Gonna be interesting to see where this goes....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005.../energy.science
Gonna be interesting to see where this goes....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
Gonna be interesting to see where this goes....
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
QUOTE
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.
That was November 2005.
We don't have to wait, it's already almost 4 years later.
And his web site does not say, "this is how much power we are creating." He's had time for some prototypes.
You have to learn to think outside the box. Not all pretty web sites using words you don't understand are valid. You should stop being sheeple.
Why are the cranks so anxious to discredit modern science? Is it not "exciting" enough for them?
Alright, here is a more modern (this year) article...
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...009+PRN20090730
and shortly after....
http://www.ecplaza.net/news/14/28818/black..._power_inc.html
They always under estimate the time frame. They're simply "behind schedule" if you go by that first article.
They always under estimate the time frame. They're simply "behind schedule" if you go by that first article.
You have to learn to think outside the box. Not all pretty web sites using words you don't understand are valid. You should stop being sheeple.
Talk about a failed attempt at a pre-emtive. This is outside the box. It is those (like you) that follow blindly behind the (about to be proved inaccurate) theories of other scientists that don't think outside the box.
It's a simple matter of being right...
I always believed that current theories are full of false conclusions. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some people have a natural nack for being able to spot the bs, take what's not and come to our own conclusions then use those conclusions to come up with possible "what ifs"? All without years spent at a university being fed nothing more than the opinions and views of the professor who is most likely a student as well going for his PhD while teaching those getting their bachelors his own thesis.....
Actually teaching is the wrong word to use....Lecturing is the word to use. They don't teach, they lecture.
Um yes it is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_release
Just because the news companies haven't deemed it worthy for to be aired on TV or printed in the News Paper isn't grounds to dismiss the claims/findings as being false. Nor is it evidence against it.
Not all claims are accurate.
Edit: thr theories you doubt were there before you were born but they are the result of people who could think outside the box, and replaced previous thinking.
And they were able to demonstate why the old thinking was wrong.
And yes some people can spot but BS but you can't.
You should really dig deeper before spewing such ignorant crap....
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4834/blackli...rd-party-valida
There is also this which explains better what "independently" means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
You should really dig deeper before spewing such ignorant crap....
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4834/blackli...rd-party-valida
There is also this which explains better what "independently" means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
August 12, 2009: BLP press release through Hill & Knowlton claims that researchers at Rowan University reproduced BlackLight process, using their own materials. Results were claimed to show 1.2 times to 6.5 times the energy released than can be attributed by known chemical reactions. Detailed instructions of the process are said to be released so that third party verification can take place. Rowan researchers were said to have produced their own material from purchased chemicals, to avoid the caveats realised in the previous 2008 test
And this...
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001849/b...lab-validation/
But I like the Wiki one the best because it tends to be the least biased and covers both sides of the coin. Although the final word seems to be that it works.
There is also a mention of NASA somewhere that have validated the results.
Is magnet-lift train not real?
jsaldea
10.18.09
Well, do some digging. Try to find some other company/group/university/etc. that has tried to independantly achieve the same results?
I found this....
http://hydrino.org/lab-reports.html
Thank you for the advice.
It is an irony that a government research agency in our country is doing all it can to deter construction..deliberately delaying and refusing request for financial assistance to construct prototype of conceived magnet-lift generator. But am not deter...with little to lose and pride to risk but everything for all of humanity to gain...PCIERD-DOST think I will stop knocking.. Not yet.they must,first, give good reasons for refusing and for deliberately delaying..not silence.
Regards.
jsaldea12
102009
What part of this makes it a perpetual source of energy?
What part of this makes it a perpetual source of energy?
Have you actually read the reports that your link provides?
I read the ones that were not blacklights. Most state there is a slight increase in temp that couldn't be otherwise explained which was beyond the range of error.
If it's so fake, provide some links like I have where independent test have falsified it.
No they don't.
The Penn state report states ...
"It must be noted that although the results presented in this report are very exciting, they require further verification. Moreover it should be noted that some control studies are not yet complete"
This was in 1996 again. To this day, no verification is complete. How odd.
Here is my suggestion... if you are so convinced... invest.
I will wait a bit longer... to see if it goes from vaporware to hardware.
