Slashdot Mirror


Journal of Applied Physics, NASA, and the Hydrino

Erik Baard writes "I wanted to bring you the last on a story that was slashdotted in June: NASA's investigation of the 'hydrino' rocket. In June I reported for wired.com that the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts was funding a six-month study of rockets propeled by plasmas created by BlackLight Power Inc. The company claims that energy is released when it shrinks hydrogen atoms, bringing the electron closer into its nucleus than thought possible. Here's the scoop: the researcher told NASA that *something* was indeed generating plasmas with more kinetic energy than would be expected for the power input. And the kicker is that BlackLight founder Randell Mills scored a paper about his plasmas in the mainstream Journal of Applied Physics -- after a few years of following this bizarre startup, that floored me." Here's the Village Voice story with these updates.

12 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. reputed journal... Maybe.... by Papa+Legba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would take the publishing of a science paper these days with a grain of salt. The register just did some ground breaking reporting in this area for another company like this and found out that the state of peer review at most of these mags is poor at best.

    As long as it sounds plausible then it gets published. Stringing enough buzz words together usually does the trick. Unfortunatly the science mags have gone the same way as the game review mags. Don't make waves or you don't get content and loose readership and advertising dollars.

    Read the whole article at the Register

    --
    Papa Legba come and open the gate
    1. Re:reputed journal... Maybe.... by Rothfuss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the hell are you talking about?

      Journal of Applied Physics

      That is indeed a refereed scientific journal, sponsored by the American Institute of Physics.

      Perhaps you were merely being sarcastic and implying that JAP isn't a top tier journal. If so, remember to use your _SARCASM_ JAP rocks _/SARCASM_ tags or italicize something.

      -Rothfuss

  2. Re:Good to see a payoff for "bad" science finally by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For every ground breaking discovery there are a million crackpots. Scientists have plenty of reasons to be sceptic. Once this guy is able topower a space heater with his plasma they will have to believe him.

    btw who says the ether exists?

  3. Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    people like Robert Park. Park even went so far as to falsely charge in Forbes magazine that Mills was claiming a cancer cure from hydrinos. In 1988, Mills published a paper on cancer therapy in the journal Nature that relied on conventional physics-- he hadn't conceived of the hydrino yet.

    With enemies like Park, Mills doesn't need friends. This is a really good way to get credibility with investors for Mills.

    1. Re:Reckless Disregard for the Truth by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Park is a badass. He's primarily anti-bullshit; read his articles on what he calls "Voodoo Science" (or the book of the same name) to get a better idea. He can be absolutely vicious at times but I have yet to see a situation where it wasn't called for. He's sort of like Carl Sagan crossed with Jesse Ventura.

      He's been one of the few scientists (or journalists) to call the administration on its missile defense bluff, among other things; he's also repeatedly described the ISS as a waste of time and money- though he's clearly in favor of space exploration. His opinion of creationism is about as low as can be imagined.

      I'm sure the guy can be a dickhead, and I'm sure he can be wrong occasionally, but we need people like him. The mass media tends to give pseudoscientific bullshit far more credibility than it deserves, and too many legitimate scientists keep their mouths shut or ignore the problem. In a society where John Edwards is the SciFi channel's top rated show, skeptics are vital.

  4. Re:Good to see a payoff for "bad" science finally by dvdeug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    many self-righteous so-called "scientists" have this incredible fear of anything outside their understanding. Meteorites? They don't exist,

    Psychic powers? Oops, they went away when you walked in the room.

    Psychic powers? Oops, we ignored basic sercuity cautions and let the subject cheat.

    Psychic powers? Oops, it looks like we fudged our numbers.

    Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.

    When "scientists" stop acting as defensive about their holy truths as any other two-bit religion with a tenuous basis, perhaps we can make some real progress.

    Because the odds of surviving cancer haven't steadily been going up. Because there's no drugs for people with HIV to hold back the virus. Because our movies all come on magnatic media, or long rolls of optical media. Because we have to search for a payphone when we need to make a phone call. Because slow mail or expensive phone calls are the only way for most Americans, Europeans and Japanese to communicate.

    get back to the "real" work of investigating the universe *as it exists*, not as you believe it to exist.

