Priligy online now, save money

OCT 21

Recent Comment

"I have a simple question - is Blacklight Power paying their electric b..."

View all Comments

Blacklight Power's Cheap, Clean Energy Source Validated

Journalists have to be very careful when talking about physics. Especially when physics promises the possibility of abundant, cheap, clean energy...but doesn't offer any explanation to those of us without PhDs. These things are holy grails...and extremely exciting, but they generally turn out to be hooey.

That's the whole point of the Holy Grail right? No one ever found it.

So I don't write about these energy Grails, or at least I didn't, until now. I guess there comes a point when we've got to break down and cialis overnight delivery start talking about these things, even if we still aren't really sure whether or not their going to pan out. In terms of physics-defying energy generation, Blacklight power is the first company I've ever written about, and I do it very carefully.

Blacklight Power says that they can knock the electron of a hydrogen atom into a lower energy state than the 1s orbital. Coming from a chemistry background this sounds to me like saying you can throw a noodle at the sky and have it bore through a concrete wall on the surface of Mars. It's not just that it's impossible, it simply doesn't fit into my view of the world. The resulting atom would be a smaller particle which Blacklight calls a hydrino. They claim that the resulting release in energy creates more than enough energy to create more hydrogen, which can then be forced into lower energy states to release more energy.

If true, it would be a cheap, clean way to create electricity from water. The problem is, the entire scientific establishment has rebelled against the idea and believes that Blacklight is run by con men.

But the story is a heck of a lot more interesting than that. Though scientists have almost universally denied Blacklight's claims, veteran investors have taken the bait. Michael Jordan, the former CEO of Westinghouse sits on the board as does the generic viagra cheap CFO of Credit Suisse and Blacklight has taken over $60 M in investment from mutual funds, utility companies and private investors.

While Blacklight has claimed for over a year to have a working prototype of it's 50 kW reactor operational, they've just cleared another hurdle. Scientists at Rowan University just recreated the 50 kW reactor in their laboratories, and found that it indeed produces more energy than could be explained by any currently understood or studied physical process. Enough energy, in fact, to provide clean power for several dozen homes without putting anything except water in.

So if this is for real...what does this mean? Well, for physicists, I'm not sure. It's possible that the "hydrino" idea is bunk...but if that's true, it looks as if everyone might have some serious explaining to do. As for what it means for the rest of us, it could very well mean cheap, clean, abundant energy for less than half of what we're paying today.

Of course, I'm not willing to make any judgments today. I am obviously neither a theoretical physicist or a CEO of a major energy company. All I can tell you is that I've decided to write about it because it's the first time one of these holy grail ideas has ever seemed to have the possibility of truth in it. Which is pretty exciting, even with a grain of salt.

For more information check out this article at CNN Small Business, this exceptionally good one at Venture Beat and, of course, the Wikipedia page for the hydrino.

Hits: 23155
Comments (51)Add Comment
Cold Fusion returns in all its glory!
written by HankM, October 21, 2008
All joking aside this is really cool if it works.
written by Steve N. Lee, October 21, 2008
Other researchers seeming to replicate results is always a major step forward in authenticating new technologies. But, as you say, Hank, let's tread carefuly. I'm not a physicist either but I can tell that this sounds pretty darn weird and nigh on impossible.

Still, it was once impossible to travel around the world without falling off its edge, wasn't it?

This is an interesting story so I'm pleased you brought it to people's attention. More articles like this would be welcome - tempered by common sense, of course!

Steve N. Lee
author of eco-blog
and suspense thriller 'What if...?'
burn your money
written by haichen, October 21, 2008
From the Blacklightpower site:
Dr. Randell Mills holds a Doctor of Medicine degree from Harvard University and viagra super active a BA degree in Chemistry from Franklin and Marshall College.
From wikipedia:
His theory claims to unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Laws, and Einstein's General and Special Relativity..

No thanks..
Confirmed skeptic
written by mark, October 21, 2008
I'm certainly going to take this with a large grain of salt, until I get some confirmation through much more "verified" channels. That said, I'm keeping my ear out - I'm not an advanced enough physicist to call 100% BS on this, and it's too powerful to ignore if it's true. However I do believe if it is true, its very lucky not to be swallowed up behind the closed doors of military intelligence, and that is just one more reason to be wary.
2nd Law Violation
written by MikeCJ, October 21, 2008
I have a feeling someone has their equations wrong. The second law of thermodynamics essentially states you will always put more energy into a system than what you will get out of it.

