Slashdot Mirror


NASA to Investigate Hydrinos

An Anonymous Coward writes "A new NASA program might once and for all settle the "hydrino" question. The concept of the hydrino -- hydrogen shrunk below its normal state with the resulting release of extreme ultraviolet light -- has been derided by the physics establishment and surprisingly embraced by many engineers and people with deep pockets. Slashdot hashed the hydrino pretty vigorously in December 1999. Now NASA is funding independent research into making a rocket from this novel idea. If it works, we could be seeing a sea change in physics. If it fails, hydrinos might finally just float away. There's an active study group of several hundred users (including some prominent scientists) devoted to debating the possible existence of hydrinos. In many ways it sprang from slashdot."

197 comments

  1. LNUX DEATH WATCH by RoboTroll · · Score: -1
    LNUX death watch: Powered by Microsoft Moneycentral!


    VA Software Corporation

    After Hours: Last 0.82 Change unch Volume 1,100

    Last 0.82 Open 0.82

    Change -0.02 Previous Close 0.84

    % Change -2.26% Bid 0.72

    Volume 100,700 Ask 0.90

    Day's High 0.87 52 Week High 3.88

    Day's Low 0.80 52 Week Low 0.76

    StockScouter Rating 3

    Financial data in U.S. dollars

    Fundamental Data

    P/E NA Market Cap. 44.23 Mil

    Earnings/Share -7.22 # Shares Out. 53.87 Mil

    Dividend/Share NA Exchange NASDAQ

    Current Div. Yield NA Intraday Chart | Message Board


  2. Hot Grits!!! by on+by · · Score: -1
    He's fast today. But so are you. You always look forward to being matched up with Obi-Wan for practic e. He comes at you full-f orce, as he should. S ome of the other guys still treat you too m &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 uch like the weak er sex. It works to your advanta ge becau &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608se they usually hold back, giving you plenty of opport &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608unity to win th e round. But fightin g Obi-Wan is alw &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608ays a challenge and one you enjoy. The two of you a &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608re also well aw are that your maste &#9608&#9619&#9608 rs enjoy th &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608e competition a s much as the two o&#9608f&#9618&#9619&#9608 you do."L &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608ucky for you th ese things are buil t&#9619&#9619&#9619 with a p &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608ractice mode," you grunt as he blo &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 cks you &#9608&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608. The loud hiss and crackle of you &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608r saber &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608s proves your e qual strengt h, des &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 pite y &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608our disparate h eights. His blue and&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619 your p&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9608urple would act ually be a thing of &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619bea uty&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617 i &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619f the blades we ren't so deadly... or &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619at lea &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 st in&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 this case pain ful. This is shortl &#9618&#9619&#9618&#9608y prov &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 en as t&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619he slightest mi sstep allows him to &#9619&#9618&#9617&#9608gra ze &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617 your ar&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619m with a burn b efore you re-grou p &#9608&#9619&#9617&#9608and bl &#9618&#9619&#9618&#9617 ock a f&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619atal blow."Now who's the lucky one? &#9619&#9617&#9608" he s &#9618&#9619&#9618&#9617 neers." &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619Focus, Padawan! " Master Qui-Gon abso&#9608&#9617&#9608 lutely&#9618 &#9618&#9617 d oes no&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619t tolerate bant er during practic e."I&#9617&#9608 n tro &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9617 uble now&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619," you shoot ba ck at Obi-Wan ."That &#9608&#9617&#9619goes f &#9619&#9619&#9619 or you, &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619too!" You suppr ess a chuckle at your&#9619&#9617&#9619 Maste &#9608&#9619&#9619 r's&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 admonishment. You know he's going t&#9608&#9617&#9619o catc &#9608&#9619&#9619 h &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608a lot of flack from Qui-Gon if you d&#9619&#9617&#9618on' t b&#9608&#9619&#9618 ehav&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608e properly. So you comply and allo &#9608&#9619&#9617&#9618w you &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9618 r M&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608aster to show o ff in this friendl y&#9608&#9619&#9618&#9618 ri v&#9608&#9619&#9617&#9619&#9618 al&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608ry.You change t actics and back Obi &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9617 -Wan &#9619&#9617&#9617&#9617 in&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9619 &#9608&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9608&#9608 &#9608to a corner. Th is is always fun, to&#9608&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9608 se &#9608&#9619&#9618&#9617 e ho&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608w he'll get out of it. A fractio n o&#9619&#9618&#9617f a s &#9608&#9617 econd &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 l&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619ater, he's flip ping over your head. &#9619&#9618&#9617&#9608Bef o&#9608&#9618 re you&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617 c &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619an turn to full y face him, he finds &#9619&#9618h&#9608is o &#9608&#9619&#9617&#9617 peni&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 ng &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619and slams you a gainst the wall with &#9619&#9618t&#9619he Fo &#9608&#9617&#9617 rce&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617 . I&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619t's a stronger bolt than you antici &#9608&#9618&#9617&#9608 pate &#9608&#9618&#9617 d a&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 nd&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 you drop your saber. "Damn," you say&#9618 &#9619under y&#9619 our b&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 r&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619eath.::W ell, th is is no fun:: he sa &#9608&#9618 &#9619&#9608 ys i &#9608&#9617 n yo&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 u&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619r head as he po ints his saber at yo &#9608&#9619 &#9619&#9608 u. : &#9608&#9618 :Oh&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619well, since you are unarmed , admit &#9608&#9618y&#9619ou r so &#9608&#9617 rry&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619defeat, and we can have another rou &#9608&#9619 &#9618&#9608 nd.:: &#9608&#9619 His&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 f&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619ace jumps in su rprise as his saber fl&#9619&#9617&#9618ie s out &#9608 of &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 his&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 hand."I said f ocus, Padawan ! Now yo&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9608u have l&#9608 ost &#9617 your&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608 weapon as well . Let us see how you f&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9608ar e.""A&#9608&#9617 aaww," &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608yo u say with a pout, "didn't they te&#9608&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9608 ach yo &#9608&#9618 u th&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608at Masters read minds, too?"Yo u half&#9608&#9617&#9617&#9608 expect a&#9618 s co&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608lding from your Master , but you hear&#9608&#9617 &#9608 no thing&#9619 . Yo&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608u then smile as you imagine the bet h&#9608&#9617e&#9608 is pro &#9608&#9619&#9619 bab&#9617 l&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9608y making with Q ui-Gon over this prac &#9608&#9617 &#9619 tice r &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9618 ound.&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 You and Obi-Wa n both know what this &#9608&#9617m&#9619ean s. A&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 nyth&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608ing goes.While he's grinnin g, you mo&#9608&#9617&#9617&#9619 ve sw &#9608&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9617 iftly &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608and slam him wi th a Force blow, fo &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608 llow&#9619&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9617 ed by &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608your body. He h its the ground bene &#9608&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618 ath &#9619&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9618 &#9617&#9617 yo&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608u with a thud a nd a grunt. You foc &#9608&#9608 u&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9608 s a&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 ll &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608of your energie s on holding him do &#9619&#9617 w&#9619&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9608 n &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9617 as&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 he summons his to try and push y &#9608&#9619 ou&#9618&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9619 b &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 ack.&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 You pant heavi ly at each other l &#9608&#9619 ik&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9618 e &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 a&#9617 c&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608ouple of rabid animals , your swe &#9619&#9619 &#9617&#9617&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9608 at&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9617&#9617 -&#9617&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608so aked clothes making easy moveme &#9618&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9617&#9619&#9618&#9608 n &#9608&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608t a little tric ky as the fabric s&#9608&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9619 tic&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608 &#9618 &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608ks to your skin .The struggle con &#9619&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9619 tinu&#9617&#9619 &#9608&#9619 &#9617&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608es. "Give," you say. You know b &#9608&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9608 ette&#9618&#9608&#9608 &#9608 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608r than to think he actuall y wi &#9619&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9617&#9618 &#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 ll &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608. Your Force st rengths are eq &#9608&#9608&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9617&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619 ua&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9608l, but his phys ical size fi &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9619&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 n&#9608&#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608ally prevails. Suddenl y y &#9608&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9617 &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619o &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608u find your bac k slammed o &#9619 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9618 &#9619&#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608nto the floor, and your ar &#9619 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9619 &#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618ms quickly pinn ed down."G i&#9619 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618ve," he orders. You sh &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9618 a&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619 &#9617&#9617&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9618 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619ke your head an d scan h&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 i&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608s mind and body for a &#9608&#9618 &#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608weakness. He le ans dow &#9618 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9617 &#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608n to your face and gr &#9618 i&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9617 &#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608ts his teeth, " Give. &#9618 &#9617 "&#9617&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9617 &#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608 The&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608n you find your ope &#9608 n&#9617 i&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9608 &#9608 ng. W&#9608&#9608&#9608ithout a second th &#9608&#9618 o&#9617 u&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9617 &#9618&#9608&#9608 g&#9608 ht, &#9608&#9608&#9608you stick your ton &#9618&#9617 g&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9617&#9617&#9619&#9608&#9608 ue out an&#9608&#9608d lick his chee k. &#9608&#9617 H&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9618&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9618&#9618&#9608 &#9608 e jumps in&#9608&#9608 surprise. You gr &#9617 ab&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619 his shoulder &#9608&#9608&#9608s, buck him off y o&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 ur body, and t&#9608&#9608&#9608hen force him o n &#9619 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 his stomac h, pull&#9608 ing his arms be h &#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 ind his back. You&#9608 hear an echo of &#9608&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608 laughter coming from your Master."Alr &#9618&#9618 i&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 ght, that's enough for today," Qui-Gon &#9608&#9618&#9618 s&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608ay s &#9619&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608 .You release Obi-Wan and stand up. He sp &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608 ri&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 ngs to his feet and points at you. "But, &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608Mast &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 er, she cheat ed.""I did not!""You did!"" &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 O&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 bi-Wan&#9608 , you&#9608&#9608 lost your focus," Qui-Gon says."But she...sh &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9617&#9618&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 e LICKED &#9608me!"&#9608 "Padawan, if you are going to be thrown so &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 easily&#9608, perha &#9608ps we &#9608need to work with the practice droid &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 some more," Qui-Gon says.Y ou bite your lip to stifle a giggl &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9608&#9608&#9608 e, and Obi-Wan glares at you. He hates to lose to you, friends &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619&#9619 &#9608&#9608&#9608 or not.Yo &#9608 ur Ma&#9608ster walks between the two of you and address &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9619&#9619&#9608 es you. "Yo&#9608u know&#9608 better than that." You put your hands on you &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9619 &#9608 r hips &#9608and say &#9608qu&#9608ie tly&#9608, "So how much did you win?"He raises

    Created with UAG v0.92 (c)on by 2002
    1. Re:Hot Grits!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
      What we want to see is a UNICODE goatse.cx guy.


      Pls fix thx

  3. troll by BSDevil · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    woo - fp

    --
    Cue The Sun...
  4. Your Kung-Fu is too good.. by on+by · · Score: -1

    ..you defeated me by mere seconds! I salute you!

  5. That sounds familiar by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

    The concept of the hydrino -- hydrogen shrunk below its normal state

    Sounds like a hydrogen atom took a dip in a cold swimming pool...

    Oh wait...

