Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head

The Guardian ^ | Friday November 4, 2005 | Alok Jha, science correspondent

[Anthem]

· Scientist says device disproves quantum theory
· Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths

It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.

Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.

continues...

[RadioAstronomer]

I am not a physicist, don't play one on TV, and haven't stayed at a Holidy Inn for a while. Still, I'm absolutely positive that if there were a lower energy state possible for hydrogen, hydrogen would have found it by now.

A very good friend of mine who is a physicist from Caltech says the very same thing about cold fusion. Why he never jumped on the cold fusion bandwagon. Nature seems to find the most energy efficient method. If cold fusion were for real, nature would already be demonstrating it in front of our eyes in his opinion.

[RadioAstronomer]

fine structure constant

Look here: :-)

Galaxy observations show no change in fundamental physical constant

[RadioAstronomer]

Flapdoodle. "We" (at least some of us) have discussed this at length before. Not just on FR either.

[VadeRetro]

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

---- H.L. Mencken

[balrog666]

[Physicist]

Nature seems to find the most energy efficient method. If cold fusion were for real, nature would already be demonstrating it in front of our eyes in his opinion.

I don't buy into that line of reasoning. It seems to be a general argument against catalysis. There's no a priori reason against palladium as a catalyst for fusion. If it had worked, the reason nature wouldn't have shown it to us is that palladium is rare.

The fact that Nature doesn't release energy by fission explosions (and can't, really, with subcritical masses) didn't make them technically impossible.

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!

[RadioAstronomer]

Fair enough. :-)

Vade's comment reminded me of that discussion and his views.

[balrog666]

You may as well ask why gasoline, being a constituent of crude oil, doesn't just separate itself out of the mix. There are all sorts of things in nature that can be coaxed to do what is not the usual by those who understand the inherent nature and set up a process to take advantage of it. Even enzymes are an example of this. Most of life processes are dependent upon chemical reactions which, if done commercially, would involve huge amounts of energy or excessively high pressures, and which would otherwise not take place to any great degree in nature outside of living things yet they are accomplished within physiologically tolerable limits by a careful positioning of substrates by enzymes to move the chemical process forward. This is what Mills claims for the black light process of moving the electron of hydrogen to a lower energy state. He claims to use a catalyst to move the electron to a lower energy state, releasing large amounts of energy in the process. A tutorial is found HERE. The home page is http://www.blacklightpower.com.

Damn, man! You've been hanging out with medved way tooooooo long.

[PatrickHenry]

Great article. Thanks.

[Jalapeno]

That's a cool link.

[Lee'sGhost]

Hmmmmm. . . . A UNC chemist vs. the European Space Agency.

I'll go with the UNC guy.

[Lee'sGhost]

Interesting, though, that the article does not explain anything about HOW the electron is forced closer to the proton. I would assume that requires energy. Not to say that you can't yield a greater amount of energy than that which it takes to initiate the process (sort of like, it takes a sparkplug spark to ignite the gasoline), but it would have been nice for that issue to be discussed in the article.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'll go with the UNC guy.

It's UNCA, not UNC Chapel Hill.

I'll go with undergraduate physics.

[PatrickHenry]

It's been added to the YOUNG EARTH section of The List-O-Links:

NEW Galaxy observations show no change in fundamental fine structure constant. Unchanged for 7 billion years.

[Physicist]

Thankfully, there are a few who focus on the issue at hand and ignore the gallery of spectators like yourself, and thus we do advance.

Hate to break it to you, but almost all advances come not from internet chit-chat or from heretical amateurs defeating the scientific priesthood in their garages, but from scientists who studied hard for many years learning the science, and then working their asses off to apply that knowledge in the lab.

As for Blacklight Power, what's it to you--or to them--if we poke fun? They don't need our permission or our respect. All they need to do is build the damn thing and make it work. They've had plenty of time and money and press hype. Show me the power.

[Jalapeno]

You're just a schill for big oil. I realize that now after seeing this:

What happened to the inventor of The Water Engine is just one example of how you are trying to control my life!

[MississippiMan]

Interesting, though, that the article does not explain anything about HOW the electron is forced closer to the proton.

I'm sure there are a gazillion issues to be considered. And maybe it won't work in the end. My comments go strictly to the overall attitude of the scientific community anytime something comes along that involves a major departure from the accepted school of thought at that moment in time. It never changes. They rarely look at the issue and say, "hmmm, that would be interesting, but I don't see how they're gonna overcome X, Y, and Z." Their immediate response is to beat their chests and heckle. Then when proven wrong--which is admittedly seldom--they become invisible.

MM

[Physicist]

My comments go strictly to the overall attitude of the scientific community anytime something comes along that involves a major departure from the accepted school of thought at that moment in time. It never changes. They rarely look at the issue and say, "hmmm, that would be interesting, but I don't see how they're gonna overcome X, Y, and Z." Their immediate response is to beat their chests and heckle.

Bull$#!t. You know nothing about it. Nothing. The scientific community reacts in exactly the way you say they don't.

It happened that way with Blacklight Power, AND with cold fusion, but in both cases it happened in the 1980's. To see anyone still pushing either at this late date is what merits ridicule.

[RightWhale]

Yes.

This is hokum, bogus, flim-flam, quackery, shysterism.