Also, just because someone puts money behind a project does not mean the i use it best levitra prices project is valid and/or viable. See Ponzi and Edsel.
written by EV, October 21, 2008
Ah, I remember a science fiction story that mentioned this theory once. The problem is, it relies on a physics model of the univese that is significantly different one from the traditionally used. It goes along with the 'Electric Universe' model, I think. Now, if this is true, then we would have to re-write all the known laws of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and possibly the Riemann zeta function. So, call me skeptical for now.
I'm a physicist... and this IS total BS.
written by Kris, October 21, 2008
Well, I'm in the 3rd year of my PhD (physics) and this really does sound like a classic case of bunkum. Seriously... Anyone who's taken a course on relativistic quantum mechanics (or even better, quantum field theory) will be able to do the precise energy level calculations for the hydrogen atom; there is no level below the mail order cialis well known ground state. Honestly... how does these rediculous ideas survive? The ground state is called the "ground state" because it's the lowest there is! And it's no use claiming that the current theories are insufficient; quantum field theory is well known as having produced the most accurate theoretical predictions for any physical phenomena measured to date (namely, the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom).

As for violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that argument isn't sufficient to debunk this. Supposing energy could be produced by a decay of the electron to a lower state in this fashion, the energy would have come from the level decay. i.e. internal to the system. In other words, "you" wouldn't be putting energy into the system and would still be getting more out. Energy conservation still holds, you just have to be careful about how you define the second law of thermodynamics in this situation.

Also, just looking up the Wikipedia entries on this Blacklight junk will give even the recommended site original cialis casual reader an idea that the people behind this are far less than honest.
2nd Law Violation
written by Lee Cage, October 21, 2008
I thought science was about testing laws and theories; if this breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then maybe the law needs updating. If more energy comes out than goes in, and this is independantly varified, then the 2nd law does need testing.

With the price of energy, state of the world economy and the threat to our civilisation from global warming; this is the wrong time to get all hoity-toity about scientific laws.
What do they do with the
written by Lucas Jordan, October 21, 2008
hydrinos after they create them?
written by bob, October 21, 2008
I'll believe it when I see a working prototype that's been verified by third parties.
I'll believe it when my electric bill go
written by bob bobberson, October 21, 2008
I think its bunk,

Lets say I give you a machine and it somehow generates more power than what you put in it. But the machine is huge and not easily measured. Could your sham company hide something in the machine to produce more heat or energy? Say they hid something radioactive deep in the machine and it was naturally heating the water but its so complex and big that they fool you into thinking its making more power?

Claiming to find the wow it's great cialis australia no prescription Grand unification theory is one thing, but to have that claim and then do nothing with that theory for many years while you develop this clean reactor seems a little suspicious to me.

However everyone thought it was impossible to fold a sheet of paper more than 8 times, but it was only recently demonstrated by a high-schooler that you can in fact fold a sheet of paper only 12 times.
Listen up, Lisa
written by Homer Simpson, October 21, 2008
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
written by Vindicator, October 21, 2008
What a bunch of drones. Especially the pseudo-physicist above. Look, if you invest the time, you will learn that:

a) BLP's board reads like a Fortune 50 company, including all sorts of ex-CEO's from Fortune 50 companies and ex senior officers from CIA. These are not con-men. They have staked their quite reputable carriers on the success of this venture.

b) I has been replicated by a third party. Gees Jordan, what did you think the announcement yesterday was about? Is English a second language for you?

c) It works folks. Peter Jansson is an MIT and Oxford PhD. He's not making any claims about Mills' hydrino theory. He's just inviting people to look at their verification work. It's all out there for anyone to look at and it just is not helpful to say stupid things like "I'm a physicist and I know electrons can't go below the ground state because. . .well. . .because!" What a drone. . .
Kris above is right for all the right re
written by eldereft, October 21, 2008
If hydrinos were to exist, they would show up whenever we look at the light from distant stars (the universe is mostly hydrogen, after all). These spectra are in nigh perfect accord with theories which exclude any "state below the ground state". The complete technical analysis from a physicist is at: A critical analysis of the hydrino model, A Rathke 2005 New J. Phys. 7 127 doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

These free energy things, except for the occasional run-of-the-mill fraud, always turn out to be an illusion from trusting equipment outside of its range of applicability. Sometimes the system produces a weird spiky voltage, sometimes they are trying to measure a high frequency AC current with a DC ammeter, and sometimes they are measuring millimeters with a yardstick.

Still, thank you for providing the most open and candian levitra honest take that I have found to date on this latest chapter in the hydrino saga.
Can we have a bottle of Hydrinos?
written by Mark Bartosik, October 21, 2008
An alternative way to verify this is for them to product a bottle full of hydrinos (the waste product from this process).

