Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 454 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: BLP news
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3876
http://blacklightpower.com/presentation ... on-web.pdf

The data represented on slide 10 is their most persuasive argument, IMHO.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
And what, prey tell, does slide 10 tell you that is so persuasive about 'hydrinos'?

Self-serving psychotic bullshit!?! Ha!

This forum is for Polywell news. What has this got to do with Polywell or fusion?

I used to like this site because of the 'news' forum. MSimon and many others were constantly finding interesting tid-bits on fusion well worth posting. I've picked up a few good early leads here just like that.

Blacklight power?... How many frikkin years can they draw this bull out for? Constant patent rejections. Constant failure to live up to the hype-shyte. Never never never meeting their own set dates....

Looks to me like this kind of fallacious clap-trap is the reason folks aren't really keeping a watchful eye on the world's media - because when they post stuff up, it just gets swamped by manure like this.

So, go on GIT. Explain why slide 10 explains it all. I'm all eyes and ears...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3876
Chris, you obviously don't know anything about BLP. Your charges are vacuous and you opinion is one of ignorance.

BLP's board of directors reads like a Fortune 50 company, including past CEO's of J&J and Westinghouse, 4 ex senior officers from CIA and others who would NEVER risk their reputations with a scam. Likewise are their investors, one of whom is a NASA center chief. These are people who've invested themselves in understanding the data you so blithely wave away.

The reason that slide 10 is a persuasive argument to me is because it is one presentation of the data taken over the years of how the Milsian computer modeling program is astonishingly accurate compared to observation, while standard QM modeling is astonishingly poor. This is the kind of data Mills delivers to the American Chemical Society and has every year for the last ten that I have been following the company.

6th link down:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml

I'd like to see some substantiation from you about your claims BLP has not kept pace with their stated goals. In ten years I have never seen the kinds of hype you're talking about. I'd like to see the "constant patent rejections" for surely, they have a whole bundle of patents, 58 issued and more than 100 pending. I'd like you to explain the data from Rowan for us. How is it the University has evidence of far more heat coming from their 50 KW module than can be explained by any standard chemistry? How did a dozen university professors go out on a limb and validate the BLP reactor in their state of the art facilities, all to no avail--because obviously YOU know better! How do you explain the conspiracy at Rowan? We all want to know, I'm sure!

Discussion of BLP belongs in the forum for the same reasons that FF belongs in this forum: they're both possible competitors for the Poly in the future energy market. The salient differences between the Poly and the BLP are that the BLP has had demonstration reactors running for years, and they're already selling licenses.

IMHO, the national labs and NASA ought to be doing their own BLP replications. Surely the CIHT reactor (slides 23-24) would enable a JIMO type mission at a tiny fraction what was slated for an SP100 reactor ($1 billion total mission cost).

In an age where we need real energy solutions, it is silly USG is not funding BLP, as they are both the Poly and the FF reactors.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 3161
GIThruster wrote:
BLP's board of directors reads like a Fortune 50 company, including past CEO's of J&J and Westinghouse, 4 ex senior officers from CIA and others who would NEVER risk their reputations with a scam.
Ah! Yes. The executives of organisations, who are known througout geekdom as the font of all worldly engineering knowledge. Why bother with technical specialists to design things, when we have clever accountants and managers who can power-point their way into, and back out of, anything?

Quote:
The reason that slide 10 is a persuasive argument to me is because it is one presentation of the data taken over the years of how the Milsian computer modeling program is astonishingly accurate compared to observation, while standard QM modeling is astonishingly poor.
And it is so accurate that it reliably predicts outcomes contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If one is presented with a computer programme that predicts dS<0, then one is left to either trust or doubt the computer programme. As we all know computer programmes are infallible, then clearly I am just being an idiot.

Quote:
I'd like to see some substantiation from you about your claims BLP has not kept pace with their stated goals.
If only I could be bothered. If I happen to come across any one of the multitude of them, then I'll post it.

Quote:
In ten years I have never seen the kinds of hype you're talking about. I'd like to see the "constant patent rejections" for surely, they have a whole bundle of patents, 58 issued and more than 100 pending.
Is there a list of these somewhere, please?

Quote:
I'd like you to explain the data from Rowan for us. How is it the University has evidence of far more heat coming from their 50 KW module than can be explained by any standard chemistry?
Er.... because they are too focused on looking for something goofy than to keep a look out for simple explanations. It's called experimenter bias.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3876
Chris, without looking at any of the evidence, without reading the reports, without knowing any of the experimenters or their grad students, with virtually no knowledge whatsoever concerning the BLP reactor validation at Rowan, you are ready to pronounce everyone involved a victim of experimenter bias?

Is that right?

