This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
If you go to Black Light Power Inc. website (www.blacklightpower.com) you will find detailed presentations of the GUT-CQM theory as well as working prototypes of rt-plasma devices in which excess energy is clearly being liberated from free atomic hydrogen via the BLP process. They give detailed explanations of there experiments and, most importantly, they provide documentation of the confermation of these results by independant research organizations including NASA and the US Navy.
It's not just theory anymore, the phonomena of non-radiative resonant energy releases from the catalysis of free atomic hydrogen forming fractional ground state hydrogen atoms called hydrinos has become common knowlege. Most recently (since mid 2004), there has been a silent rush of rt-plamsa research around the world specifically focusing on the exploitation of this new hydrogen energy source. —Preceding unsigned comments added by 65.147.116.148 at 23:37, 7 January 2005 (UTC). Edited further by 65.147.245.219 at 20:31, 8 January 2005 (UTC) and by 62.194.119.199 at 18:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Fred Salsbury, your assertions are delatory if you do not back them up: who has detracted from Hydrino theory? Please list names and their statements. Otherwise, you're engaging in gratuitous slander of Dr. Randal Mills' work. 209.29.95.52 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Dr. Anonymous
Yeah, find a name, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Rigged, it's all rigged, boys and girls. Park and Zimmerman are the mentors of this cabal. One asks in vain for citation of experimental disproof of Mills. But all they come up with are the unsupported statements of detractors, which are more important than the questions of science. I hate to think about those girls you teach, Knott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:51 and 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
And while you are it, Knott, think about what is the reference that Zimmerman cites in the quotation you provide. Winning this way is dirty. You should provide, at least, the reference - otherwise the Zimmerman statement is vacuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Now that I have spent some time examining the work, (I read the book entirely), and have read the verification results from NASA, on unrelated work, I think we need to merge this article into Cold Fusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
More from [ Hydrino Website]
"They have been replicated by laboratories commissioned by BLP; these are listed on the BLP web site."
Where? I have searched the site, and only found the NASA paper, and quoted it.
"It is not clear why this has not been more forthright. Hopefully we will see these independent labs reporting their results to the mainstream journals before long."
This was 5 years ago.
"BlackLight Power is also in the middle of getting its patents granted."
On Patents: [ Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]
"The bubble began bursting in August[1999], when a federal court upheld the Patent Office's revocation of one of BlackLight's patents and the suspension of four others. The Patent Office said BlackLight's submission "did not conform to the known laws of physics and chemistry."
[ Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]
"This month[May 2000] a chat room called the Hydrino Study Group was abuzz over a purported wirestory saying the National Institute of Standards &Technology validated BlackLight's claims. It hasn't." —Brendan Coffey
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Mills was formed as a medical doctor.
Does this mean that Mills was formerly a medical doctor, or that he was trained as a medical doctor? A revision clarifying this point would be useful. Chasuk 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am unhappy with this article. It is describing a theory that is controversial -- on the very fringes of science -- and I think that this needs to be made clear within the first paragraph. I will not go so far as to say that "Hydrino theory" should be identified as a psuedoscience, but I am disturbed that the tone of this article seems to indicate authorship by an ardent devotee. Chasuk 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Feels like the Austrian Wikipedia.
It's irrelevant for the Hydrino theory that Randell Mills is Chemist, and Medical Doctor. (Him being an inventor has some relevanmce but it's hard to judge). Spare these details for the Randell Mills.
OTOH it is relevant, that Herman Haus, whose paper is said to have inspired the theory is an Electrical Engineering Professor. But that's no reason to refer to him as "Professor" each time the name is mentioned. That's just bad style for an encyclopedia.
