Long time lurker, first time poster...
Just wanted post a link and get a response from some of the experts here on Hydrino research after reading a cover story on the subject in the BBC's science mag 'Focus'. There are many articles on this site that extend to both theoretical physics and new energy technologies.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml

rule of thumb: if someone tells you that you can get more energy out of something than you put in, don't believe them.

p.s. try and find a neutral site. a site that claims something outrageous is rarely giving you the straight dope, as they say.

it is fascinating... the energy supposively is from causing the electron orbital in a hydrogen atom, to actually move into a lower... and still stable orbit.
thus as it drops it releases energy...

but even still... such energy is not endless.... and would require vast amounts of hydrogen gas... and said gas would as such.. obsorb energy to again reach the normal hydrogen state... which of course could then be made into cooling systems..
suggestng we can get energy out both times...

yet. i am not convinced...
-MT

This hydrino guy has been around since at least 1997, and mass production of working energy machines has always been just a few years away. He always just needs a little more money...

He basically claims that it’s possible for an electron around a nucleus to have a fractional quantum number that's less than 1. If that were true it would indeed be possible to extract a whole lot of energy by causing an electron to drop from a principle quantum number n of 1 (the lowest possible value for n) to, say, n=1/2. The problem with this is that it's nonsense. n represents the number of nodes that an electron's wave function has around a nucleus. The number of nodes = n-1. So, for example, if an electron's orbital had three nodes then n would equal 4. n=1 means that the electron has no nodes (n-1=0, so 0 nodes). So that would mean that n=1/2 would mean that the electron had...-1/2 nodes? That doesn't make any sense.

Of course, it’s always possible that this guy has discovered some incredible new phenomenon that quantum physics is unable to explain. The thing is, if he has had a working prototype for at least seven years he has had more than enough time to just start selling his amazing energy producing machines and say "Theorize about THAT, bitches!" to the physics community. But instead, he just keeps collecting more money from investors...

Also, the guy does not appear to have any formal traing in physics.

Ditto what Nasor said. And, as far as my understanding goes, if you could get electrons to go into fractional quantum numbers you would completely undo quantum mechanics, get yourself a Nobel prize, and make yourself very, very rich. Not to mention having to explain Blackbody radiation all over again. Anyone out there like to try?

The article in the BBC's Focus talks alot about how his results could only explained by with an entirely new way of looking at the fundamental assumptions of Physics. It goes into some detail about this and further outlines Blacklight's plans to build an scaled up version (funded by a number of US power companies) of their benchtop devices, which have been tested extensively and replicated by independant scientists.

If Mills had nothing...either a theoretical explanation or a working model, I doubt very much his work would be making it to a cover story in a mainstream British science magazine like Focus. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it.

Ditto what Nasor said. And, as far as my understanding goes, if you could get electrons to go into fractional quantum numbers you would completely undo quantum mechanics, get yourself a Nobel prize, and make yourself very, very rich. Not to mention having to explain Blackbody radiation all over again. Anyone out there like to try?

The whole theory of white dwarf formation is that gravity compresses the electron shells of atoms until the electrons are moving at relativistic speeds because of their proximity to the nucleus.

I don't know that these things would necessarily undo quantum mechanics. This thing about the number of nodes of an electron's orbit doesn't necessarily mean that the electron can't go under. We're just following a number line that appears to go to zero at a certain point. What makes us think that there is nothing below zero? Why couldn't an orbit have zero "nodes" that we can detect? Why couldn't there be several possible orbits with zero nodes? What does all that mean, anyway? Maybe the orbit of an electron can only be one general shape below a certain level. Maybe the electron itself is a toroid with no well-defined beginning or end and it just becomes denser as its orbit becomes smaller.

Lack of formal training may well be an advantage, too.

The whole theory of white dwarf formation is that gravity compresses the electron shells of atoms until the electrons are moving at relativistic speeds because of their proximity to the nucleus.

I don't know that these things would necessarily undo quantum mechanics. This thing about the number of nodes of an electron's orbit doesn't necessarily mean that the electron can't go under. We're just following a number line that appears to go to zero at a certain point. What makes us think that there is nothing below zero? Why couldn't an orbit have zero "nodes" that we can detect? Why couldn't there be several possible orbits with zero nodes? What does all that mean, anyway? Maybe the orbit of an electron can only be one general shape below a certain level. Maybe the electron itself is a toroid with no well-defined beginning or end and it just becomes denser as its orbit becomes smaller.
The principle quantum number n results from solving the Schrodenger equation – anything less than 1 isn’t a valid solution. Believe me, if n can equal zero or anything else less than 1 then the fundamental mathematics of quantum physics are wrong. It wouldn’t be the sort of thing that you could fix by ‘tweaking’ the theory, any more than you could fix the idea of a geocentric universe once you notice that all the planets actually orbit the sun.
Lack of formal training may well be an advantage, too.When has this ever been an advantage for anyone? A lot of people seem to have this idea that people without formal training might be able to "look at things from a new perspective" or "think outside the box" when approaching a problem...but are there any examples in the real world of this ever happening?

