• Things nobody knew about hydrogen....


    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02910


    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,at high (but experimentally accessible) pressures, compressed hydrogen will adopt a liquid state, even at low temperatures. In reaching this phase, hydrogen is also projected to pass through an insulator-to-metal transition. This raises the possibility of new state of matter: a near ground-state liquid metal, and its ordered states in the quantum domain.,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • I still contend LENR is an animal that is partially well depicted by the Hydrino, the magnehydrogen, the metallic hydrogen, and so on, everyone finding a perspective of it but no one able to see the whole picture, so even if they are painting a picture of the same phenomena, everyone thinks the others are wrong. I am the kind of mind that sees the patterns beneath details and I see they are talking of the same stuff.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • JedRothwell   Shane D.


    You guys seem IMO to make bizarre arguments and to deliberately misconstrue skeptical points. Perhaps I could have said it more clearly. If the hydrino were real, it is extremely improbable that in the more than twenty years that Mills has been pushing the idea, nobody in a position of prestige and prominence and credibility would have picked it up, run with it, and changed the world. As for his gadgets, they seem to me to be an illustration of what happens when you put a lot electrical power into a small volume with insufficient cooling. I have yet to see convincing evidence, especially from credible sources, that it is anything else. But, hey, dream on.

  • I myself have witnessed the SOTino many times

    It's a small quantum of enumerate and illiterate higher knowledge that strikes this forum in a mostly random but sometimes predictable manner.


    "The analogy is especially apt. Mills device is self sustaining, just add power, lots and lots of electrical power. The pig truly flies. Just add a bit of altitude."


    "Mills said twenty years ago that a full scale power generating station was just around the corner-- two or three years maybe Even now, he won't admit how FOS he is"

    "The usual fakery in high tech scams is that the power comes from the mains"

    =xxx

  • If we are going to start pointing out logical fallacies, the fact that there are things that were widely thought to be false that ended up being true provides absolutely zero support for whether something else is true. In other words, it is really tiresome reading about the Wright Brothers in discussions of cold fusion.

  • If the hydrino were real, it is extremely improbable that in the more than twenty years that Mills has been pushing the idea, nobody in a position of prestige and prominence and credibility would have picked it up, run with it, and changed the world.


    History offers no support for your assertion. There are countless examples of things that were true but were ignored for 20 years or more. The hydrino has not been conclusively demonstrated as far as I know, so even if it is real, it is likely to be ignored. Other discoveries and inventions were conclusively demonstrated yet they lingered without recognition for years, or decades in some cases.


    I myself have no idea whether the hydrino is real or not. I am only saying that if it is real, there is no reason to think anyone would recognize that or "run with it." On the contrary, in the poisonous world of modern academic science, anyone who tried to pick it up and run with it would be destroyed the way the cold fusion researchers were. Their reputations would be shredded by Nature and the New York Times. They would be accused of fraud and criminality. Even if they were famous scientists they would soon be fired. No new ideas that challenge the textbook orthodoxy are tolerated. We a living through the most repressive era in the history of science, going back to 1600. As Schwinger said:


    "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."


    This is partly thanks to people like you, who ridicule and reject every claim, make excuses for misbehavior, and invent a Walt Disney Panglossian version of academic science in which scientists will "pick and and run" with ideas, where in real life that would spell the end of their reputations and careers.

  • JedRothwell   Shane D.


    You guys seem IMO to make bizarre arguments and to deliberately misconstrue skeptical points. Perhaps I could have said it more clearly. If the hydrino were real, it is extremely improbable that in the more than twenty years that Mills has been pushing the idea, nobody in a position of prestige and prominence and credibility would have picked it up, run with it, and changed the world. As for his gadgets, they seem to me to be an illustration of what happens when you put a lot electrical power into a small volume with insufficient cooling. I have yet to see convincing evidence, especially from credible sources, that it is anything else. But, hey, dream on.


    As I have said before; BLP has roughly 25 employees, and half (12.5 :) ) are scientists and engineers. Then there are the investors...2 of whom we are familiar with, and who are well informed. Then there are the many independent, and some not so, validators.


    You may be right in the end, but my point is that there is more to BLP than Mills. That may not mean much to you, but it does make it much harder for him to be an outright scammer. He would have to fool those working alongside him in their well equipped lab, his co-authors on papers/patents, along with some very activist money men, and the independent testers.

