't think that we're looking at a physics revolution here - we almost never are. But if people want to take a whack at one, hey, they're welcome to try.

Permalink to Comment

3. Zach on October 24, 2008 8:48 AM writes...

You're being far too kind. As an atomic physicist, I can tell you that

1) An electron bound to a hydrogen atom is exactly and analytically solvable. We know every bound state, and there is no state below the ground state.

2) Blacklight's equations are nonsense and have nothing to do with the Schroedinger or Dirac equations describing an electron in a potential. It's been a while since I looked, but their equations were really weird and bore no relation to anything in atomic physics.

3) The energy levels of an electron around a nucleus of charge Z go as E=(-1/2 Hartree)*(Z^2/n^2). The spectroscopic experiment where they purport to see a n=1/2 energy level (ie, an energy level lower than n=1, the ground state) is done in a discharge which included both hydrogen (Z=1) and helium (Z=2). The line they saw is the n=1 level of He+.

4) If there were an energy level of hydrogen which was 40.8 eV below the ground state, every hydrogen atom that we see should be in that state! Room temperature is about 1/40 eV, so the ratio of normal ground state atoms to hydrino atoms should be e^(40.8 eV/(1/40 eV))=e^(-1632), or ~10^-500.

Permalink to Comment

4. Zach on October 24, 2008 8:50 AM writes...

You're being far too kind. As an atomic physicist, I can tell you that

1) An electron bound to a hydrogen atom is exactly and analytically solvable. We know every bound state, and there is no state below the ground state.

2) Blacklight's equations are nonsense and have nothing to do with the Schroedinger or Dirac equations describing an electron in a potential. It's been a while since I looked, but their equations were really weird and bore no relation to anything in atomic physics.

3) The energy levels of an electron around a nucleus of charge Z go as E=(-1/2 Hartree)*(Z^2/n^2). The spectroscopic experiment where they purport to see a n=1/2 energy level (ie, an energy level lower than n=1, the ground state) is done in a discharge which included both hydrogen (Z=1) and helium (Z=2). The line they saw is the n=1 level of He+.

4) If there were an energy level of hydrogen which was 40.8 eV below the ground state, every hydrogen atom that we see should be in that state! Room temperature is about 1/40 eV, so the ratio of normal ground state atoms to hydrino atoms should be e^(40.8 eV/(1/40 eV))=e^(-1632), or ~10^-500.

Permalink to Comment

5. Zach on October 24, 2008 8:52 AM writes...

Apparently I can tell you twice. Sorry about the double post.

Permalink to Comment

6. Mister Snitch on October 24, 2008 8:54 AM writes...

"I’m also glad that none of that money is mine."

Indeed. I have a ton of information & links re Mills and comments from various professors and researchers at this post. The post is several years old, yet it is as relevant today as it was when first published... and that alone should tell you something.

http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2005/11/there-really-is-one-born-every-minute.html

Permalink to Comment

7. FormerMolecModeler on October 24, 2008 8:56 AM writes...

Solution to Schrodinger equation for hydrogen atom:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys315/lectures/lect_5/lect_5.html

The integral n values come about from solutions to differential equations, just as Sili mentioned.

It is interesting that the only mention of Schrodinger in the paper is in reference to him predicting the energy levels for hydrogen, namely E = -13.6 eV/n^2.

Anyway. It will probably be good for all of us if this is true, but I'm just very skeptical.

Permalink to Comment

8. Pixy Misa on October 24, 2008 9:06 AM writes...

I don't know what Blacklight Power is seeing, if anything, but it's sure as hell not a lower ground state of hydrogen. If there were such a state, water as we know it would not exist and we'd all be dead.

Which I'm pretty much convinced is not the case.

Permalink to Comment

9. James on October 24, 2008 9:18 AM writes...

Hi Derek,

I find this statement of yours a bit odd:

"But all it takes is one. And all Blacklight has to do to quiet the skeptics (many of whom are much more vitriolic than I am) is to throw that big switch at some point and have the kilowatts (or megawatts) come streaming out."