    1. Re:That sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      wadpal cumtit pispal titpus manjew nobfag
      piscum momlik fagpus ramtit bummom cokluv
      butdik cowbut puscow wopeat luvmom fagpis
      luvram diknob cowyum boypus eatpus sukkak
      boypal puswop cumsuk pusfag sukmom cowman
      cowjew wadlik jewpal manbut cowhot assjiz
      puskak palkak yumpal momkak piscok kakboy
      pooass butkak hotpis cokpal momram wopram
      asswad fagyum manboy momcow cowman ramwad
      sukjiz dikjew wopsuk eatluv nobtit pooass
      eatdik puskak ramcow jewbut cokpoo butman
      likeat palkak dikcow pisluv cowwad boyboy
      cowyum titpus boyboy mompoo ramram fagyum
      titpis butpus ramhot manyum butmom bumpis
      yumram cumram pishot wadcow dikcok cokpal
      jizass butwad asspus sukass jewman nobpis
      cumsuk cumwad cumkak pookak buthot asslik
      pisjiz wadbut jewram bumpal wopman dikcok
      suknob dikluv yumram palwop diksuk bumcok
      nobcok jizlik piscum momjew fagfag wophot
      butnob luvbum ramram wadman titeat ramluv
      wadlik dikass piscum dikboy jizman yumluv
      titkak wopass bumlik jizpal cowjew sukcok
      dikpal dikram nobjiz hotpoo eatjew pookak
      wopbut wopman wadmom cowpoo diknob poojiz
      butass dikhot poohot momwad eatram sukpis
      tityum cokass wopwop cokcok titjew piskak
      cowjiz wopbut butluv likpis hotjiz jizpus
      buthot jizbum bumkak maneat wadlik hotjew
      wopman nobtit pisnob palcok suktit rampus
      butnob kakwad eatluv assluv hotnob eatsuk
      diksuk yumboy cokram butwad nobcow luvpus
      poopal likpal sukcok luvcum boymom wadsuk
      nobcok pooram momluv momlik kakpis wopass
      likkak butjew momeat bummom paljiz cokboy
      cumnob nobboy poowad puskak buthot pooluv
      mompoo mommom ramfag jizlik yumjew ramcow
      wadcok yumpal nobjiz assfag hotjew fageat
      tittit ramnob wadkak momram likram dikkak
      bumfag likpus boyboy jewcum cummom likpal
      hotbut titpal buttit puswop eatbum buthot
      fagyum nobpis wopdik yumcum likjew puseat
      luvsuk boypal ramtit eatpis ramwad titpal
      yummom buthot likyum cokman poocok bumram
      assjiz dikyum sukbut cumtit bumman ramlik
      eatpal rampal poojew jewpoo cumram butnob
      butsuk wadlik pishot wadjew nobpoo palyum
      jewcum titpis cowpus mancok manman cumram
      bummom butcum pisman palass luvwad assjew
      eatsuk jizwad cowjew luvnob luvman wadjiz
      jeweat sukman manbut wadnob boyeat eathot
      nobbum sukyum eatnob eatboy cowkak dikwop
      ramlik likeat kakpus jizpal titram wadnob
      yumpal luvpus eatboy butfag wadpoo boybut
      pussuk fagwad liksuk boykak kakcum wadhot
      cokfag pislik jewwop hotcum yumman titcow
      luvwad cumcum titkak cumfag woppus fagyum
      ramtit puspis kakjew fagbum hotmom asseat
      suktit palpis pusyum butluv butbut jizboy

  6. first things first by Fakeplasticme · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm still waiting for them to explain why rockets work in space. It IS still a vacuum right?

    --


    My other comp. is a Cadillac.
    1. Re:first things first by stipe42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure if this is a troll . . . why wouldn't rockets work in space? To put it in the simplest terms possible: throw something out the back of the ship, the ship accelerates forward due to conservation of momentum.

      stipe42

    2. Re:first things first by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes! It's the suction from the vacuums that are pulling it along.

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    3. Re:first things first by stipe42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure of this is a troll but . . . why wouldn't rockets work in space? A rocket in simplest terms possible: throw something out the back, the rocket accelerates forward due to conservation of momentum.

      stipe42

    4. Re:first things first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Rockets are being looked at not because it wouldn't work in space, but because hydrinos presents a much higher amount of potential power.

      More power means more thrust.

      If Hydrinos exist and can work in a rocket, then it has far reaching effects in terms of space travel.

    5. Re:first things first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You are either one of the stupidest people on slashdot or a troll. Either way, I hope there's a violent mugging in your near future.

    6. Re:first things first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      It's either a troll or this guy is a jackass. Either way, the parent should be at Score:-2;Jackass.

    7. Re:first things first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Word to da motherfuckers, what what?

      th1s e4rly ps0t 1s d3d1c4t3d t0:
      0n by, CLITs O th3 sp0rks,
      "kl3rck" o o 4nd 4ll
      n0n o. .o 4Cs
      o . . o
      4nd o. .o p4g3
      w1d3n3rs o o 4nd 4ls0
      l3ngth3n3rs O 4V3RYWH3R3!
      tr0llz r0x0r !!! cr4pfl00d r3wlz!

  7. *BSD outlatast LNUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    One thing is certain, no Linux company has come back to live after coming so near death as LNUX is now. Add LNUX to the long list of failed linux companies. If you know someone who is a LNUX advocate, please bitch-slap them now, because they should have known better.

  8. Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    ...among NASA engineers? I get the feeling there is tension between scientists and engineers there.

    --
    -- SIGFPE
    1. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not anti science, it is just not beleiveing the current theories(which don't even function together) are right..

    2. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is there a kind of anti-science culture among NASA engineers?
      Yes! Check out Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert Park for an excellent discussion of this kind of thing. They have a small but nonnegligible number of people contributing to antigravity, perpetual motion, and other pseudo-science. It's pretty sad.

    3. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      There has always been tension between engineers and scientists. Scientists theorize and test said theories. Engineers implement stuff. The two don't always mix.

    4. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      They have a small but nonnegligible number of people contributing to antigravity, perpetual motion, and other pseudo-science.

      Ah, but it's sometimes the pursuit of foolishness that finds the real gem hidden in the grass. They may never actually make any of the psuedo-sciences work, but they may discover something useful (and totally unrelated) in their meandering path. It's fine by me as long as they keep the number of people and dollars small.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I'm afraid you need to crack the books and check up on these theories that don't function together, and you will find that they are pretty damn good.

      And don't forget that the best theory ever developed, Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is experimentally verified out to umpteen decimal places (twelve, really), is the one that also describes the hydrogen atom bound states.

    6. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's pretty sad.

      While it's important not to take these things without a grain of salt, it's also important not to refrain from investigating things that don't fit into our current scientific understanding. Investigating them is the only way we're likely to advance that understanding. It's not that unlikely that sooner or later, some odd phenomenon that doesn't make any scientific sense will be the key to the next huge breakthrough.

      It's just not true that we have everything figured out. Yeah, quantum physics predicts things to 17 decimal places...but we still don't know what it means, or how to reconcile it with relativity. Two incredibly successful theories of physics, and they're incompatible. We've got a ways to go.

      At the end of the last century, scientists thought they had everything wrapped up, except for a couple odd little bits. Those odd bits turned into quantum physics. Maybe there are still some odd bits out there. That's not anti-science, that's the essence of science: continuing to ask questions of the universe, not assuming the correctness of a worldview.

    7. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by timholman · · Score: 1

      Yes! Check out Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert Park for an excellent discussion of this kind of thing. They have a small but nonnegligible number of people contributing to antigravity, perpetual motion, and other pseudo-science. It's pretty sad.

      Interestingly enough, the aerospace industry seems to attract a disproportionate number of these types. For example, the Huntsville, Alabama area is home to a significant group of "free energy" researchers.

      However, anyone who thinks that NASA's grant will settle the hydrino question once and for all simply doesn't understand the mind of a pseudoscientist. You can never present enough negative evidence to convince these types. When the hydrino rocket fails to work, they'll just claim "Oh, that guy didn't do x, y, or z, otherwise it would have worked."

      Hydrinos will make headlines as long as Blacklight Power can keep convincing investors to throw away their money. In another two or three years the deep pockets will run out of patience and hydrinos will fade into crank science obscurity.
    8. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by blair1q · · Score: 2

      IHNJH, IJLS "I took undergrad Physics from Bob Park."

      --Blair
      "I did."

    9. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, the theories are pretty damn good. But if they're incompatible, then we have an incomplete understanding of the universe, and it's not inconceivable that there might be some phenomenon that doesn't fit into our current understanding.

      I'm not saying I believe in hydrinos - neither does the NASA guy - but if, as he says, something weird is happening in the experiments, it's worth checking. Especially when it costs $75K - NASA could do fifty experiments like that for less than the cost of one shuttle launch.

    10. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by bigdisk · · Score: 0, Troll

      >It's pretty sad.

      What's pretty sad is to see the scientific dogma that pervades our culture. Your statement reminds me a lot of the Vatican in the 1700s. Anyone who dared say the earth was not the center of the universe was in big trouble.

      Yes, it is pretty sad - that the scientific community hasn't changed all that much since the dark ages. They've always thought they had it figured out, even when major holes and inconsistencies were staring them in the face.

    11. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is pretty sad - that the scientific community hasn't changed all that much since the dark ages. They've always thought they had it figured out, even when major holes and inconsistencies were staring them in the face.


      Or so says your strawman characterization of the scientific community. I don't know any of my fellow scientists who think we're even close to "having it all figured out".
    12. Re:Is there a kind of anti-science culture... by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      it is pretty sad - that the scientific community hasn't changed all that much since the dark ages

      What a weird thing to say! I'd say the scientific community has been pretty damn successful since the dark ages. i guess it depends on whether you value science or not.
      --
      -- SIGFPE
  9. a little birdy told me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    w00p! PeNiS BiRD p0st!

  10. NASA wants to make rockets out of everything... by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that NASA thinks anything could be used as propulsion for craft, not that they are at all wrong. Physics is a great thing, and it opens up new doors all the time. Things like this, ion propulsion, and solar sails are bitchen ideas. What I'd like to see, though, is a manned Mars mission launched from a couple of 2L soda bottles in my back yard. Let's see them do that!

  11. Schrodinger by Fantanicity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first thought was the Schrodinger equation - it can be solved for Hydrogen.

    Question 1 : Are hydrinos possible according to the Schrodinger equation?

    Question 2 : If not, what changes to Schrodinger are needed to explain hydrinos and are these changes consistent with the rest of physics?

    (Question 0 : Or am I smoking crack again?)

    The only hits on Schrodinger and Hydrino were from the blacklight people and they seemed to skirt around the question.

    1. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omfg..the whole reason modern physics is so fucked up is because people keep modifying old theories not wanting to change rather than replacing them with things that are completly different, but much closer to truth..don't keep everything thats old.

    2. Re:Schrodinger by Dannon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Question 1 : Are hydrinos possible according to the Schrodinger equation?

      Yes and no.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    3. Re:Schrodinger by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Hehe... "it depends, I haven't looked into it yet."

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    4. Re:Schrodinger by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      What is it you are talking about, exactly? Can you give an example of a 'thing that is completely different'?

      Remmeber, that new thing MUST be able to explain everything currently explained by the 'old theory they are reluctant to give up'

    5. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      You're smoking crack again, and so was Schrodinger.

      th1s e4rly ps0t 1s d3d1c4t3d t0:
      0n by, CLITs O th3 sp0rks,
      "kl3rck" o o 4nd 4ll
      n0n o. .o 4Cs
      o . . o
      4nd o. .o p4g3
      w1d3n3rs o o 4nd 4ls0
      l3ngth3n3rs O 4V3RYWH3R3!
      tr0llz r0x0r !!! cr4pfl00d r3wlz!

    6. Re:Schrodinger by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Remmeber, that new thing MUST be able to explain everything currently explained by the 'old theory they are reluctant to give up'

      No, the new *thing* only has to be, and be unexplainable by current theory.

      The new *theory*, however, has to account for all the collected facts.

    7. Re:Schrodinger by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Nope, you're wrong. Any new theory must necessarily reduce to the old in the appropriate limits. Special Relativity goes to Newton for low velocity, General Relativity goes to Newton for low gravity, etc. If this weren't the case, then you'll wind up with a bunch of contradictory theories, or a disparate set of "rules" instead of a theory.

    8. Re:Schrodinger by RobertFisher · · Score: 2
      The question you should be asking, whenever you are evaluating a scientific idea is :

      Is/are X consistent with our experimental knowledge of nature?

      Where "X" is any hypothesis you wish to check. It can be the "hydrino hypothesis", or it can be the Schrodinger equation.

      Now, it is a very simple and straightforwards matter to set up an experimental apparatus to observe the emission lines from hydrogen. Many of us have done it in college or even high schools labs. Each transition is seen in the spectrum.

