PeakOil is You
Has anyone heard of Black Light Power?
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by julianj » Mon 13 Mar 2006, 12:39:59
I'm afraid Caspasian, that the physicists on this site turned off Blacklight with extreme prejudice a few months ago.
- julianj
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by caspasian » Mon 13 Mar 2006, 17:27:26
Thanks julianj. I guess the doomsters are wedded to their apocalyptic visions.
-
caspasian - Wood
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun 12 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by WebHubbleTelescope » Tue 14 Mar 2006, 00:25:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('caspasian', 'T')hanks julianj. I guess the doomsters are wedded to their apocalyptic visions.
Which apocalyptic visions exactly are you talking about?
Think about it, the guy who runs that Blacklight place, Dr. Randell, Mills thinks he is some kind of genius. He essentially claims two major breakthroughs, one theoretical and one experimental.
1. 'The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics'
2. A new source of power, direct plasma-to-electricity-power -conversion systems, a new class of chemistry, new chemical processes, new light sources, and powerful new laser media.
Now, I could buy the fact that he made some discovery in one or the other area, but both? And in that second one, claiming multiple discoveries is just over-the-top. The guy suffers from grand delusions and has suckered a bunch of people along for the ride.
His explanation of the double-slit diffraction experiment is priceless in its stoopidity, with cheapo animation to match. This crap is way too easy to debunk.
Suffering from delusions of grandeur is the equivalent of apocalyptic visions in my book. Mills should basically put a sock in it and go away.
-
WebHubbleTelescope - Tar Sands
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by caspasian » Tue 14 Mar 2006, 02:17:44
WebHubble...That wasn't a very convincing rebuttal of Mill's work !
This article from the FT of March 10th, does a neat job of describing the reactions of doubters of the theory. It also makes the point that much of Mill's work has been replicated by other scientists. Are you able to debunk the work because you have demonstrated that the results Mills claims to have obtained are NOT repeatable or are your objections more emotionally based?
The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion
By Robert Matthews
Published: March 10 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 10 2006 02:00
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance: the mental torment that comes from being confronted by two fundamentally opposed propositions. Deciding between them often provokes powerful emotions - just ask Dr Randell Mills, whose claims have a habit of triggering severe bouts of cognitive dissonance among otherwise perfectly rational people.
And no wonder: this medical student turned physicist claims to have debunked the textbook account of how atoms are put together - and in the process discovered a new source of clean, cheap energy.
By itself, that would provoke little more than eye-rolling boredom from scientists all too familiar with the grand pronouncements of cranks. The trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers in serious research journals, and the implications replicated in independent laboratories. And fewer still have won the support of big hitters from A-list corporations and hefty financial backing to match.
So which is it: is Dr Mills a crank or a genius? Faced with making up their minds, many scientists have shown the classic symptom of cognitive dissonance: spluttering rage (it is a safe bet that some are even now tapping out letters of complaint to this newspaper). They simply refuse point-blank to believe that Dr Mills could have found a form of atomic energy missed by the likes of Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford.
But - again in line with psychological theory - those with rather less investment in the current scientific paradigm tend to have fewer problems countenancing the other possibility: that Dr Mills really is a genius. Some have even gone as far as investing a total of $50m in his New Jersey-based company, Blacklight Power, whose board members include Neil Moskowitz, the chief financial officer of Credit Suisse, and Michael Jordan, chairman of Electronic Data Systems.
Not that Dr Mills cares about what mainstream scientists think about his ÂÂtheory: he is too busy extracting ever more insights from it - most recently, formulas describing the properties of molecules, something that has proved beyond the powers of quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory ever devised.
But then Dr Mills regards quantum mechanics as fundamentally flawed. Devised around a century ago in response to some baffling discoveries about heat, light and atoms, quantum mechanics is notorious for its counter-intuitive implications, such as the inherent fuzziness of atoms and the ability of energy to appear out of nowhere.