It strikes me that shipping some bottles of hydrinos to various labs for validation would be a more simple way to validate. Thus avoiding the effect of cialis on women charge that they've hidden an extra power source inside the machine.
written by Dinu, October 21, 2008
Well, we can talk about this technology more then we can imagine since we can just "guess" what's behind the scene. This over unity technology is just like the other one of it's kind such as ZPE, cold fusion and other exotic projects you can find all over the internet. There is nothing convincing until the first product comes to the market or at least a proved-to-work prototype is presented to the public. Until then we will still talk about it like we do in the case of alien existence.
the proof is in the pudding
written by Alex, October 21, 2008
The part that I don't understand is why, with $60M in investors and a product that is ready for the market, anybody is worried about physicists verifying whether this should work or not. Let Mr Mills start generating power and selling it. If he can make it for less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour (as he claims) and sell it for more than 8 cents he should do it. The working model generates about 50 kilowatts, he's got 20 of them - fire 'em up! If he can generate a reliable megawatt for 6 months and this thing is prices competetively, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to sell them regardless of what the scientific community says.
written by mark, October 21, 2008
I also have a background in chemistry, and this is clearly nonsense. Besides the obvious rules of thermodynamics being broken. There is also the fact that these "hydrinos" have all of the sudden become discovered. There has been an incredible amount of research done in quantum chemistry in the past 80 years which would have uncovered something this simple years ago. I hate to discredit discoveries based on the "it would have already been discovered" ploy, but I seriously do not foresee this power source coming to fruitation.
Count me amongst the drones and pseudo-p
written by Teetor, October 21, 2008
This reeks of cold fusion and "run your car on water" advertisements.

I don't care who the *bleep* is on their board; some of the best financial minds in the world were on the boards of many Wall Street institutions, and where has that gotten us? A negative 40% return on my 401k and a solar stock trading at 35% of its purchase value (thank you Lehman Brothers).

If some 3rd party has already verified this, then non-scammers would be selling them already.
How narrow minded
written by eidylon, October 22, 2008
To Kris, and those blindly agreeing... all i can say is to open your minds. Yes, this may go against all current understanding ... that doesn't mean it's false. It just means we may not understand fully.

You say nothing can be lower than ground state because that's the definition of ground state. Well, that's exactly what they said before ... nothing can be smaller than the atom, after all, that's why it's called an atom! Yet, they cracked it open and a bunch of stuff came out. Then they cracked all THOSE open, and a whole bunch MORE stuff came out.

And as for saying it can't POSSIBLY work, because it would mean our understanding is all wrong, that's just bunk. Sure, it would mean that, BUT... guess what. At one time, people wouldn't have thought ANYthing that defied Newton's laws could ever exist... yet, they do, and hence why the modern theories were developed.

To say that we should summarily dismiss any idea simply because it doesn't fit in with your understanding of the world is AMAZINGLY ignorant and narrow-minded. If that were how science progressed, people would still worry about falling of the edge of the planet, airplanes never would've been invented (remember the argument if men were meant to fly, God would've given us wings).

A science that cannot objectively question itself and adjust itself as it learns new things about the universe is really not much of a use to anybody.

That said... I admit this does all sound almost too good to be true, but it is looking more and more likely as it is now being reproduced (so we hear). I will remain skeptically hopeful.
Oh... p.s.
written by eidylon, October 22, 2008
To the idea that this would've been discovered already if it were real, that is also pretty simple-minded. History, invention and science are all FILLED with those "EUREKA" moments, and those ideas that prompt others to say "DOH! That's so simple, why didn't anyone do that before??"

That is no argument against an idea.
Look at the papers
written by Peter W, October 22, 2008
The BLP process has no problem with the laws of thermodynamics. Mills claims that "dark matter" is in fact hydrinos, not observable easily because the states below the "ground state" can not be reached by radiating energy, as the ground state is stable. Mills claims that the hydrino process explains the high temperature of the solar corona. He has published a mass of data which could easily be verified - or disputed - were anyone willing to try tyo repeat his experiments. For details, the best is to study, on the BLP web site, only those papers marked "accepted - in press" as they are more succinct than his huge book. Clearly most commenters have not done that. Recent astrononomical studies of dark matter tend to support Mills. In fact, in 1995 he predicted that the expansion of the universe is accelerating: ridiculous! Two or three years later, measurements by two teams supported this idea. So it might be unwise to bet against Mills.....
written by Neil Ferguson, October 22, 2008
Thank you Kris for defending clarity, anyway. People who mention Newton's second law here are drones. Get a clue about Dr. Mills' claims. Fermi and Szilard weren't claiming "free energy" or perpetual motion for nuclear fission, either, any more than Mills claims it for Millsian chemistry.

