Blacklight Power in the news again

[tombo]

OK BS Detection Kit:
How does Polywell stack up?
(I apologize if this was done before.)

1) Give me an authentic provenance to the idea. Show me the small steps others have made leading up to it.
2) Does it already have legitimate VC funding? (Military money is notoriously dumb, so it doesn't count.)
3) To whom does the principal give his or her time? (I would be much happier to see the AAAS than the American Antigravity folks: see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americana ... message/64.)
4) Show me a credible reference client with a real application.
5) If you can't show me a reference client, show me a working prototype. If it's on the verge of being commercialized, it must be working somewhere ... in a house, in a car, in a flashlight, in an iPod. Show me! You have to know I will bring a plague of experts to bear on this prototype, so it had better be GOOD.
6) What is the history of ideas of the principals? What else are they involved in? (Zero Point Energy and energy from magnets are very, very bad signs. http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=1357)
7) Look at the language. Is the development always "on the verge" of being ready? Is the "establishment" always "wrong", and the principal always right? Do they make the "Chinese market" logical fallacy? (Read "Art of the Start" ... not enough space here.) Watch out for firms that miss "whopper deadlines" (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000045.html) by a mile.
8 ) Show me peer-reviewed papers and presentations at mainstream scientific conferences by the principals. Better yet, show me serious scientists who respond to these papers. Papers by other people on collateral topics don't count. A paper on ZPE is not the same as a paper outlining an industrial process to capture it.
9) Give me reproducibility. I won't look at a company with "secret processes"; if you can't show me how someone else can do it, I won't even get up from my desk.
10) Give me competitors. If one person can do it, so can someone else. If one person is working on it now, you can bet two or three others are, too. You are defined by the quality of your cometitors, so the competitors had better look good to the baloney kit. If you compete with Boeing (even in a minor way), I am impressed. If you compete with Johann Bessler, I am much less impressed.

1) OK Hirsch Farnsworth
2) NO last time I looked Navy was military.
3) OK probably (I'm only on the fringes so I don't really know, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)
4) NO Navy as client? I don't think so see 2) above.
5) Maybe Not a functioning one. Smoked prototypes that are purported to have worked. Secret Navy research. None qualify as a GOOD prototype.
6) OK Good to very good.
7) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] It seems to have been on the verge for a long time. I don't fault any major missed deadlines here. Not exactly anyway. I have missed deadlines myself. They were usually set by the marketroids not by engineers. And fusion is a tough nut to crack. There are bound to be setback. I am intimately familiar with Murphy's law.
The language used in the papers and oral presentations is good believable scientific stuff. It does not set off my instinctive alarms.
8 ) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] Are the few papers we have actually peer reviewed? I think I heard an excuse for why they were not. Which implies that they were not.
OTOH Krall was supposed to have given some of the papers his blessing.
9) OK I think. Some repeatability is claimed by insiders, not by independent labs. OTOH No secrets here except the ones being kept by mother nature. No magical "science". Just an application of standard science to a new device. So anyone with the resources (which are significant but not outrageous) could test it. So it is falsifiable which is a good sign.
10) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] competitors? I don't see any with the same technology. What? You mean us crazies? Or is ITER a competitor equivalent to a Boeing? Other small fusion start ups?

OK so what do we have?
3 yes
3 no
1 maybe
3 ambivalent leaning toward yes (others might well lean toward no)

I'm beginning to understand Art Carlson's attitude.

So, what am I doing here?
It resonates with a part of me that says it just might work.
If it does the payoff is huge.
Dr Bussard's video presentation was made by a brimming over clear-seeming elder statesman of a field that I have always wanted to do.
I have always been a sucker for an underdog technology that promises to help the big picture.
It is the most professional fun I have had in a long time.

[Helius]

It resonates with a part of me that says it just might work.

I don't think we can underestimate the value of so many folks who simply "see it working" in their minds eye. No project was _ever_ finished without the engineers of the project visualizing the result. So many people just 'seeing' the Polywell as working gives it political traction too.

[scareduck]

OK BS Detection Kit:
How does Polywell stack up?
(I apologize if this was done before.)

Not at all.

1) OK Hirsch Farnsworth
2) NO last time I looked Navy was military.

Just so.

3) OK probably (I'm only on the fringes so I don't really know, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)

We don't know (Tom Ligon might), but Bussard's bona fides get him past the "science crank" test on this point.

4) NO Navy as client? I don't think so see 2) above.

This is a function of the stage of development at which the Polywell is presently at.

