The CrackPot Detector

I am a first time author of a 400 page nonfiction book. (Really it is 450 pages, but the last 50 are citations.) I have thought about the topic for 15 years, and written about it for 6 years. Now it is published, and my readers love it.

Some of them have said that it is a "truly great" book. I interpret that as meaning something more than a slap on the back with "Hey - that's great!" as it is used in casual conversation. Others have said it has the potential to become a science bestseller.

The notable climate change advocate who I recruited to write a forward for the book calls it  "a monumental effort" and one laudatory Amazon reviewer called it "the greatest scientific story ever told" by which I assume he thinks the story is up there with that of, say, Galileo versus the Catholic Church. The same reviewer said that I am "equal parts scientist, philosopher, and wordsmith" or something like that, which tickled my author bone.

I've sold a few hundred copies, and my readers are forcing it on friends and family, rereading it multiple times, and writing 5-star Amazon reviews.

This is all well and good. 

But one is never content with a small, laudatory readership. One wants to blanket the world in print. Sell a million copies. Be interviewed on NPR. Ascend to the nirvana of nerdom. I don't have a lot of resources because I published with a small publisher. So I need to start advocating to those who can give me what every author seriously needs: PRESS.

Now here's the stickler. Suppose someone asks me: "What is your book about? "

I freeze.

I can scarcely utter a word.

Part of this must be what every author feels. What I had to say couldn't be contained in a soundbyte, which is why I wrote a fucking book. So I want to tell people: "Read it, then you will know what it is about."

But part of this is something unique to the topic. I know that if I give someone with a strong scientific background a synopsis of the book, they won't hear it. It will shatter against a cognitive barrier we might call the Crackpot Detector.

The Crackpot Detector is like a light switch that we flip when we hear something that appears to have all the qualities we associate with something that isn't true and or produced by a delusional mind. When we flip the switch, we immediate form an opinion of the subject matter, and assume (without actually looking at the topic) that it is some combination of deep speculation, mystical reasoning, invalid reasoning, wishful thinking, pseudoscience, and so on.

I wrote the book about a topic which is legitimate, but regarding which there is a cloud of misinformation and misperception in the scientific community. Everyone thinks it is junk, because everyone else thinks it is junk. Nobody bothers to learn more because they have already activated the Crackpot Detector. Those 50 pages of citations? A lot of that is references to experimental journal articles published in the scientific literature on this topic, that have important stuff to say, but no one is listening.

I know that what I am about to tell the person will activate the Crackpot Detector, and so I desperately search for a way to introduce the topic that sells it short enough to be believable. But this does a serious disservice, because it makes the book less interesting and less important.I effectively have to lie about how the book is not so great in order to get someone interested in the book. It is as if someone writing about Darwin's theory of evolution sold it as "a curious and enjoyable diary of a zoologist and his observations of animals."

Sometimes I stay awake at night, trying to figure out how to introduce the topic in such a way that it will sneak around the Crackpot Detector.

Let's start by testing yours.

The book is a work of science journalism, exposition, and memoir, following three interwoven threads:

First, it is the story of the discovery of a new theory of nature that revolutionizes our understanding of nearly every facet of modern physics - but which has not yet been accepted or seriously engaged by the scientific community.

Second, it is the story of twenty-five years of research and development that is bringing about a revolutionary new source of clean energy that is almost ready to deploy, with hardly a hiccup of interest by the scientific community or press.

Third, it is a reflection on the nature of science. It explores how the most important discovery of our time was fiercely criticized and ignored by the scientific community, despite the repeated attempts by scientists to spread awareness.

Did I activate your crackpot detector?

Probably.

Add to this that I am not even a physicist by trade. Nor a science journalist. I am a fucking architect with degrees in architecture and philosophy. Of course, I have several years of undergraduate work in both physics and chemistry at a really good college, and several years of participation in the research that I am writing about. But it really isn't enough to be saying what I am saying. I mean, even if a Nobel Laureate said what I am saying, people would think they were off their rocker.

I mean, I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in UFO's, or cold fusion, or spiritual healing, or God, or in 911 conspiracy theories. I don't believe in miracle cancer cures, or perpetual motion, or astrology. I am a rationalist, an atheist, and a firm believer in the value of the scientific method, and the ability of the scientific community to vet new ideas.

And yet, here I am throwing that faith in our enlightened machine into question. And not just on a small thing, but on a really really big thing.

But that is what makes the book so important. I am being Carl Sagan, introducing science to a wide audience, while being Richard Rhodes, telling the story of a scientific discovery, while being Richard Dawkins, in deriving a philosophical understanding of the topic on multiple levels.

That's a lot of hats. Which is why the book is so awesome.

But it also makes my project almost indistinguishable from a free-energy nuthead spouting unsubstantiated ideas.

For now, I am the Crackpot.

The Author

Talks in the Northeast: November 12-13

The book launch event at Ada's on October 14th was a success! We packed the house and sold out the store's supply of books. In the audience was a mix of friends, family, scientists, philosophers, and writers.