His theories may be incorrect. But Rowan University is a reputable institution. Its faculty can't be assumed to be fools. If their observations of substantial excess heat are reproduced (chances are good) and can't be explained by conventional science (chances are fair), something's got to give.
written by Ken Roberts, October 22, 2008
As a guy with a BS in EE, I am extremely dubious about these claims. The hydrogen atom is the simplest atom, and so is the most well known by models. If there indeed was a lower ground state for hydrogen, then it would inevitably occur naturally, through collisions and other sources of energy. Once it reached that more stable state, it would be predisposed to stay there.

But it's not my money, so I'll withhold judgment.
written by Joe, October 22, 2008
Can anyone post a link to the verification work? Something from Rowan university researchers that can be verified? Just a reference, a name...something?
Link to Rowan validation tests
written by Craig, October 22, 2008
Someone requested a link to the verification work. Blacklight has it on their website.
Yes, I know, but what if?
written by hyperspaced, October 22, 2008
Well as physicists, we need to keep open minds. We are tought that the lower energy state is 1s (ground state). We are also taught that energy is quantized (packetized).
On first sight, I would tend to completely dismiss this claim based on what I've learnt.

But what if energy is not exactly quantized in lower energy states? If this hypothesis leads to simpler and universal mathematical representations, we need to take a look. Theories have been created (and later proven to be correct) from just a guess.

And someone please explain how the 2nd law is violated. If an electron in the H2 molecule is "pushed" "let" into a lower energy state it gives off energy (a quantum of energy, but I will call it a "fractum" in this case :) ) and a dihydrino.
The H2 molecule is provided probably by electrolysis of water (the generator needs water to run)
That's it. Energy production by lowering electron orbit is everywhere around you.

So, if there is indeed an energy state lower than the ground state, this has a chance. We need to see experimental data.
Big Claims require Big Proof
written by Dave W, October 22, 2008
A lot more proof would be needed before I would even begin to believe.
written by madi, October 22, 2008
I'm way out of my league when talking about physics and chemistry, but having just taken a test on this topic the article caught my attention:
Right now, without any further information, I'm inclined to dismiss it, but I have to agree with Hank that this really does sound good on the surface. I would like to see the experiment replicated more than just once, and on a larger scale.
From what I've been taught, the possibility that this actually works would cause a major overhaul in traditional theories and follow link levitra headaches thinking, but the fact that such a change would be necessary does not make the theory impossible. But with the backing of so many, it does seem like something to keep an eye on.
written by Obvious BS, October 22, 2008
You don't have to think about this one too hard.

It is such obvious BS. Mills and his gang are whooping it up on investor money for as long as they possibly can.

They only get away with these scams because of 3 factors:

1) The potential rewards are so tempting, people deperately want to believe.

2) All kinds of people part with vast sums of money for all kinds of reasons. Happens all the time.

2) The technology and claims are beyond the understanding of all but a handful of nutty professors who nobody listens to anyway.

Eestor is another one.
Drones? Please...
written by Kris, October 23, 2008
To the flamers above: I'm certainly not being a drone when I say that quantum field theory doesn't predict any Hydrogen electron energy states below the ground state. In order for the hydrino theory to be correct, one would have to either disprove or generalize upon a theory devised by one of the most brilliant minds to ever have existed: Richard Feynman. QFT has been experimentally verified to more significant figures than any other physical theory to date. This is a serious hurdle for these explanations of the Blacklight effect.

Hyperspaced, yes, open minds are what science is all about. If these experiments are in fact legitimate, there must be an explanation, it's just that Hydrinos won't be it.

I also agree with you regarding the 2nd law of thermo (see my first post).
Blacklight Power a bunch of Black Pile G
written by nanokiwi, October 23, 2008
the internet anagram server seems to think so
Kris reminds us not to forget Feynman
Feynman who sew the seeds of nanotech
with There's Plenty Of Room At The Bottom

nanotech that will probably soon give us solar paint

paint that children will apply to themselves in Africa, charging lights and tourist's cellphones just by holding them to their bodies

and isn't that the kind of world we all want?
one of children, running round, carrying an electrical charge?
To all the "academic" types
written by HankS, October 23, 2008
I'd like to start by saying I don't believe this claim, however I'm more astonished by your attitude.

Frankly you're acting as though your formulas, laws, and rules are backed up by both common sense and the laws of the universe, and never subject to change or revision.

Some things to note:

1) your formulas aren't being directly used by the universe, instead they were created by fallible humans and are the closest thing you have that mimics how the universe actually works.'s no use claiming the current theories are insufficient... they have produced the most accurate theoretical predictions to date

Kris, exactly thanks for inadvertently proving my point.