5) Maybe Not a functioning one. Smoked prototypes that are purported to have worked. Secret Navy research. None qualify as a GOOD prototype.

WB-7 if you believe Dr. Nebel.

7) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] It seems to have been on the verge for a long time. I don't fault any major missed deadlines here. Not exactly anyway. I have missed deadlines myself. They were usually set by the marketroids not by engineers. And fusion is a tough nut to crack. There are bound to be setback. I am intimately familiar with Murphy's law.
The language used in the papers and oral presentations is good believable scientific stuff. It does not set off my instinctive alarms.

Bussard missing a substantial design flaw (the early enclosed units that couldn't recirculate electrons) cost him a great deal of time and money, so from that standpoint, it's pretty significant.

8 ) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] Are the few papers we have actually peer reviewed? I think I heard an excuse for why they were not. Which implies that they were not.
OTOH Krall was supposed to have given some of the papers his blessing.

Bussard was actually under a publication embargo as a consequence of his contract, so in that sense it's somewhat immaterial. He intended to publish the results of his work but cancer intervened. There are papers published prior to the embargo in respected physics journals, though, and responded to by legitimate scientists. So I would give this a weak and contingent "pass".

10) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] competitors? I don't see any with the same technology. What? You mean us crazies? Or is ITER a competitor equivalent to a Boeing? Other small fusion start ups?

I would say his competition is more along the lines of the Monkton/Rostoker group out of UC Irvine, though their device is a colliding beam device IIRC. The underlying physics of the device are somewhat in dispute, but nobody's accusing Bussard of gutting quantum physics in order to get there from here. I wouldn't compare Bussard to, say, Eric Lerner.

OK so what do we have?
3 yes
3 no
1 maybe
3 ambivalent leaning toward yes (others might well lean toward no)

I'm beginning to understand Art Carlson's attitude.

Agreed. Nevertheless, there's enough here to make me think that there needs to be some data and some peer-reviewed publication, and likely some follow-on money.

[tombo]

scareduck,

tombo wrote:
OK BS Detection Kit:
How does Polywell stack up?
(I apologize if this was done before.)

Not at all.
Quote:
1) OK Hirsch Farnsworth
2) NO last time I looked Navy was military.

Just so.
Quote:
3) OK probably (I'm only on the fringes so I don't really know, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)

We don't know (Tom Ligon might), but Bussard's bona fides get him past the "science crank" test on this point.

Of Course. What I was thinking is that all my information about the principals comes pretty much just through this one channel. (msimons blog is NOT an independent channel.) I really don't know to which organizations they give their time. But I'm not too worried because of the general tone of the actual science. That is why I called it ok. The general tone of honest science pushes most of the fence sitters for me.

Quote:
4) NO Navy as client? I don't think so see 2) above.

This is a function of the stage of development at which the Polywell is presently at.

This could be claimed by anyone lacking funding.

Quote:
5) Maybe Not a functioning one. Smoked prototypes that are purported to have worked. Secret Navy research. None qualify as a GOOD prototype.

WB-7 if you believe Dr. Nebel.

Yes but the standard was one that could stand up to a "plague of experts"
No one can see it yet.

Quote:
7) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] It seems to have been on the verge for a long time. I don't fault any major missed deadlines here. Not exactly anyway. I have missed deadlines myself. They were usually set by the marketroids not by engineers. And fusion is a tough nut to crack. There are bound to be setback. I am intimately familiar with Murphy's law.
The language used in the papers and oral presentations is good believable scientific stuff. It does not set off my instinctive alarms.

Bussard missing a substantial design flaw (the early enclosed units that couldn't recirculate electrons) cost him a great deal of time and money, so from that standpoint, it's pretty significant.

I don't actually ding him on this because it seemed like an honest if unfortunate mistake. I think it ranks about zero on the sleaziness scale. We have all made mistakes even some large ones.

Quote:
8 ) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] Are the few papers we have actually peer reviewed? I think I heard an excuse for why they were not. Which implies that they were not.
OTOH Krall was supposed to have given some of the papers his blessing.

Bussard was actually under a publication embargo as a consequence of his contract, so in that sense it's somewhat immaterial. He intended to publish the results of his work but cancer intervened. There are papers published prior to the embargo in respected physics journals, though, and responded to by legitimate scientists. So I would give this a weak and contingent "pass".

That is why I rated it ambivalent.
It would have been a no on the face of it but of course there was a reason.
But, a scam artist could come up with reasons too.
I feel it is ok too, but the BS meter is an attempt to bring objective criteria to the judgement.

