NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51792,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm
Hydrinos. If you've read the links above, you'll probably have an aching head. But you'll also have the question, what are they useful for? Well Hydrinos have recently been discovered. They're supposedly a step closer to nuclear fusion. A step closer to cutting pollution levels dramatically.
But what does this have to do with you? Why should you bother about some crazy piece of fiction by a mad-scientest? Because we at Optischer believe it's a step closer to the future. We're asking not only the UN, but also members of the UN to embark on a mission to find out whther hydrinos are useful for nuclear fusion.
We hope to be submitting this into the forum soon, when I've written it. Hope you'll enjoy it.

i really hope this doesen't lead to another resolution like 'Hydrogen Cars' which did sod all.

From glancing over this theres posibilities but theres still the question of how you release the energy. If it takes more energy to unlock the hydrinos that will be produced i doubt this bird will fly.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

From what I gather, it produces infinite times more energy than it requires. So you could effectively have a unlimited energy source! Surely you would want to investigate more?

Obviously, these folks haven't visited the StarDrive Engineering (http://www.stardrivedevice.com/index.html) website, where instructions on building practical FTL space drives using commonly available current technologies can be had for the low, low price of only $25.95. They also seemed to have missed The Electric Spacecraft (http://www.electricspacecraft.com/backco%20for%20web.pdf)'s article on Ponderomotive forces (which, judging by the diagrams, seems to be about how electrons can escape from Tweety's birdcage).

You ask me, they're a day late and a dollar short. The space race may already have been won by the ion motor (http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/sep.html) (note that this is a NASA site and an actual, demonstrated technology), so pumping lots of money into lowered ground states sounds like a loser bet to me.

it produces infinite times more energy than it requires.
Once again, I find need to repeal the laws of physics for this to work, specificallly the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Once again, I find need to repeal the laws of physics for this to work, specificallly the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Could we repeal math instead?

1 = 17?

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51792,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm
Hydrinos. If you've read the links above, you'll probably have an aching head. But you'll also have the question, what are they useful for? Well Hydrinos have recently been discovered. They're supposedly a step closer to nuclear fusion. A step closer to cutting pollution levels dramatically.
But what does this have to do with you? Why should you bother about some crazy piece of fiction by a mad-scientest? Because we at Optischer believe it's a step closer to the future. We're asking not only the UN, but also members of the UN to embark on a mission to find out whther hydrinos are useful for nuclear fusion.
We hope to be submitting this into the forum soon, when I've written it. Hope you'll enjoy it.

I see absolutely no reason to submit this as a major goal for the UN. If you want the UN to invest in a field of technology (say, renewable resources or cleaner energy production or whatever) for some logical reason, fine. However, it is up to the nation how they wish to look at those fields and decide how they want to invest into it. Part of the problem is simply in interest. You can't make scientists love a certain topic - and they'll research the topic if the money is there and the interest exists. If you supply the money, then they will go to your nation to research it.

I will not support such a specific research resolution.

I support it even less because of the reason you seem to be using ("because then we might be able to have Nuclear Fusion power").

Well Hydrinos have recently been discovered.
Source?

Source?
http://www.dragon-tongue.com/DragonTsoundEarlyVoice/funny/visual_jokes/bucket.jpg
Researcher Anthony J. Marchese, shown here demonstrating the depth of a bucket of hydrinos. Note the spatial compression ability of the lowered ground state.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51792,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm
Hydrinos. If you've read the links above, you'll probably have an aching head.Really? It's not that complicated. You gave a link to Wired. It's already been stripped down to be presented in English.

But you'll also have the question, what are they useful for? Well Hydrinos have recently been discovered. They're supposedly a step closer to nuclear fusion. A step closer to cutting pollution levels dramatically.Well, no, not really. First, to call something "recently... discovered" in the field of physics when your article is three years old is a little naive. At any rate, they're theoretical and unproven. From your own article:

Nobel Laureate physicist Douglas Osheroff of Stanford University has called the hydrino a "crackpot idea," while American Physical Society spokesman Robert Park includes Mills' work in the category of "voodoo science." Park compares attempting to go below the ground state to trying to travel "south of the South Pole."I'd bold certain areas, but I think it's pretty clear that this is controversial at best. At worst, it's a fantasy.

In looking for information from a source that takes directly from professional journals (http://www.sciencenews.org), I didn't find much love. After logging in to be able to search member-only articles, I got the following:

Your search for "hydrino" did not match any articles from year 2000 to present.

Your search for "hydrino" did not match any miscellaneous pages or articles prior to year 2000Science News culls directly from professional journals, which means that after three years, hydrinos still haven't been written up in any kind of peer reviewed journal. Hell, even cold fusion (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020309/fob1.asp) has been written up.