2) saying something is impossible and backing that claim up with references to rules and buy tramadol online online a href laws is as BS as the free-energy claim. You were taught those rules and laws, if they're wrong or flawed then so is the entire foundation of your argument.

3) being a student, chemical engineer, or electrical engineer is really not relevant. Though sharing a lot of the same laws and rules no one expects a student, CE, or EE to land the Nobel Prize for re-writing the fundamental laws of physics.

4) if you want to have credibility stop throwing around the quotes about laws and rules, go test the mechanism and either prove it doesn't work or, more likely, prove the extra energy is from some other source or reaction.

Science is not fixed, it constantly evolves. The truly revolutionary discoveries are made by people exploring the edges of what's accepted, not those quoting books.
You're clearly not a Scientist
written by Kris, October 23, 2008
HankS, you're clearly not a scientist (or Hank, the EcoGeek site admin). If you were you'd have realised that we're actually in AGREEMENT with one another. My point was that the best thing we have to model the relevant behaviour is QFT. I didn't say it's the precise way the universe works - that's not science. I said it's the best game in town and has been experimentally verified to better precision than any other theory (they're called theories for a reason - as you pointed out).

My only point was that in order for the Hydrino theory to be correct it would have to violate QFT. Now violations of standard QFT are possible in some extreme regimes (e.g. quantum gravity) but the hydrino model is not an extreme regime. It's essentially chemistry. And please don't try saying that maybe this is an effect of quantum gravity...

To finish with a blanket statement like "science is not fixed..." doesn't do you any favours. No it isn't fixed by it sure has a lot of inertia; to disprove the predictions of QFT would be extraordinarily difficult and very very unlikely (NOTE: I didn't say impossible) for the hydrino model. We're not talking about changing a pair of socks here. We're talking about revisions to the most precise physical thoery ever to have been invented.

And as for claiming I'm just regurgitating laws and formulas learnt in school: don't insult me. No honest scientist could live with themselves if they just relied on memorised facts (most would fail doing so). Science is founded upon objective rationalism: the never-ending questioning of our current understanding of the universe. Yes, our understanding changes but (and I feel I'm repeating myself here) the hydrino model has a lot ahead of it if it wishes to do so. If you read the works by Mills, there is no hint at reformulating QFT, just fanciful claims of reching a state lower than the ground state - simply from observing CHEMICAL reactions. Classic case of bunkum. c.f. all cold fusion literature to date.
written by Kris, October 23, 2008
Of course, I meant "reaching a state ...".

Although, interpreting it as "retching a state ..." wouldn't be unreasonable, either ;)
I never claimed to be either one...
written by HankS, October 23, 2008
And as stated in my last post I don't claim this theory is correct. I'm only pointing out your harsh attitude towards anything outside your framework. And you've done it again with this statement:

My only point was that in order for the Hydrino theory to be correct it would have to violate QFT. Now violations of standard QFT are possible in some extreme regimes (e.g. quantum gravity) but the hydrino model is not an extreme regime.

In one breath you're conceding that change is possible, but in this case it's completely impossible. As always it's "impossible" until you're proven wrong.

Btw: I appreciate your elitist attitude toward us dregs:

HankS, you're clearly not a scientist

written by Joe, October 24, 2008
When you read the report from Rowan you realize the claims made by Blacklight are bunk. It is a sound report it just does nothing to back up the claims of stand alone power generation. I too wanted to believe it but the claims are not borne out by the research. I am an optimist but this one looks like another scam, damn glad it ain't my money! If you have read the background and still believe I have an excellent bridge overlooking Sydney Harbour for sale, a low low $60 million USD and it is yours...
written by Brian, October 26, 2008
The world was once flat ya know
I still think we're agreeing...
written by Kris, October 26, 2008
HankS, I still think we're agreeing. You've just incorrectly interpreted my statement. I never said it was impossible. I basically said that the Hydrino theory violates QFT. In doing so, any theory that can accomodate the Hydrino must generalise upon QFT; a monumental task (and one clearly not fit for Mills). This is something completely different to saying the Hydrino theory is plain incorrect/impossible.

My comment regarding "your clearly not a scientist" was a retort to your flippant attitude towards what you appeared to think of as the scientific body. It's not an exclusive club. Anyone can think scientifically. Your comment just came across a little conspiratorial.

