|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2005 : 14:55:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Right, and in the meantime just ridicule him. Or am I expecting too much of skeptics to suggest they practise a moral ethic of respecting one's fellow human beings?
I didn't see anyone in this thread insulting Mill's mother.
Based on the extraordinary nature of his claims, the boilerplate descriptors he uses when discussig his work, his accusatory tone and fevered rhetoric, and pleas for money despite his failure to produce anything substantial--then yes, it is reasonable to assume the guy's a quack or conman. This is merely sensible, not unreasonably malicious. Skeptics are not in the habit of giving preposterous claims the benefit of the doubt. If we did, we wouldn't be skeptics.
Your transparent appeal to "fairness" as some sort of moral imperitive on this matter is quite out of place. Have the good doctor actually come up with something that works. Results will change our tune, not whining.
P.S. I encourage you to invest heavily in Black Light industries, even if you must borrow to do so. I cannot think of a better way for you to put your intuitive sensibilities to the test.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/04/2005 15:01:53 |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 17:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
And you can invest in the company! Lots to explore on the website.
I always wonder why Witten and all of the big-time physicists are't pounding away at such a promising claim (ha ha) and instead, are "wasting their time" on string theory, and why the UK (and even Bush- he does do some things I like) are looking at controlled fusion seriously again, and haven't mentioned this stuff... I'll see whether there's a big press announcement by someone(s) like that, or whether an "infomercial" comes up, before I consider buying the stock.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 18:18:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Or am I expecting too much of skeptics to suggest they practise a moral ethic of respecting one's fellow human beings?
The ethic is to respect those who are deserving of respect. The transparency of Mills' apparent con-game means the amount of respect I'm willing to dole out is considerably reduced.quote:
sts60, please get the context, which was the question of practical applications of quantum technology *since* nuclear power in regards to *energy generation*. (Is that a strawman I smell burning?)
Nah, it's your red herring you smell frying, since as far as I can tell, the number of practical applications of Mills' theory to date is zero.
Also, I've got to wonder where the EPA is regarding Mills' work. I mean if Mills is correct, and he's got a novel model of chemistry, then the hydrino "exhaust" of any possible energy-generation system cannot be treated as if it were simply atomic hydrogen. The EPA should be all over his lab, testing to make sure that he's not spewing a human carcinogen into the nearby biosphere. For all we know, he is bringing about the end of all life on this planet.quote:
Also, note that Mill's theory purportedly accounts for all the things current quantum theory does technologically, and more.
Mills' theory has led to precisely zero new technological applications. He's made big claims, but produced no results. Go ahead and argue that it's due to a lack of research funds, and then explain to me why he stopped taking personal investments.quote:
Another difference is that Mill's theory is apparently unified, while quantum theoretical constructs obviously are not.
markie, I don't think you have the slightest inkling of what Mills' theory actually says.quote:
Dave W says, "It's people like Mills..." And the implication is....
Gee, I thought it was explicit: today, Mills would be unable to get the patent he received back in 2000. Not that having a patent proves anything (other than he had enough money to get a patent).quote:
Here is what the late Eugene Mallove says in his review of Robert Park's book Voodo Science , the Road from Foolishness to Fraud, taken from
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue30/voodoo.html
quote:
After assaulting the main body of cold fusion research, Park singles out for attack Dr. Randell Mills of BlackLight Power Inc. (see Infinite Energy, Issue No. 17 pp. 21-35 and Issue No. 29, pp. 40-41). He says that Mills did not offer "any experimental evidence" for his claims of excess energy caused by catalytic hydrino formation. Park does not discuss the multiple channels of experimental and astrophysical data that Mills has cited to defend his theory. He covers up the serious, positive results that the NASA Lewis Research Center published in its official report on the Mills replication. But Park, at his core, argues mainly from theory: "But those who bet on hydrinos are betting against the most firmly established and successful laws of physics." Mr. Certain asks rhetorically, "What are the odds that Randall [sic] Mills is right? To within a very high degree of accuracy, the odds are zero."
