Randell Mills's "hydrino"

[Prometheus]

What do you think of this article? Also check out Black Light Power, Inc.

Thoughts anyone??

Dinesh.

[peoplater]

Just another crackpot pretending to have invented another renewable energy source and that everyone in the established physics community is stupid for not looking at his results, blah blah blah. If it was possible to do what he says he can do then other and much more brilliant physicists would have figured it out before him, especially since most of them do high energy physics with supercolliders day in and day out.

[Hal]

If it was possible to do what he says he can do then other and much more brilliant physicists would have figured it out before him

SOMEONE has to be the first to discover something new. Your comment could be directed against every single new idea, ever. Obviously the fact that his claims fly in the face of established theory means that they should be approached with a fair degree of scepticism, but its very dogmatic/unscientific to just say "it must be wrong because otherwise someone else would have noticed".

especially since most of them do high energy physics with supercolliders day in and day out.

Why is this relevant? His research doesnt seem to have anything to do with high energy physics. Its just basic QM.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Hal

[Atlas51184]

Just another crackpot pretending to have invented another renewable energy source.

He might be wrong, but he isn't a crackpot. Crackpots usually don't have their work published in established journals and usually don't have big energy companies investing millions in their ideas. Crackpots usually don't have their work independently verified, either. According to this article some, though not all, of Mills' experiments have been independently confirmed.

[peoplater]

It is relevant because high energy physics is where new particles are discovered. And for someone to create a new particle, then they have to be doing some kind of high energy physics, because ripping electrons and protons is not an easy task. So if there was such a particle as a "hydrino" then the people working with the supercolliders would have noticed it before him. Second, most theoretical physicists do predict the existence of new particles and other such things, but most of their results are based on sound theories. This guy says he has discovered a new quantum theory without showing how his results agree with experimental things that are happening right now. That is why his new "theory" sounds suspect to me.

SOMEONE has to be the first to discover something new. Your comment could be directed against every single new idea, ever. Obviously the fact that his claims fly in the face of established theory means that they should be approached with a fair degree of scepticism, but its very dogmatic/unscientific to just say "it must be wrong because otherwise someone else would have noticed".

Yes, someone has to be the first to discover something new, but it takes a great deal of training to be able to talk about physical theories, especially quantum physics and particle physics, so for all those other people who certainly have more training than this guy in physics to not have noticed something like that is highly unlikely. That is what I meant.

[Atlas51184]

peoplater, the man wrote a book on his theory. He and his co-workers have published numerous articles on hydrinos. All of the material is available free from his company's website. He explains where his theory fits in regards to current QM theory, and he also has written much about how his theory explains experimental data. He may well be wrong, but to simply call him a crackpot and dismiss him without even taking a short look at his work is unjust. Do we need a reminder about a certain philosopher who is called a worthless crackpot by those who haven't bothered to read her?

[peoplater]

peoplater, the man wrote a book on his theory. He and his co-workers have published numerous articles on hydrinos. All of the material is available free from his company's website. He explains where his theory fits in regards to current QM theory, and he also has written much about how his theory explains experimental data. He may well be wrong, but to simply call him a crackpot and dismiss him without even taking a short look at his work is unjust. Do we need a reminder about a certain philosopher who is called a worthless crackpot by those who haven't bothered to read her?

I still stand by what I said before. "Nature" is a very well known for publishing results that are in some sense groundbreaking and if his theory is so groundbreaking that it is going to revolutionize physics and energy production then he should submit his work to "Nature". But he hasn't done that. If he has done what he claims to have done then soon enough his work will attract the attention of well established physicist and we'll go from there, but I would not bet on that one happening.