Brian, that comment doesn't help. The flat-world hypothesis was disproven over time against a political/religious body that simply couldn't imagine it being wrong and was willing to kill to keep it that way. Thankfully this kind of societal attitude has (almost; c.f. I.D.) disappeared. These days, those dismissive of Mill's ideas would welcome evidence of their validity with open arms. All `evidence' thus far has been marvelously underwhelming. I've stated above what the Hydrino theory has to accomplish in order to be accepted as science. Almost everything points to it being very unlikely (save for some dodgy high-school grade experiments and some rediculous theory: "grand unification of classical quantum mechanics" - seriously, WTF?). Until these issues are addressed, the Hydrino model (like every other budding theory) simply IS NOT SCIENCE. e.g. does not pertain to observed reality.
written by Mack, October 27, 2008
Blacklightpower must demonstrate several repeatable and viagra tablets for sale testable experimental results to make its case. There is nothing inherently difficult about this. It does not depend on belief or ideology:

1. Do the spectal lines predicted by his theory said to arise from hydrino transitions show up in his cells? (And can any other source of those lines properly ruled out?)
2. Is his claim that the sun's corona is powered by hydrino transitions verified by detectable spectral lines predicted by his theory emitted from the corona?
3. If dark matter is hydrinos or di-hydrinos can interstellar clouds of dark matter be detected via UV or x-rays emitted from hydrino transitions occuring within such clouds?
4. Do NMR scans of hydrino compounds demonstrate (or indicate) that the electron exists closer to the proton?
5. Can he generate an amount of heat far in excess of anything that could be based on the most efficient chemical fuel?
6. Does his molecular modelling software (Millsian) which is based on his theory exhibit accuracy (matches experimental results), speed and simplicity compared to the best available QM based molecular modelling software?

If he can do the above (and depending on what you read, he has done a number of them) then he has fulfilled the requirement of proof. He still needs to have more duplication by external parties like the Rowan effort and this is as it should be.

Either way it's going to be fun to see this played out. Mills is privately fully funded and doesn't want anyone's money and his business plan envisages charging power companies that retrofit their powerplants to use his solid fuel and process a license based on percentages of the money saved on fuel costs. If it doesn't work, then he will get zip.
Mills' theory is nonsensical cherry-pick
written by Kris, October 28, 2008
I agree with your points, Mack. Blacklight power might very well exist. However, I think you underestimate the gravity of his claims that his "grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics" theory is correct (hence, apparently, the Hydrino).

If Blacklight power does prove to work, the Hydrino theory would still be horribly insufficient as it would violate all theory to date, and as I've said ad nauseum above, the reconciliation of his theory with modern science would be highly unlikely; he uses Newtonian mechanics for goodness' sake! We KNOW classical mechanics is insufficient for describing the behaviour of molecular/atomic systems, and have known for almost a century. This would imply that his theory is IRRECONCILABLE with our current understanding (which has been tested time and time again to the point where it only breaks down under extreme regimes - e.g. quantum gravity). END OF STORY!

This is not ideology or belief. It's science. Any new theory must be able to explain all preceding phenomena. Mills' theory fails at the outset: classical mechanics can't describe quantum phenomena. It's just ridiculous.

I also have no doubt at all that his software would epically fail under any serious application to modern molecular modeling.
Lubos speaks sense
written by Kris, October 28, 2008
I've found Lubos Motl to be aggressive at times but he's usually right in the end. He discusses Hydrinos here:

The comments after the post demonstrate, in a horribly cat least briefly, what would be required to describe Hydrinos in a modern scientific framework (and Mills' theory isn't it); failing in each scenario.
written by Kris, October 28, 2008
Sorry. Read: "in a horribly confusing fashion". There's no place for cats in Mills' theory as it necessarily does away with the uncertainty principle all together.
written by Mack, October 28, 2008
Cheers Kris. There's no question Mills is arguing that classical physics be reinstated as applying at both the macro and tramadol best buy micro levels and that he honestly believes that classical physics can explain everything that has gone before. That massive GUT of his claims to cover all existing observed phenomena as well as the new stuff like the hydrino. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of those huge downloadable files :)

If you go back to 1986 when he was a student you find that he read his EE Professor's (Haus') paper on the classical explanation for the radiation of electrons in the free electron laser and sought to apply that to explain the non-radiation of the single electron when it was bound in the hydrogen atom. From that he developed his classical model of the electron - the dynamic extended two dimensional spinning particle of charge with complex current patterns that changes its shape in the presence of electric fields and forms what he calls the "orbitsphere" around the proton.

Quantization is said to arise from this perfectly conducting sphere acting as a resonator cavity, able to absorb and emit specific photons which alter the radius of the sphere due to the properties of the absorbed photon. Excited states aren't stable because the absorbed photon creates "fourier components" in the sphere that are synchronous with waves travelling at the speed of light and thus the sphere will radiate and reduce in radius.

This model led him to be belief that the orbitsphere can't radiate and lose energy but it can non-radiatively transfer energy to a catalyst by resonant energy transfers that can absorb multiples of 27.2ev and lowest price generic viagra this would make the orbitsphere unstable, causing it to emit large amounts of energy as the orbitsphere shrinks until it hits the next stable hydrino state.

