TESTING VALIDATES HYDRINO THEORY

The American Reporter ^ | December 19, 2010 | Joe Shea

[Kevmo]

Well, if you believe this BS that is your business, but I will only believe it when I actually see a car driving around on a gallon of water.
***This is a classic example of raising the bar. The bar for hot fusion has been self-ignition and sustained reaction. We’ve spent $billions and got neither over 50 years. All the while in this backwater technology, guys have produced both.

A typical cold fusion experiment using Seebeck calorimeter
costs roughly $50,000 including all equipment, and they are run by volunteers and retired professors. Some have produced 50 to 300 megajoules in one run. They have achieved the two goals hot fusion has failed to reach for 60 years: breakeven and full ignition.

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy cost “about a billion dollars” to construct and $70 million a year to operate. It produced 6 megajoules in one experiment, the world record run for hot fusion.

Even a small working model would convince me, but they will never have one because they are full of sh**.
***Well, it’s nice to see you lowering the bar but it’s still nowhere near as low as the bar set for hot fusion. It’s the hot fusioneers who are full of sh**. So if you believe that BS, that is your business.

[saganite]

Forgot to mention that “peer reviewed papers” doesn’t really mean much depending on which journal they are published in. There are enough third rate journals out there that will publish nonsense because they don’t have anyone on staff capable of refuting or confirming results.

[Kevmo]

I doubt blacklight has been claiming this for decades, which makes me wonder what other facts are being sloppily dealt with.

So instead of nitpicking, let’s examine the scientific claim and see if there’s something here.

[saganite]

Yeah, I agree. I was just pointing out that he’s employed there. They claim this is a chemical reaction so that explains him being in the Chemistry Dept. I chalk the Physics Dept claim up to bad writing by the reporter. Imagine that!

[Kevmo]

There is enough info out there on Black Light’s fraudulent claims if you look. I didn’t have any trouble finding info.
***Then by all means, post it since you’ve already found it.

Equating these guys with Einstein is a little far fetched don’t you think? LOL
***Not if they turn out to be right. I consider them to be one group within the LANR community which now have quite a bit of evidence piling up with their claims. I have already made money by relying on such claims and I’d love to challenge naysayers such as yourself to put your money where your mouth is — as big as it is.

How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 78 replies · 1,626+ views Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/

The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al

‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts
Monday, March 23, 2009 12:42:14 PM · by FlameThrower · 35 replies · 1,586+ views
Science Daily ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | American Chemical Society

[saganite]

October 20, 2008, Blacklight Power Inc. announced “independent” replication of its hydrino technology, by Dr. Peter Jansson of Rowan University of New Jersey. 1 of his publications, dated May 1997, is titled HYDROCATALYSIS: A New Energy Paradigm for the 21st Century.

On Blacklight’s site, they say,

In 1991, Dr. Mills founded HydroCatalysis Power Corp. to pursue the development and ultimate commercialization of a new form of energy - the HydroCatalysis Process. In the fall of 1996, the Company’s name was changed from HydroCatalysis Power Corp. to BlackLight Power, Inc. to reflect the ultraviolet light emission produced by catalysis in the renamed BlackLight Process. In 1999 the Company moved to its present location, a 53,000 square-foot research facility, in Cranbury, NJ, and has since expanded its employee base to 25 people.
There’s no such thing as coincidence. If it’s not, it ought to be criminal to claim independent verification, when clearly, Randell Mills and Peter Jansson obviously go way back. On top of the HydroCatalysis “coincidence”, others explore his employment history with Atlantic Energy, now Conectiv, or as VentureBeat notes,

Jansson has been aware of Blacklight for years, and even acted as an advisor for an energy company that ultimately made a strategic investment, but it appears to have no unethical ties, just an ongoing interest. Jansson also professes to be impartial to the existence of hydrinos, saying he’s interested in hearing any “alternative explanation” to the hydrino theory.

http://usefuldissident.blogspot.com/2010/07/blacklight-power-collusion-and.html

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

A “law of physics” is a generalization drawn from a large number of observations. A law of physics in not “truth” or ultimate reality, it is only valid under certain conditions, and always subject to revision if new observations invalidate it. Newton’s laws are more than adequate for almost all mechanical engineering problems, for instance, but unless modified by Einsteinian dynamics worthless for particle physics.