So Dave, I suppose "suppression" is in the eye of the beholder.
Not at all, markie. Mallove clearly doesn't understand what a "cover up" is. He should have used the word "ignores," or even "misrepresents." Look to the Watergate scandal for a proper cover-up. Park couldn't have been trying to "cover up" or even "suppress" Mills' success (if any) in an independently-written book. The idea is ludicrous.
Unless, of course, your definition of "suppression" is synonymous with "not agreeing with," in which case scientists "suppress" other scientists each and every day on this planet.
Besides which, the suppression argument is rather hypocritical when at least one person claims to have been the victim of Mills' lawyers:Efforts by BLP to suppress free discussion of the theory:
the following reflects a conversation that was posted to the hydrino email list between a skeptic and one of Mill's lawyers. I personally feel it is wrong to use lawyers to interfere with free discussion
--- this section is unfortunately down due to request by the original author ---- He's right: science shouldn't be done through legal thuggery. If the above is at all correct, Mills sinks even lower on my respectometer.quote:
(Eugene Mallove, a wonderful human being...
Not if that review of Park's book is any indication. Partially, Mallove is vilifying the man either through lies or ignorance, and neither serves as a sound basis for the evisceration Mallove dishes out. It's incredible that Mallove has the "insufferable chutzpah" to criticize Park's lack of ethics, when he displayed much the same problem. Besides which, markie, how can one be a "wonderful human being" when one fails to "practise a moral ethic of respecting one's fellow human beings?" Mallove clearly despises Park, since "Is he for real?" is not at all a scientific criticism (among others). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 18:54:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Right, and in the meantime just ridicule him. Or am I expecting too much of skeptics to suggest they practise a moral ethic of respecting one's fellow human beings?
The ridicule has nothing to do with respect. If a person puts forth a theory and claims it to be true without backup evidence, then that theory deserves to be ridiculed. And if someone to proposes a theory without any supporting evidence, while claiming to be upheld to the rigors of the scientific process, does that person deserve respect?
Yet, there *is* evidence! And is it not the higher ethical standard to simply point out the flaws in the theory and shortcomings in experimental results, than riducule out of ignorance?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 19:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Right, and in the meantime just ridicule him. Or am I expecting too much of skeptics to suggest they practise a moral ethic of respecting one's fellow human beings?
I didn't see anyone in this thread insulting Mill's mother.
Not Mills' mother, but Mills was called a "scumbag" on this thread.
quote:
Based on the extraordinary nature of his claims, the boilerplate descriptors he uses when discussig his work,
???Have you read the technical sections of the website?
quote:
his accusatory tone and fevered rhetoric,
??? I have yet to see that, could you provide an example?
quote:
and pleas for money
??? Where?
quote:
despite his failure to produce anything substantial
But he *has* produced results which are anomalous to current theory. Should he only publicise his work *after* he has created a commerical product?
quote:
--then yes, it is reasonable to assume the guy's a quack or conman. This is merely sensible, not unreasonably malicious. Skeptics are not in the habit of giving preposterous claims the benefit of the doubt. If we did, we wouldn't be skeptics.
It *seems* 'malicious' to me. 'Sensible' to me is to rationally investigate the matter than succumb to typical knee jerk negativism.
quote:
P.S. I encourage you to invest heavily in Black Light industries, even if you must borrow to do so. I cannot think of a better way for you to put your intuitive sensibilities to the test.
My intuitive sensibilities say to pay off the mortgage first, then invest, pending some more information.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 20:10:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.The ethic is to respect those who are deserving of respect. The transparency of Mills' apparent con-game means the amount of respect I'm willing to dole out is considerably reduced.
Who is deserving of respect? You don't know Dr. Mills, and have no proof that he is a liar, yet you assume he is a con. Why not rather assume the best in people?
quote:
Nah, it's your red herring you smell frying, since as far as I can tell, the number of practical applications of Mills' theory to date is zero.