Quote:
9) OK I think. Some repeatability is claimed by insiders, not by independent labs. OTOH No secrets here except the ones being kept by mother nature. No magical "science". Just an application of standard science to a new device. So anyone with the resources (which are significant but not outrageous) could test it. So it is falsifiable which is a good sign.

But, I am more than a bit disappointed by the crudeness of some of the past instrumentation that has come to light in the last few days.

10) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] competitors? I don't see any with the same technology. What? You mean us crazies? Or is ITER a competitor equivalent to a Boeing? Other small fusion start ups?

I would say his competition is more along the lines of the Monkton/Rostoker group out of UC Irvine, though their device is a colliding beam device IIRC.

In the competition question it is hard to see what the test is getting at.
It works better when dealing with a conservative money making machine like Warren Buffet would invest in.
It doesn't apply very well to breakthrough technologies of any kind.
This hobbles the test pretty badly right where you would like to really use it.

The underlying physics of the device are somewhat in dispute, but nobody's accusing Bussard of gutting quantum physics in order to get there from here. I wouldn't compare Bussard to, say, Eric Lerner.

Neither would I. Not in million years.

Quote:
OK so what do we have?
3 yes
3 no
1 maybe
3 ambivalent leaning toward yes (others might well lean toward no)

I'm beginning to understand Art Carlson's attitude.

Agreed. Nevertheless, there's enough here to make me think that there needs to be some data and some peer-reviewed publication, and likely some follow-on money.

Yes of course that is what we all want.
I just did this as an exercise to try to keep myself honest with myself, maintain a healthy skepticism, avoid undue optimism etc.
It is good to step back from time to time and turn a jaundiced eye to my own assumptions.
The same reason it is good to have people like Art pulling on every loose thread they can find to see how much unravels.

The locals here have a saying for the starry eyed homesteaders.
"Reality Always Wins."

This project is fleshing out a number of visions that I have had over the years.
As a mechanical engineer my visions tend to be more material than ethereal, and they get a lot of on the job exercise.
And it even put some together that I did not realize fit together.
I hope they become reality.

[scareduck]

4) NO Navy as client? I don't think so see 2) above.

This is a function of the stage of development at which the Polywell is presently at.

This could be claimed by anyone lacking funding.

Not really... the question in my mind is more at, "what is the market for this product?" That should be obvious.

5) Maybe Not a functioning one. Smoked prototypes that are purported to have worked. Secret Navy research. None qualify as a GOOD prototype.

WB-7 if you believe Dr. Nebel.

Yes but the standard was one that could stand up to a "plague of experts"
No one can see it yet.

No, and for that reason it's ambivalent.

9) OK I think. Some repeatability is claimed by insiders, not by independent labs. OTOH No secrets here except the ones being kept by mother nature. No magical "science". Just an application of standard science to a new device. So anyone with the resources (which are significant but not outrageous) could test it. So it is falsifiable which is a good sign.

But, I am more than a bit disappointed by the crudeness of some of the past instrumentation that has come to light in the last few days.

Agreed.

10) Ambivalent [there is evidence both ways] competitors? I don't see any with the same technology. What? You mean us crazies? Or is ITER a competitor equivalent to a Boeing? Other small fusion start ups?

I would say his competition is more along the lines of the Monkton/Rostoker group out of UC Irvine, though their device is a colliding beam device IIRC.

In the competition question it is hard to see what the test is getting at.

Johann Bessler was a very clever fraud who claimed to have discovered a perpetual motion machine; the point of the test is that if you're trying to compete with the likes of him (or the Zero Point Energy loons, or the Pogue carburetor, or any of a hundred other snake oil scammers), you're also probably a scammer. Really, this comes down to the caliber and reputation of the people you claim to be competing against.

I hope they become reality.

I'll drink to that.

[TallDave]

Let's see how ITER statcks up:

1) Yes.

2) Hell no.

3) Yes.

4) Sorry, I fell off my chair laughing.

5) Does something that might be done in 20 years count?

6) Nothing commercial yet.

7) Yes-ish.

Yes.

9) Yes.

10) See #4.

[gblaze42]

I think you should add another,


11) Does it re-write science to make it work?

The Polywell fusion method doesn't re-write the way particles interact, will the technology allow us to break even, thats what we're testing now.
Blacklight re-writes how electrons work in an atom, with no natural observations. I would say BS meter way up there!