Still, the article reads like “cold fusion”. Why did they invoke Einstein and Edison, just because they happened to spend time in New Jersey? My mother was born in New Jersey, that doesn’t make her an inventor or a scientist.

[Kevmo]

Feel free to enlighten freepers on which journals are third rate and why.

For instance, is the journal “Naturwissenschaften” third rate? How about the American Chemical Society? Per Wikipedia, Cold fusion reports have been published over the years in a small cluster of specialized journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Some papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry and engineering.[56]

[RBIEL2]

part of the first sentence: 'a team of physicists working near the onetime laboratories of Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein are saying. '

That a real goofy introduction...scanned a few paragraphs, saw more goofy over the top writing and bailed. Science is not written by boiler room con men.

[saganite]

Look my Friend, it’s up to you to support this claim, not me to disprove it. So far, all you’ve been doing is attacking other posters and falsely equating this research with other totally unrelated fields of research. Making comparisons to hot fusion research and Einstein does nothing to prove your case. If these results can’t be independently verified (and they haven’t) they don’t belong in a scientific discussion. Note that the so called independent verification in both cases, 2008 and in the article posted here, came from within the faculty at the University Black Light is associated with and from a former colleague who has a vested interest in the research. That’s not independent.

[Kevmo]

A “law of physics” is a generalization drawn from a large number of observations.
***I said pretty much the same thing. I gather I don’t see your point unless it was to reinforce mine.

A law of physics in not “truth” or ultimate reality, it is only valid under certain conditions,
***again I said pretty much the same thing

and always subject to revision if new observations invalidate it.
***Ahem. Bears repeating... cough cough.

Newton’s laws are more than adequate for almost all mechanical engineering problems, for instance, but unless modified by Einsteinian dynamics worthless for particle physics.
***Again, I said about the same thing.

Still, the article reads like “cold fusion”.
***And I would like to see some scientific investigation into this field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Why did they invoke Einstein and Edison, just because they happened to spend time in New Jersey?
***Probably. These blacklight guys seem to have the scent of slick marketeers

My mother was born in New Jersey, that doesn’t make her an inventor or a scientist.
***Getting articles published in peer reviewed journals would seem to be the official watershed between scientists and non-scientists, as far as I can see. I’m one of the latter but I have a scientific outlook.

[Kevmo]

I lost 2 sentences, don’t know where they went.

Why did they invoke Einstein and Edison, just because they happened to spend time in New Jersey?
***Probably. These blacklight guys seem to have the scent of slick marketeers. They kinda remind me of Steve Jobs a couple of decades ago. But now Steve is running a $100B company, so maybe there’s something to be said in favor of slickiness.

[saganite]

