Liquidrage

<a href="http://villagevoice.com/issues/0250/baard.php" target="_blank">Realted Article</a>

Randell Mills is sitting in the Borderlands of Science.

He claims that by shrinking hydrogen atoms into so-called hydrinos there is a vast amount of energy that could be tapped. Much more energy then is predicted by conventional theories.

A year ago I doubt many would have called his work anything but psudeo-science. But he appears to be gaining legitimate acceptance.

His paper was accepted in the <a href="http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000092000012007 008000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes" target="_blank">Journal of Applied Physics</a> and the NASA investigation resulted in a surprising,
"Something interesting, something unexplained is happening in those cells".

Although far from a sure thing, I find it promising that he is gaining acceptance.

His work raises two interesting questions in my mind.

1) Are we close to not just finding a source of nearly unlimited energy with little to no environmental impact. But also exploiting it.

and

2) Is the scientific community too quick to label research as psuedo science?

Feather

From the first link in the article:

That says it all. Unless this guy happens to have studied graduate level physics on the side (which is entirely possible), he's full of shit. This isn't an appeal to authority or an ad hominem. It's questioning whether he's even understood the basic theory (and the heaps and mountains of evidence that back it up) as it exists today. It's a legitimate question.

More:

Um, hello computer technology? WTF does he think transistors are? Solid State physics is applied Quantum Physics. Let's not forget lasers and the numerous Quantum Chemistry groups scattered hither and yon.

"Quantumists?!" Mills (or at least "his camp") is full of it.

That's my take.

Kharakov

<a href="http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm" target="_blank">Hydrinos: A State below the ground state </a>
I haven't completely checked this out yet but am pressed for time. Math up until points 1 through 4 is ok.

<a href="http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aaronson/doofusino.html" target="_blank">Hydrino Theory, Which Overturns Quantum Theory, Is In Turn Overturned By Doofusino Theory </a>

Gauge- If you see this, and have charts ready, please send them to me in some MS office format, notepad, or html.

galiel

Black Energy is nothing but a con to take gullible investor's money. The whole hydrino thing is a bunch of hooey, and it has been debunked so many times that all you have to do is a search of the topic and you'll find abundant information on both Mills the crank and the blatant mistakes in his math and the less than stellar "business" record of Black Energy. Do your homework. Years and years of spectacular claims and not a thing to show for it. Of course, they claim a conspiracy to "supress the truth".

Liquidrage

That fact that he's been called a crank and his idea's have been disproved many times over was my point in brining this up.

NASA spent some money to look into it recently and the initial reaction by their investigator is surprising.

Then Mills gets an article published in the Journal of Applied Physics directly related to hydrinos.

What is of interest in that his ideas seem to have been disproved by applying conventional theories.
His results just weren't possible. But if his results are accurate, then we have to re-look at the theories that were used to disprove him.

I'm not attempting to say it's clearly now genuine. Or even most likely genuine. However, I think that in light of the two recent events I outlined, it becomes interesting and worth keeping an eye on.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Feather

Having one paper published is meaningless.


Quantum Theory works so spectacularly well that one experiment can, at best, force a further modification.

So having one paper published by n different groups repeating the experiment and at least some explanation as to where the "hydrino" theory takes over and QM gets tossed is meaningful.

fando

Just wait and watch that Applied Physics study get debunked. Peer review makes and breaks a paper. Notice that we're talking about Applied Physics and not Quantum Physics. Sounds to me like he's trying to establish credibility by sneaking in the back door.

There are an unbelievable number of quacks, kooks, and cranks out there that have no merit and are completely bogus. It seems like everyone has a pet theory that they'd like to push. If you have ever been a student at a university science department, you've probably seen or been contacted by some of the more persistent armchair theorists. I have personally trashed the quack spam from a student club mailbox for two years at Caltech. Why are they sending mail to a student club? Perhaps they believe that any foothold they can get at a prestigious institution has the potential to give them credibility, something that they desperatley seek. Once you realize that there are a horde of bogus concepts out there, you will be relieved to know that the scientific community is indeed very quick to shoot down anything that comes from out of the blue.

lpetrich

My first reaction is: why hasn't anyone else ever heard of hydrinos? Have they been reported in the condensed-matter-physics and physical-chemistry literature under some other name? This lack of outside support is IMO strong evidence that this claim is much like the excrement of the male bovine.