Each CIHT cell comprises a positive electrode, the cathode, a negative electrode, the anode, and an electrolyte that also serves as a source of reactants to form Hydrinos.
A Hydrino-producing reaction mixture creates electricity from H2O as the reactants are constituted with the migration of the electrons through an external circuit and ion mass transport through a separate internal path through the electrolyte to complete an electrical circuit.
This, alone, is reason to doubt what's going on. WTF is "hydrino" supposed to be? Chemical names mean something, and this simply doesn't.
A 2 fer.
:-)
I bought a small dehumidifier for an upstairs room that gets too humid. I pour out a gallon of water from the machine every 24 hours. How pure is that water? Is it like distilled water?
Here's an example...
Sorry...I am being a smart-aleck.
On a related note: Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304
Summary:
1. The authors don’t use TeX.
2. The authors don’t understand the question.
3. The approach seems to yield something much stronger and maybe even false (but the authors never discuss that).
4. The approach conflicts with a known impossibility result (which the
authors never mention).
5. The authors themselves switch to weasel words by the end.
6. The paper jumps into technicalities without presenting a new idea.
7. The paper doesn’t build on (or in some cases even refer to) any previous work.
8. The paper wastes lots of space on standard material.
9. The paper waxes poetic about “practical consequences,” “deep philosophical implications,” etc.
10. The techniques just seem too wimpy for the problem at hand.
Most of the posts about this invention and the theory underlying it are really completely clueless. For one this is claimed to be a low energy nuclear reaction so the claims of it violating the laws of thermodynamics are the same as claiming a nuclear reactor or bomb violates the laws of thermodynamics, absolutely ridiculous. Two senior NASA officials, Bushnell and Zawodny, have very recently come out and clearly and emphatically stated that LENR is real, though, they are still unraveling the limitations, doing Edisonian tests on catalysts etc.. and testing to see which theory best explains it. Then there are the typical fallacies such as appeals to ignorance; no one has seen a hydrino, that is because no one was looking for it because it was assumed to be impossible! The appeal to history; no one has predicted or observed this phenomena, the same is true of neutrinos and many other discoveries before they were empirically and experimentally verified; so that is meaningless. Then the appeal to authority, which should be called the appeal to group think, the most ingrained fallacy of all but also the one that, paradoxically, is the easiest to show to be absolutely ridiculous with just a slight familiarity of history and the many, many times ideas that were dogmatically ascertained to be the absolute truth or, on the flip side, impossible, lasers etc.., but which have fallen flat on their face and then eventually been superseded by a more correct, though again not infallible, theory or hypothesis.
As far as no one seeing hydrinos that would be because they would be extremely nonreactive having the following theoretical properties:
• Extraordinary blocking of X-Ray and gamma radiation.
• Negative enthalpy-of-reconfiguration-to-normal form, (which would only occur under very specific conditions).
• Rapid tunneling through ordinary materials, unscathed.
• Remarkable resistance to ionization.
• Black-line ionization (prominent absorption lines in the deep UV).
• Complete inability to participate in chemical reactions, esp. with fluorine.
• [inability to be ‘burned’ like hydrogen].
• Strong adsorption on most metals;
• interference with topological crystalization phenomena.
• Existence solely as mono-atomic species.
• Outstanding insulating properties [electrical].
• Extremely light quickly leaving the atmosphere of Earth in the rare event that they actually are created on Earth (due to lightning and a very few other terrestrial events)
Most of the above can easily be passed of as anomalies which is an entirely logical conclusion if one is working from a viewpoint based on the assumptions of conventional QM, hence the reason this phenomena would not be noticed without a theory that directly predicts it. Rapid tunneling through ordinary materials and the low mass of hydrinos causing them to permeate out of materials and then float into space would make it extremely hard to isolate and experiment on them in it’s pure form. The above characteristics also make hydrinos a logical choice for explaining the indirect evidence for “dark matter”, which according to conventional theory would be one of the most abundant materials in the universe, directly contradicting both criticisms that state it should have been seen and should be extremely common. The above when combined with how light it would be also explain why it is not seen on Earth.
Being extremely skeptical of the some guy working out of his garage who has absolutely no patents, peer reviewed papers, theory, hypothesis or validations by independent academic institutions, who is then asking you to give him your money is entirely logical. But when a guy who flew through Harvard med school in record time devises a paradigm shattering physics theory that can actually be conceptualized in opposition to QM’s Achilles heal, the point where QM becomes superstition, “matter”/”energy” duality and gravity. A scientist who after formulating this theory then goes on to have his work, patented and peer reviewed in fields ranging from molecular modelling,genetic sequencing, imaging technologies to novel energy production of which the latter is independently verified by outside academics who have solid reputations, as the above article clearly attests, and who has a company the average person could not invest in even if they wanted to, well, then it is time to, while maintaining a HEALTHY skepticism, allow some suspension of disbelief. If that is really too much to ask then it strongly indicates one is no longer honestly appraising the facts based on there merit and instead they are involved in pseudo-skepticism borne out of cynicism and emotional reactivity having completely left behind the realm of logic.