Reactions from various scientists A small group of experimental scientists from NASA and the US Navy research labs have expressed mild support for the claims of Blacklight Power.[2] However, Mills has met general skepticism in the academic community since the founding of BLP in 1991. CQM and hydrinos have been doubted by mainstream physicists who consider it to be pseudoscience. These physicists reject it due to its inconsistencies with mainstream literature concerning quantum theory.[2][5][6][9][14] Although Mills has published CQM theory papers in peer-reviewed journals, he has published only in those dealing with speculative work.[5] The most visible critic of Mills' theories has been Robert L. Park, the spokesman for the American Physical Society, insists that Mills has failed to address several deep flaws in the theory.[2] A 2005 evaluation by Andreas Rathke claims there are "severe inconsistencies" in Mills' theory, including a lack of "solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos."[14] Rathke concludes that Mills' equations are not Lorentz invariant, a requirement of any theory that explains the behavior of particles moving close to the speed of light.[15] Mills responded to Rathke with an article (listed as "in press" on the BlackLight Power website) claiming Rathke made nine major errors in his analysis.[16][17] Jan Naudts of the University of Antwerp argues that Rathke did not take into account complexities introduced by relativistic quantum mechanics, and that without doing so Rathke was not justified in rejecting the possibility of a hydrino state.[18] Inspired by Naudts' response to Rathke, Norman Dombey concluded that hydrino states were "unphysical" due to certain problems with non-relativistic counterparts, coupling strength and binding strength.[19] Edmund Storms (2007) claimed that Mills' theory explains reports of cold fusion experiments,[20] though they have been discredited by the scientific community. [edit] Responses by outside researchers in chronological order October 27, 2000: Robert L. Park, of the University of Maryland, writes a follow-up: "Unlike most schemes for free energy, the hydrino process of Randy Mills is not without ample theory (WN 8 Jan 99). Mills has written a 1000 page tome, entitled,"The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics," that takes the reader all the way from hydrinos to antigravity (WN 9 May 97). Fortunately, Aaron Barth (not to be confused with Erik Baard, the Randy Mills' apologist), has taken upon himself to look through it, checking for accuracy. Barth is a post doctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, and holds a PhD in Astronomy, 1998, from UC, Berkeley. What he found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts. This has been the object of a great deal of discussion from Mills' Hydrino Study Group. Mills seems not to understand what the fuss is all about." - Park[21] May–November 2002: A NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase I study is conducted at Rowan University, led by mechanical engineering professor Anthony Marchese, to investigate the so-called BlackLight Process for use in spacecraft propulsion. The team reports that with assistance from BlackLight Power, they successfully replicated previous results, including the observation of line broadening indicative of hydrogen atoms moving much faster than would ordinarily be expected under the experimental conditions.[22] January 4, 2005: Šišović et al. have reported that observed line-broadening contradicts Mills's models.[23] May 20, 2005: Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency publishes a critical analysis in the New Journal of Physics. He concluded: "We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states!" - Rathke[14][24] August 5, 2005: Jan Naudts of the University of Antwerp argues that Rathke did not take into account complexities introduced by relativistic quantum mechanics, and that without doing so Rathke was not justified in rejecting the possibility of a hydrino state.[25] 2006: inspired by Naudts' response, Norman Dombey concluded that Mill's theory of hydrino states is "unphysical". According to Dombey, the hydrino states would require:[19] 1.non-relativistic counterparts to remain physical, but they don't have them. 2.compatibility with a coupling strength (fine structure constant) equal to zero to remain physical, yet "hydrino states" seem to exist in the absence of any coupling strength. 3.binding strength that falls with the coupling strength. The hydrino model predicts that binding strength for hydrino states increases as the coupling strength falls, rendering the states unphysical. April 2007: Antonio Di Castro showed that the states below the ground state, as described in Mills' theory, are incompatible with the Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations."[26] 2007: In a review of cold fusion research, Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher, concludes that the hydrino model provides a possible explanation for cold fusion.[20] May 1, 2008: Hans-Jürgen Kunze suggests "that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts." [27] June 6, 2008: Robert L. Park, of the University of Maryland, writes a follow-up: "BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a "state below the ground state," called the "hydrino." There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains." - Park[28] September 2008: BLP publishes the assertion that researchers at Rowan University reported reproducible bursts of heat when testing BlackLight cells and prototype reactors, using materials provided by BlackLight.[29] Critics have complained about borrowing reactors from Blacklight instead of building their own, past collaboration of the author with Mills, and lack of detail in the calorimeter measurements, which makes it difficult to tell if all sources of error were taken into account.[5][6] The company says that, for now, it is keeping secret how to loop the system to achieve a self-sustaining reaction that provides a continuous output of heat, in order to keep its own researchers a step ahead in the research of the system.[6] As of 2008, the company predicts that totally independent researchers should be able to test the full system by around October 2009.[6] August 12, 2009: A BLP press release asserts that scientists at Rowan University have for the first time independently formulated and tested fuels that on demand generated energy greater than that of combustion at power levels of kilowatts using BLP’s proprietary solid-fuel chemistry capable of continuous regeneration. Operating power systems using BLP’s chemistry, Rowan University professors have reported a net energy gain of up to 6.5 times the maximum energy potential of the materials in the system from known chemical reactions.[30] "It does portend some type of novel energy source," said Peter Jansson, associate engineering professor at Rowan.