This seems like a pretty high bar to reach to prove a theory. This sort of seems like saying:

"So you have a solar cell that produces (in 1960) one watt of electricity for $100000. Since no-one would buy such a thing, I think the whole thing is a sham, and its impossible to make electricity from sunlight."

Aren't Randall's prototypes, so far, enough proof that his theory is true or not, even if he hasn't launched a commercially viable and low cost solution? Is he keeping his results and methods so secret that they can't be evaluated without commercial, low cost, viability?

James

Permalink to Comment

10. Dave Eaton on October 24, 2008 9:42 AM writes...

I'm with Derek with respect to vitriol. Being full of crap should not attract our ire as scientists. There is an ultimate arbiter, and that is nature. If they are after grandma's money, then yes, both barrels are warranted.

I've got a PhD in chemistry, with a some emphasis on modeling materials. Their stuff looks pretty loopy to me. But the Schrodinger equation isn't holy writ needing a screeching inquisitor defending it- the sort of person likely to be legitimately influenced by the mathematics is likely to be in a position to say, like we all have, that this looks fishy. Anyone ignorant of all the physics being assaulted would likely be influenced by any fancy talk and math.

IF the work is on their own dime, let the horses run and see where it leads. Besides, there will be battalions of scientists after this if they can produce power.

Far more interesting to me is the scant possibility that they can do it, but are all wet with respect to the explanation. If they are betting with their own dough, I am happy to see them put it on a longshot. They'll either overturn some physics (very unlikely, I'd wager), discover a nifty and useful effect, or waste a bunch of money chasing flickers and noise. Whatever- as long as they are not fleecing anyone (except, perhaps, themselves), there's no need to take it personally.

Permalink to Comment

11. onscrn on October 24, 2008 9:45 AM writes...

Some things in nature are very well understood. The hydrogen atom is one such thing, possibly the best understood. There is no lower energy state of hydrogen.

Permalink to Comment

12. CosmicConservative on October 24, 2008 9:52 AM writes...

Dave:

The difference between the electricity from light example and the lower state of hydrogen example is that all of the physics theory known at the time strongly supported the notion of converting sunlight into electricity, and that only moderate efficiencies (say 30% or so) needed to be reached to make it commercially viable, efficiencies that are well within accepted practical limits of thermodynamics.

The claims of Blacklight are not only not supported by current physics theory, but are, in fact, directly opposed to them.

That is not to say that Blacklight may rewrite our physics textbooks, such things have happened before. However, it is extremely unlikely.

And as the famous saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So I agree with Derek on this. Throw the switch and start generating kilowatts or megawatts. Otherwise I'm not going to get all excited about this.

This reminds me of cold fusion in a way. Because people were willing to accept miniscule energy yields as "proof" of cold fusion there were many experiements which initially seemed to support the notion of cold fusion, but that's because the energy "yields" being generated were coming from other sources which were not only more easily explained through normal chemistry, but which were also not commercially scalable. The result was a bubble of excitement about cold fusion that ended up making science look very bad to the public. I don't want to see that happen again, when science and politics collide, usually both lose.

Permalink to Comment

13. Andrew Garland on October 24, 2008 9:55 AM writes...

If there were another state of Hydrogen, wouldn't there be enough high-energy emmissions from radioactive decay to produce that state, at random?

Any piece of granite with both uranium and water (and other hydrogen containing compounds) would accumulate some of this H-lowstate. It would be everywhere. Why has it been overlooked in the detailed chemical and spectroscopic analyses that have been done for 100 years?

Permalink to Comment

14. Tim on October 24, 2008 10:08 AM writes...

James,

You miss the point. All that we have seen demonstrated so far is that they have an exothermic reaction. As there are many chemical exothermic reactions, and so for no proven hydrino reactions, it takes a bit more to prove the theory (remembering cold fusion with a shudder).

When your results can have more than one cause, independent verification of exactly what is happening at an atomic level will be necessary. Failing that, producing reactors will suffice...... even a 3kw reactor over a long period would generate proof.

Permalink to Comment

15. philw1776 on October 24, 2008 10:34 AM writes...

