This thread is about physics and I'm talking physics and energy. It would seem Nasa would care about that. Sometimes emotions step in an cloud our mind, I get it.
Let's leave the past behind with that thread.
NASA studied hydrino propulsion in the past:
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdfBut the energy density of current devices is now 10x fossil fuels (500kW/m^2 we believe today and will go up from there).
All right.
First you have to show that the "down-conversion of atomic hydrogen to a smaller stable form" is possible.
Yay physics.
Throwback to the start of this thread:
I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence. Don't you?
Yes, it's quite telling. In more than 10 years, BLP hasn't actually produced any evidence, despite pulling in millions from gullible investors.
What they have produced is incoherent pseudoscience and press releases.
As far as I can tell, only updated needed is
10 20. Twenty years of supposedly world changing, guaranteed Nobel prize physics supposedly "just around the corner"
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible. If you aren't up to date with Quantum mechanics, you'll realize this was going to eventually happen despite immense resistance. Everything is up for grabs. Acceleration of universe doesn't fit. Gravity is an unknown. Mass isn't really understood. Multiple universes. On and on. Hydrino energy is in the market already and multiple companies are working on it. There are people at NASA who know btw, but there is inertia of the old.
We are going to now climb down the hill and ascend the mountain.
The latest from 2015 is here in one minute.
BLP has it's hands full with doing world changing engineering now. It is a 4 year old engineering project, with 20+ years of atomic research discovery.
I'm interested in discussing physics. If you want to engage in a debate about how this is real or not real, based on your emotional responses guised as logic - I'm not interested (can you tell we've seen this playbook before)
(can you tell we've seen this playbook before)
Finally there's something both sides of the debate can agree on.
Here is the first idea I'll introduce. Electrons are photons that go round and round but not moons.
Electrons have rest mass and charge. Photons have neither. This is part of the definition of what those terms refer to. These things are also trivial to demonstrate, for example, 2 parallel plates with an electric field between them deflect an electron beam (see: CRT TVs) but do not deflect a laser. It is easy to look up experiments testing for non-zero photon mass or mass of the electron. (The most basic experiments measure the charge/mass ratio of the electron.)
Your statement that electrons are photons therefore makes no sense, and everything that comes after it amounts to nothing but gibberish.
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible. If you aren't up to date with Quantum mechanics, you'll realize this was going to eventually happen despite immense resistance.
Go read through the previous posts on this thread, they clearly demonstrate that Mills is the one who does not understand quantum mechanics.
I'm interested in discussing physics. If you want to engage in a debate about how this is real or not real, based on your emotional responses guised as logic - I'm not interested (can you tell we've seen this playbook before)
Yes, you are using the playbook you are talking about. You dismiss logical arguments as "emotional," and claim you want to talk about physics, while not actually providing any statements that have any relation to physics. You are making fantastical claims about power generation that should be trivial to demonstrate, but can't point to any meaningful demonstration of it.
If you want to talk about physics, prove it by actually discussing physics and providing data.
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible.
I'm interested in discussing physics. If you want to engage in a debate about how this is real or not real, based on your emotional responses guised as logic - I'm not interested (can you tell we've seen this playbook before)
The poster claims to want to discuss physics, but tries to set the ground rules that nobody can question whether what he's claiming is real or not. Further, the poster claims that people who say it's not real are being "emotional".
That sounds to me like someone trying to pre-emptively cut off debate and stifle dissenting views, not someone interested in a free and open debate.
You are experiencing cognitive dissonance because of change. It will make you act with a reptilian brain - fight (attack the messenger or find small flaws that submarine the big picture), flight (stay silent), freeze (poke fun), fawn (i'll believe it when it's on the market).
So we can move on from the attacks. Let's put this out there
A) ARA is a $200mi defense contractor who validated hydrino energy in their own labs and then licensed the tech for the US Department of Defense.
B) There are 100+ experimental papers by many independent scientists (including in Germany). Russian teams are already working on hydrino energy and if you can read Russian you will find their papers as well.
If someone has advanced E&M it will be fun to talk, and we have some bang up projects we're doing --- we want to push this forward on a big scale - engineering will rescue physics from the mathematicians.
I see some new responses -- will respond later. Moderator if the people on this forum refuse to engage in discussion about something NASA has studied, the US DOD has licensed - perhaps they are trying to silence free and open discussions.
This nonsense was debunked before and now someone with a URL as their username (immediate red flag) brings it back.
Not on this site.
Locked.