Also, a 75k grant doesn't mean much of anything. NASA can barely flush a toilet for 75k. A grant amount at that level strikes me as them humoring him, or him being someone's pet project as opposed to something being taken seriously.

If this turns out to be a legit technology, then it's worth the UN's time. Currently, it's just a pipedream, and legislating on pipe dreams is a terrible idea.

From what I gather, it produces infinite times more energy than it requires. So you could effectively have a unlimited energy source! Surely you would want to investigate more?

Uh....no. That's not how physics works. Haven't you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy? The majority of your above statement makes about as much sense in relation to physics as Jabberwocky makes sense in relation to English.

Also, as the distinguised representative directly above me beat me to the punch to show, the entire hydrino concept is rather far from being highly credible, recent, or usefully concrete.

Could we repeal math instead?

1 = 17?

I can actually prove that. Can you spot the violation?

a=1
b=1
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=a^2-ab
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1
1=0
17=0
1=17

You divided by (a-b) which is zero.

Anyhow, I agree totally with Hack. It's very unlikely that this lone crackpot is right and all other reputable physicists are wrong. It might merit the kind of tiny research grant NASA gave him, but not a UN-wide research effort.

*Kernwaffen's delegate would like to respond but he's on the ground laughing to death*

But seriously, even though I'm beating a dead horse here, there are so many laws that are being broken that if these things are real, then modern science as we know it is going to be very very messed up. We'll probably hit absolute zero before we create a "hydrino".

*Kernwaffen's delegate would like to respond but he's on the ground laughing to death*

But seriously, even though I'm beating a dead horse here, there are so many laws that are being broken that if these things are real, then modern science as we know it is going to be very very messed up. We'll probably hit absolute zero before we create a "hydrino".

I believe absolute zero has been hit in lab conditions. I even once heard some story about going below absolute zero, in some unspecified sense.

Oh, I was still under the assumption that it would be impossible to reach it due to the fact that the container the...space was being held in would either no longer exist or it would continue to transfer heat, preventing it from reaching 0 K. But still, my assertion that this resolution is just a waste of time still stands.

Oh, I was still under the assumption that it would be impossible to reach it due to the fact that the container the...space was being held in would either no longer exist or it would continue to transfer heat, preventing it from reaching 0 K. But still, my assertion that this resolution is just a waste of time still stands.

You are right. It can never be reached, the experiments I had in mind just get extremely close to it. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero)

That's what I thought, interesting read though, thanks for the link.

I believe absolute zero has been hit in lab conditions. I even once heard some story about going below absolute zero, in some unspecified sense.

The lack of physics knowledge around here is disturbing. No, it isn't possible to hit absolute zero. You can get within a fraction of a degree, (yay Bose-Einstein condensates and superfluids!) but you can't actually get there. Quantum mechanics forbids it; to get to absolute zero, there would have to be absolutely, literally, no energy at all in the specified space or item, which isn't possible for a whole slew of reasons. As far as going below it....what is that supposed to mean? Less than perfectly zero energy? Exactly how would that work, what would its results and implications be, how would you even do it? Something like that would be a theoretical physics revolution.

The lack of physics knowledge around here is disturbing. No, it isn't possible to hit absolute zero. You can get within a fraction of a degree, (yay Bose-Einstein condensates and superfluids!) but you can't actually get there. Quantum mechanics forbids it; to get to absolute zero, there would have to be absolutely, literally, no energy at all in the specified space or item, which isn't possible for a whole slew of reasons. As far as going below it....what is that supposed to mean? Less than perfectly zero energy? Exactly how would that work, what would its results and implications be, how would you even do it? Something like that would be a theoretical physics revolution.

The lack of thread reading around here is disturbing. An I would submit to you that a degree in physics is not essential to play this game. If you are quite finished boasting, I suggest reading my previous post.

EDIT: The issue of "going below" is explained in the posted Wiki article on negative temperatures. Naturally, it is not really going below, but my initial post did say it was in some unspecified sense.

The lack of thread reading around here is disturbing. An I would submit to you that a degree in physics is not essential to play this game. If you are quite finished boasting, I suggest reading my previous post.

I wasn't boasting; it's just that this is several times now I've seen posts that involved such incorrect, illogical whacked-out science/technology-related claims that it gave me a headache. I apologize for not going through and reading the rest of your posts; I sometimes don't bother to, but I'll try a little harder in the future.

