Slashdot Mirror

According to Mills Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, the *free* electron does not have gravitational mass, whereas the bound electron does. http://www.blacklightpower.com...

http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml sprung to my mind...

We have Steorn, and Blacklight Power!!

It seems the universe is plump with energy and needs only a little squeeze to send it gushing forth.

Well, if you don't want your time to be wasted, then there is no point in pointing out what works either: you see, you are not allowed to use these technologies and as such will have no access to them.

One technology that is being kept under wraps by http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Lots of experimental corroboration, also from other labs. But they are throwing up a large smoke screen by selling a bullshit theory. The underlying physical mechanism is closely related to the cold fusion phenomena. However, in all the time they have been developing their technology, no energy product has been released into the market place. It will only be once it is allowed.

When will that be? Well, a hopeful indicator is that electric cars are finally being allowed onto the market place. Looks like oil demand is no longer being protected. So maybe the rest of the energy scam will be unwound soon thereafter.

From http://www.blacklightpower.com/applications.shtml,

The power from the BlackLight Process forms a plasma (a hot, glowing, ionized gas) that represents a primary light source as well as a primary energy source in the form of heat. Systems have been developed that harness the power primarily as light. Prototype lighting devices comprising a cell similar to a conventional light bulb but containing a catalyst of the BlackLight Process as well as a source of atomic hydrogen have produced thousands of times more light for input power using 1% the voltage compared to standard light sources. Projected into a product, these results indicate the possibility of a light that could deliver the power of conventional fluorescent and incandescent lighting, but operate off of a flashlight battery for a year without an electrical connection.

It's fine to support more science spending, but there are problems with doing it through the military. The people in charge of distributing much of the military R&D budget are not scientists or engineers. This results in contracts going to companies because they have some retired officer on their board or the CEO is friends with some high ranking official. The poster child for taking military research spending out of the hands of bureaucrats is Black Light Power. Those guys are strait up charlatans, who got away with fleecing the US government because of their military connections.

Meh. Branes require some pretty wierd string theory that can probably never be tested. This guy says there was no Big Bang, rather there is a Big Sinusoid cycle of expansion and contraction. The plug for him is that he predicted the accelerating expansion before it was observed, and his view of the universe doesn't require quantum or string theory.

If you cared, you could easily find many pages debunking the "electric universe" theory. e.g. http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

There are no shortage of crackpot physics theories supported by allegedly upstanding scientists. Often it's not even anyone's fault. Someone sees a sliver of evidence for some wild theory and latches on to it, wildly grasping at straws to support it. It's human nature, but most scientists manage to overcome the desire to selectively interpret evidence for their own purposes.

http://www.steorn.net/
http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/coler2.htm
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/

If you want to debunk current science, start by learning modern physics and the experiments used to defend modern physics. You can't effectively criticize theories when you don't know what they say or how past experiments have validated them.

The above crackpot sites might not even be wrong. It could be that the scientific establishment is corrupt, misinterpreting evidence, and unreasonably trying to squash competing theories. However, the way those crackpots are going about trying to disprove currently accepted physics is simply the wrong way to go about it. If any of them would design a repeatable experiment that conflicts with existing theories, they'd become instantly famous. Why don't they? Either they're lazy or they're frauds. In either case, they have no business calling themselves scientists.

and how would any of this be more preposterous than Dr. Mills theory?
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml

there are huge, fundamental mistakes in our understanding of the hydrogen atom (e.g., there's another state whose energy is lower than the normal ground state's).

That is exactly what is claimed here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml Yes the website is cheesy, but the math and predictions are interesting. Its worth a read.

Yes, there is, but we do not have a clue yet of what it is made of.
Well, most of science has yet to agree what it is, but Randy Mills has a pretty solid theory backed by observations.