It will take a lot of experiments, adjustments, revisions, before a working model is successful and it involves lot of money. Hope i'll win in the lotto, then I will invest. As of now, nothing I can do but wait for something good to happen.
But you are right...for instance, there is no independent confirmation of John christy horizontal magnet-lift generator which he demonstrated in youtube, free energy generator.
Thank you for wise advices.
Regards.
t jsaldea12
10.21.09
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...009+PRN20090730
and shortly after....
http://www.ecplaza.net/news/14/28818/black..._power_inc.html
QUOTE
We don't have to wait, it's already almost 4 years later.
They always under estimate the time frame. They're simply "behind schedule" if you go by that first article.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We don't have to wait, it's already almost 4 years later. |
They always under estimate the time frame. They're simply "behind schedule" if you go by that first article.
You have to learn to think outside the box. Not all pretty web sites using words you don't understand are valid. You should stop being sheeple.
Talk about a failed attempt at a pre-emtive. This is outside the box. It is those (like you) that follow blindly behind the (about to be proved inaccurate) theories of other scientists that don't think outside the box.
QUOTE
Why are the cranks so anxious to discredit modern science? Is it not "exciting" enough for them?
It's a simple matter of being right...
I always believed that current theories are full of false conclusions. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some people have a natural nack for being able to spot the bs, take what's not and come to our own conclusions then use those conclusions to come up with possible "what ifs"? All without years spent at a university being fed nothing more than the opinions and views of the professor who is most likely a student as well going for his PhD while teaching those getting their bachelors his own thesis.....
Actually teaching is the wrong word to use....Lecturing is the word to use. They don't teach, they lecture.
Hi all,
H2O, those are both press releases. I would be just as excited as you if this were true, but a press release is not news. Keep digging.
Peace,
Ron
H2O, those are both press releases. I would be just as excited as you if this were true, but a press release is not news. Keep digging.
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE
but a press release is not news
Um yes it is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_release
Just because the news companies haven't deemed it worthy for to be aired on TV or printed in the News Paper isn't grounds to dismiss the claims/findings as being false. Nor is it evidence against it.
QUOTE
A news release, media release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value.
Not all claims are accurate.
Edit: thr theories you doubt were there before you were born but they are the result of people who could think outside the box, and replaced previous thinking.
And they were able to demonstate why the old thinking was wrong.
And yes some people can spot but BS but you can't.
Another news article I found that was published this month.
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
I especially like the part..
It seems to me that a large portion of the scientific community will end up looking like absolute fools. Especially if they become the reason that it is not in use (if they aren't already) the general public would be furious if word got out if that were the case.
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials
I especially like the part..
QUOTE
The problem that we have is that most scientists will not accept Dr Mill's theory in entirety and because they will not accept it in entirety, they reject it in entirety - and this is the hall mark of a closed mind.
It seems to me that a large portion of the scientific community will end up looking like absolute fools. Especially if they become the reason that it is not in use (if they aren't already) the general public would be furious if word got out if that were the case.
Mills is smarter than you. I think Mills may be smart enough to invent a mish-mash of scientific-sounding words and equations to cover why a certain system appears to be out of energy balance. But it is a very flimsy cover and the simple fact is that he doesn't have a closed system. If he had a closed system, then this wouldn't be a purported over-unity device but a pure perpetual source of power. Instead we get nearly two decades of "development" -- making the system shinier but never more well-understood.
Unlike homeopathy, the only salable benefit of a power source is in the power -- there is no placebo effect in turning your TV on. But a power source under "development" permits the perpetual fleecing of investors, who need to be shown the trappings of science and progress even if nothing is there.
So right now, Mills is indistinguishable in methodology from a number of other proven fraudulent purveyors of purported power systems. As a fraud, Mills' actions are well-suited for his own benefit. As long as he never succeeds, he gets funds. When the lawsuits come (not every true believer stays converted) he has an impressive body of gibberish to beat over the heads of the jury, but nowhere does his "physics" connect with experiments not done by his associates. He will wrap his body in the robes of "scientific priesthood" and tell the jury he is only trying to share his discovery with all mankind. And he might get away with it since noone is funded to be a science cop if he's not funded by government dollars. (Although, as in the Dover, Pennsylvania anti-Intelligent Design case, detective work and the excellent presentation of the scope of scientific understanding from millions of observations can be distilled into a successful fact-based victory.)
