BLP news

[GIThruster]

Scott you seem to have your facts backward. BLP did not claim they were going to develop their last piece of technology for commercial use. They sold non-exclusive licenses to others to do that.

What they have been working on is this new technology that is not like the reactor tested at Rowan a few years ago. The CIHT does not produce only heat. It produces electricity without a heat cycle, much like a conventional fuel cell.

If you want to ignore the news and offer ultimatums to others not in attendance that's up to you. Please don't however put words in my mouth. I did not say I think people should ignore the careful evaluations of Ph.D. engineers from MIT and Cal-Tech in order to support their pre-conceived notions of how life ought to be. I in fact consider such an attitude foolish past understanding or useful description. These supposed evaluations appear to be done by investigators working as hired guns for investment groups and they're all recommending investment along with their judgments as to what can be accomplished within the next 2 year time frame, with milestones both this year and next.

At least that's how I took it.

[ScottL]

I think you read more into what I posted than intended. At no point was I criticizing you for bringing to light further information, just saying that I feel we're at a stage with these energy devices that it really has become a put up or shut up situation. This is of course my opinion/interpretation of comments and criticisms. At best, I think these etended high hopes are taxing on our dreams and so I think, and I could be wrong here, many people are just saying "let me know when you've got something (commercial) to show me."

Mind you its my interpretation of people's sentiment. I just happen to share that sentiment.

[GIThruster]

I'm sure life will always be full of people who can't be bothered to examine claims until there are commercial level power or thrust coming from this test item or that. I will though, continue to consider that attitude tame and useless when it comes to developing new technologies. Obviously, if the USN had that attitude there would be no Polywell research.

Some of the analysis shows 5,600X the energy out of the test unit as in, and they seem to have a clear path to building 10W and much larger 1.5kW units this year and next. I guess then you could say you'll be interested once they build their 1.5kW unit. This isn't much different than NASA, who failing to have their own physicists able to do evaluations of M-E tech, have basically said "let us know when you have larger thrusts". the requirement for "larger' doesn't really have anything to do with the limits of the experimental test apparatus or protocols, but rather just NASA laziness that continues to provide evidence the entire agency needs to be swept clean top to bottom, IMHO.

[Betruger]

if the USN had that attitude there would be no Polywell research.

When did Polywell team make claims like BLP's or Rossi's? E.G. recursive promises of delivering a working [reactor].

[GIThruster]

Irrelevant question that fails to come to the issue. What I said is true. If the measure for what ought to get our attention and support were a commercial device, USN would never have funded the Poly. If you're in support of Poly research, you're in support of funding speculative ventures that show promise. Same with the DFF and pretty much all fusion research.

The BLP thermal reactor, and now their CIHT fuel cell, both show promise for broad application beyond what a Poly is capable of. The 1.5 MW CIHT follow-on they're proposing for next year would provide enough power for automotive applications, an entire family home or a powerful robotic interplanetary probe with greater utility than JIMO was slated for, and with a tiny fraction of the mass since there would be no radiators or shielding. Most people were disappointed when JIMO was cancelled and that was a billion dollar project with no direct applications back here on Earth--it was pure science. In light of the overwhelming possibilities here, it seems at least to me foolish that people continue to complain about how BLP hasn't kept some forced schedule. Go do real R&D work and you'll find that discovery science doesn't keep nice schedules.

My reading of the 6 "validation reports" was to take it that these are all hired guns, paid by private investors to determine whether BLP's claims are worthy of funding in support of very specific research goals. More than once, the investigator specified the work was worth pursing in specific steps looking for specific outcomes in 2012 and 2013. Even if BLP is unable to keep that schedule, it seems to me we have a very practical. nuts and bolts approach here to a technology with great promise.

[Betruger]

Polywell and Hydrinos. Apples and oranges.

[choff]

I doubt if you will find another project like polywell where the the lead researchers are more constrained when making public comments.

[Betruger]

at a stage with these energy devices that it really has become a put up or shut up situation.

If you're in support of Poly research, you're in support of funding speculative ventures that show promise.

Not just total over-generalization but non sequitur because apples and oranges

[GIThruster]

choff, are we talking about the same Polywell project that was started by the man who asked for $200 million to make it work during a Google talk?

Betruger, I have to agree. The salient difference is of course that the Polywell is based upon modern nuclear physics, etc. and the BLP stuff is all based upon a theory that very few in the scientific community can or will support. It will be a paradigm changing theory if one day it is ever accepted.

This is why we've seen BLP take 25 years to prove itself and why the vast bulk of the scientific community is not in support, despite the gobs of physical evidence that has been accumulating over time.

I'm not saying I think Mills is right in his theory. I'm just agreeing that yes indeed, in this we are comparing apples with oranges.

[Betruger]

Right. Supporting something established but merely extremely difficult to tweak to break even is a totally different proposition from supporting something that's not even established because not yet conclusively defined.

[ScottL]

Scott you seem to have your facts backward. BLP did not claim they were going to develop their last piece of technology for commercial use. They sold non-exclusive licenses to others to do that.

I wanted to address this quote specifically. Their claim as documented here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/05/balckl ... otype.html
Posted May 29, 2008 by NextBigFuture:

They expect to have pilot plants built and devices ready for delivery in 12-18 months. Below (hit 'read more') there is a chart which shows that Blacklight is targeting $250/KW which would be several times cheaper than existing power sources. They are also looking to scale up to megawatt power.

Sadly, BLP has removed all links to prior slides, talks, charts, etc. that dealt with this time period. I don't believe NextBigFuture would fabricate the images of slides, comments, and investor data, so I'm left wondering.....4 years later, where that 50kw power system has gone...

[rcain]

so, yet another 12-18 months, and we shall know. yada yada. this BLP fiasco has been carrying on for a decade (or so it seems).

i wish them the best (Hydrinos or no), but their investors must be getting pretty impatient for results/product by now, surely...

[ScottL]

so, yet another 12-18 months, and we shall know. yada yada. this BLP fiasco has been carrying on for a decade (or so it seems).

i wish them the best (Hydrinos or no), but their investors must be getting pretty impatient for results/product by now, surely...

It was 12-18 months in 2008. That has long since passed.

[GIThruster]

Scott, BLP sold the right to develop their reactor into a commercial power source back in 2008. They never said they would do that themselves. They have been saying for years that they intended to become a fuel provider for those who develop these technologies. Obviously the thing they have been working on is the CIHT and for good reason--without a heat cycle, it is capable of much broader application. This is a more useful technology than that demonstrated at Rowan back in 2008.

Honestly though, I just find these complaints incredible. Whining about dates and timelines and not bothering to read the reports seems pretty lazy and out of touch to me. The reports even say how many people BLP has working--it's about a dozen. It takes significant amounts of time for a dozen people to develop a commercial product from a new process. How is that hard to understand?

Just take the news as news and read the validation studies if you like. The whining about timelines is not value added.

[rcain]

some of us have heard it all before. there appears very little of substance in the BLP report. no change.