Dr Mills first came across quantum mechanics after graduating in medicine from Harvard and taking up post-graduate studies in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Struck by the weirdness of the theory, he set about devising a radically different account of the sub-atomic world, based on ideas from Victorian physics.
In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric charge.
According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously insoluble problems emerge - such as the predictions of the properties of molecules.
But most excitement - and controversy - surrounds Dr Mills' prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone.
The implications are astonishing. For if Dr Mills is right, the water covering 70 per cent of the world could become a virtually limitless source of cheap, clean energy. Not surprisingly, many scientists are deeply sceptical, pointing to all-too-similar claims made for so-called "cold fusion", another supposedly miraculous energy source whose existence was revealed by this newspaper in 1989, but which has failed to deliver on its promise.
Yet most of Dr Mills' critics have probably never bothered to read any of his research papers. Some have, however, and have gone on to attempt the acid test of any scientific claim: replication by independent researchers. Among those to test Dr Mills' ideas is a team led by Professor Gerrit Kroesen at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. So far their results have confirmed that hydrogen atoms do indeed behave strangely in the presence of certain elements, in line with Dr Mills' theory, and they plan to test the key claim of net energy output later this year.
While many scientists express doubts off the record, the fact remains that no one has published a knock-out argument against Dr Mills' basic theory (though some claim it is so silly it is not worth a rebuttal).
Whether his theory is right is ultimately irrelevant, however. What really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source.
The whole controversy will be resolved one way or the other by independent researchers either confirming or refuting Dr Mills' claims. Or at least, that is what most scientists believe. In practice, things are not always so clear-cut. During the 1960s, many scientists claimed to have confirmed reports of the existence of "polywater", a new form of H2O, which everyone now agrees does not exist.
On the other hand, many genuine breakthroughs have initially prompted outraged scepticism from experts (see left).
What Dr Mills has already proved beyond doubt is that outsiders who threaten long-held beliefs can expect a rough ride - no matter how great the potential pay-off.
The writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham
This article from the FT of March 10th, does a neat job of describing the reactions of doubters of the theory. It also makes the point that much of Mill's work has been replicated by other scientists. Are you able to debunk the work because you have demonstrated that the results Mills claims to have obtained are NOT repeatable or are your objections more emotionally based?
The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion
By Robert Matthews
Published: March 10 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 10 2006 02:00
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance: the mental torment that comes from being confronted by two fundamentally opposed propositions. Deciding between them often provokes powerful emotions - just ask Dr Randell Mills, whose claims have a habit of triggering severe bouts of cognitive dissonance among otherwise perfectly rational people.
And no wonder: this medical student turned physicist claims to have debunked the textbook account of how atoms are put together - and in the process discovered a new source of clean, cheap energy.
By itself, that would provoke little more than eye-rolling boredom from scientists all too familiar with the grand pronouncements of cranks. The trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers in serious research journals, and the implications replicated in independent laboratories. And fewer still have won the support of big hitters from A-list corporations and hefty financial backing to match.
So which is it: is Dr Mills a crank or a genius? Faced with making up their minds, many scientists have shown the classic symptom of cognitive dissonance: spluttering rage (it is a safe bet that some are even now tapping out letters of complaint to this newspaper). They simply refuse point-blank to believe that Dr Mills could have found a form of atomic energy missed by the likes of Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford.
But - again in line with psychological theory - those with rather less investment in the current scientific paradigm tend to have fewer problems countenancing the other possibility: that Dr Mills really is a genius. Some have even gone as far as investing a total of $50m in his New Jersey-based company, Blacklight Power, whose board members include Neil Moskowitz, the chief financial officer of Credit Suisse, and Michael Jordan, chairman of Electronic Data Systems.
Not that Dr Mills cares about what mainstream scientists think about his ÂÂtheory: he is too busy extracting ever more insights from it - most recently, formulas describing the properties of molecules, something that has proved beyond the powers of quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory ever devised.
But then Dr Mills regards quantum mechanics as fundamentally flawed. Devised around a century ago in response to some baffling discoveries about heat, light and atoms, quantum mechanics is notorious for its counter-intuitive implications, such as the inherent fuzziness of atoms and the ability of energy to appear out of nowhere.