No commercial products yet, but there are prototypes apparently.
quote:
Also, I've got to wonder where the EPA is regarding Mills' work. I mean if Mills is correct, and he's got a novel model of chemistry, then the hydrino "exhaust" of any possible energy-generation system cannot be treated as if it were simply atomic hydrogen. The EPA should be all over his lab, testing to make sure that he's not spewing a human carcinogen into the nearby biosphere. For all we know, he is bringing about the end of all life on this planet.
As far as I have heard, the exhaust hydrino products have high bond energy and are not very reactive. But you're right of course, supposedly novelle products like this will have to be tested for environmental safety, and probably are already being investigated in this regard.
quote:
Mills' theory has led to precisely zero new technological applications. He's made big claims, but produced no results. Go ahead and argue that it's due to a lack of research funds, and then explain to me why he stopped taking personal investments.
It seems obvious to me that it is not a result of lack of research funds. Research takes time, even with lots of money. I don't know why he is not taking personal investments at this time and only considering corporate types of strategies, but his board apparently thinks it is wise.
quote:
markie, I don't think you have the slightest inkling of what Mills' theory actually says.
I'm no quantum physicist, but I can grasp the basic idea, yes.
quote:
Mallove clearly doesn't understand what a "cover up" is. He should have used the word "ignores," or even "misrepresents."
. OK, Park 'ignored' and 'misreprented' the truth. That is undeniable. That is unethical. On the other hand, Mallove is pointing out what is fact, that is, that Park was not being truthful in his book. Park was clearly lying. It is not being unethical to point this out, and to show indignation for such.
quote:
Besides which, the suppression argument is rather hypocritical when at least one person claims to have been the victim of Mills' lawyers:Efforts by BLP to suppress free discussion of the theory:
the following reflects a conversation that was posted to the hydrino email list between a skeptic and one of Mill's lawyers. I personally feel it is wrong to use lawyers to interfere with free discussion
--- this section is unfortunately down due to request by the original author ---- He's right: science shouldn't be done through legal thuggery. If the above is at all correct, Mills sinks even lower on my respectometer.
I too have a strong distaste to legal thuggery, but there simply isn't enough information here to know what is really going on.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 20:24:19 [Permalink]
|
Here are some more things which add to the history of how Mills got involved in quantum theory. Extracted from
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/blacklight_hydrinos_000523.html
quote:
Wild Science: Entrepreneur Takes On Quantum Theory
By Erik Baard
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 04:03 pm ET
23 May 2000
Mills wasn't seeking a new energy source when he conceived of hydrinos. He finished his coursework at Harvard Medical School a year early and took the extra time before graduating in 1986 to study electrical engineering and biotechnology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Knowledge gained there contributed to a physics-based cancer treatment he proposal in Nature in December 1988.
At the same time he investigated seeking a grant to work on a free-electron laser for the Strategic Defense Initiative. MIT electrical engineering professor Dr. Hermann Haus heard this and showed Mills a pre-publication copy of a paper demonstrating that Maxwell's equations predicted the behavior of a free-electron laser, even though Maxwell certainly didn't anticipate such a technology.
Mills said he then wondered why Maxwell's equations were so fitting to free electrons, but suddenly failed when the electrons were bound in atoms. Why did quantum theory posit that everything became non-deterministic probability functions?
"I just said, let's pretend I've never seen a hydrogen atom, and using nothing but Maxwell see how it might behave," Mills explained. Hydrogen was a natural place to start, and he followed Maxwell's free electrons through formulas until they hit a nucleus. His conclusion: Maxwell nailed it.
After toying with this new model for a while, he discovered the trap door leading to the "hydrino" state below the ground state of hydrogen, Mills explains.
But what of finding the hydrinos themselves? Unlike some other speculative quantum notions based on pure mathematics, if hydrinos exist, they'll be found in experiments high and low -- from manufactured compounds to the vast voids between stars.
Mills offers his compounds to any laboratory that wants to test them. "It's something I could put in a vial and FedEx overnight to you," he said. Naval weapons laboratories at Indian Head in Maryland and China Lake in California are currently performing such tests.