      The result? Completely consistent with the Schrodinger equation (or even the previous simpler Bohr model). If there were an energy state lower than the n = 1 quantum state, it would produce a very visible emission line, which is not seen. This is a very glaring inconstency which is not apparently addressed by this speculative work. Where is all of that supposed "UV" radiation going? Why don't we see it? I believe one can only conclude the fellow is a crank . And before someone trots his degrees out for us again, I must note that academic pedigree does not render one immune to academic senility).

      While I think we do need some portion of research devoted to cutting-edge ideas, I think a minimum requirement for any serious effort is some nominal level of consistency with well-established work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it seems apparent that hydrinos do not supply such evidence. In my own opinion, NASA would be far better off devoting their research efforts towards cutting-edge propulsion technologies with a much greater likelihood of success (ie, ion drives, MHD drives, solar sails...)

      Bob

      --
      Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
    9. Re:Schrodinger by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Thats why he said, the new theory has to account for all the collected fact. So all experimentation for old theory also has to be explanable by new theory. (Or else redo experiment to show the experiment itself was flawed)

    10. Re:Schrodinger by jstott · · Score: 1
      My first thought was the Schrodinger equation [shodor.org] - it can be solved for Hydrogen.

      The Schroedinger equation describes the evolution of a system with time. To find the the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom, you only need to solve the eigenvalue problem which is an even simpler problem (but still formally related to the Schroedinger equation). Solving for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom is standard fare for undergraduate physics majors.

      Question 1 : Are hydrinos possible according to the Schrodinger equation?
      No. The first energy eigenvalue has the lowest possible energy (and matches the observed ground state of the atom). The energy spectrum can be shown to be bounded from below; it is not possible to find an atomic electron state below the first eigenvalue.

      Question 2 : If not, what changes to Schrodinger are needed to explain hydrinos and are these changes consistent with the rest of physics?

      I, as a physicst, claim the Schroeidnger equaiton and quantum electrodynamcis work and I have experimental evidence to back my claims up. Until the Blacklight people can show me an experiment that can be independantly confirmed, the burden of proof rests with them. Given that quantum electrodynics easily explains effects at the 10^-6 eV level (the Lamb shift, for comparison the energy to ionize Hydrogen atoms is 13.6 eV -- a factor of 10 million greater), I think they have there work cut out.

      To get back to your question, though, there are no simple modifications that can be made to the Schroedinger equation that won't be fundamentally inconsistant with the existing 80-100 years of experimental evidence.

      (Question 0 : Or am I smoking crack again?)

      You said it, not me...

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
  12. Gotta be warry of this ... by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence will stand clear of concepts that sprung from someone's "Grand Unified Theory". Einstien looked for it his whole career with no success.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    1. Re:Gotta be warry of this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when they want you to invest in their GUT.

    2. Re:Gotta be warry of this ... by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, what a load of BS. So Einstein's search for a GUT was totally separate from his work in quantum mechanics and, let us not forget, relativity?

      So this guy's GUT is probably crap, but maybe he'll get something useful out of it on the way. (Or maybe he's a total nuthead, I dunno, but this isn't grounds for dismissal.)

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  13. Ion Emissions by Sorthum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, last I heard NASA was still focusing on ion emissions as the "future of propulsion."

    If that hasn't been dismissed yet, I might suspect that they're spreading themselves a mite thin...

    1. Re:Ion Emissions by yasth · · Score: 2, Informative

      ??? Ion engines work fine thank you very much
      Boeing even sold one of them for comerical use, so it might even be considered out of R&D and into present tech stage.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    2. Re:Ion Emissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA is way behind the times. Jet engines and gyroscopes are the propulsion of the future!

      http://www.alexchiu.com/spacestation/ufo.htm

    3. Re:Ion Emissions by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Yep, that $75,000 they gave this guy is really going to hurt their operations in other areas. That kind of money will buy about a tenth of a second of a shuttle launch. Spreading themselves thin, they certainly are.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    4. Re:Ion Emissions by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Ion propulsion is serious, working, propulsion technique, but NASA is constantly giving small amounts of funding to various strange ideas and theories, gambling that one of them might actually work, and eventually evolve to some kind of "warp engine", anti-gravity or whatever.

  14. Betavolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is almost as cool as the reasearch being done at Betavoltaic. I hear the betavolt people are getting NASA funding too. I really hope we see some of the results of all this great research.

    1. Re:Betavolt by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      You know, I've often wondered about that... and why we don't see more of it.

      The tritium gas lights in my watch are powered by beta emissions; of course, that's by direct stimulation of a phosphor... but still. A beta emitter emits a contant stream of negative charges.. why not use it?

      Hmm. Tritium is a pure beta emitter. Anyone know what happens if you supercool tritium down to a solid (yeah I know it would be unbelievably completely rediculously expensive, Tritium being hte most expensive commercially available substance by mass already)

    2. Re:Betavolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes; There is another think tank with views just as revolutionary and progressive:

      http://www.alexchiu.com

    3. Re:Betavolt by stox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A couple of things:

      1) If memory serves correct, hydrogen ( hence Tritium ) never becomes a solid under normal pressure. It would need to be put under intense pressure to reach the solid state. It also will become metallic under these conditions.

      2) If you think Tritium is expensive, just try to figure out how much anti-matter costs. Currently, it would work out to many Trillions of dollars per gram.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    4. Re:Betavolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1) If memory serves correct, hydrogen ( hence Tritium )
      > never becomes a solid under normal pressure. It would
      > need to be put under intense pressure to reach the solid
      > state. It also will become metallic under these conditions.

      You're confusing hydrogen and helium; helium doesn't freeze, hydrogen does. Hydrogen ice is non-metallic, but metallic hydrogen forms at very high pressures.

  15. Star Trek Sucks by xdfgf · · Score: -1

    Captain's Personal Log Stardate 40402.01:

    We are currently on route to the former planet of galactic peace,
    Nimbus III. Nimbus III never seems to stop fascinating me. It was a
    place where the famed crew of Capt. James T. Kirk once walked. To live
    and breathe the very air that they breathed will be one of the many
    climaxes of my life. What they experienced during that journey, the
    bizarre alien god, Cybog, and each other will never cease to stimulate
    me. After many times of viewing the footage of the encounter I can
    never seem to get my mind off of Kirk's butt. I don't know what this
    feeling is, but it is driving me and the Enterprise there. It seems
    that something powerful, and yet very soft is pulling us there,
    Counselor Troi called the feeling from the planet almost sensual.
    Whatever it is we will meet it in 3 days.

    Ryker sat in the darkness of his cabin starring at the stretched
    image of the stars flicker by. The feeling that was drawing the
    Enterprise towards Nimbus III intrigued him. Whatever it was it made
    him feel very strange. Earlier that night he was aroused when a male
    crewmember brushed against him. It made him wonder: " Was I just
    horny, or am I a fag?" Of course not he told himself, he had Troi many
    times. He thought back to their intense lovemaking. The softness of
    her breasts, the smell and texture of her clitoris, and the taste of
    her mouth. Just thinking of the was she used to give head made him
    hard. His mouth began to water. Ryker looked down at himself, and
    opened his robe. He was hard, very hard. Stroking himself softly he
    thought of Troi, licking and licking, and licking.... "Replicator!
    One vibrator, and hurry!!!" The vibrator materialized. Grabbing it,
    Ryker began to rub it on his dick. He became lost in the depth of
    masturbation, that he didn't hear Warf enter. Warf stared at Ryker,
    but didn't do anything. He crept silently into the shadows, and
    watched Ryker reach and orgasm. His ejaculation spurted him in the
    face. A long tongue came out and licked it. Warf stood up and came
    out of the shadows. "Sir, this feeling on the ship is it affecting
    you?" Surprised Ryker dropped the vibrator, and closed his robe, "What
    feeling?!" Warf straightened his uniform. "Sir don't try to hide what
    you were doing, I was here most of the time. I saw you cum!"
    Embarrassed, Ryker tried to put on an authoritative voice: "Warf, I was
    thinking of Deanna, and what she used to do, I wasn't doing it by
    myself, I felt that there was something guiding me, something helping
    me..." Warf spoke in a more subdued voice. " Perhaps when there is
    more time, I can show you ritualistic Klingon techniques used in the
    Men's House." Ryker looked out the window, " What do you want?" Warf
    responded, "You are needed on the bridge."

    As Ryker and Warf walked down the corridor, the people seemed to
    move in a more relaxed fashion. They came to the Turbo Lift. The door
    opened, a woman was there, naked and rubbing herself against the wall.
    Warf and Ryker boarded. The door shut. Warf's voice boomed: "Turbo
    Lift stop!" He opened his pants and removed his dick. The woman
    licked it and smiled. " I've never had Klingon before, so large...."
    She put it in her mouth. Ryker moved behind her, and removed his
    clothes. He mounted her from behind. "Oh you're so wet, it makes me
    want to screw the fuck out of you!!" Moans filled the elevator. The
    woman sucked fasted and harder, as Warf slipped out of his uniform.
    Ryker wiggled his dick inside her. She was so warm, wet and soft he
    thought. He came. The woman pulled Warf's dick out of her mouth, and
    began to suck Ryker's. Warf took the rear position. The woman cried
    in pleasure as Warf worked her to an orgasm. She moved spasmaticlly.
    Her butt moving in and out, faster and faster. She stuck both of their
    dicks in her mouth and sucked. Ryker moaned, "Oh god, I'm going to cum
    again!" Ryker and Warf came at the same time. Their white sperm
    splashed over her face. She licked it off. Warf and Ryker put on
    their clothes. "Bridge!". Seconds later the Turbo Lift arrived on the
    bridge. The door opened. Jordi stood at the entrance. "What the hell
    took so long in there?" Ryker smiled, "Take a ride Lieutenant
    Commander!" Jordi looked inside. A big smile came on his face. "With
    pleasure Sir, with pleasure!"

    The bridge was as usual, quiet and dull. The smell of Troi's
    perfume filled the comm. Ryker peered out the corner of his eye at
    her. Troi felt his thoughts, and jerked in her seat, as if something
    had penetrated her. She smiled. Ryker looked at Picard. He addressed
    the captain, " What seems to be the trouble Sir?" Picard straightened
    himself, "You all know about this feeling that has been spreading
    throughout the ship, this feeling of....sensuality. It is not only
    affecting us, but also every planet in this region. Whatever it is,
    Troi feels that it is originating from Nimbus III. Troi sat up.
    "Yes, ever since last week it seems that there has been a presence in
    my bed, caressing me, feeling me where only I allowed certain men to
    feel me...." She began to move in her seat, touching herself, "...oh
    but sometimes I like it, and I can't control it." Ryker spoke, " Is
    this presence male of female?" Troi smiled, "VERY MALE!!!....."
    Picard gave her a piercing look. "Are you in communication with the
    being now?" "Oh YES,

    YES....." Troi pulled the straps of her dress down. She touched her
    breasts. "I'm so sorry sir, I can't seem to stop it. Oh great SPACE,
    it's so ......" Picard stood and shouted, "Get a hold of yourself
    woman! Dr. Crusher to the bridge!" Seconds later Dr. Crusher
    appeared. "Do you know that there is this white sticky substance all
    over the walls of the Turbo Shaft that appears to be..." "Not now
    Doctor," Ryker said, "help her!" Crusher looked at Troi and gasped.
    Troi was half naked, rubbing her crotch on the helm. She pulled a hypo
    out. There was something about Troi that intrigued Crusher. Taking
    the hypo, she caressed Troi's breast and injected. Troi smiled at the
    doctor. She felt her attraction. "Perhaps tonight Doctor.", she
    whispered to Crusher as the drug slow put her to sleep. The entire
    bridge was stunned. Picard starred open jawed at the bare Troi. Sexy
    he thought, very sexy.

  16. Sure. by papasui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...In many ways it sprang from slashdot." Because copying a story makes you responsible for the discovery of a theory that breaks modern physics.

    1. Re:Sure. by huckda · · Score: 1

      I suppose this is true, after all didn't that Gore fellow invent the internet?

      --Huck

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    2. Re:Sure. by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I believe it justifies a patent application. In the U.S. it's a lock.