Matt Schmidt's artwork on display at Ada's Books.

Matt Schmidt's artwork on display at Ada's Books.

On to the next order of business. There will be two speaking events by the author coming up in the Northeast:

Discover and Disbelief: The Hydrino Atom
A broad discussion of the scientific research and the reaction on the part of the scientific community.

3:00-5:00, November 12, in Hatfield, PA.
For event details and to RSVP, please contact the host, John Apple ([email protected]).

6:30-9:00, November 13, in Princeton, NJ
This event will be conducted in two segments with a half hour light dinner snack intermission at 7:30. For event details and to RSVP, please contact the host, Rob Tannen ([email protected]).

Recording of the Seattle Skeptics Talk

Happy to provide the recording from my first book talk to the Seattle Skeptics! Some parts of the talk were a little rushed, and one member of the audience takes me to task on my knowledge of XPS spectroscopy - but I think everyone had fun.

The Hydrino and Environmentalism

Here are some questions I've been asked about hydrino catalysis.

1. What is the fuel?

Hydrogen is the fuel for hydrino catalysis. But where does the hydrogen come from?

Fossil fuels are a source of hydrogen for conventional combustion, because the energy it takes to electrolyze hydrogen and oxygen in water is equal to the energy you get from combusting it. However, hydrino catalysis is a much more powerful reaction that can easily recoup the energy cost of electrolyzing water.

The production of a H(1/4) hydrino releases about two hundred times the energy consumed by the electrolysis. Equivalently, the energy released by hydrino catalysis is two hundred times that of hydrogen oxygen combustion, which is often used in NASA rockets.

So we can easily obtain hydrogen from water, which permanently removes the hydrogen from the Earth's biosphere by catalyzing it into hydrino.

2. What is the byproduct?

Hydrino gas is the byproduct. This is an inert form of hydrogen gas. It is non-combustible, and has an extremely high binding energy.

If this gas were to be released in the atmosphere, it would not react chemically or produce any biological side effects. And it is very light, so it will (like helium) rise immediately to the upper atmosphere.

Gas below a certain molecular weight is susceptible to "atmospheric escape" when it is thermally excited in the Earth's upper atmosphere, so Earth cannot retain hydrogen or helium gas.

If hydrino gas is captured, it could be used as a non-combustible gas that could be a general replacement for helium (blimps, balloons, etc). Hydrino is also able to form hydrides under certain conditions, but hydrino chemistry is still in its infancy.

3. Can hydrino return to hydrogen by a natural process?

Because a hydrino cannot absorb or emit radiation, the only way to destroy a hydrino is during another act of hydrino catalysis. Hydrinos themselves may act as catalysts, and a reaction pathway may cause the hydrino to ionize, producing a free proton which can then form a conventional hydrogen atom.

Alternatively - hydrino (or rather, deuterino) molecules at least D2(1/15) are similar in size to muonic hydrogen, which is known to fuse. So hydrino may form conventional helium if catalyzed to a low enough state to allow fusion. 

4. Are there new environmental problems in the making?

Yes. At least including:

1) Salt disposal from seawater desalination.

2) Ultra-inert compounds from hydrino hydrides, which appear to form polymeric materials with unusual properties... i.e. plastics that will be very energy-intensive to destroy.

3) Permanent removal of water from the Earth's biosphere, if water is our primary hydrogen source, and if the use of hydrogen exceeds the natural accumulation of hydrogen by space-born gas and dust.

4) Waste heat in urban areas.

5. Is this acceptable?

We now face heavy metal contamination, global warming (and all the repercussions thereof), ocean acidification, damming of rivers, destruction of rainforests, smog, nuclear arsenals from enriched plutonium, carbon monoxide poisoning in developing countries, general environmental destruction due to low access to affordable energy infrastructure, destruction of habitat, destruction of the landscape due to mining, fracking, oil spills, natural gas explosions, and so on.

6. Do humans inherently degrade the environment?

I believe so. However, I believe it is possible to reduce the impact.

Over time, we are getting smarter about how we utilize resources and how we thrive in such a way that we can simultaneously restore the biosphere to a more natural state while increasing the capacity for human development.

We will always be competing at some level with nature for basic resources. Farming competes with land area otherwise occupied by the plants and animals. But advances in farming have historically reduced farmland necessary to grow food.

Hydrino catalysis is an energy source which does not compete with existing sources, it does not alter natural energy flows, and it results in a compound that is both lighter than air, and inert.

It is the ultimate source of energy.

 

Cell Meltdown

A short video from a BLP off-site demonstration in Boston gives us an explosive hydrino catalysis reaction that melts down a molybdenum lined cell in a few seconds. The melting point of molybdenum is 4,753 degrees.

What is more amazing is that 99% of the light emitted is in the EUV and X-ray wavelengths. You are seeing 1% of the light emitted. Woah.