What should serve as a warning sign for all is BL's constant moving of the goal posts regarding demos of their supposed 50 KW reactors. Earlier this year they trumpeted that by September '08 they would have several demo units out at selected power companies for Beta test. Now, their postion is 2009 or at worst 2010. This is not the 1st time a stated BL deadline has moved. As a engineering guy myself I'm well aware of missed deadlines, but these guys were inside the Red Zone in timeframe and have now blithely simply issued different dates.

Permalink to Comment

16. Neil Ferguson on October 24, 2008 10:40 AM writes...

Everyone knows that a stopped clock is right twice a day. But in the same vein a slower clock is less accurate than a faster clock. Since there is no such thing as a perfectly accurate clock, the most accurate clock in the world is the one running fastest.

Famous quote: "Extraordinary claims require substantial venture capital."

Permalink to Comment

17. Rip on October 24, 2008 10:54 AM writes...

So basically, you didn't understand what they were doing at all, and had no clue what the experiment was about, yet still felt it was legitimate to criticize their claims.

Great. Thanks.

Permalink to Comment

18. Andreas on October 24, 2008 11:05 AM writes...

Hi Zach,

Could there be a theory that contains the Schrodinger and Dirac equations? Meaning that it predicts all the states that the Schrodiner and Direc equations, and some more?

(I am not saying Mills' theory is this theory, just a general thought).

For over 200 years, people thought Newton's theory is correct, then Einstein came up with an even more general theory that contains Newton's under certain conditions.

Permalink to Comment

19. sigma147 on October 24, 2008 11:10 AM writes...

I recall talking with Randy while I was an undergrad at F&M back in the late '80's. He was still hanging around the chemistry department, working with Prof. John Farrell. At any rate, he was fleshing out many of the ideas that are up on BL's web site back then.

He struck me as a very intelligent and earnest individual. He really believed in the ideas he had - Mossbauer-effect radiation treatment for cancer, his unified theory of physics, and others. Still does, so it appears from the BL website. I never had the impression that he was out to scam anyone with his ideas - he truly believed in them.

That said, even as an undergrad, many of his ideas just didn't jibe with what I was learning in P-chem and physics. Let's just say that I was a bit sceptical that he would go anywhere with them. I find it interesting that he's still out there, trying to make a go at this.

Mind you, I very much adhere to the "extraordinary claims" quote - I wouldn't fund anything like what BL is doing without seeing some pretty substantial proof-of-concept work.

Sigma147

Permalink to Comment

20. TFox on October 24, 2008 11:10 AM writes...

So let's posit the theory as reasonable for a moment. Why is calorimetry the best way to test it experimentally? What's wrong with spectroscopy, like how we looked at atomic energy levels in undergrad physics labs?

Permalink to Comment

21. Eric on October 24, 2008 11:16 AM writes...

We can't afford to continue with the failed policies of Schroedinger. But with HOPE we can CHANGE hydrogen!

Permalink to Comment

22. James on October 24, 2008 11:26 AM writes...

Thanks for everyone's comments.

It seems that I've triggered the idea of:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I guess there is a certain truth to that, but it begs the question of what is "extraordinary" on the evidence side. The feeling I get is that most commentators here won't be satisfied until an actual commercial facility is generating power and revenue.

I guess I would say that the Rowen University experiment seems pretty close to "extraordinary" evidence. Unless people are claiming the test was fraudulent somehow, the professor was purposefully lying. Or the professor really didn't understand what he was doing.

James

Permalink to Comment

23. Daniel Newby on October 24, 2008 11:32 AM writes...

I'm still not buying it. Let us assume that a hydrogen atom's electron can transition to a state that cannot be reached by the usual radiative mechanisms involving (freely propagaing) dipole photons. In Feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics, the properties of a particle are determined by summing the particle's path integral over all possible virtual processes that it might participate in, including processes that are extremely rare. This can be used to predict the electron's gyromagnetic ratio, which matches measurements to an astounding 10 significant figures or so. It is not plausible that electrons participate in a new process that is two orders of magnitude stronger than the known processes, yet this new process has no detectable effect on the path integral and therefore the gyromagnetic ratio.

