Sorry my grammar was a bit ambiguous in my first post.
I meant that Quantum theory is well-tested.
BLP news
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I would love to believe this is true, but obviously it is not. The same sorts of arguments were made about the thermal reactor before it was built and tested and despite 2 years of running them in a very public purview, people still make the objection you're making. Obviously, it does not matter whether one has a working technology. BLP has had a working technology since 2008.randomencounter wrote: If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes Scott. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say all the responses to Mills have been rhetorical in nature. None of your assertions even begin to approach what we call "science".ScottL wrote: His theory is a hodge-podge of previous theories and work, some found to be untrue, while others ambiguous enough that answers may never be found. Funny thing about his book on the theory, if you randomly select paragraphs from it and search them, they come back as from other peoples works, papers, etc. Copy and paste does wonders I suppose.
Case in point--have you read Mill's 1,100 page thesis? If not, why are you commenting on it?
You see, this is exactly what disturbs me most--that people will resort to these kinds of general rhetoric and utterly fail to look at the issue itself.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes, I understood you and you're correct. If Mills didn't have explanations for why we have the evidence of QM that we have, it would be obvious he is wrong. As it turns out, he does have alternate explanations for everything from slit diffraction experiments to modern QM. It's because of these alternate explanations that we need to look at the theory with some care.randomencounter wrote:I meant that Quantum theory is well-tested.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Since I did, I'm commenting on it. Copy/Paste, Copy/Paste, not very hard. I should try writing a grand theory made up of random external theories. It's a bit of a read though...took a while to finish.GIThruster wrote:Yes Scott. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say all the responses to Mills have been rhetorical in nature. None of your assertions even begin to approach what we call "science".ScottL wrote: His theory is a hodge-podge of previous theories and work, some found to be untrue, while others ambiguous enough that answers may never be found. Funny thing about his book on the theory, if you randomly select paragraphs from it and search them, they come back as from other peoples works, papers, etc. Copy and paste does wonders I suppose.
Case in point--have you read Mill's 1,100 page thesis? If not, why are you commenting on it?
You see, this is exactly what disturbs me most--that people will resort to these kinds of general rhetoric and utterly fail to look at the issue itself.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2 ... -download/
Last edited by ScottL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No problem then. They can sell it and become rich. And of course why would they need defenders at all if they are selling stuff?GIThruster wrote:I would love to believe this is true, but obviously it is not. The same sorts of arguments were made about the thermal reactor before it was built and tested and despite 2 years of running them in a very public purview, people still make the objection you're making. Obviously, it does not matter whether one has a working technology. BLP has had a working technology since 2008.randomencounter wrote: If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
Faith can only move wallets for so long.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
randomencounter
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:49 pm
Thermal reactors? You mean nuclear power plants that have been in productive use for decades, or some inferior substitute that doesn't produce enough power to run a coffee shop?GIThruster wrote:I would love to believe this is true, but obviously it is not. The same sorts of arguments were made about the thermal reactor before it was built and tested and despite 2 years of running them in a very public purview, people still make the objection you're making. Obviously, it does not matter whether one has a working technology. BLP has had a working technology since 2008.randomencounter wrote: If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
I do think that running a grid-isolated coffee shop would be an awesome demo of any new power technology. Very public, not too terribly demanding from a net power perspective, yet requiring significant power over extended periods.
[Edit]
Oh, and if you are any good, you make enough money selling coffee to pay for the next prototype
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
BLP built 10 and 50 kw reactors back in 2007-8 and this work was then replicated at Rowan from 2008-2010. The report of that work has been publicly available for years. Afterward, BLP did indeed sell non-exclusive rights to generate a set amount of electricity using this technology, IIRC to a power company in Europe that is now developing it.
The latest incident with BLP was on May 22 when they released these six "validation reports" concerning a different technology, their "CIHT" fuel cell. I distinguished the former tech as "thermal" because the CIHT produces electricity rather than heat and so needs no heat cycle to turn the power generated into useful energy. CIHT tech would supposedly be useful for things like motive energy and could be used for electric cars and spacecraft.
I posted in this thread a few days ago because during one of my habitual tech sweeps across the web, I noted BLP had some news up. That's what I copied to. None of the reports are more than 3 pages as I recall, and they're all pretty easy to understand. Each of the reports has a bio provided so you know something about the person or group that did the investigation.