    3. Re:Sure. by saviorsloth · · Score: 1

      "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
      that's what he said. that's all. look it up.
      http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte1.html

    4. Re:Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm wrong but if I remember correctly Schöeringer (the quadratic one) equation gives you the probability of finding an electron in a given place, it does not say that you can not find an electron out of bohr's radius, it says that it's improbable but not impossible.

    5. Re:Sure. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      it says that it's improbable but not impossible.

      If, he thought to himself, finding an electron in a given place is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to find one is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn it on!

      I crack me up.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  17. Hey this could be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these hydrinos can be compressed, they would make the ideal environmentally friendly automobile fuel! And then we could tell the middle east to go fuck itself!!

    1. Re:Hey this could be cool. by jcoy42 · · Score: 1
      then we could tell the middle east to go fuck itself!!

      They seem to be doing a fine job of that without hydrinos or anyone telling them anything.
      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    2. Re:Hey this could be cool. by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0

      Hydrinos aren't fuel. They're byproduct. The Creation of Hydrinos releases energy. RTFA

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    3. Re:Hey this could be cool. by Disevidence · · Score: 2

      Uhhh, unless your running some new theories, raising the atom above its normal state requires the input of energy, so THAT has energy stored. Hydrino's (theoretically) are in a lower state than hydrogen, so for them to be made, that energy would need to be lost. So no energy storage.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  18. Don't get excited... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because NASA gives money to somebody to research something doesn't mean it's not a crackpot idea. They set up a project to try to verify Podkletnov's horse manure, too, didn't they?

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Don't get excited... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Just because NASA gives money to somebody to research something doesn't mean it's not a crackpot idea. They set up a project to try to verify Podkletnov's horse manure [slashdot.org], too, didn't they?

      At least Podkletnov's horse manure is experimentally testable. That's more than can be said for the horse manure produced by physicists who have retreated into areas where they are safe from any experimental verifiability--like cosmologists or string theorists.

    2. Re:Don't get excited... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, hello? Cosmology makes plenty of testable predictions, even the very early universe stuff like inflation. (The acoustic peak predicted by inflation have been detected, for instance.)


      String theory has made a little contact with experiment, but none of those experiments have produced any evidence for strings so far. (Of course, they weren't really expected to; it was a long shot.)

    3. Re:Don't get excited... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but those are not "experiments", they are "observations". In an experiment, you need to be able to control the physical system before the measurement, and you need to be able to repeat the measurement with different initial conditions.

      (Isn't it ironic that in the 21st century, many physicists are reduced to the equivalent of counting butterflies, while biologists are now working with repeatable, quantifiable experimental systems?)

    4. Re:Don't get excited... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty narrow definition of "experiment", and certainly most astronomers, geologists, evolutionary biologists, etc. would disagree with you.

    5. Re:Don't get excited... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      That's a pretty narrow definition of "experiment", certainly most astronomers, geologists, evolutionary biologists, etc. would disagree with you.

      They can call it whatever they want, the fact remains that it is qualitatively different from what constitutes an experiment in other disciplines. There are certain inferences that simply cannot be drawn reliably from observation alone; being able to change the initial conditions is necessary for being able to prove or disprove some theories.

      As for evolutionary biologists, they are, in fact, performing real experiments these days; they aren't just relying on observation anymore.

  19. What's the origin of the hot grits troll? by egg+troll · · Score: -1

    Anyone know?

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    1. Re:What's the origin of the hot grits troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Slashdot

    2. Re:What's the origin of the hot grits troll? by cyborg_monkey · · Score: -1

      Although interesting, it does not answer the question. Now get over here so that I might fill your nasal passages full of sperm.

  20. Muon-catalyzed fusion by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds reminiscent of muon-catalyzed fusion. The muon has the same charge as an electron, but is many times more massive. Substitute a muon for an electron, and the "orbit" around the nucleus is much smaller. Enough smaller that it's not tough to get "muonized" hydrogen to fuse.

    Unfortunately, muons decay rather quickly, and it take more energy to make them than you get from the fusion.

    But the hydrino idea still reminds me of it.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Muon-catalyzed fusion by hubie · · Score: 2

      The biggest difference between muon catalyzed fusion and hydrinos is that there is a strong, logically consistent, and testable basis on which muon catalyzed fusion rests. Not just a bunch of buzzwords and VC funding.

  21. They'll fade into obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some tests will be done, we'll read a few more cheap one page articles, and then never here from these guys again.

    Just like Maurice Ward, the inventor of "starlite" plastic. Anyone remember him? He typifies how these "magic" discoveries turn out ... with the so-called inventor eventually fading into nothingness.

  22. THIS IS A FREAKIN HOAX by muerte24 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The "Black Light Energy" or "Zero Point Energy" hoax has been around for a long time.

    Basically, the crackpot theory says that, "Well, if Hydrogen in the n=1 state has an energy of -13.6eV, and if energy goes as 1/n^2, then if I make n=1/2, that's 30.8 eV per hydrogen in free energy!!"

    That's all this theory is, folks, I promise.

    This is impossible. Why don't we see this energy signature anywhere in nature? How would the energy get back into the Hydrogen atom? What's to prevent the atom from collapsing into n=1/(infinity). If I can make n (the energy level) arbitrarily close to zero, I can get an infinite amotn of energy out of each atom!

    It's kinda like tying a marble to a string and dropping it to a black hole - i can get infinite energy by tying the string to a generator. Except in the caser of hydrogen it's actually not possible.

    The uncertaintly principle is a well proved physical theory that would have to be seriously (and impossibly) violated for this guy's crackpot theories to work.

    Maybe next time.

    1. Re:THIS IS A FREAKIN HOAX by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      If Black Light, Inc, really wants to make money off this, they should patent it, then tell the marks, "Invest in us! See, the US Patent Office likes it!" Can't lose.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:THIS IS A FREAKIN HOAX by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0

      (disclaimer -- I don't necessarily believe the article, but...)
      Why do you think the energy ever needs to get back in the hydrogen atom? The site says that the hydrino gets bound in 'novel' compounds thus making it (I believe) stable. Just because energy is released doesn't mean it has to be returned to its source. If the resulting particle is unstable then it will react easily with something, that's all.

      If I can make n (the energy level) arbitrarily close to zero, I can get an infinite amotn of energy out of each atom!

      Uh...crack much? If a hydrogen atom has finite energy then that's the most you can get from it. No one is saying they can get infinite energy this way (except you).

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    3. Re:THIS IS A FREAKIN HOAX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which 'sprang forth as a result of slashdot...'

      Let's keep that in mind, shall we?

  23. Slashdot good for the Science community? by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

    There's an active study group of several hundred users (including some prominent scientists) devoted to debating the possible existence of hydrinos. In many ways it sprang from slashdot.

    While I lack the knowledge to state wheather or not that's a true statement, I'm glad that Slashdot is making waves in the scientific community - even if they are small waves.

  24. Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Strange how we've never spotted the emission line corresponding to transitions to this below-ground-state in the hydrogen spectrum, isn't it?

    Strange how a bunch of perpetual motion merchants wave Quantum Mechanics around the place for the explanation of how their gadget works. Sometimes. When no actual physicists are looking, but often when potential investors are around.

    Strange how many cranks the NASA Breakthrough Physics Program gives respectability to. NASA's least-funded irrelevant sideshow picks up every nut that comes along, investigates their claim, and nothing comes of it. Nut carries on with career saying 'Yep, NASA were interested, and then they covered it up! Big oil interests leaning on the gub'mint, see, don't care for the little guy, with one of these you could be rich!'

    I suppose NASA have to be doing something Trekkish - the man in the street expects them to be working towards the Starship Enterprise, after all. Just a shame about the fallout.

    Personally, I'm backing Schrodinger to win this one :-)

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by MisterBlister · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Strange how many cranks the NASA Breakthrough Physics Program gives respectability to. NASA's least-funded irrelevant sideshow picks up every nut that comes along, investigates their claim, and nothing comes of it. Nut carries on with career saying 'Yep, NASA were interested, and then they covered it up! Big oil interests leaning on the gub'mint, see, don't care for the little guy, with one of these you could be rich!'

      Strange how many cranks Linus gives respectability to. The non-funded Linux sideshow picks up every nut that comes along, investigates their patches and nothing comes of it. Nut carries on with career saying 'Yep, Linus was interested and then he didn't integrate my patch! Alan Cox is leaning on Linux, see, don't care for the litty guy!

      Um, my point in the above is that NASA (and Linus) aren't wrong to be inclusive. Sometimes these 'crackpots' are really on to something. Often they are not, but when they are its usually more than worth having dealt with all the ones who weren't.

    2. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2

      You took the words right out of my, um, keyboard. Look, even on NASA's budget, $75k is peanuts. It's well worth it from their point of view to fund one of these things every so often on the off-off-off-chance there's something to it. Now, I would be willing to bet that if this isn't just a bunch of smoke and mirrors, the true explanation is something other than what Mills is putting out, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially useful.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    3. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...the man in the street expects them to be working towards the Starship Enterprise, after all."

      What do you mean? Nasa already built the starship Enterprise!

      *G*

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides maybe this will set it to rest, and thus restoring precious person hours to the national economy

    5. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Well really, if we can't have the Starship Enterprise then what's the fucking point?

      th1s e4rly ps0t 1s d3d1c4t3d t0:
      0n by, CLITs O th3 sp0rks,
      "kl3rck" o o 4nd 4ll
      n0n o. .o 4Cs
      o . . o
      4nd o. .o p4g3
      w1d3n3rs o o 4nd 4ls0
      l3ngth3n3rs O 4V3RYWH3R3!
      tr0llz r0x0r !!! cr4pfl00d r3wlz!

    6. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This will not put it to rest. The results will be inconclusive and there will be many reasons for this. The biggest one will be insufficient funding and a plea for more.

    7. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by BlowCat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Schrodinger's equation doesn't rule out electron capture in some isotopes. The solution of the equation depends on the forces you take into account. Did you notice the emission line corresponding to the transitions from Kr-81 to Br-81? No? Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it's impossible - it can be a very rare event.

      Even if the hydrino theory is bogus, let's use valid arguments.

    8. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > my point in the above is that NASA (and Linus) aren't wrong to be inclusive.

      Linus is not. NASA is.

      How is it not WRONG to extract a portion of that $75K from me, at gun point, just so they can hand it over to one of their crackpot friends?

      Linus is free to waste his time any way he chooses. Last I heard, remarkably few code crackpots were pointing guns at him when asking for a patch inclusion.

    9. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Flarelocke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He claims on his website that the spectral lines have been observed and attributed to other causes--he names high-energy ions. He also says that this claim is particularly vacuous because the spectral lines occur as part of the background radiation of the universe, IOW, the reactions occur in deep space. The lines also occur in our sun, IIRC.

      He says repeatedly on his site that his theories cannot be used to make a perpetual motion machine because his theory does not violate the law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

      He claims his theory can easily explain the expansion of the universe, and dark matter, among other things. His theory has difficulty explaining certain things that Schrodinger's handles pretty easily, though.

      At $0.0005 per taxpayer, I think it's worth investigating.

    10. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by nusuth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Strange how many cranks the NASA Breakthrough Physics Program gives respectability to. NASA's least-funded irrelevant sideshow picks up every nut that comes along, investigates their claim, and nothing comes of it.

      The common property of all those nuts coming along is:

      a) They are usually credible guys and real scientists. Their specific theories may not have the same credibility, but most often than not they would agree with other scientists and vice versa.

      b) Their ideas are not entirely incompatible with modern physics. Usually they are investigating non-orthodox interpretations of the current theories. In non-limiting cases, their theories and current theories lead to same observations.

      c) They make experimentally testable claims. Most experiments are also low budget.

      d) If their claims are found to be true, resulting utility is enormous.

      This is what I would call a good gamble. But it is not my money, so it is not my call.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    11. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... there's a huge difference between a spaceship and a starship. Starship implies interstellar travel.

    12. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 2
      Strange how we've never spotted the emission line corresponding to transitions to this below-ground-state in the hydrogen spectrum, isn't it?