Then there are astrophysical considerations. The core of a large Jupiter-like body is mostly hydrogen under high pressure. If the hypothesized non-radiative process is powered by electrostatic attraction between the proton and the electron, then hydrinos must be smaller than hydrogen atoms, at least an order of magnitude to account for the tremendous energy release. In the high-pressure interior of a Jupiter-like body, that shrinkage would be highly energetically favorable, and there would be plenty of catalytic trace elements floating around to make it happen. Therefore gas giant planets should be vastly smaller and denser, and have a tremendous internal energy source from continuing hydrino formation. This is not observed. Similar arguments would apply to super-dense stars, where the hydrino state would probably be preferred to degenerate matter, vastly altering the equation of state and therefore the mass of Type I supernovas (exploding white dwarfs).

There seems no reason why the hydrino transformation should not be possible for one of a helium atom's electrons but not the other. Such atoms would behave a lot like hydrogen with an atomic mass around 4. These atoms are not observed either chemically or spectroscopically.

Permalink to Comment

24. Benjamin Winkler on October 24, 2008 11:34 AM writes...

Since there is no such thing as a perfectly accurate clock, the most accurate clock in the world is the one running fastest.

Hmm. By that rationale, a clock which was running with infinite speed would always be right, except for infinitesimally small periods of time which recurred frequently. Thus, you could never really get a reading on whether the clock was "right" - you could just express a probability that, at any given period of time, it was correct because the position of the hands matched up with the actual time.

I think there's some analogy here to quantum mechanics, but I haven't the education to guess what it is.

Permalink to Comment

25. TW Andrews on October 24, 2008 12:01 PM writes...

So basically, you didn't understand what they were doing at all, and had no clue what the experiment was about, yet still felt it was legitimate to criticize their claims.

Great. Thanks.

That a trained scientist can't understand what they're doing is a legitimate cause for skepticism.

Permalink to Comment

26. Andrew on October 24, 2008 12:10 PM writes...

Derek,

Thanks for looking into this. I'm quite disappointed in some of the comments to your post. For starters the call for more vitriol. That type of thing is never in short supply so I hardly see the need for more of it.

By coincidence for the last couple of weeks I've been looking into what research is going on in alternative energy. I'd never heard of Blacklight before until stumbling across a mention of it last week while reading about polywell fusion. I've read through several blog postings and comments, a couple of online articles and some of the material on the Blacklight website.

So I'm completely aware of all of the prior controversy with this company. And certainly a huge amount of skepticism is both appropriate and desirable. However from what I can tell, there has never been much serious effort to investigate any of the claims (over say the past 10 years)

There were a couple of earlier comments along the lines of why don't we see the these lower energy states of hydrogen and how could water exist as we know it. I read through the introduction of the book posted on the Blacklight site. Now when I say 'read through' that doesn't mean I followed the details.. I was just trying to get a basic idea of the claims. Their explanation seems to be that hydrogen in the n=1 state will not radiate energy away without some type of catalyst. I'm not qualified to evaluate the merits of the argument, but at least there's an attempt at an explanation.

Another misconception I see is that the Blacklight claims are somehow diametrically opposed to science as we know it. From what I can tell they're only saying that quantum mechanics theory is not right. However, they don't claim that any experiments are wrong. Nor do they claim that special or general relativity are wrong. So basically they seem to be saying that they have a better theory than quantum mechanics in that it explains the same experimental evidence as quantum mechanics but also explains other things that quantum mechanics doesn't.

I understand that most people don't have the time to really look into things like this. But I think there's more to it than that. I think that a lot of people are overly reluctant to reexamine their assumptions- especially people who have spent a lot of time learning the currently accepted theories.

From what I can tell from looking at what documents are posted on the Blackwell site, there should be more than enough information there to conclusively debunk them if they're wrong. Unfortunately, I can understand that no one has the time, incentive or educational background to do so.

In no way am I claiming that they are right, but I do get the feeling that something interesting will come out of this.

Permalink to Comment

27. Blake on October 24, 2008 12:11 PM writes...

Daniel, I understand your thesis, but question the premise on which it is based.

I'm old enough to vaguely remember some pretty wild thoughts about the makeup of the planets in our solar system. Subsequent analysis proved a lot of those theories false.