Whereas, if he is legitimate, surely the fact that after 20 years the fact that he's still playing money to the electric company to keep the lights on ought to be a little troubling? Mills is too smart for that not to be the case.
Unlike homeopathy, the only salable benefit of a power source is in the power -- there is no placebo effect in turning your TV on. But a power source under "development" permits the perpetual fleecing of investors, who need to be shown the trappings of science and progress even if nothing is there.
So right now, Mills is indistinguishable in methodology from a number of other proven fraudulent purveyors of purported power systems. As a fraud, Mills' actions are well-suited for his own benefit. As long as he never succeeds, he gets funds. When the lawsuits come (not every true believer stays converted) he has an impressive body of gibberish to beat over the heads of the jury, but nowhere does his "physics" connect with experiments not done by his associates. He will wrap his body in the robes of "scientific priesthood" and tell the jury he is only trying to share his discovery with all mankind. And he might get away with it since noone is funded to be a science cop if he's not funded by government dollars. (Although, as in the Dover, Pennsylvania anti-Intelligent Design case, detective work and the excellent presentation of the scope of scientific understanding from millions of observations can be distilled into a successful fact-based victory.)
Whereas, if he is legitimate, surely the fact that after 20 years the fact that he's still playing money to the electric company to keep the lights on ought to be a little troubling? Mills is too smart for that not to be the case.
H2O
Hardly.
Critical analysis of the hydrino model
It's basically like this.
So far the results have not been reproduced. Some of the people at Rowan have ties to Mills and are a bit suspect. Making it worse is the fact that Blacklight supplies Rowan with the materials and reactors to do their tests and that Mills and Blacklight are keeping aspects of the process secret. They claim that they will be able to finally prove it completely by October 2009. That would be now.
However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware.
(Edited to add... I didn't see Rpenner's post before writing mine.)
Hardly.
Critical analysis of the hydrino model
It's basically like this.
So far the results have not been reproduced. Some of the people at Rowan have ties to Mills and are a bit suspect. Making it worse is the fact that Blacklight supplies Rowan with the materials and reactors to do their tests and that Mills and Blacklight are keeping aspects of the process secret. They claim that they will be able to finally prove it completely by October 2009. That would be now.
However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware.
(Edited to add... I didn't see Rpenner's post before writing mine.)
QUOTE
So far the results have not been reproduced. Some of the people at Rowan have ties to Mills and are a bit suspect. Making it worse is the fact that Blacklight supplies Rowan with the materials and reactors to do their tests and that Mills and Blacklight are keeping aspects of the process secret. They claim that they will be able to finally prove it completely by October 2009. That would be now.
However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware.
However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware.
You should really dig deeper before spewing such ignorant crap....
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4834/blackli...rd-party-valida
There is also this which explains better what "independently" means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So far the results have not been reproduced. Some of the people at Rowan have ties to Mills and are a bit suspect. Making it worse is the fact that Blacklight supplies Rowan with the materials and reactors to do their tests and that Mills and Blacklight are keeping aspects of the process secret. They claim that they will be able to finally prove it completely by October 2009. That would be now. However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware. |
You should really dig deeper before spewing such ignorant crap....
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4834/blackli...rd-party-valida
There is also this which explains better what "independently" means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
August 12, 2009: BLP press release through Hill & Knowlton claims that researchers at Rowan University reproduced BlackLight process, using their own materials. Results were claimed to show 1.2 times to 6.5 times the energy released than can be attributed by known chemical reactions. Detailed instructions of the process are said to be released so that third party verification can take place. Rowan researchers were said to have produced their own material from purchased chemicals, to avoid the caveats realised in the previous 2008 test
And this...
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001849/b...lab-validation/
QUOTE
The latest in its saga is news that three researchers at Rowan have run a second round of tests on Blacklight’s solid fuel. The trio say they have verified that the fuel is capable of continuously releasing more energy than is put in to start the reaction. And this time, they made the fuel themselves rather than receiving from the company — a significant difference from the first test, when associate professor Peter Jansson told me he wasn’t sure what Blacklight did to prepare the material.