Pjacobi 17:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Douglas Osheroff is a physicist not an astronomer see [3] Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What have you go against putting all quotes under one heading? Labelling people as skeptics, supporters etc is susceptable to POV. Wheras lumping them together and letting the reader decide is much more neutral. Yet you keep reverting my attemps. Why? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Would whoever added that to the article please add a source. Cheers! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody doubt the presentation in Rathke's paper? Otherwise we should the present Mills' CQM equation, it's solutions accordung to Mills' and the mathematical problems with that in the article. -- Pjacobi 06:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys. I originally wrote this article a long time ago but gave it up when what I considered a balanced description of what the theory was all about was repeatedly heavily edited with the comment "Pseudoscience Crap". I've been watching Mills for over ten years now, contributing now and again on the Hydrino Study Group. I don't mind and even encourage that the article is prefaced with a description that it is a theory with as yet no widespread acceptance. That's the simple truth. The majority has to make a decision at some point as to what is taught in schools and universities and that has to be considered the mainstream. However the term "pseudoscience" should be rejected. Psuedo is the Greek root for false or deceptive. Mills seeks to persuade by publishing in scientific journals, getting others to replicate his efforts and basing his claims on experimental evidence. This is science, not psuedoscience.
I also reject as a neutral source the comments of Doctors Bob Park Peter Zimmerman. They have a bitterly conflicted history with Dr. Mills originally involving attacks upon Dr. Mills honesty, integrity and business reputation countered by threats of legal action and finally with Dr. Park contacting the Patent office which resulted in Dr. Mills' patents being withdrawn even though they had been originally accepted and even published as issued. The legal action that followed (and Mills lost) did not consider the merits of Mills' patents but tested the power of the USPTO to withdraw a patent at such a late stage. The court ultimately held that the USPTO had the legal power to do so. See Bob Park's version of events here:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html and the Erik Baard overview article at the village voice: "The Empire Strikes Back" http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0017,baard,14377,1.html
Rathke's contribution seems based on his own interpretation of Mills' theory and may have been guided by an agenda. He conducted no experiments to justify his position and his declarations seem aimed solely to discredit Mills. When asked by a member to join HSG to put his case he replied:
"Thanks for notifying me of the discussion. My only interest in this topic was to save the European tax payers some money by keeping ESA from repeating NIAC's fault and studying this hoax. The paper was just a spin-off from an internal report. Hence, I consider my job done on this and I am not planning to enter your forum. Anyway I am very busy at the moment because we have just set up a nice litte antigravity device in the test center at ESTEC." - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/9217
No-one was sure if his last comment was snide or genuine :)
Mills has put out a response to Rathke in which he asserts that it is Rathke who has made the errors, it is a large file unfortuntately - http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/PhysicalSolutionsNatureofAtomPhoton060805.pdf
Mills deals with Rathke on pages 24, 39, 94 and 95. Some extracts:
"Having presented the theory of CQM, the misunderstandings and errors of a critique by Rathke [1] were then addressed. Rathke missed the use of the stability to radiation as the constraint to solve the nature of the bound electron. The requirement that the electron equation of motion obeys a two-dimensional wave equation arises from the onstraint that the bound electron does not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations. It does not arise from a Bohr-type condition or some wave-particle duality notion. Nothing is waving including probability.
"The angular charge-density wave functions given by Eq. (31) are solutions of the two dimensional wave equation plus time. Rathke has copied the two-dimensional wave equation incorrectly and reversed the sign of the time differential. His other comments about incurable failures are made moot by this careless error."
"...
"In contradiction to Rathke’s claim that excited states can not be solved by CQM, the excited states of hydrogen and now helium are given in closed-form equations with fundamental constants only. These results are derived from Maxwell’s equations based on the physical process of excitation of the electron state by the photon. These results can not be reproduced by SQM. Even for the hydrogen excited states, the SQM methodology involves no physics and is arguably simply another form of the Rydberg formula to which it reduces. It is not predictive and is has many consequences that are not in agreement with observations [2-11].
"Hydrino states are predicted from Maxwell’s equations in an analogous manner as the excited states. The equations of the excited states and hydrino states and the mechanism for their formation are given in contradiction to Rathke’s claim. The data including an independent replication under NIAC [94] overwhelmingly demonstrates their existence and the exothermic reaction of their formation."
I do appreciate that the editors of this topic have a very difficult task. Does Wiki merely report or judge? Is it meant to discourage interest, prove it right or wrong? How do you assess who should be allowed to officially comment? In any case I hope the article has as its ultimate objective to raise interest in the topic and result in greater attempts at replication by scientists which will prove or disprove CQM and make Wiki's job easier by providing cold, hard experimental results.