[31] [edit] Alleged experimental findings According to the BLP website, Mills et al. have published over 70[32] peer-reviewed experimental studies reporting significant observations, including: Chemical reactions that produce plasmas in gas cells with input energies far below the level that conventional theory predicts is required to produce such plasmas. Spectral lines from gas cell plasmas which match the predictions for hydrino transitions.[33] Detection of excess heat from plasma cells using water bath calorimetry. New chemical compounds said to have been formed from hydrino hydrides (i.e. a hydrino which has captured another electron to form a negative hydride ion) which show unusual properties and structure. Molecular 'dihydrino' gas formation and detection. Experiments demonstrating excess energy when sodium hydride is heated in contact with Raney nickel catalyst (R-Ni)[34] [edit] Corporate history [edit] Founder and CEO Randell Mills Randell Mills graduated from Harvard Medical School,[2] and studied biotechnology and electrical engineering at MIT.[35] He has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982.[citation needed] Blacklight Power says it may have tapped the energy that cosmologists have struggled to explain, called dark matter, which fills the universe. "It represents a boundless form of new primary energy". "I think it's going to replace all forms of fuel in the world.", said Randell Mills to Reuters.[31] An article in the technology column of the New York Times described in 2008 how Mills had kept plugging on and getting $60 million in venture funding despite his theories being first rejected and then ignored by the scientific community during years; it called the Blacklight reactors an interesting technology that could revolutionize the energy world, although it said that it was prudent to wait for more independent verification.[6] IEEE Spectrum magazine listed Blacklight as a "loser" technology in its 2009 report because "Most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence."[5] [edit] Development Randell Mills founded the company in 1991.[2] According to Park it was founded as HydroCatalysis Inc. and later renamed to Blacklight Power Inc.[1] By 1999 the company was claiming to have produced excess energy for over a year.[1] By 2000 Mills raised $25 million in funding for the company, and in 2009 he had raised $60 million.[5][6] Mills convinced several researchers that supported him to sit at the board of his company.[2] On June 14, 2007, Blacklight Power's subsidiary, Millsian, offered a molecular-modeling software-application based on CQM theory. The subsidiary had been formed in June 2006 as Molegos Inc. and renamed in October 2006.[7] On May 28, 2008, a press release by BLPI claimed successful testing of a prototype generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand.[36] Its board members included former Assistant Secretary of Energy Shelby Brewer and Michael H. Jordan, who has served as CEO of various major corporations including PepsiCo Int'l. Foods and Beverages, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CBS Corporation, and EDS.[37][38] [edit] Commercial licensing On December 11, 2008, BLPI announced that it has signed its first commercial license, with Estacado Energy Services;[39] but there was no corresponding announcement from Estacado. The Columbia Journalism Review commented at length on the credulous reportage by CNN's Poppy Harlow of the BLPI release in an article entitled "Weird Science (Reporting)".[40] On January 6, 2009, Blacklight Power issued a press release announcing that it has signed its second commercial license agreement with Farmers' Electric Cooperative of New Mexico to produce up to 250 MW of continuous power.[41] [edit] Involvement with Rowan University On October 20, 2008, BLPI made a statement that Peter Jansson of Rowan University had completed a three month test of their reactors and validated excess heat production.[42][43] August 12, 2009: BLP press release through Hill & Knowlton claims that researchers at Rowan University reproduced BlackLight process, using their own materials. Results were claimed to show 1.2 times to 6.5 times the energy released than can be attributed by known chemical reactions. Detailed instructions of the process are said to be released so that third party verification can take place. Rowan researchers were said to have produced their own material from purchased chemicals, to avoid the caveats realised in the previous 2008 test.[44][45] [edit] Patents In 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved Blacklight's patent application 09/009,294 entitled "Hydride Compounds" after an initial rejection, and gave it US 6030601 . The fee had already been paid, but it hadn't still reached the stage of final issuance. The company was later granted US 6024935 "Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures". An outside request from Robert L. Park[46] prompted Director Group Director Kepplinger to review this new patent himself, and he expressed concerns about the patent's theoretical basis, the existence of fractional quantum numbers, and noticed that the patent application, 09/009,294, had the same theoretical basis. He contacted another Director, Robert Spar, who also expressed doubts on the patentability of the patent application. This caused the USPTO to withdraw from issue the patent application before it was granted and re-open it for review, and to withdraw four related applications. This prompted Blacklight to sue in the US District Court of Columbia, saying that withdrawing the 09/009,294 patent after having paid the fee was contrary to law. In 2002 the District Court concluded that the USPTO was acting inside the limits of its authority in withdrawing a patent over whose validity it had doubts, and later that year the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ratified this decision.[47][48] The current status of US 6024935 is unclear, and it is still listed as a granted patent in the USPTO website.[49] In March and April 2008, Blacklight Power had four UK patent applications relating to models and apparatus based on hydrino theory refused by the UK Intellectual Property Office. The decision was based on "the experimental evidence provided and the acceptance of the theory by the physics community generally", which led to the conclusion that the theory "was probably not valid", and therefore that the inventions were not "capable of industrial application" as required by UK patent law.[50] In November 2008, the UK Patents Court overturned the rejection of the four patents, ruling that they should only have been rejected if the theory was clearly invalid (rather than probably invalid) and remitted the case to the Patent Office for reconsideration.[51][52] In June 2009 a hearing officer at the UK patent office found that a full investigation with the help of an expert in GUTCQM wouldn't have a reasonable prospect of finding it a valid theory, and rejected the patents again.[53] The company does hold US 7188033 for rendering the chemical bonds of hydrogen using imaging software, covering their "Millsian" molecular modeling software application.[54] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power