I’ve never understood it…most people realize that they wouldn’t have any hope of designing a microchip without training in electrical engineering, or building a new super-sonic jet without some sort of training in aeronautics…but everyone thinks that they can come up with something better than modern physics after read “A Brief History of Time”. What is it about overturning physics that makes people think “Hmm, I could do that” even though they realize that they wouldn’t have a prayer of accomplishing much simpler tasks without education in what they’re doing? After all, people do design new microchips and build new super-sonic jets all the time…but we go decades or centuries without revolutionary physics breakthroughs.

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it.Indeed it will be. But how long are you willing to wait? He's been claiming to have these things working for seven years already...how many years would it take for you to assume that he's just trying to scam people out of investment money? I'm not really sure myself, but seven is definitely over the limit.

The whole theory of white dwarf formation is that gravity compresses the electron shells of atoms until the electrons are moving at relativistic speeds because of their proximity to the nucleus.
Now, since I'm no cosmologist, I cant off the top of my head critique that (besides, Nasor has had a go), but what immediately pops out is gravity. Under a strong gravitational field things may move differently without necessarily changing quantum number.


I don't know that these things would necessarily undo quantum mechanics. This thing about the number of nodes of an electron's orbit doesn't necessarily mean that the electron can't go under.
Nodes in an electrons orbit? No, we're talking about the energy levels of electrons as they orbit the nucleaus. The only way of making sense of observed phenomenon such as the black body effect (look it up) is to partition the electrons as being in certain discreet (i.e. not continuous) energy levels. This then leads into things such as ionisation potentials.


We're just following a number line that appears to go to zero at a certain point. What makes us think that there is nothing below zero? Why couldn't an orbit have zero "nodes" that we can detect?
If an orbiting electron went from a level of "1" to "0", it would be in the nucleaus and doing funky things that I dont want to be within 50,000 miles of.



Why couldn't there be several possible orbits with zero nodes? What does all that mean, anyway? Maybe the orbit of an electron can only be one general shape below a certain level. Maybe the electron itself is a toroid with no well-defined beginning or end and it just becomes denser as its orbit becomes smaller.

What do you understand by nodes and shapes of orbits?
Modern quantum theory sees electron orbits as a shape of probabilities of distribution. The electron itself resembles a point, i.e. not a toroid.
Ach, just go and read some books on the subject, its fascinating, and I've forgotten too much since leaving uni.

I have been mulling it over... and yes we can get energy out of hydrogen, by getting its electron to fall into lower orbits...

Its called cooling... i.e.. from 200 below zero, and say 0 degrees celcius... there is alot of energy..

so.. its true... the new hydrogen atom would just be very cold...
but as i said... this changes nothing..

and there is no way to get energy out, when we indeed need to cool the atom.
ie.. we must do work.. to cool it..

seems like a scam to me.

-MT but im still not convinced either way.

I have been mulling it over... and yes we can get energy out of hydrogen, by getting its electron to fall into lower orbits...

Its called cooling... i.e.. from 200 below zero, and say 0 degrees celcius... there is alot of energy..

so.. its true... the new hydrogen atom would just be very cold...
but as i said... this changes nothing..

and there is no way to get energy out, when we indeed need to cool the atom.
ie.. we must do work.. to cool it..

seems like a scam to me.

-MT but im still not convinced either way.

Sorry, but temperature has nothing to do with the energy level(s) of the electron.

And yes, that whole business is just a scam designed to steal money from investors.

The principle quantum number n results from solving the Schrodenger equation – anything less than 1 isn’t a valid solution. Believe me, if n can equal zero or anything else less than 1 then the fundamental mathematics of quantum physics are wrong. It wouldn’t be the sort of thing that you could fix by ‘tweaking’ the theory, any more than you could fix the idea of a geocentric universe once you notice that all the planets actually orbit the sun.When has this ever been an advantage for anyone? A lot of people seem to have this idea that people without formal training might be able to "look at things from a new perspective" or "think outside the box" when approaching a problem...but are there any examples in the real world of this ever happening?