Mainstream says the 10% of the universe that is observable is 90% hyrogen, 9% helium, and 1% everything else. Mills says that the 90% unobservable universe is a lower-state hydrogen atom that he calls a "hydrino". The Mills theory explains the answers to some very old scientific questions, such as 'what happens to a photon upon absorption' and explains why the Sun's corona is so hot (>1,000,000 K) in spite of the fact that Sun's surface is so cool (6,000 K), and correctly predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe before it was observed (there was no big bang, just a sinusoidal expansion/contration where we are currently on the accelerating region of the curve).

The foundation of Mills theory is that an electron is spherical shell, not a point. From this posit pretty much everything can be explained with 4 dimensions, Newtwon, Maxwell, and relativity - with no need for string theory, spooky interaction, uncertainty, or quantum mechanics.

Meh. The Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM) theory makes more sense than Lindley as it correctly predicted: dark matter, the accelerating expansion of the universe, and the closed-form solutions of any molecule.

CQM says:
  - an electron is spherical field, not a point
  - Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Laws, Special and General Relativity apply at all scales
  - 4-dimensions is all there is (no need to 26-dimension string theory)
  - Quantum mechanics (aka curve fitting) is just math, not the way the actual universe works
  - there was no big bang, rather space-time cyclically expands and contracts
  - dark matter is just Hydrogen atoms collapsed to a lower energy state

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Cosmology%20 050506.pdf

I think these guys are probably going to be even more pissed at being outdone in the crackpottery stakes.

Read this if you want the CQM explanation http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10. 03/Chapters/Chapter%208_110805.pdf
See Page 364

Ok I read and understood the concept. A cute approach to trying to solve the double slit experiment.

However you cannot ignore my example which proves CQM fails by filling in your own example which CQM could pass.

How about answering the example that I twice wrote about? The arrangement I TWICE linked to? The one about a beam splitter and simultaneously taking two entirely different paths, and simultaneously knowing the blocked/unblocked status of both paths, and then interfering at a second beam splitter. A different arrangement presenting the equivalant particle/wave non-locality problem in a form that CQM does not and cannot resolve.

The classical approach cannot explain how a photon or particle, after taking one of the two beam splitter paths, can possibly know whether the path it has not taken is blocked or not. It especially cannot explain how the photon or particle can possibly know whether the opposite path is blocked or not when that blocked/unblocked status changes after it has passed through the initial beam splitter. You are still stuck with the exact same violation of locality. Classical approaches - and CQM in particular - still do not and cannot work.

Though I do have to give kudos to CQM for coming up with such a creative and almost-plausible answer to the rather challenging double slit problem. But it's like trying to defend a flat-earth theory by using atmospheric refraction to explain the horizon problem and how ships and lighthouses can dissapear below the horizon. It doesn't matter how many things a flat earth theory can explain, it only takes one experiment counter example to prove it wrong.

-

Read this if you want the CQM explanation http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10. 03/Chapters/Chapter%208_110805.pdf

See Page 364

Please read this article if you may:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10. 03/Chapters/Chapter%2037_110805.pdf
It deals specifically with the topic of this story and also mentions slit experiments.

Mills specifically addresses Bell's theorem in Chapter 37 http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10. 03/Chapters/Chapter%2037_110805.pdf
and claims that "CQM is not a hidden variable theory. It is a deterministic theory of classical quantum mechanics, and Bells theorem does not apply to it."

Actually you could just click the link to the PDF file on the Black Light website that provides the list of 65 published papers. That's what peer review means: a paper has been reviewed by scientific peers as a requisite for publication. It doesn't mean that somebody else has published their own research that directly correlates to your own.

They are getting some slight pub from some physicists .

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

He's been on the board since 1991. It's a startup? When are they going to start?

As to the scientific community not publishing reports saying he is a charlatan. Well, that's how the respectable scientific community treats crackpots. Now, as to you saying there isn't proof he's a total charlatan? How about a reaction that produces 100X more heat than it should? That's all the proof actual scientists need. They aren't going to give this man any respect by bothering to discuss his idiocy.

If this man is for real, let him prove it in the regular, scientific way. Not in the press and blogs.

I apologize over the lab thing, I looked at his website (and I feel unclean for it), but under the "science" link there wasn't anything about independent verification. I just couldn't find it. I'm sorry. I should have done a search (as I did below).

