Powersource that goes against Physics

This is a very interesting article. I wonder who is investing (and so much money too) in this speculative power source?

It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.

Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Also, the part that is real interesting is how it goes against all previous thought.

This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to get any closer.

According to Dr Mills, there can be only one explanation: quantum mechanics must be wrong. "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use."

Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."

But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."

Long ago I had heard of using water as an energy source and I would really love to see this technology cracked in my lifetime. Then again we were supposed to be in flying cars by now...

This is really interesting and exciting, however, I think as long as there's insane amounts of money to be made from oil and the biproducts made as a result of its refining, this kind of renewable energy will never be allowed to become a reality IMHO.

Peace

Dr Love,
I believe you are mistaken. If energy can be produced on such a massive scale by this technique, and it proves to be as effective and efficient in practice as it is in theory and in the laboratory, there will be nothing that oil companies nor anyone else can do to stop it. Other countries will demand this technology. Oil companies will still be around, but there will be a shift from using oil as an energy source to use as a raw material for plastics, chemicals, etc.

By the way, there is already a thread about this website started here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

doh,
Here's the link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

First let me say nice find Zed, very interesting.

think as long as there's insane amounts of money to be made from oil and the biproducts made as a result of its refining, this kind of renewable energy will never be allowed to become a reality IMHO.

All they really need is a good PR person, hey I hear lee ann devette is available

In all seriousness if this isn't crap it's very very cool and I would think if it ends up being true I think public outcry would stifle the oil companies. Here in america we think we pay a lot for gas but I would think there are a lot of europeans who are pretty sick of paying 8 bucks a gallon, if they're lucky.

If we can all come together as a global community and moan and complain our way to a better tomorrow nothing can stop us.

Seems Rick Maas is a real person

leadershipashevilleforum.org...

from link:

Our other speaker was Dr. Rick Maas, UNCA faculty member, co-founder of the Environmental Quality Institute and a director of two local air quality organizations. Rick began by stating that, at least in the Asheville area, air quality is not getting better.

Not saying he's an expert just saying he's a real person.

SPiderj

I have questions regarding this. Is this process patentable? I would think so.
If not, why not?

Peace

I think this is nothing new to Physics. Breaking apart water molecules into energy has been around for sometime now. In reality this so called "free energy" is gained similar to the workings of a Hydrogen Bomb.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by XPhiles]

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
This is a very interesting article. I wonder who is investing (and so much money too) in this speculative power source?

It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.

Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Also, the part that is real interesting is how it goes against all previous thought.

This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to get any closer.

According to Dr Mills, there can be only one explanation: quantum mechanics must be wrong. "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use."

Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."

But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."

Long ago I had heard of using water as an energy source and I would really love to see this technology cracked in my lifetime. Then again we were supposed to be in flying cars by now...

The water fuel is old and who like it or not it is going to be implemented in has fuel there are already debates, car companys already are rushing to get their hands on it, it is just a matter of time before the hidrogen new model car shows up.
The goverment is pissed off at it but they cant contain it it's already out there are alot of people that know about it already.
it's just a matter of time before the economy go's bank rupt cause of it.
Economy is based on oil no oil no economy

Xphiles and Pepsi,
You are mistaken about this being old. Yes, breaking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is as old as knowledge of electricity. So is using Hydrogen for power. What is UNIQUE about this process is that they are reacting H2 with Potassium and or other elements in a plasma and reducing the orbital distance of the electron BELOW THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED LOWEST ENERGY LEVEL and creating hydrinos. Read the article and websites PLEASE before commenting.

Originally posted by informatu
Xphiles and Pepsi,
You are mistaken about this being old. Yes, breaking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is as old as knowledge of electricity. So is using Hydrogen for power. What is UNIQUE about this process is that they are reacting H2 with Potassium and or other elements in a plasma and reducing the orbital distance of the electron BELOW THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED LOWEST ENERGY LEVEL and creating hydrinos. Read the article and websites PLEASE before commenting.

I was just commenting if you like it this way, on the basis of the tecnology/
i saw a documentary an year ago how the hidrogen is obtained from water
and how it creates a burn , if you think of it it's not really free energy"has in zero point energy"where the energy is colected out of around us out of fabric of space it's self .
Any fuel i would say water oil any liquid in fact water is fuel and it's just that.
Free energy is spining the weel with out anything with out the need of fuel"water oil etc"

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I think the comment (at least how I read it and the way I wrote MY comment which lead to it) was about how long the idea has been around.

I was privy to a discussion which I spoke about in my second Zedd Show podcast that ALSO contained a discussion of an engine built (prior to the 70's) that ran on water.

Now that was the basic description given, so it could have been hydrogen or some other process, whatever...the point is that I think it very possible AND being suppressed by the Government or the oil companies.

Probably both.

Pepsi,
I think I see now what confused you. This research does go against conventional physics, quantum mechanics, but not against the very fundamental law of the conservation of energy. There will NEVER be an invention that creates energy from nothing. What this inventor claims, however, is to be able to create a tremendous amount of energy from something that is in relative abundance, ie tons more water than oil on our planet. I have read that it is somewhere in-between conventional fuel burning energy production and nuclear power production (which is even more tremendous, but unpopular). What would be revolutionizing would be that you would have a very affordable, clean means of producing lots of energy. If this discovery becomes a marketable product it will CHANGE THE WORLD as we know it, without a doubt. And I would argue that the change would be for the better.

Weel according to the link below, the tech for this has actually been around since 1935 when there was a vehicle that ran "for several minutes" on a gallon of lake water. Supposedly there is a patent on the carbuerator
www.keelynet.com...