      Maybe it's squant.

    13. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually they are investigating non-orthodox interpretations of the current theories.


      Sadly, they are usually investigating complete misunderstandings of current theories. If it were jus an interpretational issue, their work would be taken seriously.
    14. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Yep, and the dictionary backs you up. However, my post wouldn't have been funny if I didn't stretch definitions a bit, would it?

      Besides, the Enterprise is no longer operational. If my memory is correct, it's become a museum piece in Kennedy Space Center in Florida. (I was 13 at the time, so don't get too uppity if my details are wrong)

      Also, didja read my sig? Don't nitpick a detail of my post as if it totally negates the point of it! In this case it didn't.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    15. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


      Then there's the issue of basic credibility. A while back, on the discussion group on yahoo about this subject, someone brought up the subject that Mills's book is chock full of plagiarism. There are apparently large passages just cut and pasted straight from various physics textbooks into Mills's book. So we're dealing with a guy who does not seem to think he's bound by the normal standards of academic decency.

    16. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by John+Sullivan · · Score: 1

      Their work *is* being taken seriously, that's the point!

      (It may still turn out to be wrong. No-one denies that. In fact it's more likely than not to be wrong. But it's worth investigating just in case it isn't.)

      --
      This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
    17. Re:Oh God, not these Blacklight loons again... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Besides, the Enterprise is no longer operational. If my memory is correct, it's become a museum piece in Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

      The Enterprise was never operational. It was a test platform. The first shuttle to see service was Columbia in 1981. I still remember waking up early that morning to watch the launch on TV, it doesn't seem like 20 years ago.

      BTW, Enterprise is at the Smithsonian now, not Kennedy. See this page for more.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  25. No and ??? by apsmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the first I've heard of hydrino's, but the quantum states of hydrogen were solved a long time ago, and there's no room in there for any kind of "shrunk" atom if it is to consist of a proton and an electron.

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

  26. this won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A simple way to look at the hydrogen atom from quantum theory point of view is this:

    Quantum mechanics says, that in order to confine anything (here electron), you need to give momentum which increases as you shrink confinement radius. Who supplies the necessary momentum to confine electron in an atom? It is electrical attraction force between proton and electron. However, the enery needed for momentum increases as square of 1/r, while the amount of enery you can generate from electrical attraction only increases as 1/r. There is a balance at some value of r, and that is the radius of hydrogen atom.

    Now, if you want to shrink hydrogen radius further, you would need to SUPPLY more enery to it, rather than being able to get from it. What complex quantum mechanics equation says is that there is no stable radius below ground level. But even if there is a stable radius below ground level, you still cannot get enery by compressing hydrogen atom. It is like a spring. If it is stretched, then you can retrieve energy by slowly retracting it. But that doesn't mean you can get energy out by compressing an unstretched string.

    1. Re:this won't work by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      True. Now, I think this guy is a crackpot, but his aim, he says, is not to "compress" the atom, but that, rather, he claims it is already "stretched" at the ground state, and if he can entice the electron to drop to one of these states below the ground state, it will release extra energy.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:this won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the articles, and I think, if I recall, that he has claimed that his hypothetical emission lines explain as interstellar background noise.

      That would be consistant with the "spring" model -- as it might be possible to push the atom into such a state, but it might require a lot of energy to do it.

  27. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    i thought only jon katz tried to elevate slashdot to the level of 'culturally significant'

  28. Crackpot is still a crackpot... by AtomicBomb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Crackpot is still a crackpot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but don't forget that "reputable" scientific journals are controlled by the Conspiracy of the Orthodox Scientific Priesthood.

  29. Money Down a Rathole by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    Osheroff is right. It's crackpottery.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  30. This is EXACTLY why I read Slashdot by t0qer · · Score: 2

    This is neat, I never knew what a hydrino was before today.

    The concept of a hydrino, sounds an awful lot like the concept behind minituration in the book/film Fantastic Voyage. Do I got it right?

    1. Re:This is EXACTLY why I read Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      no .. but u sound like a complete idiot though

  31. A better acid test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I understand the fundamental notion behind "hydrinos" correctly, then an even wilder potential consequence may be possible. Quantum Physics generally describes an electron in orbit as "waving" its way around the nucleus. Depending upon how excited is the electron, it may make many oscillations in a single orbit -- and when the electron is at the ground state, it makes exactly one oscillation. In a hydrino, the notion seems to be that an electron can make two orbits (or more) per oscillation. Personally I don't see a flaw in that notion, per se, but then I am no expert in Quantum Physics. BUT suppose for a moment that there is something to this hydrino notion. Obviously for an electron to do two orbits during one oscillation, the physical size of the orbit has to have a smaller radius than when the electron is in the ground-state orbit. So, if we can get two or more orbits per oscillation, then perhaps we can get, say, two hundred orbits per oscillation. That would shrink the physical size of a hydrogen atom to about the same size as a "muonic hydrogen atom". And we know that if deuterium is used in place of hydrogen, and if the atom is muonic, then nuclear fusion can be catalyzed! I think this would be a much better acid test for the hydrino hypothesis, than building a rocket engine.

    1. Re:A better acid test? by hubie · · Score: 2
      Quantum physics describes the hydrogen ground state as the electron wavefunction fitting in one orbit, and even that is a simplistic picture (you really need to talk about probability densities). There is no little point particle going around the nucleus in a wavy pattern, do not think this way because it is wrong. You get into all sorts of trouble once you start picturing the quantum world in terms of classical pictures (e.g., the Bohr model of an atom being a little solar system).

      Besides, if you want to run with the classical picture you described it still would not work because cannot have "two orbits per oscillation" because you run into a boundary problem. Any spot in this orbit would have two values of it's "height" unless the two "waves" were exactly on top of each other (which would get you back your original wave).

    2. Re:A better acid test? by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Even keeping with the simplistic Bohr visualization "model", this doesn't work. If you had 2 orbits per oscillation, then you at any given point on the circle, the value would be both +A and -A, which adds to 0. So, to have n=1/2, you have a "zero amplitude electron", which means an electron that cancels itself out: that is, non-existant. This violates conservation of charge and energy, among a whole slew of other things.

  32. "In many ways it sprang from slashdot." HAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Ya, right. *bzzzt* WRONG.
    Yeesh, nothing but dumb zealots here.

  33. Great that the evidene floats away! by Veramocor · · Score: 2, Informative


    From the FAQ:

    Why aren't we awash in hydrinos and why haven't they been seen before?

    Hydrinos have a number of properties that make them difficult to detect:
    Free hydrinos diffuse out of containers very easily, as the largest of the species (n=1/2) is about the size of helium. Further, hydrinos are auto-catalytic: with the appropriate concentration maintained they will collapse to n=1/100 or so, at which size they will diffuse rapidly out of practically any container. Hydrinos can slip right in between the atoms of solids, including the atoms f container walls.

    Being extremely light, they rapidly float up into the atmosphere and diffuse into space.

    The conditions for hydrino production, that is, collision between free H and a system with a resonant "energy hole" (e.g., K+ and K2+) at low concentrations, are not common on Earth. Free H is extremely reactive and therefore difficult to keep free.

    No one has been looking for them.

    --
    Veramocor
    1. Re:Great that the evidene floats away! by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0

      OK, up to this point I was trying to keep an open mind about this. But this is ridiculous. Hydrinos, once created keep, what, 'fading away'? Presumably continuing to radiate energy while doing so? And we haven't detected this because we aren't LOOKING!? Come on, people are looking everywhere for weird shit Every Day! (well, I get the no free H part, but the rest sounds like total crap)

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    2. Re:Great that the evidene floats away! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      "Being extremely light, they rapidly float up into the atmosphere and diffuse into space."

      That just sounds stupid to me. I mean maybe this is a total layman's FAQ (safer for the crackpot that only laymen read it).

      But "light" means absolutly nothing, does he mean low mass, or low density or both. I would think a Hydrino would have a rather high density (approaching that of a nutron at it's most collapsed state?).

      If that were the case wouldn't they sink not float?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  34. headline by underwhelm · · Score: 2

    At first glance, I thought it said "NASA to Investigate Hubris."

    --

    I don't need large brains to have a good time.

    1. Re:headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1
  35. Quantum Mechanics by russianspy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see a small problem here. What is described as hydrino violates some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics. There is nothing especially wrong with that except:
    A) For nearly a century pople have been looking at and working with the QM.
    B) Can you guess how many experiments disagree with QM? Anyone? That's right. ZERO. In almost a century we have been unable to find a single experiment that does not follow QM. Einstein spend a lot of energy (pun intended) trying to disprove QM. In that regard QM is the most successful theory in history of human race (so far). Even General Relativity is an approximation (Order beta^2 if I remember properly, where beta = v/c).

    1. Re:Quantum Mechanics by iabervon · · Score: 2

      A) Just a century? Most of physics which is a good approximation took longer than that to refine.

      B) People haven't gotten quantum to deal properly with gravity. There's the pesky problem that quantum fluxuations ought to have an increasing net gravitational pull at smaller scales, which should shred the universe. Obviously, this isn't happening. Obviously, gravity does exist at a larger scale. So quantum isn't complete.

      Does this mean that hydrinos are possible? Yes, everything possible. But 6.626e-34 isn't good odds. Of course, if you try everything with any plausibility a little bit, sooner or later one will pay off.

    2. Re:Quantum Mechanics by Life+Blood · · Score: 1

      Ummm wave particle duality? Seriously. You can mathematically derive that everything has to be particle based at the quantum level. Its been done and done often. However this is not the case experimentally. So the particle nature of the electron is "relaxed" (i.e. fudged) using wave particle duality so that the experiments work right.

      I remember back in 99 someone said this couldn't work because this violates schrodingers equation which holds true for all electron behavior in hydrogen except for and he gave a short list of a couple things. Sorry friend but exceptions disprove the rule.

      Note also that for hunreds of years all the respectable scientists believed in the four aristotlean elements, impetus theory, and phlogiston theory, too.

      --

      So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)

    3. Re:Quantum Mechanics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ummm... what?? Quantum mechanics is a theory of WAVES - so-called particle-wave duality is built into it at the level of the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple, the Schrodinger equation, etc. Which, by the way, this hydrino would obviously violate. And let me just mention - QM was invented nearly a century ago to explain hydrogen, among other things. We have more data on hydrogen (the most abundant element in the universe) than on anything else - it's used as a standard meter stick in physics, astrophysics, chemistry, etc etc... and nowhere in 100 years of theory and experiment, in multiple fields, is there ANY room for this hydrino... and make no mistake, it CERTAINLY would have been noticed long, long ago, if it existed.

    4. Re:Quantum Mechanics by russianspy · · Score: 1

      In reply.

      A) Please note that I was refering to Quantum Mechinics in particular. That theory is about century old.

      B) Just like special relativity was not meant to work with gravity, so QM is not really ment to work with it. Within its bounds it is absolute (as far as I know). It may not be the absolute/true view of the universe. However, in its own realm it holds true very nicely. For you information, it also breaks down when you approach the speed of light - that's when relativistic effects become too large to ignore.

    5. Re:Quantum Mechanics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the pesky problem that quantum fluxuations ought to have an increasing net gravitational pull at smaller scales, which should shred the universe.


      I don't know of any quantum gravity theories that predict that. Certainly the main ones don't.


      So quantum isn't complete.


      Most physicists think quantum is complete, but general relativity isn't.
    6. Re:Quantum Mechanics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can mathematically derive that everything has to be particle based at the quantum level.


      No, you can't. Everything is fundamentally a quantum field. Whether "particles" are a good approximation to that field depends on a lot of things; whether you have confinement, whether you have asymptotic "in" and "out" states --- plus things like particle/soliton duality (e.g. sine-Gordon/massive Thirring duality) really muddy the waters. Then there are quantum fields in curved spacetime, where the "particle" content of the universe depends on the observer... and let's not forget string theory! You certainly can't "prove" that everything is a particle when strings and branes are still a possibility.


      So the particle nature of the electron is "relaxed" (i.e. fudged) using wave particle duality so that the experiments work right.