FYI Mills Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics was published in an international peer reviewed journal entitled Physics Essays Vol 16. The webpage is here http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp#03
You need a subscription for the article, although BLP has published the text here http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/CQM060905.pdf.
You might also want to add to the list of evidence Mills claim that his theory can calculate the ionisation energies for the first 20 atoms and he provides workable spreadsheets that can be downloaded. This is apparently a big achievement that no other theory can match. See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/Exact_Solutions_1-20_Electron_Atoms_102804.pdf and for the workable spreadsheets: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Spreadsheets/1-20%20Electron%20Atoms%20Spreadsheets%20Unprotected.xls
My regards to all the editors for working so hard on something you think is "nuts". And apologies for the length of this post. I wanted to be thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"Mills' hydrino theory was inspired by a physics paper by MIT electrical engineering professor, Herman Haus. This paper used classical physics to model radiation arising from the free electron laser." What is the ref? I spent a finite time looking, didn't find. GangofOne 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify (here and perhaps in the article itself) whether the papers on this subject have been peer reviewed? -- zandperl 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The Article "Classical Quantum Mechanics" Has been peer-reviewed, by a Canadian Based Journal called 'Physics Essays'.
and the corrsisponding critique: [ [8]], in a Peer Reviewed Journal "New Journal of Physics 7"
Andreas Rathke, European Space Agency's Advanced Concepts Team
"“Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory… without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood.” - Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy Read Review..." Shelby T Brewer is listed on the BlackLight website as a member of the board of directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that earlier versions of the article belonged to the Category:Non-mainstream science category and since then was changed to Category:Pseudoscience category. I disagree with this modification because this theory does not fall under pseudoscience (yet). A pseudoscientific theory is a theory that has been correctly disproven by the scientific method. Hydrino theory, though unproven as of November 6, 2005, has also not yet been disproven since the theory is relatively new and has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore, I'm going to change the article category back to Non-mainstream science. Solarusdude 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Upon learning that Category:Non-mainstream science is a deleted category, I changed the category to Category:Protoscience. Sorry for the mixup. Solarusdude 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
At [ [9]] Step 3, It states "The catalyst (in this case, Potassium) recombines with electrons in the plasma. This releases photons that contribute to the plasma's brightness. The catalyst can then be used again." However, the movie does not even show the catalyst, in this case Potassium. Fundamental to ALL catalitic reactions is the returning of the catalyst to its origional state.
It also states that K^3^+ + 3 e^- -> K + 81.7526 eV. Um... Where is the photon in the equation? The equation only reflects the energy released.
Also: the value of 81.7526 eV, does not show up as an example of his results summaries. He does not list his primary catalitic example as an expermantal result. [ [10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
SECTION V Prospect Quarks to Cosmos to Consciousness, ppg 1065
"NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS Consciousness arises from a "negative" entropy state of a being at the expense of its surroundings wherein the being increases the spontaneous decay rate of the surroundings. The relationship between the energy decay rate according to Maxwell's Equations, spacetime expansion due to energy decay with the rate given by General Relativity, entropy due to spacetime expansion, and the imaginary nature of coordinate time due to spacetime expansion permits the phenomenon of consciousness."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
In summary, He is saying that the arrival of Conciousmess, causes spontaneous decay around it. However, Maxwell's Equations are about the relationship between Magnetic and Electic forces, and not about the effect of consciousness on the decaying entropy state of being. Artoftransformation 07:11, 7 November and 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
R Mills: ppg 348: "Recent evidence suggests that energy packets like photon torpedoes are creeping toward reality [7]." Cites: on page 368 "[7] R. W. Ziolkowski, K. D. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Letts., Vol. 62, No. 2, (1989), pp. 147-150."
[12] "Evidence of Localized Wave Transmission"
by Richard W. Ziolkowski and D. Kent Lewis University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550
[13] "D. Kent Lewis (M.S., 1978)"
I found a typo! R Mills owes me $5.00 USD, and an aplogy for the change of sign. Artoftransformation 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
R. Mills apparently has avoided pubslihing in mainstram journals:
"Q: Why doesn't Mills publish in peer-reviewed journals like everyone else?