I’ve never understood it…most people realize that they wouldn’t have any hope of designing a microchip without training in electrical engineering, or building a new super-sonic jet without some sort of training in aeronautics…but everyone thinks that they can come up with something better than modern physics after read “A Brief History of Time”. What is it about overturning physics that makes people think “Hmm, I could do that” even though they realize that they wouldn’t have a prayer of accomplishing much simpler tasks without education in what they’re doing? After all, people do design new microchips and build new super-sonic jets all the time…but we go decades or centuries without revolutionary physics breakthroughs.

Lack of formal training is not the same thing as no training. Someone who is self-taught may well have read a lot more of the literature and even done a lot more of the practicum than someone who has been to class. He might understand the subject better, achieving the same goal as in former training. An advantage is if you have the time to work on something almost every day for years instead of having to pick up a little bit to satisfy a class, hit and miss and hopefully learn something in the process.

The advantage of formal training is that you have some sort of framework and you do cover the basics, which can be a huge help to the self-taught. Trouble is, a person can be charged with a lack of formal training even if he's had a lot of hours of college and just didn't complete a degree. He can also be characterized as not being able to do real work at all if it takes him longer than some people, and unfairly. What's really wrong is if this person buys into that, if he thinks that he can't do original work because he doesn't have "formal training."

To go back to the original subject, most likely the fundamental math of quantum physics is wrong or incomplete, one of the two. Anyone who has studied waveforms knows that if a waveform reaches zero, it is likely that that is where current flow reverses itself. If your electron goes below a zero state, maybe it reverses direction. Considering the fact that we are talking about a four dimensional wave that is sort of a standing wave, null points in a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional view of that wave aren't what you think of when you think of numbers on a graph going to zero and not being able to go further. They aren't likely to rule reality. A null point is where a wave crosses a line.

They are talking about "hydronium" forming inside the crystal lattices of metals like palladium or nickel. The pressures in there are fairly intense. Instead of gravity compressing the electron shell you have electrostatic repulsion from other electrons. Somehow a hydrogen atom slips into this crystal lattice between the cracks. Its shell with its single electron will be forcibly compressed by the electrostatic repulsion of several hundred electrons surrounding it, whose outer shells are close enough to touch and exchange electrons. This forces the diameter of the orbit below its lowest natural quantum state. You don't have to revise the formulas of quantum mechanics to accommodate a state that an electron is forced into by outside pressures. Degenerate matter is a state of matter that is recognized by the mainstream. It works by different rules because it is under compression. A hydrogen atom inside a crystal lattice is under compression.

temp has everything to do with electron orbial rates and motion....

at 2 degrees Kelvin.... hydrogen gives off 22 cm radiation... which is the result of the rate of electron orbital spin....

at higher temps.... the rate of spin is higher.. thus the signal given off is of a higher frequency...

-MT

rule of thumb: if someone tells you that you can get more energy out of something than you put in, don't believe them.

p.s. try and find a neutral site. a site that claims something outrageous is rarely giving you the straight dope, as they say.

That's what someone told me about heat pumps.

temp has everything to do with electron orbial rates and motion....

at 2 degrees Kelvin.... hydrogen gives off 22 cm radiation... which is the result of the rate of electron orbital spin....

at higher temps.... the rate of spin is higher.. thus the signal given off is of a higher frequency...

-MT
Recheck your facts. Temperature affects only the vibration of molecules/atoms and is in no way related to the spin or the energy level of the electron. And the only way an electron can give off "radiation" is by the electron dropping in energy level and thus emitting a photon.

That's what someone told me about heat pumps.
MetaKron, you arer absolutely dumb! (Actually, the word "stupid" comes to mind as more fitting.)

That's not what you were told - by me or anyone else!!

To go back to the original subject, most likely the fundamental math of quantum physics is wrong or incomplete, one of the two.

It is kind of incomplete, because we dont yet have a TOE. However, you or any of the probably cranks you are talking about have yet to demonstrate this wrongness. Quantum theory has been shown to be correct to something like a deozen orders of magnitude if not more, and I have heard of no sensible suggestions of any limitations or problems with it.



Anyone who has studied waveforms knows that if a waveform reaches zero, it is likely that that is where current flow reverses itself. If your electron goes below a zero state, maybe it reverses direction. Considering the fact that we are talking about a four dimensional wave that is sort of a standing wave, null points in a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional view of that wave aren't what you think of when you think of numbers on a graph going to zero and not being able to go further. They aren't likely to rule reality. A null point is where a wave crosses a line.
What is this current in a waveform? current implies movement, which is hard to comprehend given you have just said its a standing wave. Basically, I cant make any sense whatsoever of what you have just typed.