Spectral Data Services, the largest contract nuclear-magnetic-resonance laboratory in the U.S., has tested hydrino compounds. Company president Garry Turner, a physical chemist, confirmed that hydrino compounds "register a strange chemical shift. I'd have to rank it up there in the top-ten weird observations I've made in my career. It's something new and different and, well, that happens."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 13:22:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Who is deserving of respect?
I determine who is deserving of my respect, just as you determine who is deserving of yours. You ask the question as if there is some absolute determiner of whom should be respected and whom shouldn't.quote:
You don't know Dr. Mills, and have no proof that he is a liar, yet you assume he is a con. Why not rather assume the best in people?
There's a famous old saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Mills' appears to be no different from any other person in the last 100 years who claims to have overturned fundamental physical models. While Dennis Lee might pack stadiums with potential private investors to watch him drive around in a battery-powered car, Mills is going after more sophisticated investors like power-company executives, but bilking them just as badly.quote:
No commercial products yet, but there are prototypes apparently.
??? Where? Why aren't they making the news on a regular basis? Why aren't the power companies who've invested making regular press releases about this massively important research as it is panning out?quote:
As far as I have heard, the exhaust hydrino products have high bond energy and are not very reactive. But you're right of course, supposedly novelle products like this will have to be tested for environmental safety, and probably are already being investigated in this regard.
A few searches of the EPA's web site turn up no public records relating to BlackLight. Your "probably" appears to be based upon no evidence whatsoever.quote:
It seems obvious to me that it is not a result of lack of research funds. Research takes time, even with lots of money. I don't know why he is not taking personal investments at this time and only considering corporate types of strategies, but his board apparently thinks it is wise.
Mills is chairman of the board. As far as his research goes, looking at his list of publications, he's still busy writing about hydrino detection, five years after his patent has been granted. His published work should have long ago shifted to experiments about generating power if he had any hope of actually doing so. That's what his investors are interested in, so it seems a clear-cut case of fraud (especially since his investors think the theory to be proven already).quote:
I'm no quantum physicist, but I can grasp the basic idea, yes.
I have no doubt that you're capable of understanding, but I don't think you've reached that point yet.quote:
OK, Park 'ignored' and 'misreprented' the truth. That is undeniable. That is unethical. On the other hand, Mallove is pointing out what is fact, that is, that Park was not being truthful in his book. Park was clearly lying. It is not being unethical to point this out, and to show indignation for such.
Another red herring. Your complaint was that Park suppressed Mills' research. He couldn't possibly have done so, and so you've moved the goalposts just to say that Park was lying. And, of course, whether or not Park has ever actually lied about Mills' research is irrelevant to whether that research is correct. Park is not the only critic of Mills' work - there are plenty of physicists out there who have pointed out the major flaws in Mills' theory (the biggest apparently being that Mills tries to solve a quantum-mechanical equation with classical assumptions) and experiments. Focusing on Park serves only to draw attention away from Mills. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 05:22:50 [Permalink]
|
| I call those who abuse the scientific process scumbags, and this qualifies in the extreme. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 06:10:14 [Permalink]
|
I think there is still a chance that Mills is simply wrong, rather than intentionally conning people. It's awfully hard for a smart guy (which Mills no doubt is) to let go of a compelling hypothesis. That's simply being human.
But, no, I see only the slimmest possibility he's actually right. Everything I see tells me this fits into the category of "pathological science" - the eager funding, the bold predictions, the lack of any real progress, the promise of breakthroughs and big things just around the corner, the sneers at the stodgy and close-minded science establishment, and of course, the promised super-duper revolutionary theory of everything. All that's missing is the glowing coverage in Popular Mechanics.
markie, I'm glad you are paying off your mortgage first! Please make sure that any money you give to these guys is money you can afford to say goodbye to. |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 07:10:58 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf. I have a problem with the quote in your signature which reads:
"The compulsion to do good is an innate American trait. Only North Americans seem to believe that they always should, may, and actually can choose somebody with whom to share their blessings. Ultimately this attitude leads to bombing people into the acceptance of gifts. -Ivan Illich
I know this is not your quote. I just don't understand why you would have a quote like that for a signature unless you want to offend North Americans.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 09:10:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Markie:
Who is deserving of respect? You don't know Dr. Mills, and have no proof that he is a liar, yet you assume he is a con. Why not rather assume the best in people?
quote:
sts60:
I think there is still a chance that Mills is simply wrong, rather than intentionally conning people. It's awfully hard for a smart guy (which Mills no doubt is) to let go of a compelling hypothesis. That's simply being human.