      This is nonsense. As Feynman said (in chapter 1 of his lectures on quantum mechanics, IIRC), a quantum object is neither a wave nor a particle; it is something fundamentally different, but with aspects of both.

    7. Re:Quantum Mechanics by russianspy · · Score: 1
      In reply:

      Ummm wave particle duality? Seriously. You can mathematically derive that everything has to be particle based at the quantum level. Its been done and done often. However this is not the case experimentally. So the particle nature of the electron is "relaxed" (i.e. fudged) using wave particle duality so that the experiments work right.

      You can do a lot of things mathematically that are not necessairly true. That particular statement (everything has to be particle at the quantum level) simply does not agree with some basic physics experiments. Here is a simple one.

      If you're in a room with fluorescent lighting (does not work with normal lightbulbs). Hold two of your fingers so that they're just, almost touching. Look at that light through those fingers. If you do it right you will see diffraction of the light (little colored rings). That's quantum mechanics at work. That's also something that CANNOT be done by a particle. You can also search the web for descriptions of single and double slit experiments. If you've heard of tunneling (which is used in electronics) that is again, only possible if the particle has wave-like properties.

      As for your other comment. Well. I can't really disprove it without knowing what it is. Given your choice of sources...

      Note also that for hunreds of years all the respectable scientists believed in the four aristotlean elements, impetus theory, and phlogiston theory, too.

      Please note that the Greeks did not really belive in the scientific method. All of their "discoveries" where made by purely thinking about the problem. No experiments were preformed (in fact thay had no way of preforming those kinds of experiments). Still, I think they came up with things that are amazingly close to what we belive in right now. None of the "revolutions" in physics really changed things all that much. Just because we have Einstein's Relativity, that does not mean that Sir. Newton was wrong. Sir Isaac's formulas are still good enough to get us to the moon. That's not bad in my book.

      Going back to the greeks for a while. The world would be a better place if people would stop and THINK on what they're going to say, BEFORE they say it.

    8. Re:Quantum Mechanics by iabervon · · Score: 2

      A) Right, and a century isn't long enough to make it particularly old. It's taken most theories longer to be discovered to be flawed, so the fact that it hasn't been found to be flawed yet doesn't mean all that much.

      B) Within it's realm, it holds true nicely. But our universe isn't that realm, because our universe has gravity (and fast-moving particles). So the mere fact that QM prohibits something doesn't mean that it can't happen, just that it would require that something be going on that quantum doesn't cover.

      Finding something where the quantum effects and gravitational effects interact in a non-trivial way is highly unlikely. But it wasn't all that long ago when we didn't know of any situations where Newton wasn't exact to the accuracy of our equipment.

  36. Yes, if you add another force by BlowCat · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you only take the electro-magnetic force into account, then it's impossible. If you introduce some other force, it's possible. Some atoms, such as Kr-81 can actually partly "collapse" - it's called "electron capture" and is caused by the Weak Force. This is not possible for hydrogen, because the resulting neutron would be heavier that the original atom. We don't know any such force that would result in a lower energetic state for hydrogen.

    1. Re:Yes, if you add another force by surfsalot · · Score: 1

      well, if you look at the "burst" of ultraviolet light, that would put the electron somewhere within the maximum probability of the nucleus of the atom (from the energy that it would have to lose to produce ultraviolet light and the average energy level drop of the electron)... probably not such a good idea. We should either talk to the engineers and people funding this adventure, or consult God and tell him to redesign the universe.

  37. I'll give you Ion Emissions... by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0

    Pull my finger.

    --
    Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
  38. My Respect for NASA Continues to Diminish !! by geekster_2000 · · Score: -1, Offtopic



    Hydrinos ! Bah Hum Bug !

    This is about the biggest crack pot idea I've
    read from this once illustrious organization.

    There is one fantastic idea out there that will
    work, but thank god the scientist wont be
    the foot stool or dupe for other NASA scientist.

    I understand from the scientist that he can be
    can be bought for a large chunk of $$$$$$$$$$$$

    The scientist said he will take his realistic
    concept for what he knows as the FORD Automobile
    of space to the grave if his monetary interest
    arent satisfied.

    Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics

    Rumor in Silicon Valley -

    Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
    shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
    using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.

    for further look at biography background goto

    http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm

    He say he has studied the worlds propulsion
    engines and knows whats out there and smiles
    when asked how his is different.

    He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist
    he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his
    concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with
    500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time
    are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec

    he says it is a mankind first concept !!

  39. HAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Is that the most inane, self-stroking thing we've ever heard? "sprang from /....".

    The only that springs from this hut is hubris...and apparently lots of it!

    /. wouldn't make a pimple on the ass of science or NASA, for that matter.

  40. Hydrinos by Salsaman · · Score: 2
    Quick, somebody patent them !

    1. Re:Hydrinos by Anal+Cocks · · Score: -1

      Already patented. The article mentioned some jibber-jabber about "novel proprietary materials" being made based on this things. Ah, well, back to hax0ring Lunix and sucking men's penises...

      --

      Hey, kid... wanna touch my "kernel patch"?

      -- Alan Cox

  41. First UAG post!! by Big_Ass_Spork · · Score: -1
    adolf hitroll anal cocks anonymous cowrad anonymous pancake bank of americ a atm big ass spork bigdogscock carp flounderson clit cmdertaco cmdr shithe ad cyborg monkey diaper tales donkeyhote drunked coward egg troll elcagado fecal troll matter forged forsh fucky the troll genghis troll handybundler hettb iagreewiththispost j0nkatz klerck l0rdkariya limpdawg mao zedong metr olli c a m i ght y -t roll mmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm m m ne a l n b o b o n b y pr0n king profane mot herf uc ke r ra lph j ewhat er na der recipetroll re tur no ft he sp or k r i ngb are r robotroll rock 'n' tro l l s cri pt k id die l33t serial tr oller se xu a l ass pus s y s ub ject line troll ta sty b ee f j er ky t h e a nim e troll the lyrics g uy t he mess eng e r t he tu rd report the wipo tro ll t h ings t o d o today trollaxor tro llercoaster trolltime whistler's mother yourmissionfortoday yr0 and all the AC's and people I forgot to include. and now a word from our sponser:It ha s come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so ca lled 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgie s to homosexuality to pedophilia.What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Li nux's mos t o utspok en a dv ocates: * Linus Torv alds [mic ro s oft.co m ] i s an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L, ' c learly r ef er ring to himself by the first initial. * R ichar d M. S tallm an [geocities.com], spoke spervert for t he Gay sex' s Not U nusual 'movement' is an a nagram of m an s cram t hril l ad. * A lan Cox [microsoft. com] is b ar el y an ana g ra m o f anal cox which is just so filth y an d unchri s ti a n it unnerves me.I'm sure that Eri c S . Raymond , co mp o ser of the satanic homo sexual [goatse.cx] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is pr obably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always s hoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Up date: Eric S. Raymo n d is actually an anagram for se condary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to sh ow you that he is i ndeed queer.Update the Second: It is also documented t hat Evil Sicko Gaymond is respo nsible for a nauseat ing piece of code called Fetchmai l [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodom ite slang for 'Felc h Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not i n the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two p erverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital e j aculate out of the other's rect um. In fact, it a ppears that the dirty Linux fag gots set out to u n de rmine the good Republican instit ution of e-mail, t u rni ng it into 'e-male.'As far as Ri chard 'Master' Stal lman goes, that filthy fudge-pac ker was actuall y q uoted [salon.com] on leftist com mie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the fo llowing: 'I've be en resistant to the pressure to conform in any c ircumstance,' he says. 'It's ab out being able t o question conventional wisdom,' h e asserts. 'I be l ieve in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.A & #9617; & #9618; nd this isn't a made up troll b ullshit either! H e actually stated this tripe, whic h makes it obvio us that he is trying to politely say that he's a flami ng homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotte n.com]!Speaking a b o ut 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy c hutney ferret than Slashdot's ver y own self-confe & #9617; ssed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant a nagram cannot be found from his name, he has al & #9617; ready confessed, nay boasted of t he homosexual [g oatse.cx] perversion of corrupting the innocence o & #9617; f y oung children [slashdot.org]. To q uote from the ar tic le l inked:'I've got a rare kidney di sease,' I told h e r. ' I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come w ith me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a no te from my docto r?'Is this why you were touchin g your penis [ro t ten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the othe r boys touch it too?We should als o point out that & #9617; Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Sl ashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doub t? For those fort unate few who aren't aware of t he list of homos e xual [goatse.cx] terminology fo und inside the L inux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who g ains sexual gratification from h aving a thin stra w inserted into his urethra (or to use the comm on parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [ goatse.cx]lover blows firmly dow n the straw to in flate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's n ot busy violating the dignity a nd copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their po stings and publishing them en mas se to further hi s twisted and manipulative journa listic agenda.Si ck, disgusting antichristian pe rverts, the lot o f them.In addition, many of the Linux distributi ons (a 'distribution' is the mo st common way to spread the faggots' wares) are r un by faggot gro ups. The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wea r to allow easy a ccess to the anus for sexual pu rposes . Furthermore, Slackware is

    Created with UAG v0.92 (c)on by 2002

  42. karma burn... by killthiskid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Hmm, someone baiting all the slashdotters with a simple question where half of us will wonder if the question is serious and the other half with will slap our foreheads and go 'fuck me this is stupid!'.


    I'll put myself in the latter group.


    Is this www.adequacy.org? Is this an attempt at the ultimate troll in the latest 'NASA' article on slashdot?

    Sigh...


    At the time of my post, 'FakePlasticMe' has posted 4 post, all of them score 1 with the exceptio of this one.


    Only due to the combination of crack smoking moderators and troll-making posters can such an event come about such as 'FakePlasticMe' getting a score 5 on a troll post.


    Not that I'm surprised. I know this. Many others know this. It's the light and way. Post early, post often... you'll get modded up. Post something right and true, you'll get zero responses and no moderations. Post something dumb-shit/troll/etc, and hello!


  43. matter/antimatter by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Funny

    perhaps if we find some hydrinos, we could combine them with some dryinos and get pure energy?

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  44. circle-squarers & ponzi schemes by obtuse · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid that I've read & encountered a lot of bizarre cranks because I find them interesting, and a lot more of them are engineers than scientists. Doctors are also a more credulous group than you would expect.

    I think it may be because these are very bright educated people, but who may not have some fairly important intellectual tools, and don't know what they're missing. Consequently you have doctors & engineers who fall for chain letters, or cold fusion, or data compression in excess of a hundred percent.

    It's also easy to find engineers & doctors arguing for perpetual motion, squaring the circle, or trisecting an angle with a compass & straightedge.

    Venture capitalists, on the other hand, don't have to be as bright or educated as engineers or doctors, and we probably shouldn't talk about software "engineers" here, either. (Hey, I don't have any degree at all.)

    --
    Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
    1. Re:circle-squarers & ponzi schemes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engineers are people who make things work in the real world. Scientists are people who think they understand the real world . Are engineers always right? No. Are Scientists always wrong? No. Engineers are wrong about as often as scientists are right. Engineers go where the scientists say is impossible because we have learned from long experience that mostly the scientists don't know what they are talking about.

      Most scientists are skeptics - it is much easier and safer for ones' career in science to play defense than to go out on a limb championing a new idea. However, there is an important point to keep in mind: No skeptic has ever advanced human knowledge so much as one nanometer by being skeptical. All of the advances have come from people who were ridiculed by the skeptics.

      Skepticism becomes a game which allows the scientist to feel superior to everyone else: I can denigrate your work and you can't denigrate mine so I must be right and you must be wrong. If you can't see what is wrong with that - we have identified a major flaw in your intellectual knowledge.

      Having superior intellectual tools avails you nothing if you don't know how to use those tools in the real world. Science concentrates on precision in experiment, but precision can give an illusion of accuracy. For example a digital volt meter which reads 2.453821 volts when you take a reading has very good precision - however if the actual voltage being measured is 1.70 volts it doesn't have very good accuracy at all. Once again - if you don't understand how that can happen we have identified a problem area in your knowledge. The precision which science so greatly cherishes can lead you astray very easily; there is such a thing as being very precisely wrong. Indeed scientists spend most of their time being very precisely wrong.