[ Hydrino.org ]
"Mills has attempted to get physics papers published in mainstream journals but they have been rejected because they fundamentally challenge established quantum theory, a successful challenge to which at this stage is considered, using the term of one journal referee, "unlikely". Mills has published papers in Fusion Technology, but some may not consider this to be a mainstream journal."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[ [14]] Lists only two refrences to Mills work on Hydrino's
"As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Another paper on hydrino states has recently been posted to the arxiv here: [ "The hydrino and other unlikely states", by Norman Dombey] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waif ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ slashdotted}}
a better backlink is http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/06/1923218.shtml?tid=232&tid=14 This story has been on slashdot twice before in the last 5 years. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/22/109245&tid=14 ans " NASA to Investigate Hydrinos" http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/06/07/2159210.shtml?tid=134 GangofOne 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"In 1996 a NASA labor did a partially successfull test run to reproduce the observed excess heat in a Water-Potassium Carbonate-Nickel Electrolytic Cell. But as no followup research occured and the result, is only quoted by BlackLight Power, the significance of this result is in doubt."
It is not only quoted here, but it is assumed to be a rigorus validation of the claims, whereas the NASA results clearly deny the claims: BlackLigh Power Inc, Clained to NASA that the Electrolytic Cell, that they built, generated excess heat in the order of 60W for weeks. NASA was able only to detect 11W of excess power, or less than 19%. ( and has nothing to do with the claims of the Potassim fusion reacation. )
Rank order these adjectives:
Which one of these accuratly characturizes 19%?
"a string of failed experiments were reported." Cold_Fusion Which is how these types of experements was charactized on another page of wikipedia.
All the cirtasisms of Cold_Fusion#Arguments_in_the_controversy apply to this theory also. This is merely a cold fusion experment with potassium, K.
Or we can just redirect their inuqirues to this article Pokémon evolution. "Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."
Now with a bit of editing... "Hydrino Theory in the fictional world of cold fusion energy franchise, refers to a sudden change of form in a Hydrogen atom, usually accomapnied by a dramatic increase in funding. It would be noted that this is not an evolution in the physical sence, but rather the metamorphosis of carefull scientificstudy into something resembling claims for Supercentenarianism."
I will now investigate the US Navy claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 02:11- 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
. NO verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"BlackLight Power and researchers at the weapons division of the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, California, confirm that they are heading toward a research and development pact that would allow the navy to produce energy and materials from hydrinos and to develop applications of the new compounds. A spokeswoman for the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland says in an e-mail letter that after a meeting with Mills "there was considerable interest in the reported properties of the new hydrogen-containing compounds, and in obtaining samples for independent analysis and evaluation."
"I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so."
I think that we are charged with presenting a balenced case. We cannot afford to believe anyone. We can reproduce the companies claims, and the claims of the detractors, and the counter claims of the companies about the detractors, and the detractors rebuttles. This in pecticular is difficult and challenging.
The challenge is to reproduce the claims and counter claims with equal vigor. Artoftransformation 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The very first paragraph was worded "The hypothesis is not accepted by the mainstream physics community". This is an overly negative POV and ignores the on-going debate in the scientific press and in independent research labs. A small, but growing, number of well-respected researchers have begun to take an interest. Some for, and some against, Mills' ideas. Clearly, work to verify Mills' claims have expanded beyond the BLP premises. A better, more neutral approach would be to acknowledge the controversy and note that resources are being devoted to verify or debunk the claim. This is on-going work, by no means has this been settled, as is implied by the above statement. I have modified to be more NPOV. Ronnotel 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, I haven't made up my mind either way. In particular, I find the CQM 'explanation' for the classic dual-slit experiment unsatisfying at best. However, the SQM explanation for many of the CQM results are equally unsatisfying. To wit:
I haven't yet seen convincing arguments from the SQM side that explains any of these phenomena. Nor am I willing, yet, to believe that all of the evidence presented has been either fabricated or produced by experimental error. Am I cheering for the underdog? Not likely. My business is speculation - I'm just trying figure out whether it's time to start shorting natural gas companies. Something doesn't jive here and I'd like to figure out what it is, hopefully before the rest of the market. Ronnotel 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
If you go to Black Light Power Inc. website (www.blacklightpower.com) you will find detailed presentations of the GUT-CQM theory as well as working prototypes of rt-plasma devices in which excess energy is clearly being liberated from free atomic hydrogen via the BLP process. They give detailed explanations of there experiments and, most importantly, they provide documentation of the confermation of these results by independant research organizations including NASA and the US Navy.
