Anonymous writes: Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head
· Scientist says device disproves quantum theory
· Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Friday November 4, 2005
The Guardian
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.
The
problem is that according to the rules of quantum mechanics, the
physics that governs the behaviour of atoms, the idea is theoretically
impossible. "Physicists are quite conservative. It's not easy to
convince them to change a theory that is accepted for 50 to 60 years. I
don't think [Mills's] theory should be supported," said Jan Naudts, a
theoretical physicist at the University of Antwerp.
What
has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he
has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms,
with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino",
the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the
formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge
amounts of energy.
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."
Dr
Mills's idea goes against almost a century of thinking. When scientists
developed the theory of quantum mechanics they described a world where
measuring the exact position or energy of a particle was impossible and
where the laws of classical physics had no effect. The theory has been
hailed as one of the 20th century's greatest achievements.
But
it is an achievement Dr Mills thinks is flawed. He turned back to
earlier classical physics to develop a theory which, unlike quantum
mechanics, allows an electron to move much closer to the proton at the
heart of a hydrogen atom and, in doing so, release the substantial
amounts of energy he seeks to exploit. Dr Mills's theory, known as
classical quantum mechanics and published in the journal Physics Essays
in 2003, has been criticised most publicly by Andreas Rathke of the
European Space Agency. In a damning critique published recently in the
New Journal of Physics, he argued that Dr Mills's theory was the result
of mathematical mistakes.
Dr
Mills argues that there are plenty of flaws in Dr Rathke's critique.
"His paper's riddled with mistakes. We've had other physicists contact
him and say this is embarrassing to the journal and [Dr Rathke] won't
respond," said Dr Mills.
While
the theoretical tangle is unlikely to resolve itself soon, those
wanting to exploit the technology are pushing ahead. "We would like to
understand it from an academic standpoint and then we would like to be
able to use the implications to actually produce energy products," said
Prof Maas. "The companies that are lining up behind this are household
names."
Dr
Mills will not go into details of who is investing in his research but
rumours suggest a range of US power companies. It is well known also
that Nasa's institute of advanced concepts has funded research into
finding a way of using Blacklight's technology to power rockets.
According
to Prof Maas, the first product built with Blacklight's technology,
which will be available in as little as four years, will be a household
heater. As the technology is scaled up, he says, bigger furnaces will
be able to boil water and turn turbines to produce electricity.
In
a recent economic forecast, Prof Maas calculated that hydrino energy
would cost around 1.2 cents (0.7p) per kilowatt hour. This compares to
an average of 5 cents per kWh for coal and 6 cents for nuclear energy.
"If
it's wrong, it will be proven wrong," said Kert Davies, research
director of Greenpeace USA. "But if it's right, it is so important that
all else falls away. It has the potential to solve our dependence on
oil. Our stance is of cautious optimism."