They are talking about "hydronium" forming inside the crystal lattices of metals like palladium or nickel. The pressures in there are fairly intense. Instead of gravity compressing the electron shell you have electrostatic repulsion from other electrons. Somehow a hydrogen atom slips into this crystal lattice between the cracks. Its shell with its single electron will be forcibly compressed by the electrostatic repulsion of several hundred electrons surrounding it, whose outer shells are close enough to touch and exchange electrons. This forces the diameter of the orbit below its lowest natural quantum state. You don't have to revise the formulas of quantum mechanics to accommodate a state that an electron is forced into by outside pressures. Degenerate matter is a state of matter that is recognized by the mainstream. It works by different rules because it is under compression. A hydrogen atom inside a crystal lattice is under compression.

We can already get Hyrdogen in the interstices of palladium etc. It requires no electrostatic repulsion from other electrons compressing the shell. Furthermore, your mention of several hundred electrons surrounding it completely misses the fairly simple geometries of metal lattices. If it is face centred cubic, the interstitial atom will be surrounded by 8 atoms with their attendant electrons. This is not "hundreds".

Recheck your facts. Temperature affects only the vibration of molecules/atoms and is in no way related to the spin or the energy level of the electron. And the only way an electron can give off "radiation" is by the electron dropping in energy level and thus emitting a photon.

im sorry, but perhaps you should study more...

the 22 cm radiation from free floating hydrogen at 2 degrees Kelvin, is emited.. by the electron...

the 22 cm radiation corrisponds to its orbital rate...
I.e.. hydrogen has only one electron, who's field changes direction with each orbit... thus the one electron acts like a tiny oscillator, giving the 22 cm signal...

there is no drop in energy level..
-MT

Guthrie, look up the explanations of "standing wave." Also, between your eight atoms surrounding a hydrogen atom within a crystal lattice, there are 224 electrons if the element is nickel and 368 if the element is palladium. It's a pretty tight space.

It would seem like a high degree of compression is inevitable.

Is inevitable? Has this been measured? I spent hours at university learning about crystal structures and instersticial atoms, and somehow they never mentioned anything about pressure. I wonder why?

As for standing waves:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-034/_5083.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standing+wave
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/nidzgloss.nsf/webmain/6DF323A7D78BFCC1862568C6005B7863?OpenDocument
Some results of a google search for definition of standing wave.

Nope, still cant find anything that sheds any light on what you are trying to say. CAn you explain it as if to someone still at school?

the 22 cm radiation corrisponds to its orbital rate...
I.e.. hydrogen has only one electron, who's field changes direction with each orbit... thus the one electron acts like a tiny oscillator, giving the 22 cm signal...

there is no drop in energy level..
-MT
I am afraid your going to have to explain further for this poor little non physcicist.
How can it give off energy if there is no drop in energy level? Are you saying it always radiates as a result of revolving around the nucleus?

I am afraid your going to have to explain further for this poor little non physcicist.
How can it give off energy if there is no drop in energy level? Are you saying it always radiates as a result of revolving around the nucleus?

Yes, that's what he's saying - and it's dead wrong. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of conservation of mass/energy (among other things) and is creating energy while expending nothing. I suggested he recheck his science but he totally ignored it - and then told me I was wrong! Pity.

Well, if thats his argument, heres the cure:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Struct/Bohr/Struct03.htm

"From classical physics, a charge traveling in a circular path should lose energy by emitting electromagnetic radiation
If the "orbiting" electron loses energy, it should end up spiraling into the nucleus (which it does not). Therefore, classical physical laws either don't apply or are inadequate to explain the inner workings of the atom"

Or how about this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

Well, if thats his argument, heres the cure:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Struct/Bohr/Struct03.htm

"From classical physics, a charge traveling in a circular path should lose energy by emitting electromagnetic radiation
If the "orbiting" electron loses energy, it should end up spiraling into the nucleus (which it does not). Therefore, classical physical laws either don't apply or are inadequate to explain the inner workings of the atom"

Or how about this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
Good links. I hope he will read them and try to understand.

Ahhh, the wonders of google and higher education institutions putting more coursework online.

Hi all,

First post, visited website at beginning of posts

Fascinated most of all about the concept that rather than an a Field of probability, that an electron can have a harmonic relationship that would lead to a angular component. Rotation of the electron in one plane would lead to polarity, but what of free electrons?.

Is this the grand unification that was once a dream ????