The major operative factor here is gullibility. Yours included. There is no scientific acceptance of Hydrinos. How you construe this as somehow not refuting what this man says, I dunno.

The real thing is that if hydrogen could assume this quantum state, it would in nature. I mean, it would be the lowest energy state of hydrogen, the rest state. How come we never find hydrogen in that state? No hydrogen atom never dropped to that state on its own? Or if it did, how did it get back out, as it requires a lot of energy to get back.

Here's a nice link http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51792,00 .html?tw=wn_story_related for you which both speaks of NASA spending $75K on Hydrions (but not with this man) and also two experts in the the field (whom you say have never attacked him) calling him a "crackpot" and his work "voodoo". It is significant to note that unlike what he says, NASA has not independently verified or proved Mill's statements. Well, at least we have no info that they did, since the link on their site http://www.blacklightpower.com/techarchive.shtml is 404.

This guy if full of shit. Just because he graduated from MIT, deosn't mean he is that good. Remember the Unabomber graduated from Harvard, for all that's worth.

To all those "But, wait what if it is true! He is the other other Einstein" comments I would just have to say that this guy doesn't know quantum mechanics. He is a medic and an electrical engineer, what the fuck is he doing publishing papers on "The Fallacy of Feynman's Argument on the Stability of the Hydrogen Atom According to Quantum Mechanics". He has two or three equations and the rest is bullshit in "essay format". Check out his website. He might as well be selling tin foil hats to prevent damage from space death rays.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/12/07/22522 59.shtml?tid=126 http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/06/07/21592 10.shtml?tid=134

What makes this case interesting is the length of time this "hoax" has persisted. The funding means nothing; a company with a large budget doesn't care to gamble with the amounts claimed. The validations of his energy claims are the most significant. Many laboratories have found anomalies in reproduced experiments (and some have failed). His theory does not have nearly as much support - nearly every qualified physicist I have given his book to has politely said he's wrong. His derivations just don't make sense.

Some of the more open minded physicists then said that doesn't mean he's wrong. There may be energy produced that current physics can account for, and at worst QM would need amends. This speculation is really irrelevant if he is claiming a product- all we have to do is wait a while and see how it pans out.

Company website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/ (download theory book for free)

effort.

None of it matters. If they release a product and it works then people have to take them seriously. Sure, they'll probably come up with an explaination that is completely different and fits with current physics theory, but whatever floats your boat. What matters is the technology.

Of Interest is the paper

"The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics Workshop" presented at the University of Eindhoven, Netherlands, February 28, 2005 (PDF Warning)

I think the title just about says it all

Of Interest is the paper

"The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics Workshop" presented at the University of Eindhoven, Netherlands, February 28, 2005 (PDF Warning)

I think the title just about says it all

Is it just me or do a lot of these "crackpot" new age energy ideas end up converting water to some useless form? Like this one for instance.

Is that why they're demonized? Not because they don't work, but because they could prove disastrous if implemented on a large-scale?

Maybe I'm missing the amounts involved, but the idea of permanantly trading water for energy sounds like it could be a bad one if carried to its logical conclusion.

Describe particles as spherically harmonic waves (i.e. balls of EM), and the double slit scattering patterns fall out using Maxwell's equations, with no recourse to quantum mechanics This approach can also be used to classicaly derive the results of the Aspect experiment which is the classic demonstration of the entanglement/spooky-action-at-a-distance thing.
I'm sounding like a commercial, but check out http://www.blacklightpower.com/. The maths gets pretty hardcore, but the general overview (and its implications) is damned impressive in itself...

And all for the sake of maintaining the initial (unnecessary and insufficient) postulate that phi(x)->0 as x-->infinity in the Schrodinger equation... (http://www.blacklightpower.com/ - read the book, it's good...) Unlike, err, Time Cubes (sorry), the math checks out on this one - sub-ground state hydrogen makes up the dark matter, we don't need extra dimensions, quantum mechanics is fundamentally, well, wrong, etc. etc. etc. P.S. I did four years of physics at a very good university, and my conclusion was this: mainstream physics is barking up the wrong tree...

