franklyn - 14-9-2007 at 10:47
Hydrino theory has been around for some time now and it's not
going away nor has it been shown to be false in terms of it's
experimental results.
Various multimedia presentations of the invention
http://www.blacklightpower.com/process.shtml
Hydrino power : background
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=100939
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.sci...
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22820
http://www.pacpubserver.com/new/business/b012099.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9951,baard,11218,1.html
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Blacklight_Final%20Proof....
Summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino_theory
Independent review and investigation
http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0507/0507193v2.pdf
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/448195.html
NASA funded sponsored investigation
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752March...
Critical skepticism
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/7/1/127/njp5_1_127.h...
Many pretty pictures here , don't miss this.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/animations.shtml
________________________________________________
The merits or alleged falacies of this idea are lost to me in the tangle
of mathematical abstraction. The glaring summary of counter arguments
amounts to that this does not correspond to accepted orthodoxy such
that it is " unphysical ". The refusal to acknowledge positive experimenetal
results is frankly disgusting.
Clearly there are vested interests in academia which rails at the
disemination of funds some see as denied to them.
Argonne National Laboratory
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires
Berkeley Lab
> http://www.lbl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
> http://www.bnl.gov
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
> http://www.fnal.gov
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
> http://www.llnl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
> http://www.lanl.gov/external
NIST Physics Laboratory
> http://physics.nist.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
> http://www.lanl.gov/external
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard Feynman
You can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that
disagrees with the predictions of the theory - Stephen Hawking
Both these statements derive from Karl Popper (1965)
who established a line of demarcation between scientific
and non-scientific knowledge through the principle of falsification.
By pointing out that it can take only a single falsifying instance to disprove a theory.
In other words, the premises of an experiment must operate in terms of statements
that are testable via instrumental means, and that can be falsified ( shown to be
wrong ) by the results of the experiment. Falsification is based on the logical mode,
modus tollens. If P, then Q. But not-P. Therefore not-Q.
See here - Philosophy of Science , and Problem of Induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
.
Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 02:36
So they have a molecular modelling package based on this guy's theory instead of QM?
People can test it with the usual benchmarks and see how it compares with Gaussian against the same benchmarks. This of course is as much of a test of
their ability to program as it is of their theory, but as this is their chose battlefield...why not?
Otherwise it's math vs math and very dull.