It's not just theory anymore, the phonomena of non-radiative resonant energy releases from the catalysis of free atomic hydrogen forming fractional ground state hydrogen atoms called hydrinos has become common knowlege. Most recently (since mid 2004), there has been a silent rush of rt-plamsa research around the world specifically focusing on the exploitation of this new hydrogen energy source. —Preceding unsigned comments added by 65.147.116.148 at 23:37, 7 January 2005 (UTC). Edited further by 65.147.245.219 at 20:31, 8 January 2005 (UTC) and by 62.194.119.199 at 18:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Fred Salsbury, your assertions are delatory if you do not back them up: who has detracted from Hydrino theory? Please list names and their statements. Otherwise, you're engaging in gratuitous slander of Dr. Randal Mills' work. 209.29.95.52 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Dr. Anonymous
Yeah, find a name, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Rigged, it's all rigged, boys and girls. Park and Zimmerman are the mentors of this cabal. One asks in vain for citation of experimental disproof of Mills. But all they come up with are the unsupported statements of detractors, which are more important than the questions of science. I hate to think about those girls you teach, Knott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:51 and 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
And while you are it, Knott, think about what is the reference that Zimmerman cites in the quotation you provide. Winning this way is dirty. You should provide, at least, the reference - otherwise the Zimmerman statement is vacuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Now that I have spent some time examining the work, (I read the book entirely), and have read the verification results from NASA, on unrelated work, I think we need to merge this article into Cold Fusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
More from [ Hydrino Website]
"They have been replicated by laboratories commissioned by BLP; these are listed on the BLP web site."
Where? I have searched the site, and only found the NASA paper, and quoted it.
"It is not clear why this has not been more forthright. Hopefully we will see these independent labs reporting their results to the mainstream journals before long."
This was 5 years ago.
"BlackLight Power is also in the middle of getting its patents granted."
On Patents: [ Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]
"The bubble began bursting in August[1999], when a federal court upheld the Patent Office's revocation of one of BlackLight's patents and the suspension of four others. The Patent Office said BlackLight's submission "did not conform to the known laws of physics and chemistry."
[ Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]
"This month[May 2000] a chat room called the Hydrino Study Group was abuzz over a purported wirestory saying the National Institute of Standards &Technology validated BlackLight's claims. It hasn't." —Brendan Coffey
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Mills was formed as a medical doctor.
Does this mean that Mills was formerly a medical doctor, or that he was trained as a medical doctor? A revision clarifying this point would be useful. Chasuk 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am unhappy with this article. It is describing a theory that is controversial -- on the very fringes of science -- and I think that this needs to be made clear within the first paragraph. I will not go so far as to say that "Hydrino theory" should be identified as a psuedoscience, but I am disturbed that the tone of this article seems to indicate authorship by an ardent devotee. Chasuk 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Feels like the Austrian Wikipedia.
It's irrelevant for the Hydrino theory that Randell Mills is Chemist, and Medical Doctor. (Him being an inventor has some relevanmce but it's hard to judge). Spare these details for the Randell Mills.
OTOH it is relevant, that Herman Haus, whose paper is said to have inspired the theory is an Electrical Engineering Professor. But that's no reason to refer to him as "Professor" each time the name is mentioned. That's just bad style for an encyclopedia.