  • 'If the hydrino were real, it is extremely improbable that in the more than twenty years that Mills has been pushing the idea, nobody in a position of prestige and prominence and credibility would have picked it up, run with it, and changed the world. '


    Listen most recent RC podcast. When Olaffson asked for a grant the research council brought up same argument but this time about Holmids UDH.

    Maybe every scientist want to save the world but it must not be the number one item on the priority list.

  • 'If the hydrino were real, it is extremely improbable that in the more than twenty years that Mills has been pushing the idea, nobody in a position of prestige and prominence and credibility would have picked it up, run with it, and changed the world. '


    As said many time ago: Santilli first detected "Hydrinos" and did sue Mills for using some aspects of it. The lab proof is out for more than 20 years, but there are othe players interested in the stuff...

    In fact there are no "Hydrinos". Mills just gets one state (H1/4), the same as Holmlids sees too. Santilli always talked about magnetic bonds!

  • That may not mean much to you, but it does make it much harder for him to be an outright scammer. He would have to fool those working alongside him in their well equipped lab


    I have not heard of a scammer fooling people in this kind of situation, but I have heard of isolated groups of professionals working for years on what turned out to be a mistake. The best example was Fedyakin et al. working on polywater. You might say everyone fooled himself. It was a group hallucination, sort of like a cult.


    There have been examples of this in technology, such as really bad or non-working products such as at Theranos. There is evidence that Elizabeth Holmes and her closest staff members were engaged in fraud. Or at least, they knew the product hardly worked in some ways, and did not work at all in other ways. However, my impression from the book is that most of the researchers directly engaged in experiments were sincere. It often happens that things don't work and years of effort are in vain. That isn't fraud. That's how the cookie crumbles. If you knew it was going to work, that would be "development" not "research."


    I do not think it is fair to say that the Theranos gadget was a complete fraud that did not begin to work, like some perpetual motion machines or Rossi's 1 MW reactor in Florida.

  • Quote

    I do not think it is fair to say that the Theranos gadget was a complete fraud that did not begin to work, like some perpetual motion machines or Rossi's 1 MW reactor in Florida.


    Elizabeth Holmes claimed that Theranos could do thousands of lab tests on a drop of blood. There is no evidence that any technology to move the state of the art in that direction was accomplished by Theranos. Do you know any papers they wrote and if so what they are and if they are convincing? Do you know of independent tests? Everything I have read or videos I have watched about Theranos say it was a bald faced scam. Maybe it started out with good intentions but nothing of value ever materialized from it. So if you know, what did Theranos do that worked?


    Quote

    You may be right in the end, but my point is that there is more to BLP than Mills. That may not mean much to you, but it does make it much harder for him to be an outright scammer. He would have to fool those working alongside him in their well equipped lab, his co-authors on papers/patents, along with some very activist money men, and the independent testers.


    Most emlpoyees won't complain as long as they get well paid. I doubt they are asked to take part in a scam. Like with Theranos, they are just given reasonable-seeming day to day assignments without seeing the whole picture. I agree it's harder to fool investors yet Rossi did it for years as did many other high tech scammers before him.

  • As said many time ago: Santilli first detected "Hydrinos" and did sue Mills for using some aspects of it. The lab proof is out for more than 20 years, but there are othe players interested in the stuff...

    In fact there are no "Hydrinos". Mills just gets one state (H1/4), the same as Holmlids sees too. Santilli always talked about magnetic bonds!

    I had this feeling too. That is why I got few stocks of Magnegas couple of years back. It is now -98% and they changed the name but I still hold on to it, mainly because I am not smart and also due to its sentimental value.

  • I have not heard of a scammer fooling people in this kind of situation, but I have heard of isolated groups of professionals working for years on what turned out to be a mistake. The best example was Fedyakin et al. working on polywater. You might say everyone fooled himself. It was a group hallucination, sort of like a cult.


    There have been examples of this in technology, such as really bad or non-working products such as at Theranos. There is evidence that Elizabeth Holmes and her closest staff members were engaged in fraud. Or at least, they knew the product hardly worked in some ways, and did not work at all in other ways. However, my impression from the book is that most of the researchers directly engaged in experiments were sincere. It often happens that things don't work and years of effort are in vain. That isn't fraud. That's how the cookie crumbles. If you knew it was going to work, that would be "development" not "research."


    I do not think it is fair to say that the Theranos gadget was a complete fraud that did not begin to work, like some perpetual motion machines or Rossi's 1 MW reactor in Florida.