Hydrino Hydride batteries

Hydrino Hydride
Energy Density (Volumetric): Up to 182 Wh/cc
Energy Density (Gravimetric): Up to 222 Wh/g
Capacity: Up to 4 Ah/g
Voltage Range: Up to 75V

Lithium-Ion
Energy Density (Volumetric): Up to 0.3 Wh/cc
Energy Density (Gravimetric): 0.12 Wh/g
Capacity: 0.032 Ah/g
Voltage Range: 2.5 to 4.2 V

Over 600x as much usage based on volume & 125x as much based on weight.

While this technology has a negative ERoEI, there are others that don't and look very promising. Unfortunately we don't appear to have the wisdom to invest significantly in their development.

If this is for real, it does great things for the viability of electric cars.

And here is a technology that could produce even greater breakthroughs in battery storage capacity.

But the winner was a hair-straightening treatment by Bioionic, called Ionic Hair Retexturizing: "Water molecules are broken down to a fraction of their previous size ... diminutive enough to penetrate through the cuticle, and eventually into the core of each hair". Shrinking molecules caused some concern among the physicists at the ceremony, since IHR was available just 200 yards away, and the only other groups who have managed to create superdense quark-gluon plasma used a relativistic heavy ion collider. The prospect of such equipment being used by hairdressers was deemed worthy of further investigation.

I half expected to find them using Randell Mill's BlackLight Process to create "Oxygen Dihydrino".

These sound like very good criteria. The funny thing is that when I attempt to apply them to this guy I still don't know what to make of him. Are these respectable journals that he claims to have some of his papers published in? I am curious what you think of this whole deal.

These sound like very good criteria. The funny thing is that when I attempt to apply them to this guy I still don't know what to make of him. Are these respectable journals that he claims to have some of his papers published in? I am curious what you think of this whole deal.

Want to create diamond films under relatively low-temperature, low-power, mild conditions? See http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/Diamond88 121503.pdf.

General Fusion is nothing compared to Blacklight Power So there, nyah nyah!

The article's first paragraph is clearly taking a shot at BlackLight Power in New Jersey.
The site can be reached at BlackLight Power. While the hydrino concept is difficult to accept for almost all mainstream quantum mechanists, I think all of them would acknowledge Dr. Mills as a very bright man who is capable of more original thought than 98% of the scientific community. This doesn't make his theory 'correct', but doesn't make him a pariah either.

Only through experimental repeatability and multiple independent observations of the 'hydrino' can true scientific credibility begin in his case.
Quantum mechanics has accumulated nearly a century of scientific evidence and it is not unreasonable to think big ideas need this kind of time frame for validation now and in the future.

I get the impression that the majority of the people badmouthing Dr. Mills and BlackLight Power are doing so simply because what he claims is so revolutionary that it sounds too good to be true. The majority of the commentors on this thread have shown no understanding of the physics behind these claims (I'll be the first to admit, I don't know enough physics to understand what this theory is trying to say, so I will not comment on whether or not this is a crackpot theory). However, I did take the time to find the paper where Mills published his theory, and read through the first few pages. Even though it was over my head, I did grasp that if his theory supports what he claims it does, it could be very powerful.
I therefore leave more knowledgeable groups (such as peer-reviewed journals) to sift through the physics and decide if it is at least possible. If it is possible, the next step to validate a scientific theory is to verify its predictions, which BlackLightPower has claimed to have done. To double check these claims, it is up to other institutions to try to reproduce these results. I have yet to find any group that has tried to repeat the hydrino experiments. I think that this is what NASA is trying to do. If NASA can get the same results, it's a pretty sure bet Mills is on to something here. If they can't, this theory will be defeated once and for all.
Mills' claims are going through the scientific process. so far, they have withstood it, but they have a long way yet to go. I'm not sure whether this guy's right or wrong, but I don't think it's our place to criticize him without giving him a chance. Let's wait until NASA tries to reproduce the results before we claim it doesn't work.