Pjacobi 17:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Douglas Osheroff is a physicist not an astronomer see [3] Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What have you go against putting all quotes under one heading? Labelling people as skeptics, supporters etc is susceptable to POV. Wheras lumping them together and letting the reader decide is much more neutral. Yet you keep reverting my attemps. Why? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Would whoever added that to the article please add a source. Cheers! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody doubt the presentation in Rathke's paper? Otherwise we should the present Mills' CQM equation, it's solutions accordung to Mills' and the mathematical problems with that in the article. -- Pjacobi 06:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys. I originally wrote this article a long time ago but gave it up when what I considered a balanced description of what the theory was all about was repeatedly heavily edited with the comment "Pseudoscience Crap". I've been watching Mills for over ten years now, contributing now and again on the Hydrino Study Group. I don't mind and even encourage that the article is prefaced with a description that it is a theory with as yet no widespread acceptance. That's the simple truth. The majority has to make a decision at some point as to what is taught in schools and universities and that has to be considered the mainstream. However the term "pseudoscience" should be rejected. Psuedo is the Greek root for false or deceptive. Mills seeks to persuade by publishing in scientific journals, getting others to replicate his efforts and basing his claims on experimental evidence. This is science, not psuedoscience.
I also reject as a neutral source the comments of Doctors Bob Park Peter Zimmerman. They have a bitterly conflicted history with Dr. Mills originally involving attacks upon Dr. Mills honesty, integrity and business reputation countered by threats of legal action and finally with Dr. Park contacting the Patent office which resulted in Dr. Mills' patents being withdrawn even though they had been originally accepted and even published as issued. The legal action that followed (and Mills lost) did not consider the merits of Mills' patents but tested the power of the USPTO to withdraw a patent at such a late stage. The court ultimately held that the USPTO had the legal power to do so. See Bob Park's version of events here:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html and the Erik Baard overview article at the village voice: "The Empire Strikes Back" http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0017,baard,14377,1.html
Rathke's contribution seems based on his own interpretation of Mills' theory and may have been guided by an agenda. He conducted no experiments to justify his position and his declarations seem aimed solely to discredit Mills. When asked by a member to join HSG to put his case he replied:
"Thanks for notifying me of the discussion. My only interest in this topic was to save the European tax payers some money by keeping ESA from repeating NIAC's fault and studying this hoax. The paper was just a spin-off from an internal report. Hence, I consider my job done on this and I am not planning to enter your forum. Anyway I am very busy at the moment because we have just set up a nice litte antigravity device in the test center at ESTEC." - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/9217
No-one was sure if his last comment was snide or genuine :)
Mills has put out a response to Rathke in which he asserts that it is Rathke who has made the errors, it is a large file unfortuntately - http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/PhysicalSolutionsNatureofAtomPhoton060805.pdf
Mills deals with Rathke on pages 24, 39, 94 and 95. Some extracts:
"Having presented the theory of CQM, the misunderstandings and errors of a critique by Rathke [1] were then addressed. Rathke missed the use of the stability to radiation as the constraint to solve the nature of the bound electron. The requirement that the electron equation of motion obeys a two-dimensional wave equation arises from the onstraint that the bound electron does not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations. It does not arise from a Bohr-type condition or some wave-particle duality notion. Nothing is waving including probability.
"The angular charge-density wave functions given by Eq. (31) are solutions of the two dimensional wave equation plus time. Rathke has copied the two-dimensional wave equation incorrectly and reversed the sign of the time differential. His other comments about incurable failures are made moot by this careless error."
"...
"In contradiction to Rathke’s claim that excited states can not be solved by CQM, the excited states of hydrogen and now helium are given in closed-form equations with fundamental constants only. These results are derived from Maxwell’s equations based on the physical process of excitation of the electron state by the photon. These results can not be reproduced by SQM. Even for the hydrogen excited states, the SQM methodology involves no physics and is arguably simply another form of the Rydberg formula to which it reduces. It is not predictive and is has many consequences that are not in agreement with observations [2-11].
"Hydrino states are predicted from Maxwell’s equations in an analogous manner as the excited states. The equations of the excited states and hydrino states and the mechanism for their formation are given in contradiction to Rathke’s claim. The data including an independent replication under NIAC [94] overwhelmingly demonstrates their existence and the exothermic reaction of their formation."
I do appreciate that the editors of this topic have a very difficult task. Does Wiki merely report or judge? Is it meant to discourage interest, prove it right or wrong? How do you assess who should be allowed to officially comment? In any case I hope the article has as its ultimate objective to raise interest in the topic and result in greater attempts at replication by scientists which will prove or disprove CQM and make Wiki's job easier by providing cold, hard experimental results.