Dr Mills first came across quantum mechanics after graduating in medicine from Harvard and taking up post-graduate studies in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Struck by the weirdness of the theory, he set about devising a radically different account of the sub-atomic world, based on ideas from Victorian physics.
In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric charge.
According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously insoluble problems emerge - such as the predictions of the properties of molecules.
But most excitement - and controversy - surrounds Dr Mills' prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone.
The implications are astonishing. For if Dr Mills is right, the water covering 70 per cent of the world could become a virtually limitless source of cheap, clean energy. Not surprisingly, many scientists are deeply sceptical, pointing to all-too-similar claims made for so-called "cold fusion", another supposedly miraculous energy source whose existence was revealed by this newspaper in 1989, but which has failed to deliver on its promise.
Yet most of Dr Mills' critics have probably never bothered to read any of his research papers. Some have, however, and have gone on to attempt the acid test of any scientific claim: replication by independent researchers. Among those to test Dr Mills' ideas is a team led by Professor Gerrit Kroesen at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. So far their results have confirmed that hydrogen atoms do indeed behave strangely in the presence of certain elements, in line with Dr Mills' theory, and they plan to test the key claim of net energy output later this year.
While many scientists express doubts off the record, the fact remains that no one has published a knock-out argument against Dr Mills' basic theory (though some claim it is so silly it is not worth a rebuttal).
Whether his theory is right is ultimately irrelevant, however. What really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source.
The whole controversy will be resolved one way or the other by independent researchers either confirming or refuting Dr Mills' claims. Or at least, that is what most scientists believe. In practice, things are not always so clear-cut. During the 1960s, many scientists claimed to have confirmed reports of the existence of "polywater", a new form of H2O, which everyone now agrees does not exist.
On the other hand, many genuine breakthroughs have initially prompted outraged scepticism from experts (see left).
What Dr Mills has already proved beyond doubt is that outsiders who threaten long-held beliefs can expect a rough ride - no matter how great the potential pay-off.
The writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham
-
caspasian - Wood
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun 12 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by WebHubbleTelescope » Tue 14 Mar 2006, 04:12:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('caspasian', 'W')ebHubble...That wasn't a very convincing rebuttal of Mill's work !
This article from the FT of March 10th, does a neat job of describing the reactions of doubters of the theory.
This article from the FT of March 10th, does a neat job of describing the reactions of doubters of the theory.
Yeah, you got me. I give up. You probably don't realize how hard it is to formally debunk an elliptically argued set of equations that don't differ much from the readily accepted math. I looked up the diffraction theory on his website and it didn't look much different from what I have used apart from the snaky argumentation with weird diversions into hand-wavy abstractions. It's kind of like arguing with a wing-nut. The wing-nut complains that it is you that is doing the hand-waving where the reality is that the wing-nut is projecting his own inadequacies into the discussion.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/T ... 110805.pdf
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')urthermore, each electron only goes through one slit classically, but it is imprinted with the wave character of the photon that it creates across both slits due to its interaction with the slit. An electromagnetic wave exits.
I should note that just because something gets published in the bulletin of the American Physical Society doesn't mean it has any credibility. If you paid your dues, you could put your abstract with the 4-point typeface into the 2"-by-2" box and they would publish it. The yearly compendium of abstracts gave physics grad students lots of enjoyment and many a chuckle.
-
WebHubbleTelescope - Tar Sands
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by TonyPrep » Tue 14 Mar 2006, 04:53:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('caspasian', 'T')he trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers in serious research journals
Dozens? The article did not mention one. How remiss of the FT.
If he's sorted out a new form of limitless power (the FT makes it sound like perpetual motion - I guess the excess energy can be used to make the actual hydrogen used as the source), great. What do you expect us to do about it, sit back and wait for salvation? Is that what you're doing?
Tony
PS, this is the wrong discussion board for this. Try the one about alternatives. Apologies for replying here.
-
TonyPrep - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