Heh heh. They misspelled "Planck."

Is it my imagination, or is this guy's head a few sizes too small?

I've done some reading on this subject, and the fundamental theory stems from an assumption that the electron assumes a non-classical (particle) and non-quantum (no probability wave) form of a two-dimensional shell (called an "orbitsphere"). This is where everything comes from, and nobody has been able to disprove the theory yet. The work presently being persued is seemingly discombobulated because it's being influenced by commercial applications. It is pushing to empirically prove the existence of hydrinos (i.e. lookie what I made, therefore they exist!) instead of forming a rock-solid experiment (in the eyes of the scientific community) to prove the existence of hydrinos (i.e. I did X and Y and got A, not Z or B, and here's my test setup and data which clearly shows that I took into account all the variables that you'd otherwise say I neglected, therefore they must exist. Now how can I make money off of this?).

For those who would like to read more, please /. the following link. It's Dr. Mills' company's webpage which offers a free PDF "book" on the subject.

go to this link and have a look at their links for development, theory, and tech papers. Now try to disprove it. 'Nuff said, part 2....

I've read everything that's come out of BLP for the last four years. I suggest this paper for starters, as it's the most compact statement Mills has made on CQM to date. Mills ideas are elegant and simple. Oh, and CQM reasonably explains electron spin in a completely clear way, something standard quantum mechanics hasn't managed. You'll find further papers here.

In any case, it might not matter if anyone 'believes' in hydrinos. BLP has developed materials with novel properties through the BLP process, and they'll get these materials to market long before mainstream physics even begins to take CQM seriously.

Go see what they've done, and if you can, come up with a better explanation for the results of BLP's experiments -- all of them. If you come up with a reasonable alternate explanation (besides "it's a hoax" or "they're just really bad scientists") then by all means come join the Hydrino Study Group.

I've read everything that's come out of BLP for the last four years. I suggest this paper for starters, as it's the most compact statement Mills has made on CQM to date. Mills ideas are elegant and simple. Oh, and CQM reasonably explains electron spin in a completely clear way, something standard quantum mechanics hasn't managed. You'll find further papers here.

In any case, it might not matter if anyone 'believes' in hydrinos. BLP has developed materials with novel properties through the BLP process, and they'll get these materials to market long before mainstream physics even begins to take CQM seriously.

Go see what they've done, and if you can, come up with a better explanation for the results of BLP's experiments -- all of them. If you come up with a reasonable alternate explanation (besides "it's a hoax" or "they're just really bad scientists") then by all means come join the Hydrino Study Group.

After so many years, Mills still cannot show the hydrino/blacklight whatever/ is not a crackpot idea.

Even according to their own website, I cannot see a single reference of the work being accepted by any reputable scientific journal. (Well, submitted to an IEEE journal is nothing. Rejection process typically takes about 6 months. With so many tech reports, they can keep on submitting and pretending they are doing something.)

Here's the address
Also its been recently updated. Check the "Whats New" area.

The batteries under development at BlackLight Power, Inc. have an energy density that's a whopping 606 times greater than lithium-ion batteries.

...was if they were powered by Blacklight Power. If you're not in the know, they're a "power company" run by a "scientist" who claimed that he had been able to reproduce something that sounded suspiciously like cold fusion in his Princeton, NJ-area laboratories. The Village Voice ran a story on them (where I read about these jokers) and a whole slew of investors were lined up (in the heady days a few months before the dot-com bubble popped) and last I checked, they still haven't actually, you know. Produced what they said they would two years ago (power).
If you've got a slow afternoon, take a gander at what physicists have to say about Blacklight...

Now, according to this story, somebody by the name of Mills claims to have come up with a Grand Unified Theory already. Specifically, the theory is here, in PDF format (note section 2, especially). I was hoping for an opportunity to ask a real physicist this: Is Mills full of it, or does it sound like he hit upon the real thing?

I've heard the smart money is on fraud, but the article noted in the story above seemed to describe him in the same way one typically thinks of Galileo. Just curious what a real physicist thinks about this guy.