Any news on competing approaches?
Any news on competing approaches?
Tri-Alpha got that big dose of VC funding early last year. This year they annouced a solar powered recharging station for electric cars. I can't find any news on their fusion progress. Has anyone else heard about any significant progress from EMC2's competitors?
Blacklight Power is claiming independent confirmation by Rowan University of dramatic excess heat derived from radically novel chemical processes. If it is commercializable as they claim, I am sorry to say their technology would make moot most envisioned Polywell applications, except perhaps spaceflight. I refer you to Rowan University's "Water Flow Calorimetry Experiments, Validation Tests and Chemical Analysis of Reactants for BlackLight Power Inc." It is accessible by link from http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can tell how how a BFR will work. Unfortunately I cannot tell you if it will work.nferguso wrote:Blacklight Power is claiming independent confirmation by Rowan University of dramatic excess heat derived from radically novel chemical processes. If it is commercializable as they claim, I am sorry to say their technology would make moot most envisioned Polywell applications, except perhaps spaceflight. I refer you to Rowan University's "Water Flow Calorimetry Experiments, Validation Tests and Chemical Analysis of Reactants for BlackLight Power Inc." It is accessible by link from http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml.
With blacklight we have no theory of operation. Without at least some of that engineering is harder. There is also the question of cost. $ per KWh. I can give you a range for a working BFR. No such number exists for blacklight to my knowledge.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I don't think it is quite true that they have 'no theory' of operation, simply that Fenyman, Heisenburg, Schrodinger were all wrong - only Maxwell survives intact.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-302/aflb302m185.pdf
.. though slightly repetitive, presents some thought provoking reasoning.
it wouldn't be the first time that science has been stood on its head.
'scammers'? i am not qualified to say.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-302/aflb302m185.pdf
.. though slightly repetitive, presents some thought provoking reasoning.
it wouldn't be the first time that science has been stood on its head.
'scammers'? i am not qualified to say.
.MSimon wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That is exactly so Simon. When applied to WB-6, we saw the short circuit, and some interesting numbers, but nothing in the realm of extraordinary evidence. To get that "extraordinary evidence", WB-7 was built. WE shall see if the testing of WB-7's performance meets the standard of extraordinary evidence.
I encourage all things Polywell be put to the test of:
Its only fair that all other new energy systems be put to the same standard.MSimon wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
The problem with Blacklight is they found a modestly novel chemical reaction and tried to rewrite physics with it so they could claim they had a powerful new energy source that will change everything as opposed to a minor paper in a chemistry journal.
OK, so they have this unexplained heat flow. But no one else seems to be able to find these "hydrinos" they claim to have discovered. You'd think they'd be producing them in physics labs all over the country if there was anything to that.
Mills' work has been terribly sloppy, to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino
OK, so they have this unexplained heat flow. But no one else seems to be able to find these "hydrinos" they claim to have discovered. You'd think they'd be producing them in physics labs all over the country if there was anything to that.
Mills' work has been terribly sloppy, to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino
Polywell makes no extraordinary claims of new physics. We're just asking for the chance to see if scaling laws allow this to be a net power source at ~1.5m radius.Mills has written a 1000 page tome, entitled The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, that takes the reader all the way from hydrinos to antigravity (WN 9 May 97). Fortunately, Aaron Barth (not to be confused with Erik Baard, the Randy Mills apologist), has taken upon himself to look through it, checking for accuracy. Barth is a post doctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, and holds a PhD in Astronomy, 1998, from UC, Berkeley. What he found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts
'Simply that Feynman, Heisenberg, Schrodinger were all wrong'??? Nothing simple about that, no scientist in their right mind would 'simply' say they were wrong!rcain wrote:I don't think it is quite true that they have 'no theory' of operation, simply that Fenyman, Heisenburg, Schrodinger were all wrong - only Maxwell survives intact.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-302/aflb302m185.pdf
.. though slightly repetitive, presents some thought provoking reasoning.
it wouldn't be the first time that science has been stood on its head.
'scammers'? i am not qualified to say.
So are we to give up on true brilliance for a guy who at the very best is questionable as a scientist?
"Scammer" is much better word than I would put to this nonsense!
I see understatement is simply lost on you gblaze42.
btw: whilst I am no apologist for bad science, and am no particular friend (or foe) of Mills - the fact that his experimental findings at least have allegedly been replicated by another lab independently, seems to have been lost on many, in their haste to dam(n) what patently no one yet understands.
(see other thread on this questionable subject)
btw: whilst I am no apologist for bad science, and am no particular friend (or foe) of Mills - the fact that his experimental findings at least have allegedly been replicated by another lab independently, seems to have been lost on many, in their haste to dam(n) what patently no one yet understands.
(see other thread on this questionable subject)
When your device requires upending of nearly a century's worth of foundational physics, and the people claiming to verify it are guys working outside their areas of expertise, then, "scammer" definitely applies. Blacklight is rapidly getting to the level of spam around here.rcain wrote:(see other thread on this questionable subject)
Lol, yeah I have heard about Blacklight before as well. What I heard about them and their claims made me very sceptical, even though I am not a phycisist. It just seems tooo far fetched. However, it is interesting that a 3rd party comfirmed their claims (at least it seems so, without me reading about the details, maybe someone with some more understanding can shed some light on this).
Now, just because someone is working for a university does not mean that they are incapable of making mistakes. So there is still lots of reasons to be sceptical.
Anyone got more from the people at that university, or can give some factual input about the whole thing (other than scam accusations which, while possibly true, dont help clearing that "mystery" up at all)?
Now, just because someone is working for a university does not mean that they are incapable of making mistakes. So there is still lots of reasons to be sceptical.
Anyone got more from the people at that university, or can give some factual input about the whole thing (other than scam accusations which, while possibly true, dont help clearing that "mystery" up at all)?
No, an understatement isn't lost. I apologize, the way you put it, it didn't come across.rcain wrote:I see understatement is simply lost on you gblaze42.
btw: whilst I am no apologist for bad science, and am no particular friend (or foe) of Mills - the fact that his experimental findings at least have allegedly been replicated by another lab independently, seems to have been lost on many, in their haste to dam(n) what patently no one yet understands.
(see other thread on this questionable subject)
I'll be on guard for that from now on.
I don't think anyone is damning them, it's as been stated before, if they are going to give such incredible statements they'll have to prove it before some of us will accept it. The only way that a Hydrino will work is to uproot physics as we know it. That's a pretty big one in my books.