[Helius]

The only value of theory is in future hypothesis. His theory is disjoint from his 'device'. After all if it actually worked, crankin' 50KW, would that mean the "hydrino theory is any more valid? ...No.

Even the Steam Engine explanations were not entirely right to begin with. Sometimes devices precede valid explanations. Some improvements of devices are simply stumbled upon or found by trial and error, like Edison's filaments for electric light.

I'll be his device gets warm beyond reasonable explanation (hydrinos being so beyond), no 50KW or anything, but gets warm.....Somethings going on......

[tombo]

I saw the patent drawings for a 100 mpg carburetor from the '30's.
It used the exhaust to vaporize the gasoline/air mixture in a big rectangular heat exchanger box.
I would bet that it got pretty good mileage due to the intimate air fuel mixing instead of droplets inside the combustion chamber.
But the thing was a BOMB! I would not want to be within a quarter mile of it, and even then behind something.
Reality check: My 1976 honda civic cvcc got 45 mpg without even fuel injection.
100 mpg is a little more than twice that.
That is a significant improvement but not outrageous.

[MSimon]

But, I am more than a bit disappointed by the crudeness of some of the past instrumentation that has come to light in the last few days.

Could you elaborate on this point? I have been away for a few days and may have missed it.

[TallDave]

Helius,

Yep, best case here is that this is the 21st century version of phlogiston theory: it's the wrong explanation for a mechanism that does work.

The more I think about it, the less possible hydrino theory seems. Mills tries to act like "mainstream science" is just wedded to QM and doesn't want to be wrong, but in fact a lot of Nobel Prizes have gone to people who found flaws in existing theories.

This isn't like the consensus on global warming theory, which is essentially unfalsifiable except over the 100 year time frame it predicts in because there's only one Earth to test it on, and is hugely political with real consequences for dissenters (people have been fired over it, and NASA is calling for war crimes trials for those who publicly doubt it). If 1/n quantum states were possible, physicists all over the world would be replicating Mills' results and he'd be headed to Switzerland.

[blaisepascal]

But, I am more than a bit disappointed by the crudeness of some of the past instrumentation that has come to light in the last few days.

Could you elaborate on this point? I have been away for a few days and may have missed it.

In "Where's The Beef?" thread, Tom Ligon posted his observations about some of the experiments he worked on. According to those posts, the instrumentation (and skills using it) they had weren't what they would have liked, and could not provide the quality of data some of the doubters here would like.

[ravingdave]

I saw the patent drawings for a 100 mpg carburetor from the '30's.
It used the exhaust to vaporize the gasoline/air mixture in a big rectangular heat exchanger box.
I would bet that it got pretty good mileage due to the intimate air fuel mixing instead of droplets inside the combustion chamber.
But the thing was a BOMB! I would not want to be within a quarter mile of it, and even then behind something.
Reality check: My 1976 honda civic cvcc got 45 mpg without even fuel injection.
100 mpg is a little more than twice that.
That is a significant improvement but not outrageous.

Engines are a topic that I am passionate about. I love looking at engine designs and theory, and for years i've been griping about the fuel efficiency of internal combustion engines. The maximum theoretical efficiency of typical internal combustion (gasoline) is about 35%. Diesel is about 40%. Most engines don't even operate at this efficiency. Because of vacum pumping loses at partial throttles, the typical fuel to motion conversion efficiency is around 20%.

This sucks! (literally.)

Apart from that, it is my understanding that even at optimal efficiency, 30% of the energy released from the combustion of fuel goes out the tailpipe in the form of hot air. Another 30% of the energy is wasted by being released through the radiator/cooling system in the form of hot air.

These characteristics are pretty universal in gasoline IC engines, and the carburetor simply can't fix these problems. In other words, super milage resulting from a different carburetor is just not possible. There simply isn't sufficient energy in the fuel to achieve that with the other losses being what they are.


David

[MSimon]

Carnot is the limiting factor.

[ravingdave]

Carnot is the limiting factor.

Yup. 1-Tc/Th .

I have read that the maximum carnot efficiency possible for any engine is somewhere around 80%. This leaves a lot of room for improvement from what we've currently got.


When steam engines were first developed, they were "condensing" engines. They relied on suction created by a cylnder of steam cooled by water. The Suction part of the cycle is never used anymore in engine design. The hot air which displaces more than it's original volume is simply allowed to cool and condense by it's interaction with the atmosphere.

Every puff of exhaust gas that is not condensed to do usefull work is energy going to waste.


David