And you called me psycho?

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Posts: 1155
Location: Eastern Iowa
If you search this forum you will find that BLP has a history here. It has been hashed and rehashed as have many other topics. It seems hard to justify saying that anyone who follows this forum knows nothing about one of the many topics discussed extensively.

_________________
Aero


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3876
Chris and I went round on this in the past. He's never read the report, but he is willing to cast judgements about university professors he knows nothing about. Chris does know nothing about the report because he has not read the report.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Posts: 721
Location: Austin, TX
If you wiki Hartree–Fock model, it was developed in the 1920s as an approximation. It even stipulates that there are known problems with the model relating to experimental results. Why would they compare their numerical calculation to an approximation?

_________________
Carter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am
Posts: 175
GIThruster wrote:
Chris, without looking at any of the evidence...
And you called me psycho?


Perhaps you two lovebirds should get a room... Or scale things back a bit...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3876
kcdodd wrote:
If you wiki Hartree–Fock model, it was developed in the 1920s as an approximation. It even stipulates that there are known problems with the model relating to experimental results. Why would they compare their numerical calculation to an approximation?


You'd need to ask a chemist but I suspect that this is the only thing to compare to.

Point is, they take this program based upon Mills' theory, and calculate exact values for chemical bonds. They then do experimental observations and their program is always very close to what is observed. QM's predictions are not. They're presenting this data each year for more than a decade to the American Chemical Society. These are exactly the people who are suited to judge this evidence.

You see, it's the physicists who don't like Mills, and the engineers just follow what they're told. "Mills is to be outcast. Call him a quack. You do not need to understand what he's saying--just ridicule him please."

Note however that in this one forum, we have not one but two sources saying QM is wrong--Mills and Prinz. Einstein thought it was wrong too, but was never able to figure out how it is wrong. I'm not saying I think QM is wrong. I'm saying if you follow the evidence, then BLP is obviously producing net power on a scale that can be commercialized, and they're likely to do this well before the Poly or the FF is ready.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am
Posts: 561
gosh... paradigm shift technologies take so long to be developed! I am still waiting for the Woodward Effect ship. Why must it take so darn long?

I am 30 already! I want to see men landing on Titan...

really, all the luck to the guys at BLP. I am skeptical of their claims, but I DO HOPE to bite my tongue!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Posts: 2258
Location: Italy
GIThruster wrote:
Note however that in this one forum, we have not one but two sources saying QM is wrong--Mills and Prinz. Einstein thought it was wrong too, but was never able to figure out how it is wrong. I'm not saying I think QM is wrong. I'm saying if you follow the evidence, then BLP is obviously producing net power on a scale that can be commercialized, and they're likely to do this well before the Poly or the FF is ready.


That QM fails to explain a LOT of particular cases is common knowledge.
What's the issue here is not that QM fails, but the claims that are issued after one states that QM fails.

Blacklight has been now on the market for 20 years, burned through a huge amount of cash, changed products and business model at least 4 times (and maybe more) and never delivered anything.
The Millsian 1.0 I still remember when it was introduced. It was sold as a "Database" of known molecules re-imaged under the Electron Spherical Shell Theory of Mills. No extra info was added or supposed to be extracted from it. They just took the existing experimental molecular values and changed the appearance of the molecule form.
Now they are saying it is a Program that can actually calculate molecular values..... I wonder what the truth is...

Yet, even if they have something new now with Millsian 1.0, I do not see how this can by any means prove their BPL Thermal Power Tech or the Hydrino theory.

I said it before, BL can easily prove their claims. Just pack 10 Kg of their magic powder and ship it to 100 University around the world and let them validate your claims.
That's just 1 ton of material, practically nothing according their claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Posts: 2258
Location: Italy
AcesHigh wrote:
really, all the luck to the guys at BLP. I am skeptical of their claims, but I DO HOPE to bite my tongue!


I do hope not only to bite, but to cut my tongue. Nothing will make me more happy than claims by BLP, Eestor or Steorn (among the many) to be right. It will mean a completely new world of physics to be discovered and analyzed.

Unfortunately the more time passes, the bigger is the possibility that this new world is existing only in those guys brains......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Posts: 721
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
That QM fails to explain a LOT of particular cases is common knowledge.


Really now?

_________________
Carter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:29 am
Posts: 283
Location: Chicago
The most amazing thing about BLP is their staying power. Mill's theories were examined and debunked years ago. His book about quantum this or that contains numerous errors and passages lifted wholesale from textbooks. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Mills is loaded with hot air and has had nothing substantial verified in all this time (did I just read 20 years?). Why the local State's Attorney didn't shut his behind down years ago, I don't know, they must be understaffed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 454 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group