Or, like Pons and Fleishman, he may simply be wrong. As for possible scams, he has a bunch of venture capital pulled in, in which case he could perform a bunch of research that goes nowhere, while pulling in a hefty salary. Who knows? I haven't looked at the papers yet in any detail, but it sounds like he is butting heads against a lot of well-established science (quantum physics?) and although breakthroughs do occur that way, 99% of the time it's simply a matter of time before it's debunked. The hydrino concept definitely doesn't sound right, but I wouldn't stick my neck out yet to say it's impossible. I'll leave that to researchers who are up to date on theory and with a stronger math background than I have.
I can't wait to find out. I was focusing on lying versus wrong due to the amount of time he's been doing this, which is since the early 90s. Now, he and everyone who works at the plant in Cranberry NJ say they have a working generator. How at this point he could just be wrong, I have no idea. If he is, and not lying, then the defeat will be crushing if he's a normal person. Sounds like a book in there somewhere! The math part is a problem because he invented/discovered a "new math" for the problem, so other scientists can't do it unless they adopt his methods. If they do, they get his results, I'm sure. If they don't, then they disprove him. It reminds me of the guy who "proved" the Earth was hollow with inverse geometry.
That's the problem with a new mathematical system. You have to: 1. Show that the mathematical system itself is consistent within itself, that you haven't carried over assumptions that are not valid in the new mathematics. 2. Show that the derivation of your theory is valid in th enew mathematical system. If no one is sufficiently familiar with the new system, it can be a long tim eindeed to find the logical flaws. 3. Show that the new mathematical system and the derived theory correspond welkl with reality. This usually involves making quantitative predixtions with the new theory, and measuring whether those predictions are accurate in real worls experiments. The predictions should be quantitatively distinguishable from predictions that use currently accepted theories. Sometimes you have no choice, though. Therefore Isaac Newton developed The Calculus to handle calculations involving convergence on limits, and Benoit Mandelbrodt developed Fractal Geometry to perform calculations on systems with fractional dimensions.
I've had many professional battles in psychology about theory. The usual procedure to resolve the issue is to ignore your enemies and pretend their ideas don't exist. It's very popular. Seriously though, if Blacklight works it will be a revolutionary time in which to live regarding many things.
Manic depressive psychosis causes some very intelligent people to suck in investors on seemingly rational contraptions. About 20 years ago, a local chemical engineer (PhD) claimed to have perfected a radical new technology that could desalinate enormous amounts of salt water in a very short time. He caught the attention of the US Navy, and after several trips to Washington DC, reported that he was about to sign a contract with the Navy for delivery of several dozen of his million dollar systems. A few of his friends invested large sums of money to help him in his "start-up" costs, of course, they had been told of the enormous profits to be had by all. About a month later, the phones got shut off, business doors were padlocked and the chemist vanished. His bills had not been paid in a couple months and his landlord evicted him. His daughter RETURNED him to the mental health hospital where he had previously been treated for manic depression. There were no contracts with the Navy, despite soliciting their interest for over a year. When investors had the apparatus examined by professionals, they said it was not even functional. His "blueprints" for the device failed engineering scrutiny. Turns out, one delusional man who sincerely believed in his "science", sucked in a bunch of greedy men who believed him. Happens all the time.
I read sveral articles on this theory, and asked some friends of mine who are into physics and chemistry about it. Sounds like a load of bunk to me. Especially as the guy claims that confinement and "terrestrial conditions" prevent him from reaching a low state. Ridiculous. Peer-reviewed doesn't mean much. Give a look at the Journal of Theoretics for instance.
If the former CEOs of several large utility companies got sucked in by an exciting manic, I'll laugh my pants off.
We started out with this, we ended up with a diescussion about manic depressive chemical engineers... Some times we get side tracked guys. BIG time. To answer the original question; yes, you can convince your audience that in the year 2055, people will be riding water-powered cars. You could convince them we'll ride chariots towed by robo-sheep. The problem with the whole story is the "For realism's sake"; cars riding on water isn't realistic, yet, anyway. I'm not going to explain the science, that horse has been beaten to death on the first 3 pages. If you want your story to be scientifically correct, water powered cars won't do. However, it can still be realistic. Hell, in "Last Exile" (Anime, check it out) they have air-car-crafts-thingies that fly on water. The reason its so realistic, is because its stated as simple fact. The more you explain, the less realistic it will probably become. Less is more!