I apologize for not going through and reading the rest of your posts; I sometimes don't bother to, but I'll try a little harder in the future.I don't think it's too much to ask that people read an entire thread before posting. He corrected himself two or three posts after the one you quoted.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people read an entire thread before posting. He corrected himself two or three posts after the one you quoted.

That's true of this thread and others of a similar size, but your statement should hardly apply to some of the enormous threads.

I wasn't boasting; it's just that this is several times now I've seen posts that involved such incorrect, illogical whacked-out science/technology-related claims that it gave me a headache. I apologize for not going through and reading the rest of your posts; I sometimes don't bother to, but I'll try a little harder in the future.

Apologies accepted. Still, I am sure you would agree that confusing hitting E-10K with hitting zero can hardly be classified as whacked-out techwank... ;)

Apologies accepted. Still, I am sure you would agree that confusing hitting E-10K with hitting zero can hardly be classified as whacked-out techwank... ;)

It does, sort of. There's a distinction much greater than simple numbers between "absolute zero" and "close to it".

I can actually prove that. Can you spot the violation?

a=1
b=1
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=a^2-ab

How'd you get there?

(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b

Myopia: valid

1+1=1
2=1
1=0
17=0
1=17

I can actually prove that. Can you spot the violation?
a=1
b=1
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=a^2-ab

How'd you get there?

Because a^2= 1 and b^2=1 so therefore subtracting the two would be the same as a^2-ab because ab=1 as well.


(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b

Myopia: valid

a+b=b is incorrect becase a=1 and b=1, so 1+1 doesn't equal b (which equals 1). Unless of course this is Big Brother/1984 stuff and I say it equals this.

a+b=b is incorrect becase a=1 and b=1, so 1+1 doesn't equal b (which equals 1). Unless of course this is Big Brother/1984 stuff and I say it equals this.

[roll] That's the whole point of the proof - I justed proved that a+b=b, and thus that 2=1. You were supposed to find the violation in the post that made a+b=b possible. Hint - you just missed the relevant line.

Because a^2= 1 and b^2=1 so therefore subtracting the two would be the same as a^2-ab because ab=1 as well.

Doesn't make it valid. When you go to letters, you ignore the values of the letters, assuming that those values are arbitrary. So in essence, this is the error in your proof as you can't do something arbitrarily like this

a+b=b is incorrect becase a=1 and b=1, so 1+1 doesn't equal b (which equals 1). Unless of course this is Big Brother/1984 stuff and I say it equals this.

This point is where we see that an actual value error exists. However, the error in your proof is the point I indicated. This is valid as far as proofs are concerned. Liked I said, we ignore the actual values of the letters, and sub in later.

Regardless, Myopia was going after your decision to divide a-b because it was zero. However, in Math proofs, that's valid

Screw it.

(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b

That was a division by zero, and is the error in the proof. And no, Forgottenlands, letters can represent values from the gitgo, and you can view them as non-variable. All of my steps (up to the division by 0) were true, including the one you mentioned. Letters are not necessarily equal to variables, but even when representing predetermined numerical values, they can still be manipulated the same way.

Screw it.


(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b

That was a division by zero, and is the error in the proof. And no, Forgottenlands, letters can represent values from the gitgo, and you can view them as non-variable. All of my steps (up to the division by 0) were true, including the one you mentioned. Letters are not necessarily equal to variables, but even when representing predetermined numerical values, they can still be manipulated the same way.

Wouldn't it be FOILed though? Therefore creating a binomial (middle terms cancel out) so it should really be a^2-b^2? And letters equal whatever they're specified as, so I was correct in my work.

Screw it.



That was a division by zero, and is the error in the proof. And no, Forgottenlands, letters can represent values from the gitgo, and you can view them as non-variable. All of my steps (up to the division by 0) were true, including the one you mentioned. Letters are not necessarily equal to variables, but even when representing predetermined numerical values, they can still be manipulated the same way.

Because you have a 0/0 consideration, division by zero is fully legal - especially if it's cancellation. Half of calculus REQUIRES this concept to be legal for it to work. However, I would love to see where the proof is that you can add letters like that - because everything I've learnt in Math and CompSci thus far has contradicted that very concept.

Because you have a 0/0 consideration, division by zero is fully legal - especially if it's cancellation. Half of calculus REQUIRES this concept to be legal for it to work.No it's not, and no it doesn't. Division by zero is always an illegal operation. Calculus deals with limits: dividing by something that approaches zero but never reaches.

Now then; this isn't the Math corner. I'm going to leave this unlocked in case the author has anything to add, but I'm not expecting much.

As far as the x/0 thing goes, what the Most Glorious One said ^^^. Also, you have to realize that they're not variables, just representatives.