      If you want to learn about the real world you have to work in it. Build some real circuits and make some mechanical inventions - when they don't work the way you expect them to work - you will have started the process of learning about reality. Repeated failures will eventually teach you the most important thing for any scientist to have; humility. That will give you a chance of turning into that rarest of all creatures; a useful scientist. As long as scientists divorce themselves from the real world their theories on reality will be guaranteed to continue to be defective.

      Now for the simple engineering solution to the real world problem posed by your post: Fuck you, you arrogant turd.

      A NASA engineer.

    2. Re:circle-squarers & ponzi schemes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No skeptic has ever advanced human knowledge so much as one nanometer by being skeptical.


      Of course this is not true, unless you think that discovering current beliefs are flawed does not constitute an advance in human knowledge.


      As long as scientists divorce themselves from the real world their theories on reality will be guaranteed to continue to be defective.


      Ah yes, the game which allows engineers to feel superior to everyone else. This is a strawman. Here's a clue: theorists don't divorce themselves from the real world. They build upon firmly grounded and tested ideas, and then push them a little further to see where they go. They are constantly trying to find ways to make their theories testable. (No theorist is ever going to win a Nobel Prize if their work hasn't been experimentally demonstrated!) Unfortunately, theorists are in the ironic situation wherein current theories are too good, and they have to look far beyond existing theories to find anything that might produce a testable difference.
    3. Re:circle-squarers & ponzi schemes by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

      Please, gulibility appears in every profession. Scientists fall victim to it as well, particularly when they venture out of their speciality. Remember those two fellows who were pretty good electrochemists but pretty lousy physicists? Something about fusion in a bottle.

      Once we get that degree and become a guru in one field we sometimes forget that we really don't know everything.

  45. It wasn't Slashdot by quintessent · · Score: 1

    It was Al Gore.

  46. uhhhhh(ad inf) by djdrew6k · · Score: 0

    If electrons really were an "orbitsphere", then how could you explain the results of Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer from the 1920's? Their experiment of firing an electron beam at a piece of nickel and watching the resulting electrons bounce off and on to a photoelectric plate showed an INTERFERENCE pattern. Such a result could only be attained if the electrons exhibited wave-like properties. And in the world of matter (unlike photons) the wave is actually another way of describing the probability of the electron existing in any given position in space.

    ESSPLAIN DIS WIHTOUT QM, BEATCH!

  47. Here is the Blacklight Rocket Link by serutan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BlackLight Rocket link on Wired isn't slashdotted, it's just wrong. Here's the real page and a much more informative writeup of the whole concept at space.com, April 2000 , where Wired seems to have gotten most of their story. Sigh.

    1. Re:Here is the Blacklight Rocket Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BlackLight Rocket link on Wired isn't slashdotted, it's just wrong.


      You said it.
  48. How much energy from this system? by NeuroPulse · · Score: 1

    I am curious to know how much energy this system would produce *if* it worked compared to other sources of energy such as fossil fuels, fission, fusion.

    Thanks

  49. Check it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Park compares attempting to go below the ground state to trying to travel "south of the South Pole."
    And what happens when you reach the southpole and keep going south? You end up travelling north again right...using this analogy, what happens when you try to go below the ground state? You end up exciting the electron and getting the energy they claim is possible with a "hydrino."

    ...check it this thug here's about to phucken wreck it!

    1. Re:Check it... by NeuroPulse · · Score: 1

      You have when energy is released and absorbed by an electron backwards.

      Energy is released when an electron drops to a lower orbit, and moves to a higher orbit when it absorbs energy.

      Moving south is equivalent to dropping to a lower orbit and releasing energy.

      Moving north is equivalent to raising to a higher orbit when energy is absorbed by the electron, *not* emitted.

    2. Re:Re:Check it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know my physics man, all i'm saying is that trying to bring the electron below "ground state" is the same as exciting it to a higher level. only in this instance there is no orbital to bring it down to and thus the energy just comes shooting out as if it were...hmmm...propelling a rocket maybe?

    3. Re:Re:Check it... by NeuroPulse · · Score: 1

      The claim is that the electron *is* actually going *below* the ground state to a lower orbit.

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/animation.shtml

  50. Go read the papers, then comment. by pgio2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • I've read everything that's come out of BLP for the last four years.

      Great! And you've independently replicated all of their experiments, right? Right?

      • come up with a better explanation for the results of BLP's experiments - all of them

      I can think of a pretty good reason for the reported results of their experiments. Mortgages, dental plans, kids to put through college... Remind me, their experiments have been independently verified, right?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Macka · · Score: 2

      Great! And you've independently replicated all of their experiments, right? Right?
      The man suggested you read the article. Had you listened to him, you'd have seen this sentence!
      ".. and they've been pretty good about letting others outside verify their excess energy -- there are some things going on that people are having trouble understanding."

      So there you go!

    3. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, any experimental results that don't completely jibe with currently accepted theories must be ignored, or attributed to incompetence and/or fraud.

      ????

      I don't know squat about his theories, nor do I give a damn. But if his inventions can be demonstrated to do what he claims they do, then they should be investigated, theory be damned... duh!

    4. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLP has developed materials with novel properties through the BLP process,


      Or so they claim in their dog-and-pony "demos" to their investors. Sucker.
    5. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and CQM reasonably explains electron spin in a completely clear way, something standard quantum mechanics hasn't managed.


      Bullshit. QFT has accounted for electron spin in a remarkably elegant way (coming from the Lorentz symmetry of spacetime) for about 70 years now. Try reading Tomonaga's The Story of Spin for an introduction.
    6. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Fixer · · Score: 1
      Make of this what you will. I've read much of his book, especially the chapter on AI, where he essentially breaks down all the analytical functions of the mind to large sets of encoded Fourier transforms. It's interesting, and I'm trying to think of even a reasonable software implementation to test his idea.

      But off hand, it sounds implausible. Doesn't mean it isn't true, it just sounds hokey. But, I don't mind spending some time in verification.

      --
      "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
    7. Re:Go read the papers, then comment. by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      What?! Investigate first, then comment? What're you, some kind of nut? This is Slashdot, dammit! Everyone here is an expert on everything; any effort to find out more information would be a waste of time better spent posting comments to show everybody else how smart we are.

      Seriously, I suspect hydrinos may be a dead end, too. But at least I'm smart enough to know that I'm not qualified to dismiss it out-of-hand.

  51. Re:first things first - answer by NeuroPulse · · Score: 1

    In case this question is serious, which is a definite possibility considering most people are scientifically illiterate...

    You have the common misconception that a rocket works by pushing against the ground and the air in the atmosphere. This is not how it works.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket moves forward as a reaction to mass being thrown in the opposite direction.

    Imagine being on a low friction surface such as a slippery ice, and throwing something heavy away. You would be propelled in the opposite direction.

  52. ack! by angry+jimmy · · Score: 1

    | sed 's/nucleuses/nuclei/g'

  53. IANA-Physicist, but..... by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 1

    This sure sounds like Cold Fusion/Red Mercury to me.

  54. Black(light) Rocket by unsinged+int · · Score: 1

    It would be so cool if this worked because then NASA could run an ad asking people to support their funding and show them taking people on tour of a space shuttle...only to find a little black rocket where the engine should be.

    Of course the Genuity people probably would have something to say about that...

  55. He does make a good point about the wave function. by -douggy · · Score: 2
    Physics in general needs to figure out what the wavefunction does actually mean. The issue of the electrons in liquid helium being "split" but cern/slac et all have never donw this is interesting.


    This guy maybe totally wrong but at least he is actually saying no I will try something else.. What if plank or einstein had never assume quantisation (ignoring boltzman and some statistical mecahnics) they assumed something everybody thought at the time was nuts. Now every physics student learns QM.



    Maybe in 2102 we will look back and say wow those QM papers were silly

  56. ZPE and the Casimir effect by rufusdufus · · Score: 2

    Just the other day I was reading a paper by our favorite fringe scientist Dr Puthoff. Unlike most scientists, he gets to speculate about earth shattering possibilities with no basis but how valuable it would be if it was true. So he has a fun job. [He might get lucky one day and then we'll all be eating crow!]

    In the paper he was talking about his new favorite topic, Zero Point Energy. ZPE is the natural energy of the vacuum that is required by QM to exist in order to satisfy the Uncertainty principle. Direct evidence of ZPE was shown a long time ago by a guy named Casimir, who has an effect named after him. Casimir reasoned that if you take two metal plates and put them next to each other with a small enough gap, parts of the frequencies of the zero point virtual particles wouldnt be able to 'virtually exist' because the gap was smaller than their wavelength, so the net effect is that the plates will be pulled together by the imbalance in virtual energy in the gap. And in fact this is well established fact.

    Now the ZPE guys say you can somehow harness this effect to get energy. The most brilliant idea is that maybe what holds the electron in its orbit is actually zero point energy being tapped by the electron in an analogous way as the Casimir effect. The electron effectively creates a region too narrow for all the frequencies of the vacuum to fit, so there is an energy differential which exactly holds the electron in orbit (where classical theory states it will eventually spiral into the nucleus).
    It is possible that this is true; Quantum mechanics describes how the atom works, but not why it works that way. This theory gives an explanation for that behavior.
    I believe it is this same theory that hydrinos are based upon; if you can manipulate the field near the nucleus of the atom just so, you may be able to find an new viable energy state for the atom, and in the transition, get some of the ZPE for free.
    This is a very exciting theory. Its the kind that makes you say Nobel Prize to the mirror. And of course thats the kind of stuff that these sorts of scientists are drawn to. Its like crack for them. And Mr Puthoff job is entirely to entertain these sorts of ideas. Good job if you can get it!

    1. Re:ZPE and the Casimir effect by rufusdufus · · Score: 2

      Now that I have read more of Mills stuff, I am not so sure he and Puthoff are in sync. Mills ideas seem to eschew QM weirdness while Puthoff's stuff seems to embrace it.

    2. Re:ZPE and the Casimir effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puthoff seems to be confused. As far as I've ever been able to tell, he's claiming that you can extract energy from the zero-point in ordinary quantum field theory, which isn't true. Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be some modification of QFT that allows such things, but it's definitely not true that ordinary unmodified QFT allows this; it violates the axioms of the theory. (The Casimir effect is real, but is not a source of "free energy".)

    3. Re:ZPE and the Casimir effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA has found a way for $75,000 to make the transition to the crapper. Here are just a couple of objections to these ideas:
      1) The Casimir effect can also be explained by ordinary Van der Waals forces. There's no way to get energy out of this setup - let the plates collide, and then you have to separate them (= put energy back in) to do it again. Getting energy out of the vacuum (not the Eureka) is = perpetual motion = BS. It's the same in every direction - point to another method of energy production which follows this model. There has to be a reason for something to go from x to y (gradient of some form) if you want to get power out of the trip. The Casimir effect is real, and it can be interpreted as exclusion of the too-long waves, but there's still no way to get energy from the vacuum.

      2) The idea that the electron is "held together" by the Casimir force was investigated & found to be incorrect by a guy named Boyer - the Casimir force is repulsive for a sphere. Also, renormalization gets rid of the infinities associated with the point particles of QED anyway.

      3) The uncertainty principle puts the fundamental limit on how close the electron can get to the proton in a hydrogen atom. It's a minimum - going closer requires an input of energy, as does pulling it further away. Because it's a minimum, it was given the name (drum roll) GROUND state. The only lower-energy transition possible would be to force the electron into the proton & make a neutron (and anti-neutrino) and I believe that would only be a lower-energy transition in a stellar collapse situation. Of the four forces, EM is the only one that should matter for atomic H.

      4) Flame away if you're so inclined, but I'm gonna put my $ on Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli, etc. I'm sure there are many ideas which will ultimately be proven true which would now be regarded as crackpot theories. I'm just willing to bet that the freakin' hydrogen atom is not the Great Unknown.

  57. Vanished In Deep Pockets by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    "...embraced by many engineers and people with deep pockets"

    There are no hydrinos for sale on eBay, so I guess those deep pockets bought them all already.