FYI Mills Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics was published in an international peer reviewed journal entitled Physics Essays Vol 16. The webpage is here http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp#03
You need a subscription for the article, although BLP has published the text here http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/CQM060905.pdf.
You might also want to add to the list of evidence Mills claim that his theory can calculate the ionisation energies for the first 20 atoms and he provides workable spreadsheets that can be downloaded. This is apparently a big achievement that no other theory can match. See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/Exact_Solutions_1-20_Electron_Atoms_102804.pdf and for the workable spreadsheets: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Spreadsheets/1-20%20Electron%20Atoms%20Spreadsheets%20Unprotected.xls
My regards to all the editors for working so hard on something you think is "nuts". And apologies for the length of this post. I wanted to be thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"Mills' hydrino theory was inspired by a physics paper by MIT electrical engineering professor, Herman Haus. This paper used classical physics to model radiation arising from the free electron laser." What is the ref? I spent a finite time looking, didn't find. GangofOne 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify (here and perhaps in the article itself) whether the papers on this subject have been peer reviewed? -- zandperl 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The Article "Classical Quantum Mechanics" Has been peer-reviewed, by a Canadian Based Journal called 'Physics Essays'.
and the corrsisponding critique: [ [8]], in a Peer Reviewed Journal "New Journal of Physics 7"
Andreas Rathke, European Space Agency's Advanced Concepts Team
"“Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory… without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood.” - Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy Read Review..." Shelby T Brewer is listed on the BlackLight website as a member of the board of directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that earlier versions of the article belonged to the Category:Non-mainstream science category and since then was changed to Category:Pseudoscience category. I disagree with this modification because this theory does not fall under pseudoscience (yet). A pseudoscientific theory is a theory that has been correctly disproven by the scientific method. Hydrino theory, though unproven as of November 6, 2005, has also not yet been disproven since the theory is relatively new and has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore, I'm going to change the article category back to Non-mainstream science. Solarusdude 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Upon learning that Category:Non-mainstream science is a deleted category, I changed the category to Category:Protoscience. Sorry for the mixup. Solarusdude 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
At [ [9]] Step 3, It states "The catalyst (in this case, Potassium) recombines with electrons in the plasma. This releases photons that contribute to the plasma's brightness. The catalyst can then be used again." However, the movie does not even show the catalyst, in this case Potassium. Fundamental to ALL catalitic reactions is the returning of the catalyst to its origional state.
It also states that K^3^+ + 3 e^- -> K + 81.7526 eV. Um... Where is the photon in the equation? The equation only reflects the energy released.
Also: the value of 81.7526 eV, does not show up as an example of his results summaries. He does not list his primary catalitic example as an expermantal result. [ [10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
SECTION V Prospect Quarks to Cosmos to Consciousness, ppg 1065
"NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS Consciousness arises from a "negative" entropy state of a being at the expense of its surroundings wherein the being increases the spontaneous decay rate of the surroundings. The relationship between the energy decay rate according to Maxwell's Equations, spacetime expansion due to energy decay with the rate given by General Relativity, entropy due to spacetime expansion, and the imaginary nature of coordinate time due to spacetime expansion permits the phenomenon of consciousness."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
In summary, He is saying that the arrival of Conciousmess, causes spontaneous decay around it. However, Maxwell's Equations are about the relationship between Magnetic and Electic forces, and not about the effect of consciousness on the decaying entropy state of being. Artoftransformation 07:11, 7 November and 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
R Mills: ppg 348: "Recent evidence suggests that energy packets like photon torpedoes are creeping toward reality [7]." Cites: on page 368 "[7] R. W. Ziolkowski, K. D. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Letts., Vol. 62, No. 2, (1989), pp. 147-150."
[12] "Evidence of Localized Wave Transmission"
by Richard W. Ziolkowski and D. Kent Lewis University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550
[13] "D. Kent Lewis (M.S., 1978)"
I found a typo! R Mills owes me $5.00 USD, and an aplogy for the change of sign. Artoftransformation 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
R. Mills apparently has avoided pubslihing in mainstram journals:
"Q: Why doesn't Mills publish in peer-reviewed journals like everyone else?