But I like the Wiki one the best because it tends to be the least biased and covers both sides of the coin. Although the final word seems to be that it works.
There is also a mention of NASA somewhere that have validated the results.
Note that none of those come from any other source than Blacklight or Rowan. When the companies involved are producing power with it or at least announce it themselves, we will see. So far no other lab has duplicated the results and all the claims have been from Blacklight press releases. Hardly the last word. It's still vapor-ware.
The first link is from 4 years ago. If he needs funds why did he not start a small power company?
He could have used that at a revenue source and kept adding to it.
So far it's him and his friends saying it works. And you claim to have a BS detector?
If it works why not sell the fuel to a coal fire plant. They have all the electricity generating equipment all they need is a source of heat.
He could have used that at a revenue source and kept adding to it.
So far it's him and his friends saying it works. And you claim to have a BS detector?
If it works why not sell the fuel to a coal fire plant. They have all the electricity generating equipment all they need is a source of heat.
Maybe if one can create an environment here on earth, like that in outer space, weightless, frictionless, or substantially such, it is possible to have a machine, like generator, that can generate electrical energy with unlimited power.
The magnet-lift commercial trains in China has proven it. In youtube, free energy, John Cristy demonstrates his magnet-lift generator that is 5 times more efficient than ordinary generator.Can operate much longer indefinitely.
jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor
10.15.09
The magnet-lift commercial trains in China has proven it. In youtube, free energy, John Cristy demonstrates his magnet-lift generator that is 5 times more efficient than ordinary generator.Can operate much longer indefinitely.
jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor
10.15.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Oct 16 2009, 02:58 AM)
jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor.
"Imbecile, clown." would be infinitely more accurate.
Scientist, Inventor.
"Imbecile, clown." would be infinitely more accurate.
Is magnet-lift train not real?
jsaldea
10.18.09
QUOTE
Note that none of those come from any other source than Blacklight or Rowan
Well, do some digging. Try to find some other company/group/university/etc. that has tried to independantly achieve the same results?
I found this....
http://hydrino.org/lab-reports.html
Thank you for the advice.
It is an irony that a government research agency in our country is doing all it can to deter construction..deliberately delaying and refusing request for financial assistance to construct prototype of conceived magnet-lift generator. But am not deter...with little to lose and pride to risk but everything for all of humanity to gain...PCIERD-DOST think I will stop knocking.. Not yet.they must,first, give good reasons for refusing and for deliberately delaying..not silence.
Regards.
jsaldea12
102009
Edison didn't need government funding, since his inventions worked.
Also the "hydrino theory" is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the much wilder claim that some sort of a catalyst will render any hydrogen reservoir into a perpetual source of energy. This claim is actually in contradiction to the hypothesis that there is an undiscovered ground state of hydrogen lower than the one known to spectroscopy and atomic physics.
Also the "hydrino theory" is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the much wilder claim that some sort of a catalyst will render any hydrogen reservoir into a perpetual source of energy. This claim is actually in contradiction to the hypothesis that there is an undiscovered ground state of hydrogen lower than the one known to spectroscopy and atomic physics.
H2O
Have you actually read the reports that your link provides?
The ones not put out directly by Blacklight either state that the results are inconclusive or are inconclusinve and too old to be regarded as confirmation. The NASA one for example is from 1996... 13 years ago and they state that their results still need proper confirmation.
Cold fusion was much like this. A great deal of excitement at first, then a cooling off period as the results were impossible to duplicate or found to have errors in measurement.
Again... until there is actual confirmation.. it's vapor-ware.
Have you actually read the reports that your link provides?
The ones not put out directly by Blacklight either state that the results are inconclusive or are inconclusinve and too old to be regarded as confirmation. The NASA one for example is from 1996... 13 years ago and they state that their results still need proper confirmation.
Cold fusion was much like this. A great deal of excitement at first, then a cooling off period as the results were impossible to duplicate or found to have errors in measurement.
Again... until there is actual confirmation.. it's vapor-ware.