  58. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's just an anti-"we already know everything" culture at NASA.

  59. Cut to the chase! by ScrewTivo · · Score: 1

    Take away all the science mumbo-jumbo and look at the working prototypes!

    All I want to know is ...Can I build a steam generator out of it and produce electricity cheaper!

    Maybe their science is good, maybe bad. I don't care, I just want cheap clean electricity without frying my gonads.

  60. Re:Crackpot is still a crackpot...RESUBMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Double negatives often make even simple points undecipherable. Try this:

    After so many years, Mills still cannot verify his claims.

    Or:

    ..Mills crackpot idea remains unverified.

  61. Re:MCF and runnaway muons by guybarr · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, muons decay rather quickly, and it take more energy to make them than you get from the fusion

    IIRC a bigger problem with MCF was the muons' tendency to stick to the fast (higher-charged) helium resulting from fusion, thus geting the muons out of the De-Tr mixture and reducing efficiency.

    but as someone else said, MCF was a very plausible scientific/engineering idea at the time. This hydrino thing is something out of a crack-pipe.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  62. Novel materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not good in physics, and thus reading the papers will give me little more than a headache.

    But I read from the site that the process makes "proprietary novel materials". What are these exactly, can someone explain, or at least what kind of materials might be novel in this sense (unknown word to me)?

  63. Duh. Add lithium (Li) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get DILITHIUM

  64. Hydrinos do actually exist! We have verified it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hydrinos do actually exist! And at the Hylam-Duncan-Lark Institute for the Advancement of Manufacturing Processes, we have verified it!

    By using the classical definition of quantum mechanics, we were able to extrapolate the existence of a wave state where 1/r is actually greater than phi squared. The derivation is an elegant and trivial consequence of the application of elementary linear algebra. Using this hypothesis and a simple adherence to the Junkstan-Fox principle, we were able to create an inverse quantum phase inhibitor. We were able to use the inhibitor to channel antiprotons into a particle accelerator where they transmuted into base-level-three tachyons by the Morgrik-Terrac empathic effect.

    As part of a practical demonstration, we took our test apparatus and aimed the chamber emitter at our target, which was a large $100 bill. The end result was hydrinos impregnated into a rendering of Ben Franklin.

    So you see, its all very simple, once you understand the basics as I have just explained them.

    You do understand, of course? I mean, any CHILD could understand this.

    Good! Now where was that million-dollar check you were starting to write to us before mean-old doubt started creeping in?

  65. cows jump over the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er like thinks stinkes like pooo. la la la la. poo pooo po, i am a vored infant who is gettin bored doing crappy sholiastic projects

  66. Neucleuses? by dankjones · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be "Neuclei"?

    Was this funded by the bush administration? If so shouldn't it be "Nuculuses"?

    1. Re:Neucleuses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 'nuclei' you stupid dumbfuck liberal

    2. Re:Neucleuses? by dankjones · · Score: 1

      What's a "liberal"?

  67. my god, how dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "research" papers like this really piss me off. As a nuclear physicist, I hold people to the highest standards when it comes to research and this organization clearly waves their hands around with extreme carelessness. The sad part is how so many people invest into this organization and desperately cling onto the idea because of the wild applicable claims made. For one, Quantum mechanics isn't a silly tool of physicists. It's be proved and proved again. I use it on a daily basis for explaining very complex nuclei to a incredible precision of 0.5%. That's not luck gentlemen. As far as the hydrogen atom, relativistic QM along with Quantum Electrodynamics gives all the states, energy eigenvalues of those states, zeeman shifts of those states when put in a magnetic field, the stark shifts when put in a electric field, etc..... and it's so accurate, there is virtually no error. These blacklight people are just simply foolish. Even their explanation of things sound foolish. The way they described a few processes completely violate all logic, common sense, and physics as we know it. In fact if their proposal is true (in the manner they've described it), the world of physics will become infintely more complex (because all humann reasoning will be invalid). Us physicist aren't opposed to this idea because it goes against what we currently know, we are against it because all of it's implications ultimately mean that all of our present physics is wrong. That's a bit of a bold statement to make considering how accurate we can predict things these days. Plus these guys are behind times, they go as far to say that QM hasn't done anything since the atomic bomb. WHAT A CROCK. That's just a ridiculous lie. I can't even begin what huge advances have been made due to QM since the atomic bomb.
    All in all, these guys are either complete idiots, or know how to get rich off of other idiots.

  68. Obvious Strawman by imkonen · · Score: 1
    From the front page of the hydrino.org link provided:
    "By rejecting such elementary concepts as renormalization, virtual photons, virtual annihilation and creation, and even propagator theory ... Mills places himself squarely in opposition to the greatest theoretical minds and experimental physicists of mid- and late twentieth century physics. ... If that troubles you guys, I'm sorry. But reality is the readings on my instruments--period." --Dr. Peter Zimmerman
    Give me a break. I have met plenty of physicists in my life, and I have never heard a single one of them describe renormalization, virtual photons etc. as either elementary or simple. How about a source for this quote...like when and where the alleged Dr. Peter Zimmerman said it. Or even better, a little more specific information on who he is (there's probably quite a few Dr. Peter Zimmerman's in the world, and thus no one of them can sue the website for attributing false quotes to him) would shed some light how serious this should be taken. I mean he is supposedly arguing against the "Hydrino" theory, so even if he has a job in the academic communitee to protect, he shouldn't be in any danger by fessing up to this quote that "toes the party line." Every huckster who wants to sell a new theory comprised of pretty pictures and no predictive powers tries to paint himself as a victim of the massive scientific machinery that conspires to quash original achievement in favor of the accepted standards. It's tired and old. A new one comes along every day, and it's just not worth a real scientist's time to try to study and learn in depth every single one of them only to hear "you still don't understand it" as the response to any fallacies, contradictions or problems he or she points out.
    1. Re:Obvious Strawman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Zimmerman is a participant in the Hydrino Study Group. He has undertaken this debate on his private time, but holds a high public science position. If you show some initiative, you'll find out who is is easily enough.

    2. Re:Obvious Strawman by imkonen · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the helpful information. What...it would be too easy for me if you just told me what "high public science position" he holds? I wouldn't have "earned" the right to know if somebody just tells me? Why should I have to spend my time hunting through the website for this guy's info? His quote would have a lot more credibility if his "high public science position" were listed with his name. I stand by my earlier statement. The quote (or misquote...or out of context quote?) is placed on the front page because it protrays the scientific community as a cult of elitist snobs (the "elementary" concepts line) whose debating skills are limited to appeals to authority ("Mills [read David] places himself squarely in opposition to the greatist theoritcal minds [read Goliath]"). If somebody actually said this in an attempt to argue against the existance of Hydrinos, he has done a disservice to the side of the debate he claims to be on.

    3. Re:Obvious Strawman by LutherSetzer · · Score: 2, Informative

      > What...it would be too easy for me if you just
      > told me what "high public science position" he
      > holds? I wouldn't have "earned" the right to
      > know if somebody just tells me? Why should I
      > have to spend my time hunting through the
      > website for this guy's info? His quote would
      > have a lot more credibility if his "high public
      > science position" were listed with his name.

      Sorry about that. Dr. Peter Zimmerman is a chief science advisor with the U.S. Senate and has a Ph.D. in Physics along with years of hard-earned laboratory research experience. He participates regulary in the Hydrino Study Group discussions because that is his only opportunity to challenge publicly Mills' assertions. However, his participation is not part of his "official" job with the government, so he did not want his job title listed on the http://www.hydrino.org web site.

      > I stand by my earlier statement. The quote (or
      > misquote...or out of context quote?) is placed
      > on the front page because it protrays the
      > scientific community as a cult of elitist snobs
      > (the "elementary" concepts line) whose debating
      > skills are limited to appeals to authority
      > ("Mills [read David] places himself squarely in
      > opposition to the greatist theoritcal minds
      > [read Goliath]"). If somebody actually said
      > this in an attempt to argue against the
      > existence of Hydrinos, he has done a disservice
      > to the side of the debate he claims to be on.

      The two quotes resulted from a long, exasperating, back-and-forth dialogue between Mills and Zimmerman a year or so ago. As the list moderator, I finally called a "time out" to ask both these men about their fundamental assumptions of the nature of the universe. The quotes you see on the front page are their responses.

      I am sorry you are not happy with the quote selections nor with the absence of a brief job title for Dr. Zimmerman. But I hope you at least understand now how we came to post that material as written.

      You may search the list archives using the search box at the bottom of the front page at http://www.hydrino.org to gain more insight into the Mills-Zimmerman exchanges.

      Luke Setzer
      Hydrino Study Group Webmaster and Moderator
      http://www.hydrino.org

    4. Re:Obvious Strawman by imkonen · · Score: 1
      I appreciate your candor (no sarcasm this time). Perhaps I owe Dr. Zimmerman an apology for doubting his existance and sincerity.

      Despite my intentions not to get sucked into this thing I did wander over to the yahoo discussion group and read a few posts. I am perfectly willing to concede that Dr. Zimmerman is far more qualified to defend "conventional" physics than I am...both for being an actual physicist and for apparently having read Dr. Mills's book. I also think Dr. Zimmerman made some much better points in the posts I read there than the quote I objected to originally.

      The quote on the website bothers me because I think the average public already thinks of the scientific community as narrow mindied and elitist enough as is. They're more than willing to side with the underdog, especially when the "defending champion" implies that they're stupid if they don't blindly accept the most odd-sounding concepts.

      I found one interesting article by a scientist discussing how difficult it can be to debate "pseudoscience" at http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/nytimesaprilrev.h tml which addresses some of these issues.

  69. Unscientific criticism by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
    [American Physical Society spokesman Robert Park] compares attempting to go below the ground state to trying to travel "south of the South Pole."
    This is not a scientific statement. It's just like saying "The atom can't eb split, because atom means an indivisible thing". "South Pole" is a point that is defined to be the southernmost place, so by definition can't be travelled south of. The "ground state" is the lowest energy level that we have observed, and according to our current theory is the lowest possible state. Robert Park is being unscientific in equating this theoretical prediction with a semantic truth.
  70. Quality assurance by Bronze+Girl · · Score: 1

    Well, when you do such a thing, you need to do QA in order to verify that the UV emission is indeed what you were looking for.

    Sometimes, you just screw up when you find that the UV emission you imagined, was just your fancy room light, and not a revolutionary cold fusion by-product.

  71. Well.. it's FREE by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    That's still hydrogen becoming solid. And yes, it is metallic. Remember, Hydrogen sits on both sides of the periodic table.

    You will note I said "Most expensive commercially available substance."

    Last I checked, you cannot purchase antimatter.
    You CAN, however, easily purchase tritium.

    1. Re:Well.. it's FREE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope....tritium is a controlled element subject to some pretty strict National Security clauses.
      It's an initiator for weapons grade materials in fission and fission/fusion reactions.

    2. Re:Well.. it's FREE by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      Yes.. it's controlled.

      But if you want some, and have a real reason to get it, you can purchase it.

    3. Re:Well.. it's FREE by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      If you have a watch that has glowing hands (not the indiglo kind), you use tritium yourself.

      The watch dials and stuff are painted with phosporus. An ultra-small amount of tritium provides neutrons to get the phosphorus to glow.

      Raduim used to be used for watches. Now it has mostly moved to tritium.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  72. The emission lines have been spotted by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    See the spectra in this paper, for example:

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/Hel iu m_Heat%20PCCP%208_24_01SV.pdf

    Do a little research before you post, meringuoid.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  73. What's wrong about the Wired article? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    What do you find incorrect in the Wired article? It's author is the same as the space.com article you linked to.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  74. Re:Oh God, not these anti-gov loons again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it not WRONG to extract a portion of that $75K from me, at gun point, just so they can hand it over to one of their crackpot friends?

    Tell me where I can mail you your penny so that you can be richly compensated for your portion. I'll even eat the 3400% overhead for the stamp just to keep you happy and not stocking up guns and canned food goods for the coming revolution.

  75. Hydrinos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think the Borg uses this to make the Omega particle?