But, no, I see only the slimmest possibility he's actually right. Everything I see tells me this fits into the category of "pathological science" - the eager funding, the bold predictions, the lack of any real progress, the promise of breakthroughs and big things just around the corner, the sneers at the stodgy and close-minded science establishment, and of course, the promised super-duper revolutionary theory of everything. All that's missing is the glowing coverage in Popular Mechanics.
Markie, perhaps you do not understand what skepticism is about. We look at the style and substance of those who have made an extraordinary claim. Style if often a tip off. In the above post, Sts60 has pretty much laid it out for you. These are the things we look for. And our track record for calling it as it is is pretty darn good. After a while, as a critical thinker, you learn how to recognize what is probably of value and what is not. Could we be wrong? Sure. Still, we are the first line of defense against those who want nothing more than to part you from your money or are simply so fanatical in their belief that they are on to something important that they refuse to look at the objections objectively. Cons and bad science abound. And most people are not so well versed in the style of hucksters or in science to be able to tell the good from the bad. That is where we skeptics come in. If Mills can support his science, we will be happy to drop our objections. But in the meantime, his style says to us that we must warn others about his possible motivations and to be careful and not to take him too seriously.
That is job of skeptics. And collectively, we have saved people a lot of hard earned money warning them of the problems associated with particular claims. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is fine if they do not display a pattern that we have come to recognize. You know the old saying, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.” Another is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And Mills is definitely making an extraordinary claim. It is up to him to produce evidence equal to his claim. Until he does that he is fair game, from a skeptics point of view, owing to the style he has employed in presenting his claim. A style that most research scientists would not be comfortable with, to say the least.
Call us what you will, but if it were not for us, people would be dying by ignoring our warnings about miracle cures and going broke by supporting (money) improbable scientific breakthroughs. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 10:29:28 [Permalink]
|
My purpose for the quote is not important and so what if I was trying to offend North Americans. They offend me every day.
Edit: and you didnt define your problem with it... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 10/06/2005 10:31:20 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 11:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Who is deserving of respect?
I determine who is deserving of my respect, just as you determine who is deserving of yours. You ask the question as if there is some absolute determiner of whom should be respected and whom shouldn't.
For me, the Absolute Determiner says that all are worthy of respect. And hence is derived, "love your enemies." And that same respect and value for the person should be all the more reason to motivate us to 'be our brother's keeper' and point out things they are doing which are unworthy of who they are as persons.
quote:
You don't know Dr. Mills, and have no proof that he is a liar, yet you assume he is a con. Why not rather assume the best in people?quote:
There's a famous old saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Ah, but he hasn't been shown to fool you even once yet and thus is not to be shamed.
quote:
Mills' appears to be no different from any other person in the last 100 years who claims to have overturned fundamental physical models.
It behooves a skeptic to be skeptical of the mere 'appearance' and investigate more deeply.
quote:
While Dennis Lee might pack stadiums with potential private investors to watch him drive around in a battery-powered car, Mills is going after more sophisticated investors like power-company executives, but bilking them just as badly.
You don't *know* if he's bilking them. Now, if an investor backs out and for good reason concludes he is being bilked, then your assertion has more merit.
quote:
No commercial products yet, but there are prototypes apparently.quote:
??? Where? Why aren't they making the news on a regular basis? Why aren't the power companies who've invested making regular press releases about this massively important research as it is panning out?