QUOTE
Also the "hydrino theory" is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the much wilder claim that some sort of a catalyst will render any hydrogen reservoir into a perpetual source of energy
What part of this makes it a perpetual source of energy?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also the "hydrino theory" is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the much wilder claim that some sort of a catalyst will render any hydrogen reservoir into a perpetual source of energy |
What part of this makes it a perpetual source of energy?
Have you actually read the reports that your link provides?
I read the ones that were not blacklights. Most state there is a slight increase in temp that couldn't be otherwise explained which was beyond the range of error.
If it's so fake, provide some links like I have where independent test have falsified it.
QUOTE
Most state there is a slight increase in temp that couldn't be otherwise explained which was beyond the range of error.
No they don't.
The Penn state report states ...
"It must be noted that although the results presented in this report are very exciting, they require further verification. Moreover it should be noted that some control studies are not yet complete"
This was in 1996 again. To this day, no verification is complete. How odd.
Here is my suggestion... if you are so convinced... invest.
I will wait a bit longer... to see if it goes from vaporware to hardware.
It will take a lot of experiments, adjustments, revisions, before a working model is successful and it involves lot of money. Hope i'll win in the lotto, then I will invest. As of now, nothing I can do but wait for something good to happen.
But you are right...for instance, there is no independent confirmation of John christy horizontal magnet-lift generator which he demonstrated in youtube, free energy generator.
Thank you for wise advices.
Regards.
t jsaldea12
10.21.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Oct 16 2009, 02:58 AM)
Maybe if one can create an environment here on earth, like that in outer space, weightless, frictionless, or substantially such, it is possible to have a machine, like generator, that can generate electrical energy with unlimited power.
The magnet-lift commercial trains in China has proven it. In youtube, free energy, John Cristy demonstrates his magnet-lift generator that is 5 times more efficient than ordinary generator.Can operate much longer indefinitely.
jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor
10.15.09
Hello people, I am very ignorant, so, please, can someone explain this post to me??
why the hell would you be able to generate unlimited power in a "space like" environment here on Earth???
if you could do that, why not just do it in space itself and transmit the energy via microwave, etc, down to Earth?
how come maglev trains prove the above nonsense??
The magnet-lift commercial trains in China has proven it. In youtube, free energy, John Cristy demonstrates his magnet-lift generator that is 5 times more efficient than ordinary generator.Can operate much longer indefinitely.
jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor
10.15.09
Hello people, I am very ignorant, so, please, can someone explain this post to me??
why the hell would you be able to generate unlimited power in a "space like" environment here on Earth???
if you could do that, why not just do it in space itself and transmit the energy via microwave, etc, down to Earth?
how come maglev trains prove the above nonsense??
QUOTE (trantor+Nov 4 2009, 12:03 PM)
Hello people, I am very ignorant, so, please, can someone explain this post to me??
why the hell would you be able to generate unlimited power in a "space like" environment here on Earth???
if you could do that, why not just do it in space itself and transmit the energy via microwave, etc, down to Earth?
how come maglev trains prove the above nonsense??
jsaldea12 is not a sane individual. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he says.
why the hell would you be able to generate unlimited power in a "space like" environment here on Earth???
if you could do that, why not just do it in space itself and transmit the energy via microwave, etc, down to Earth?
how come maglev trains prove the above nonsense??
jsaldea12 is not a sane individual. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he says.
Hi,
Sure you can. If you need any help to read Electronics Engineering. just visit
Freelancer.com There you can find thousands of coders who are really very helpful on Mechanical Engineering. And use this unique 'TURBOCIRCUITS' word to get some extra feathers.
Have a nice time
by
Sure you can. If you need any help to read Electronics Engineering. just visit
Freelancer.com There you can find thousands of coders who are really very helpful on Mechanical Engineering. And use this unique 'TURBOCIRCUITS' word to get some extra feathers.
Have a nice time
by
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 16 2009, 02:33 AM)
Just because the news companies haven't deemed it worthy for to be aired on TV or printed in the News Paper isn't grounds to dismiss the claims/findings as being false. Nor is it evidence against it.
Maybe not, but the fact that it contradicts the very physics that it claims to be founded on is.
Maybe not, but the fact that it contradicts the very physics that it claims to be founded on is.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.