I also remember (dimly) something on an engine that ran on water being reported back in te 70's but I can find no references to it other than a 98 tv movie

Wouldn't it be funny if said technology was used by say, the oil companies to better benefit their own energy concerns in processing product for you to use in your conventional systems.

They win, you lose until you cannot afford to lose anymore. THEN you get to see the new stuff.

*takes off tin foil hat*

Originally posted by informatu
Pepsi,
I think I see now what confused you. This research does go against conventional physics, quantum mechanics, but not against the very fundamental law of the conservation of energy. There will NEVER be an invention that creates energy from nothing. What this inventor claims, however, is to be able to create a tremendous amount of energy from something that is in relative abundance, ie tons more water than oil on our planet. I have read that it is somewhere in-between conventional fuel burning energy production and nuclear power production (which is even more tremendous, but unpopular). What would be revolutionizing would be that you would have a very affordable, clean means of producing lots of energy. If this discovery becomes a marketable product it will CHANGE THE WORLD as we know it, without a doubt. And I would argue that the change would be for the better.

I agree that it burns and it returns to plain water being able to be reused
in some cases like a cicle.
But it has a burning proces when it's used and it falls under the name of fuel .
There are couple of examples that creates energy just from stones rocks.
i made a post about that .
Simply cause the energy stores in crystals and it recharges with out any type of fuel.
A magnetic tecnology might be considered free energy too.
The water fuel the basis of it does not go agaist fhisics
The process of water molecules desasociatiation in to hidrogen and oxigen they are mixed up and form a gas this tecnology is the base of it all
Where ever it leads if it mutates in to other forms that go's agaist phisics that i dont know , i know the basic procces is old but unknown to human kind of the regural man until recently.

It would be beneficiary i would not say it would not be , but i like thinking
of free energy has other means that does not include fuel.

that sounds like my next stop in the stock market lol

p.s. deny hate

oK,... from what i read, it is not fuel from water... or any such nonsense...

it is quite more involved than simple (but not efficient) electrolysis...(converting water to hydrogen)

it involves changing the state of an atom from a normal to a new type, that has lower shell layers for the electrons (more compact)

this seems to cause the atom to release heat, since it is now unstable.

I dunno... there are many that say it was a joke when he claimed this same thing back in 1991

Thank God someone else here understands this. OK, I will attempt to put this in terms that everyone, (especially those of you who didn't take college level physics and chemistry courses) can understand:

1. Hydrogen gas being burned for energy is not a "new" technology, and the fact that the Hydrogen gas used in this method is obtained by electrolysis has NOTHING to do with the process or what makes it unique.

Whew, with that out of the way...

2. There is no such thing as "free" energy. This is one of the most fundamental laws of physics. THIS INVENTION DOES NOT CLAIM TO PRODUCE ENERGY FROM NOTHING. (The example of work being converted into current through a magnetic dynamo is simply a "transformation" of energy, not its creation. The energy in the wind (gas) molecules is reduced as they impact the windmill creating the motion.)

3. What this invention claims, and what is totally upsetting to quantum physicists is that they have created Hydrogen atoms with a lower electron orbital energy. This is heresy. They call it the Hydrino.

4. The energy is created when the electron moves from the "minimum" orbit down to it's lower Hydrino orbit. Imagine that the Earth was to move from it's current orbit into the orbit of say Mercury. It would have to "give up" tremendous kinetic energy to achieve this. This is the same idea, on an atomic scale.

5. The scientists further claim that novel chemical compounds created with the Hydrinos (created during reaction) could have many applications since it would bind more "tightly" with other atoms than regular Hydrogen.

6. The biggest problem with this theory is the Hydrino. If it exists, it turns quantum physics on its head. This is because quantum physics was developed to explain why electron orbits could only exist at specific intervals (as found in nature). The Hydrogen atom is the simplest of all elements (1 proton and 1 electron). Physicists found (Niels Bohr) that the electron could only be at specific levels, and not places in between. It's like saying that planets can have the orbits that they have, but that orbits in between existing planets are impossible. Of course if you assume this, and that the Hydrogen atom has the lowest energy level, then you believe that that energy level is fixed. Thus energy can only come in packet sized amounts or "quanta" corresponding to the different energy levels of the electon orbits.

Ok, I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep. It's just that being an EE I get kind of excited about this stuff.

Well said...
since i skipped most of my chemistry classes (the prof was a dink) I was certain to fall short on an explaination.

I have also wondered about the theoretical lower orbit of Hydrogen electrons...

I am now going to have to do more research, since I read somewhere many years ago, that "aliens" have informed us that we are still in the dark ages regarding chemistry, and physics... and our use of the hydrogen atom.

yeah, I know... talk about speculative... but a very unusual analogy was given...

the analogy used (paraphrased from the alien info) was that we are still using iron rocks for sledges, instead of making steel from the iron, and forging the parts to make a jackhammer...
I didn't get that analogy until now... and it makes sense...
if we could manipulate the hydrogen atom, we could do anything elementally speaking...
cold fusion- no prob
high strength materials- no prob
a machine that makes anything from water and a few elements-no prob...

Originally posted by informatu
Xphiles and Pepsi,
You are mistaken about this being old. Yes, breaking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is as old as knowledge of electricity. So is using Hydrogen for power. What is UNIQUE about this process is that they are reacting H2 with Potassium and or other elements.........

informatu
I think you misunderstood on what I commented on.
I'm sure whomever these guys are... R using Einstein's famous equation E = mc2... Anyway reducing the orbital distance of the electron is nothing new either. I'm no scientist but they usually do overlook the simple things, such as a fixed electron orbit lol.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by XPhiles]