[saganite]

Crap. Sorry about that. The paragraph breaks were there in the preview. If you don’t want to dig through that mess (I wouldn’t) just follow the link and read it there.

[THX 1138]

A working model is promised for 2011.

OK, fine. I can wait a couple of years to see if there is anything to this.

But a cursory Google search (which quickly bored me) shows that these guys have been screwing around with this stuff for years.

Major doubts...

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I forgot to add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You’re the one that invoked the laws of physics, not me. The whole article is just one non-sequitor following another. Call me when I can buy a hydrino powered car that has reasonable performance for less than a Corolla.

[Kevmo]

Look my Friend, it’s up to you to support this claim, not me to disprove it.
***You made a claim to disproof, so let us see it. It is not up to me to support the claim because this is an inductive pursuit, not a scientific journal and I am not a scientist by the pure definition of the term. I notice that lots of people who claim to be scientists are very dismissive of a lot of evidence, even to the point where I say, “put your money where your mouth is” and they’re still dismissive after Losing Money on their own arrogant position. So if you’re so utterly convinced of your own position, feel free to wander over to Intrade and set up another cold fusion contract so you can take my money.

So far, all you’ve been doing is attacking other posters and falsely equating this research with other totally unrelated fields of research.
***Nonsense. This is an inductive area of study and there is inductive evidence to be considered until it becomes deductive, one way or another, whether cold fusion turns out to be real or not.

Making comparisons to hot fusion research and Einstein does nothing to prove your case.
***One thing it does real well is to bring out the arrogance from people like you. In an inductive area of pursuit, it is a strike against your position. People who have big mouths but don’t put their money where that mouth is.

If these results can’t be independently verified (and they haven’t) they don’t belong in a scientific discussion.
***That is the claim, that they’ve been independently verified in a peer reviewed journal. Right here, you are the one putting down a claim (that they haven’t) so according to your own rules, it’s up to you to support such a claim. But I won’t sit around waiting for you to support your claim because I detect more heat than light in your approach.

Note that the so called independent verification in both cases, 2008 and in the article posted here, came from within the faculty at the University Black Light is associated with
***Umm, this happens all the time in the semiconductor industry I came from.

and from a former colleague who has a vested interest in the research. That’s not independent.
***Earlier upthread the former colleague was quoted as saying he’s interested in hearing any “alternative explanation” to the hydrino theory. That about sums up how I view it. And you’re the one who wrote it, that he
appears to have no unethical ties, just an ongoing interest.”

[762X51]

Neato! Call me when the cars hit the lot. I’ll be here holding my breath. Or not.

[Ronin]

I know it is too much to hope for that this might be the real deal, but I am STILL hopeful.

Not just because of all the nice things that cheap energy like this would make possible — but because the price of oil would drop like a frigging rock to a few bucks a barrel and the end of the oil money would mean the end of Arab financed terrorism.

All the foreigners would leave Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and within 20 years the Arabs would abandon the cities and go back to living in tents in the desert.

[762X51]

Oops, that reply was supposed to go towards the original post. Clicked “post reply” one too low.