[ Hydrino.org ]
"Mills has attempted to get physics papers published in mainstream journals but they have been rejected because they fundamentally challenge established quantum theory, a successful challenge to which at this stage is considered, using the term of one journal referee, "unlikely". Mills has published papers in Fusion Technology, but some may not consider this to be a mainstream journal."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[ [14]] Lists only two refrences to Mills work on Hydrino's
"As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Another paper on hydrino states has recently been posted to the arxiv here: [ "The hydrino and other unlikely states", by Norman Dombey] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waif ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ slashdotted}}
a better backlink is http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/06/1923218.shtml?tid=232&tid=14 This story has been on slashdot twice before in the last 5 years. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/22/109245&tid=14 ans " NASA to Investigate Hydrinos" http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/06/07/2159210.shtml?tid=134 GangofOne 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"In 1996 a NASA labor did a partially successfull test run to reproduce the observed excess heat in a Water-Potassium Carbonate-Nickel Electrolytic Cell. But as no followup research occured and the result, is only quoted by BlackLight Power, the significance of this result is in doubt."
It is not only quoted here, but it is assumed to be a rigorus validation of the claims, whereas the NASA results clearly deny the claims: BlackLigh Power Inc, Clained to NASA that the Electrolytic Cell, that they built, generated excess heat in the order of 60W for weeks. NASA was able only to detect 11W of excess power, or less than 19%. ( and has nothing to do with the claims of the Potassim fusion reacation. )
Rank order these adjectives:
Which one of these accuratly characturizes 19%?
"a string of failed experiments were reported." Cold_Fusion Which is how these types of experements was charactized on another page of wikipedia.
All the cirtasisms of Cold_Fusion#Arguments_in_the_controversy apply to this theory also. This is merely a cold fusion experment with potassium, K.
Or we can just redirect their inuqirues to this article Pokémon evolution. "Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."
Now with a bit of editing... "Hydrino Theory in the fictional world of cold fusion energy franchise, refers to a sudden change of form in a Hydrogen atom, usually accomapnied by a dramatic increase in funding. It would be noted that this is not an evolution in the physical sence, but rather the metamorphosis of carefull scientificstudy into something resembling claims for Supercentenarianism."
I will now investigate the US Navy claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 02:11- 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
. NO verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"BlackLight Power and researchers at the weapons division of the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, California, confirm that they are heading toward a research and development pact that would allow the navy to produce energy and materials from hydrinos and to develop applications of the new compounds. A spokeswoman for the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland says in an e-mail letter that after a meeting with Mills "there was considerable interest in the reported properties of the new hydrogen-containing compounds, and in obtaining samples for independent analysis and evaluation."
"I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so."
I think that we are charged with presenting a balenced case. We cannot afford to believe anyone. We can reproduce the companies claims, and the claims of the detractors, and the counter claims of the companies about the detractors, and the detractors rebuttles. This in pecticular is difficult and challenging.
The challenge is to reproduce the claims and counter claims with equal vigor. Artoftransformation 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The very first paragraph was worded "The hypothesis is not accepted by the mainstream physics community". This is an overly negative POV and ignores the on-going debate in the scientific press and in independent research labs. A small, but growing, number of well-respected researchers have begun to take an interest. Some for, and some against, Mills' ideas. Clearly, work to verify Mills' claims have expanded beyond the BLP premises. A better, more neutral approach would be to acknowledge the controversy and note that resources are being devoted to verify or debunk the claim. This is on-going work, by no means has this been settled, as is implied by the above statement. I have modified to be more NPOV. Ronnotel 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, I haven't made up my mind either way. In particular, I find the CQM 'explanation' for the classic dual-slit experiment unsatisfying at best. However, the SQM explanation for many of the CQM results are equally unsatisfying. To wit:
I haven't yet seen convincing arguments from the SQM side that explains any of these phenomena. Nor am I willing, yet, to believe that all of the evidence presented has been either fabricated or produced by experimental error. Am I cheering for the underdog? Not likely. My business is speculation - I'm just trying figure out whether it's time to start shorting natural gas companies. Something doesn't jive here and I'd like to figure out what it is, hopefully before the rest of the market. Ronnotel 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)