Check it out, and there are obviously 'devices' where the reactions take place and 'excess' heat and light are generated and measured. I shouldn't have assumed such were 'prototypes' I suppose, because it is a huge step going from a laboratory experimental apparatus which is carefully nutured and fine tuned, to a robust commercial prototype where one flicks the switch and it is almost entirely self operating. *That* is going to be the most difficult and time consuming stage, and I suspect that is why cooporate investors appear to be patient.
Why aren't there big press releases? Mills is largely avoiding the media (he said he has got too much flak), which actually could be a good thing. I imagine however that when commerical prototypes are ready it will hit the media fan alright.
quote:
As far as I have heard, the exhaust hydrino products have high bond energy and are not very reactive. But you're right of course, supposedly novelle products like this will have to be tested for environmental safety, and probably are already being investigated in this regard.quote:
A few searches of the EPA's web site turn up no public records relating to BlackLight. Your "probably" appears to be based upon no evidence whatsoever.
I don't mean the EPA itself, but there may be scientists employed there which are monitoring things like potential toxicity, since afterall there are people there working with the stuff. Last night I sent BLP a question regarding this. (My first correspondence with them.) I assume for now however that all the products of the reactions are trapped and are not going to the environment, so the EPA may not be required right now, don't know.
quote:
Mills is chairman of the board. As far as his research goes, looking at his list of publications, he's still busy writing about hydrino detection, five years after his patent has been granted. His published work should have long ago shifted to experiments about generating power if he had any hope of actually doing so. That's what his investors are interested in, so it seems a clear-cut case of fraud (especially since his investors think the theory to be proven already).
I can only suspect that there is lots of *engineering* work going into building prototypes right now. That kind of stuff wouldn't be published of course. Regarding research into power generation, here is part of an abstract from June of this year:
quote:
Catalysis of Atomic Hydrogen to Novel Hydrogen Species H 1/4 and H2 1/4 as a New Power Source
R. Mills, J. He, Z. Chang, W. Good, Y. Lu, B. Dhandapani
BlackLight Power, Inc., 493 Old Trenton Road, Cranbury, NJ 08512
ABSTRACT
The data from a broad spectrum of investigational techniques strongly and consistently indicates that hydrogen can exist in lower-energy states then previously thought possible. ... The energy balance was #8710;H =17,925 kcal / mole KNO3 , about 300 times that expected for the most energetic known chemistry of KNO3 , and #8722;3585 kcal / mole H2 , over 60 times the hypothetical maximum enthalpy of #8722;57.8 kcal / mole H2 due to combustion of hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, assuming the maximum possible H2 inventory. The reduction of KNO3 to water, potassium metal, and NH3 calculated from the heats of formation
only releases #8722;14.2 kcal / mole H2 which can not account for the observed heat; nor can hydrogen combustion. But, the results are consistent with the formation of H 1/4 and H2 1/4 having enthalpies of formation of over 100 times that of combustion.
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 11:26:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil... But in the meantime, his style says to us that we must warn others about his possible motivations and to be careful and not to take him too seriously.
That is job of skeptics. And collectively, we have saved people a lot of hard earned money warning them of the problems associated with particular claims. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is fine if they do not display a pattern that we have come to recognize. You know the old saying, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.” Another is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And Mills is definitely making an extraordinary claim. It is up to him to produce evidence equal to his claim. Until he does that he is fair game, from a skeptics point of view, owing to the style he has employed in presenting his claim. A style that most research scientists would not be comfortable with, to say the least.
Yes I see your point. His style is unorthodox. He resembles the suppposedly extinct self made renassance man. He has not gone through the usual channels. (Why he doesn't even have the credibility to use taxpayers money! :-) )
So admittedly we have here what superficially 'looks' like a duck, or perhaps the chicken that tried to eat New York. The attempt to save New York from the potential attack is noble, but, what of the actual evidence. That's the question. I think it's there for anyone who wants to check it out.
Anyone who can predict via classical methods the many excitation states of helium and who can offer coherent classical explanations for the double slit experiment and Allen Aspect's non locality experiment has me paying attention.
Mark
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