    That is definitly possible. But for group hallucination and being a cult you dont need a small isolated group. The educated people in the middle age in europe where organized in a large group called the "catholic church", and they all thought that the earth is the middle of the universe - for centuries. The german society thought that jews are "unworthy life" for 10 years. The american society thought that communism is the death to all free people and has to be purged from the face of the earth for 40 years.

    And my favorite hallucination:

    For electrons and protons Maxwells laws do not hold but instead the laws of physics change magically when going from macroscopic to microscopic scale.... And atoms here on earth have a probability unequal to zero to be on mars the next time we look at them....


    To find truth is no easy task for us humans. Thats because it is hard/impossible to estimate the true uncertainty of the information we rely our worldview/opinions on. And we can have a worldview and opinions even if we have no information on certain important aspects. In these cases we just have some generic assumptions with even higher uncertainty (in social context we call these generic assumptions "prejudice"). It is inherent to humans to underestimate the uncertainty of information. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to draw any conclusion and act accordingly.


    There are cases in which small groups are hallucinating.

    There are cases in which small groups are right.

    There are cases where large groups are right.

    There are cases where large groups are hallucinating.


    I hope that we humans learn to first gain wisdom (and after that knowledge) to find good ways to deal with all these uncertainties. And yeah, I had a glass of wine :-)

  • Elizabeth Holmes claimed that Theranos could do thousands of lab tests on a drop of blood. There is no evidence that any technology to move the state of the art in that direction was accomplished by Theranos.


    I think the plan was to do dozens or hundreds of tests, not thousands. I believe there is evidence that they were making progress in increasing the number of tests per sample. As I said, that's my reading of the book. Other equipment manufacturers are also making progress in reducing the mass of blood per test and increasing the number of automated tests per sample. Other manufacturers are also making the devices more robotic. That's what the book said.



    Do you know any papers they wrote and if so what they are and if they are convincing?


    That's what the book said, in my opinion. I have not read any papers on this subject.



    So if you know, what did Theranos do that worked?


    Many of the tests worked. But not well. The error margin was too large for certification as a medical device, and the machine was not reliable enough.


    The samples were too contaminated for some of the tests, because the blood was taken through the skin rather than directly with an intravenous needle. That was a fatal flaw in the design. Some tests will work despite that contamination, but others will not.


    It certainly wasn't a situation where not a single test worked and the device was a fake like Rossi's Doral experiment. The Theranos gadget did much of what it was supposed to do, but it was not good enough for clinical use, and it wasn't as good as competing devices.

  • There are cases where large groups are hallucinating.


    Not in fields such as experimental science, programming, engineering, farming or building bridges. When people work with physical objects and natural forces, such as with mass spectrometers, computers or seeds, nature keeps people directly connected to reality. Nature punishes mistakes: the program gives the wrong answer; the seeds don't grow; the bridge falls down, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Delusions seldom last long. A few people may succumb to them, but large groups do not. If they did, bridges would fall down every day, and airplanes would often fall out of the sky, the way two Boeing 737 Max fell. That demonstrated that some aerospace engineers are wrong, but it cannot be that large numbers of them are wrong on a regular basis. If that were the case, airplanes would crash much more often. They would crash at same rate they did into the 1920s, when aviation was beginning and engineers were often wrong.


    Aviation engineers were ignorant and inexperienced in the 1920s, not delusional. The accidents were not their fault. Computers also were highly unreliable until the late 1970s by modern standards, but it wasn't the fault of the hardware or software people. They were were doing the best they could. It took time and vast amounts of money to make the technology reliable.


    Scientists often say that science is self correcting. It is, but you sometimes get a sense they think this is a unique quality of science, or that it is foolproof. Many, many other disciplines are also self-correcting, and in most of them the self-correction mechanism works better than it does in science. As I said, modern aviation engineering seldom makes large mistakes, or mistakes that are not soon detected. Farming and programming are self-correcting. The self-correcting mechanisms and feedback in these institutions is much more robust than it is in science, because the consequences of failure are dire. When two airplanes crash, the whole industry is rocked and billions of dollars are at stake. Errors in science sometimes continue for years or decades undetected or unexamined, as we see in the "replication crisis," or the mistakes made by mainstream science about cold fusion. Scientists are not held to the same high standards as aerospace engineers and project managers are. They couldn't be. You cannot expect that kind of reliability in research into unknown aspects of nature. It is inherently unpredictable.