Re: Junk Physics? More on Blacklight Power - YES, JUNK physics.

["Robbie Lindsay" <lindsayr@missouri.edu>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph W. Moon <jwmoon@attglobal.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, August 19, 2000 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Junk Physics? More on Blacklight Power


>Can anyone refute this work?
><http://www.blacklightpower.com/>


snip

Hi
Since no one else has, I will comment briefly ( negatively) for those
interested in Blacklight energy.  I am sure though that someone somewhere
must have already ridiculed it.

I am a nuclear physicist, trained as a theorist, who is now involved in
several applied nuclear projects.  Hence my subscription to RADSAFE.  I am
at present on Sabbatical in the USA from my home university in South Africa
where I lecture on quantum mechanics, amongst other topics.

I looked at the theory section, (The Hydrogen Atom Revisited) since any new
model of the Hydrogen atom has to at least explain how it fits into present
theories.  There is lots of detail on lots of different things. To get to
the bottom of all the claims, would require a great deal of TIME.  I only
got to about page 10, but I have the following fairly damning observations:

1. The general introduction up to page 7 is mainly correct, but rather
outdated in its emphasis on Bohr’s work.  Bohr’s model (developed in about
1912) gives the correct energy levels, and was important historically, BUT
IT IS WRONG in many ways which can be tested experimentally.  It gives the
wrong angular momentum values, the radial movement of the electron is wrong,
etc. etc.   Bohr would have wholeheartedly agreed with this statement by
1930.
2. Clearly not many people have studied the manuscript, since it is full of
typos, e.g.

 Eq (37) which is referred to often,  should be L SQUARED, not L on the
left.
Eq. (40), the Shroedinger eq., has an extra r Squared which should not be
there.

3. Bottom page 9 and top of page 10.–  Reference to eq. 37.  This is based
on an elementary mis-understanding which any undergraduate physicist should
be able to figure out.  If you calculate the total rotational and kinetic
energy of the same ball to be the same in 2 different situations,  in case 1
rotating slowly and moving quickly and in case 2, rotating quickly and
moving slowly, you cannot then say the total energies cannot be the same
since the rotational energy is obviously different.   That is what is done
here.  If one solves the Schroedinger eq. for the n=2, l =0 and n=2, l =1
case you get the same total energy.  Eq. 37 DOES then imply that the
ROTATIONAL energy is different in both cases, but you OBVIOUSLY have to take
the (implied) Kinetic energy in the Schroedinger eq. into account.
4. More fundamentally:  The statement at the top of page 10 about being
experimentally incorrect is WRONG.  Bohr’s model did imply that the angular
momentum in the lowest state is ONE and not zero as found by Schroedinger,
but Bohr’s model is wrong experimentally.  When Bohr developed his model,
only the energies were known.

Points 3 and 4 above do not disprove the whole Hydrino theory.  But in my
view, it does show that the author does not understand the quantum
mechanical theory as generally taught in a first course.  This does not
encourage me to look through the rest of the material.  I scanned the rest
of the article, which contains other poor discussions of the uncertainty
principle, the spin of an electron etc.   The whole story about using a
different boundary condition also shows a lack of the implications of the
meaning of a wave function.

Despite being on Sabbatical, I am not prepared to spend any more time on it.
To give an analogy which all Radsafers will understand.  If a group tells
you that they have developed a more efficient and safer nuclear reactor, you
will obviously be interested.  If they then present you with a 60 page
analysis of their design, but by page 8 you realize that they do not
understand the purpose of the moderator in a nuclear reactor, you are
unlikely to read any further.  And as I intend doing with Blacklight, you
WON'T invest any money in it!

Robbie Lindsay


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html