Now, while we have a better understanding of planets in our solar system, we still have some pretty big gaps.

Heck, we still have a limited understanding of our own planet.

Don't get me wrong, I think a healthy skepticism of the the claims by Blacklight are entirely correct.

However, I don't think we have enough knowledge of our own solar system to use it as a basis for debunking the claims of Blacklight

Permalink to Comment

28. bc on October 24, 2008 12:18 PM writes...

As fate would have it, in my youth, I was embroiled in a con man scheme of this type. We were claiming we had an equally preposterously valuable product for data storage. The M.O. of the team leader (who ended up in San Quentin) was to get up in front of real top corporate technology guys who would ask tough questions. The questions would be modified and recycled into the narrative thus continually tweaking the sales pitch. This process culminated in a level of techno-babble so impressive in its pseudo content that we raised millions in venture funding. That didn't make it any less evil. I busted the guy when I realized what we were doing, but he did a lot of damage.

Permalink to Comment

29. Hap on October 24, 2008 12:29 PM writes...

Why use RaNi as the support? RaNi contributes a lot of surface area, but also lots of other stuff that makes finding the energy output by calorimetry difficult - it would seem easier to use highly pure NaH/KH (which should be obtainable in quantity) and some other (less reactive) support. I don't know if you can generate a surface layer of NaH or KH on gold or silicon, but that might be another possibility, and one in which it would be easier to see the postulated effects.

It's nice to see BP respond. I don't believe it yet, but my belief is irrelevant - if it works, there will be some very wealthy people at BP.

Permalink to Comment

30. Hap on October 24, 2008 12:32 PM writes...

Why use RaNi as the support? RaNi contributes a lot of surface area, but also lots of other stuff that makes finding the energy output by calorimetry difficult - it would seem easier to use highly pure NaH/KH (which should be obtainable in quantity) and some other (less reactive) support. I don't know if you can generate a surface layer of NaH or KH on gold or silicon, but that might be another possibility, and one in which it would be easier to see the postulated effects.

It's nice to see BP respond. I don't believe it yet, but my belief is irrelevant - if it works, there will be some very wealthy people at BP.

Permalink to Comment

31. Anonymous on October 24, 2008 12:32 PM writes...

@Daniel,

Interesting that you should mention astrophysical effects. I believe that Mills claims unexplained peaks in the EUV spectrum of the solar corona exactly match certain hydrino transitions. To me that sounds like a better solution to the solar corona problem than magnetic 'flux tubes' or similar nonsense that flies in the face of the 2nd law of TD. I have also seen recent evidence based on observation of dwarf galaxies to the effect that dark matter is more baryonic than once thought, and might consist of "hard-to-detect" gaseous hydrogen, what Mills would call di-hydrino gas. Could it be that hydrinos explain the solar corona, dark matter and the solar neutrino problem all in one go?

Permalink to Comment

32. Dave Eaton on October 24, 2008 12:34 PM writes...

That a trained scientist can't understand what they're doing is a legitimate cause for skepticism.

I'd say that differently. An honest trained scientist will admit every day that he encounters stuff outside his or her field that they just don't get. It's when someone claims to be overturning well-established stuff in the process that the spider-sense starts to itch.

These guys make all sorts of internal alarms go off, and are likely all wet theoretically, and maybe experimentally, but this is harder to say. My only issue was with the idea that one has to show one's hind quarters and fling poo when someone makes goofy, but empriically testable claims, as opposed to appeals for funding from the naive. The investors who have put up the dough may be dumb, and they may be looking for something sure to fail to claim losses. Before I disparage anyone's investment acuity, I should take a hard look at my 401K statement that came yesterday...

I like Bob Park's site, and his refreshingly profane and frank opinions. I'd take a different tack, but so what?

Permalink to Comment

33. SRC on October 24, 2008 1:01 PM writes...

I share Derek's perspective 100%. As long as these guys are doing no harm, and are getting their money from qualified investors, God love 'em - go ahead and try to break new ground. I'm intensely skeptical, but open-minded, so bring me the dispositive data and I'll reconsider my skepticism.

Now if we could only get this same perspective extended to global w