None of these reports can be considered detailed empirical studies. They were surface investigations that appear were paid for by would-be investors to understand what BLP has on offer as regards the CIHT technology. More than once I noted the report was specific that it recommended funding to turn this first gen fuel cell into a larger model within a year, and a much larger model capable of commercial application within two years. These are credible figures for R&D work. If anything, this is pushing pretty hard since for a commercial product the power density of the device would need to be increased by several orders magnitude.
I'll be excited if BLP can show they can get the power densities they're hoping for from the CIHT. It's worth noting though, that if the thermal reactor tech is what it seems from reports, it will be a huge leap past fission, since it does not require radiation shielding, does not require expensive mining and refining for the fuel and does not produce dangerous waste. These are reasons why investors have been interested in the less refined thermal reactor application.
It's important to note too, that although the fusion reaction itself has a higher power density than a fission reaction, fusion systems should they pan out, would have a lower power density than fission systems. In just the same way, though any nuclear reaction has a higher power density than any chemical reaction, even these supposed hydrino reactions, because the various forms of hydrino reaction systems need no shielding, etc, they hold out promise for much higher power densities when looking at the complete system. This is one of the reasons they could, supposedly be used for motive applications such as cars and spacecraft and especially the CIHT since it needs no Rankin, Brayton, Stirling, Kalina or other energy conversion cycle.
The latest incident with BLP was on May 22 when they released these six "validation reports" concerning a different technology, their "CIHT" fuel cell. I distinguished the former tech as "thermal" because the CIHT produces electricity rather than heat and so needs no heat cycle to turn the power generated into useful energy. CIHT tech would supposedly be useful for things like motive energy and could be used for electric cars and spacecraft.
I posted in this thread a few days ago because during one of my habitual tech sweeps across the web, I noted BLP had some news up. That's what I copied to. None of the reports are more than 3 pages as I recall, and they're all pretty easy to understand. Each of the reports has a bio provided so you know something about the person or group that did the investigation.
None of these reports can be considered detailed empirical studies. They were surface investigations that appear were paid for by would-be investors to understand what BLP has on offer as regards the CIHT technology. More than once I noted the report was specific that it recommended funding to turn this first gen fuel cell into a larger model within a year, and a much larger model capable of commercial application within two years. These are credible figures for R&D work. If anything, this is pushing pretty hard since for a commercial product the power density of the device would need to be increased by several orders magnitude.
I'll be excited if BLP can show they can get the power densities they're hoping for from the CIHT. It's worth noting though, that if the thermal reactor tech is what it seems from reports, it will be a huge leap past fission, since it does not require radiation shielding, does not require expensive mining and refining for the fuel and does not produce dangerous waste. These are reasons why investors have been interested in the less refined thermal reactor application.
It's important to note too, that although the fusion reaction itself has a higher power density than a fission reaction, fusion systems should they pan out, would have a lower power density than fission systems. In just the same way, though any nuclear reaction has a higher power density than any chemical reaction, even these supposed hydrino reactions, because the various forms of hydrino reaction systems need no shielding, etc, they hold out promise for much higher power densities when looking at the complete system. This is one of the reasons they could, supposedly be used for motive applications such as cars and spacecraft and especially the CIHT since it needs no Rankin, Brayton, Stirling, Kalina or other energy conversion cycle.
Last edited by GIThruster on Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
randomencounter
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:49 pm
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
A source of a lifetime of amusement. And "troll" ? Might I suggest steel toed boots? So the next time your feet get stepped on......GIThruster wrote:I never get cranky from people failing to act scientifically. Happens every day. I get cranky when trolls go to deliberate efforts to make me cranky.
Chris has been doing this for years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Where are they? Why werent they ever shown to the public?BLP built 10 and 50 kw reactors back in 2007-8
Why werent they ever shown to any other university other than Rowan? I am sure that a lot of people would love to check this out.
Why didnt they produce more of them and now make tons of money by feeding electricity into the grid? Or by providing hot water for heating for residential areas (which is often done in Europe) or for industrial use?
None of that has happened. Instead they are now coming back for more funding for a different product. Why?
What a joke.
And it's him that's calling others on their "attitude". Point out his lack of healthy skepticism IE borderline faith and ... he'll say you're a troll, or a child, or insulting, or stalking him, or...
And it's him that's calling others on their "attitude". Point out his lack of healthy skepticism IE borderline faith and ... he'll say you're a troll, or a child, or insulting, or stalking him, or...
Yep it's all about you.when trolls go to deliberate efforts to make me cranky.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.