The main question for me is why does this orbitsphere only couple to and transfer energy to a catalyst atom, ion or molecule that can absorb an integer multiple of 27.2ev? I know it is the potential energy of H but is that the reason? Anyone? Plus the energy release is huge compared to normal chemistry. Obviously the energy comes from the collapse of the radius but can the reduction in radius of the sphere explain the amount of energy claimed?

I don't have a problem with resonant energy transfers. They are a well studied energy tranfer mechanism that usually occurs between an excited donor atom or ion and an acceptor atom or ion that can exactly absorb the energy the donor wants to give up. I just don't know why the ground state H atom wants to lose that particular energy. Does he consider the H atom to be a metastable excited state? If it truly is a classical system than a proton and electron at a radius other than that of the proton should want to lose energy and perhaps his electron extended particle model prevents it from doing so. I think I will have to read a lot more to understand this part...

Mills doesn't accept that you can't model atomic and molecular systems classically which I suspect is why he created and released his modelling software based on his orbitsphere concept to prove that it could be done. It'd be good if someone with experience in molecular modelling could look at this and high quality viagra get back to us. He is offering a time limited free trial of Millsian.

Kris, I don't have your absolute conviction that he must be wrong. The idea of a single classical theory that covers everything and explains everything does have huge appeal. I just want to base my decision on whether he is right on hardcore physical evidence and this is what he slowly appears to be supplying. If the hydrino exists and it was predicted from his theory and not from mainstream theory, that is a strong argument that the theory is correct- to a certain degree anyway. Not sure I can accept his anti-gravitation hypothesis just yet :)
Millsian software test
written by Kris, October 29, 2008
Good point, Mack. I, too, would be very interested in finding out the results of an independent review of the Millsian software.

Putting the fundamental issues I mentioned above aside, a test of his software against other well-developed QM numerical models would certainly answer many questions about his theory, as you mentioned earlier. Since the QM-based models are known to correlate well with observed spectra, failure of Millsian to produce the same results should put arguments about the validity of his theory to rest (namely, the grave).

I wouldn't say my conviction is absolute (absolute convictions are anti-science) but it's certainly strong enough to not warrant my attention any further, which is no real loss to the subatomic physics community any way :)
Blacklight did publish results of spectr
written by dg, November 16, 2008
Mack, does seem to provide data that addresses several of your points:
1. Do the spectal lines predicted ...
2. Is his claim that the sun's corona ...
6. Does his molecular modelling software ...
written by G Achin, November 23, 2008
A significant part of the problem here has a good deal to do with "basic symantics" rather than quantum mechanics. The conceptual vocabulary does not yet exist that will provide a convenient bridge that can be accessed from ground level to span the seeming gap, much less for framing it all up with a tidy packaging to hand it across in a form recognizable to the impirically finite assignments that bottom out into a "ground state" and leave it there, impirically well reasoned and sound.

If you ponder infinity, does that pondering extend "outward" radially with no bounds, centered from where your thought begins? Or do you also ponder the infinite within? Just as infinity has no end, it also has no beginning. Just as there is the infinitely "larger", so is there the infinitely "smaller", --dense/rarefied, expansive/contractive.........

Whatever can be seen and sensed becomes measured, quantified, hypothesized and the best site buy levitra at a discount exercised mathematically into working models and impirical formulations that explain it ALL from every angle yet known for perception, until the senses are extended and can see more than they could before and the process starts in again with its weights and measures to take it all in as again seems fitting for a time. Using the misnomer, the "laws of physics", can get a person hide-bound! The formulation is an ongoing process, one that is ALWAYS and ever an infinite work in progress. It is certainly NOT an ultimatum. When locked up in a dark closet of "either/or" it becomes stunted and retarded until serendipity blows through and sets it free again! There is always more to encompass, an infinity of inclusiveness to grasp on the way to Universal Inclusiveness which itself is an Infinite adventure.