    Small enough circuits have quantum bleed-over, just like predicted by theory. Einstein's theory predicted gravitational lenses, just like they were found in real life. These theories describe the universe fairly well.

    On the other hand, we've been seeing perpetual motion machines for how many centuries? And they never seem to work if and when we get our hands on them. How much work should a scientist spend studying something that's been disproved time and time again? When given something that seems bogus and is presented by someone with a financial motive, that doesn't correspond to the theories that are correct in every observation they made, the general trend is that it actually is bogus.

    Here's another question: what do you do? Scientists would rather not go on what they feel will probably be a wild goose chase, instead working on stuff they feel will get results. I can hardly fault someone for making that decision - I try to avoid wasting my time myself. If you believe it has value, why don't you dedicate your time to studying it?

  5. It gets better:... by pVoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the refered article:

    It's not just BlackLight Power's work in bombs, rockets, and rusty ships that has the military's attention. Mills has stacks of proprietary research on artificial intelligence. In what he calls Brain Child Systems, Mills has done the math for a reasoning machine with consciousness.

    The more I read this guy, the more the hairs on my back stand straight.

    My uncle had a saying, that I just can't keep out of my mind as I'm reading all this:

    "Someone who knows everything knows nothing."

  6. OhNo by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting


    WHAT IS IT WITH YOU GUYS!!!

    This guy is a con-artist taking you for a ride. Why are you feeding his ego. Utter nonsense!

    If you actually read the NASA study, you will immediately see that there the amount of experimental evidence in NO WAY justifies any of the claims made. Excess power generation based on microwave heating of two different gas mixtures invalidates millions of REPEATABLE experiments conducted over the past 80 years? I DON'T THINK SO. Much more likely is that the adsorbtivity of the gases wasn't the same.

    The NASA study didn't even get to the point where they measured exhaust gas velocity.

    GIVE ME A BREAK.

  7. Re:Should be lots of skepticm by MonkeyBoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From looking at the references I would say that Blacklight is (in rough descending order of likelyhood):
    Crackpots
    Charlatans
    "Winging Scientists"*
    "Mislead Scientists"*
    Really onto something.
    *(By "a Winging Scientist" I mean someone who has trouble understanding some work done by other scientists and assumes that they are just making up things. Thus a "winger" feels justified in making up thing to sound impressive.)
    *(By a "Mislead Scientist" I mean decent people like Pons and Flieshman in their pursuit of cold fusion).

    And if you think he looks funny, have a look at all of the coporate officers at http://www.blacklightpower.com/management.shtml
    I could see them as pastors at a fundamentalist church involved in snakehandleing but I wouldn't want have them in company I was involved with.
  8. Crackpot Ideas by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone else find that so called scientists that dismiss something new out of hand aren't really worthy of being called scientists? IMHO a scientist is like Captain Kirk.. always going where no may has gone before. It's one thing not to believe every thing that comes down the pipe but creeps like this guy that hunts down 'voodoo' just piss me off. If there is nothing to someones ideas and claims then eventually it'll be self evident. There is no need to attack new ideas just because they may be wrong. I've always thought learning from mistakes was the best way. If you're not proving something works then at least your shining light on what doesn't.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Crackpot Ideas by kmellis · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Does anyone else find that so called scientists that dismiss something new out of hand aren't really worthy of being called scientists?
      I don't think that's a fair characterization. They don't reject new things out of hand, they reject revolutionary things out of hand. As well they should.

      Why? Because there are an infinity of false revolutionary "scientific" ideas possible. A scientist's job is to be skeptical, not credulous. Yes, scientists are "going where no man has split infinitives before" but they go there with intellectual rigor, not having sex with whatever has blue skin and big tits.

      And this story, with the upcoming paper, just demonstrates that the system is working quite well.

      If you think that scientists should be more interested in bizarre and revolutionary ideas, then you should spend some time in sci.relativity and sci.physics (just to name a couple of newsgroups) and see how many crazy, ignorant people with crazy, ignorant theories there really are out there who complain that "they're being persecuted" and "Einstein got bad grades and nobody believed him, either" (he didn't and they did).

  9. Re:Good to see a payoff for "bad" science finally by jayrtfm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Buckyballs weren't found in the wild until after they were made in a lab. My only point is that sometimes things in the wild aren't found because we haven't been looking specifically for it.