Let me try a simple little alegorically reflective illustration, even if it may seem to wander a bit off the wall:
Always I have been highly energetic, highly charged with energy that kept the "get up and cialis cheap delivery go" ready to go again as if wired with 440 instead of a normal 110. I could though, also relax fully, in an instant, at need or whim. This was not explainable calorically, nor with the ease of letting into a fully relaxed state, could it be cast into the "nervous energy" of someone "high strung".. With a slow metabolism, it took few calories to keep me going and in childhood my mother often complained that I didn't eat enough to keep a bird alive! Still, I was also athletic and shortly after joining the highschool swimteam the coach fast-tracked me suddenly into swimming the distance events by the second swim meet, then by the third meet, I began, and from then on, to place first. The energy level has generally been quite noticeable to others, often remarked upon by people, even in passing, again and again across time.
Even so, if my caloric intake exceeded the metabolic rate, it soon showed! It didn't take much. Still, the energy just kept freely streaming through. That's highly FUNCTIONAL, WORKING energy! I guarrantee you though that I wasn't breaking any "laws" of thermodynamics! If you ever have the opportunity to see and hear Rep. Dennis Kucinich, go, and be sure to take the opportunity while there to shake his hand; you could then see and likely feel this same sort of "phenomena" for yourself, though he may well be plugged in beyond 440! He usually does extend his hand to meet people wherever he goes.

One cannot stick the end of some tubing into a gas tank and expect to see gas start running out the other end, but after enough pressure has been applied, to draw it up the tube and get it going, it will continue to stream on through the tube and out the other end as long as the liquid lasts and the flow remains unbroken. Now, without a pump or steady pressured push, it seems incredible that liquid should flow up a tube and out like a continuous feed. Applying the conditions necessary to draw the liquid up the tube at the outset though, is all that is required for it to continue running even long after that, "like magic", on its own---

So, just let it go and let in more possibility! You needn't get sloppy about it, just relax and allow more of what IS the space to come through to be seen. Keep those working hypotheses in motion and well lubricated too, with healthy imagination! Try working up a program geared toward exercising and building into a knack for holographic perception!
Harmonics & Resonance
written by G Achin, November 24, 2008
"Pertinently keyed" and setting a tone that, while maintaining the integrity of a form, initiates an "autonomous association" within it, synthesizing harmonics can wholly synchronize the substance of form. (preps it and sets it up...) Resonance 'motivates' substance in 'directed', 'scintillating' momentum which, in fantasia cartoon-speak, "sings it" into place with enhanced potential to perform.
still learning
written by sseb, December 18, 2008
nice reading... i do keep an open mind. So little we know and what we know is kind of illusion of reality (we do not see electrons runing in wires or waves spread through universe but we know it's there because we see some kind of effect, consequence, reaction of an action, we calculate and levitra pharmacy predict the result, hey, we can even hit a comet billions of kilometers away... so much we know:)

What is with Tesla's inventions and experiments in wireless energy transfer done 100 years ago which are being only now reproduced to some degree? What was his universe model based on? Done some research on this and there are few theories that support his work.

I wish Millsian work would be transparent (published under GPL - general public license), shown to people, that would surely explain a lot.

I am testing his software but have no QM software or any other physics/chemistry simulation soft for that matter to compare with (except usual 3dCG physics implementation in animation softs - but don't know which algorhythms they use) i am open to suggestions.
hydrino not sub zero but orbital twisted
written by frank roarty, January 25, 2009
I just read Andrea Rathke’s critical analysis of the hydrinos model. I am asking you to consider a hydrino model where the zero state is unchanged but the orbital instead twists on the time axis in the vacancy provided by the larger virtual particles in Casimir exclusion field. I believe much of the experimental evidence is correct but everyone wrongly assumed change in the electron radius instead of time(planks’maybe not so constant?). . Doctors Haisch and Moddel from Cal-Tech were quietly awarded a patent for a much more plausible description and patent of hydrino formation on May 8, 2008. They correctly identify the exclusion of large virtual particles in Casimir cavities as the exploitable property behind hydrino formation. They use multiple conducting and insulating plates with submicron channels drilled through the stack forming an array through which they circulate monatomic hydrogen. I disagree with both Cal-Tech and Black light Power describing the orbital as falling to below zero state inside the Casimir exclusion field but at least Cal-Tech realized this is a quantum effect where as BLP still persists in pushing their Grand Unified Theory (they may have no recourse since their patent would be in peril if they admit Casimir effect now that Cal-Tech has filed a correct patent). I believe both parties misinterpreted the energy gain as occurring when the atom enters a Casimir cavity. I believe the orbital’s are free to twist into a novel orientation on the time axis due to the missing larger virtual particles and if they happen to form a molecule while inside the exclusion field the orientation will be preserved when exiting the field. This forces normally chaotic virtual particles to organize when they discover these arrogant little orbital’s projecting out into the time stream. They form boundary conditions with these orbital’s trying to break the covalent bond and release energy as the signature black light plasma from which BLP takes their name or for lesser orientations form an energy transport suitable for throwing in your car or heater for combustion to release the stored energy.

Francis X Roarty
read their meter
written by Dennis, August 02, 2009
I have a simple question - is Blacklight Power paying their electric bill or producing their own. I would buy in when their electric meter is turning backwards.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles