Well, I'm not a BLP cheerleader but I will just respond to say that the intuitions of those unfamiliar with the work, meaning everyone here; as to what should have happened when, are really not worth anything. If you don't know what struggles BLP has had, and you don't, then such a judgement should be withheld, IMHO.
In my experience, everything like this takes vastly longer than we would have liked. After all, Bussard's work seemed simple enough back in his day, to all those who were not doing the work. . .
Blacklight Power claims validation and due diligence
"other researchers have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate Mills' experiments."
Who? Links?
I haven't been following it closely, but have not seen that reported.
Re LENR effects, I read that Mills had suggested heat from "cold fusion" was from a similar effect as his process, but I've not seen that he ever followed that up.
Who? Links?
I haven't been following it closely, but have not seen that reported.
Re LENR effects, I read that Mills had suggested heat from "cold fusion" was from a similar effect as his process, but I've not seen that he ever followed that up.
There is also no prize for blindly following someone just because he states that he is correct while all the rest of the world is wrong.parallel wrote:Giorgio writes:
“Blacklight will remain into my bullshit folder until the time when they will make a pubblic experiment proving what they claim.”
Why do the critics not read the various papers before posting? There is no prize for posting uniformed comments.
If he is convinced to be right, he could simply send experimental instructions to "big" university with a 10K US$ check attached to it, and they will be more than happy to test his ideas and give him their results.
I suggest you try to get an idea about what other people think is happening in blacklight process, it might open you some new horizons:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/some ... -well.html
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs and not extraordinary marketing skills. So, until I will see some reputable university replicate their claims, Blacklight will stay in the second place of my personal bullshit list, right under Steorn.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Calorimetry is notorious for being very difficult while seeming very easy. Those who are uninformed think this stuff is simple. Those who know better know that these sorts of experiments are very expensive to do.
The only sorts of labs who can do this work are either universities or private labs receiving largish grants. Universities have the benefit of free slave labor so they're the first place to look. Rowan is interesting in that they have a vested interest in doing world class work with high visibility, since they are still in transition from dumpy state college for studying vacation and leisure; to world class engineering institution. Their facilities and staff are second to none and I would be hesitant to judge their work without a very, very thorough going over.
For instance, Peter Jansson who oversaw this most recent work at Rowan is an extremely accomplished MIT graduate and Cambridge PhD. He conferred with the physicists at Earthtech down in Austin, who had indeed tried to replicate BLP's results years earlier and failed. There's lots of this sort of stuff that's happened over the years and just because someone hasn't gathered the info for you doesn't mean it isn't out there. Fact is, if you don't read the papers, you have no right to complain for lack of info.
The only sorts of labs who can do this work are either universities or private labs receiving largish grants. Universities have the benefit of free slave labor so they're the first place to look. Rowan is interesting in that they have a vested interest in doing world class work with high visibility, since they are still in transition from dumpy state college for studying vacation and leisure; to world class engineering institution. Their facilities and staff are second to none and I would be hesitant to judge their work without a very, very thorough going over.
For instance, Peter Jansson who oversaw this most recent work at Rowan is an extremely accomplished MIT graduate and Cambridge PhD. He conferred with the physicists at Earthtech down in Austin, who had indeed tried to replicate BLP's results years earlier and failed. There's lots of this sort of stuff that's happened over the years and just because someone hasn't gathered the info for you doesn't mean it isn't out there. Fact is, if you don't read the papers, you have no right to complain for lack of info.
Last edited by GIThruster on Thu May 27, 2010 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So, why don't you point us to the papers (apart from the one of Rowan and Blacklight)?GIThruster wrote:Fact is, if you don't read the papers, you have no right to complain for lack of info.
I am very curious to read them and see from whom they are and what extra info they will supply.
Also, FWIW, at the timescale and amount of extra heat claimed, calorimetry is neither expensive nor difficult to execute and validate.
And why didn't Mills support them to get their experimental setup corrected?GIThruster wrote:He conferred with the physicists at Earthtech down in Austin, who had indeed tried to replicate BLP's results years earlier and failed.
What better proof than to help someone who failed before to succeed in replicating your claims?
I think we can discuss this forever, but the reality is that Randall Mills has been making such a claim for the last 20 years, each year pushing the release of this incredible technology to the following year, burning trough tens of millions of dollars without releasing anything except theories.
Look it carefully and you will see an exact replica of what Steorn did.
I would love to be wrong (and for them to be right), but I feel that somehow we will meet again here in 10 years time to discuss the "coming new technology" of Blacklight power.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Giorgio, you just asked above, why BLP has not sent out the work to a trustworthy third party and paid for them to do a completely independent verification. I posted the link to the work that's been going on for more than a year for exactly what you asked for. Someone wondered why others haven't done this work in the past. I named one institution that has tried and failed to do this. I had a personal conversation with Dr. Eric Davis at EarthTech about this.
Now if you go to the EarthTech website, you'll eventually find evidence that they did this work years ago, but there is no detail. I don't even know what sort of funding they had. I can tell you that they had a vested interest to find evidence for the effect, because that lab is run by Dr. Hal Puthoff who has his own ZPF theory he once thought would explain the results at BLP. They did not however, find any evidence for the effect. I don't know how reliable their setup was, but I can tell you Dr. Davis was explicit with me that this is VERY difficult work to do and much more complex than anyone would guess who has not done it.
Research like this is NEVER so easy as what one would guess. I have to say that though I am not convinced of Mills' physics, I find the weight of evidence for the effect almost overwhelming. The situation is nothing like what you paint it. BLP has been exceedingly active in presenting evidence every year for many years and they are not doing ANY marketing or fund raising. They're not even accepting private investment. They're selling licenses . I don't think you're current on the situation, as I am not; I just peek in on them seasonally to see what's new.
Just saying, if you want to form real judgements about this work, it can't be based upon preconceptions of what the world ought to be like. You have to look at the evidence which is a substantial investment of time. Given you're not want to make such an investment, I suggest at least a cursory appraisal of the published works by independent sources, like Rowan.
BTW, LENR does not explain MW of power coming from a reactor the size of a basketball, and it cannot explain the thruster results from 2002 either. Something, we do not know what; is going on. . .
Now if you go to the EarthTech website, you'll eventually find evidence that they did this work years ago, but there is no detail. I don't even know what sort of funding they had. I can tell you that they had a vested interest to find evidence for the effect, because that lab is run by Dr. Hal Puthoff who has his own ZPF theory he once thought would explain the results at BLP. They did not however, find any evidence for the effect. I don't know how reliable their setup was, but I can tell you Dr. Davis was explicit with me that this is VERY difficult work to do and much more complex than anyone would guess who has not done it.
Research like this is NEVER so easy as what one would guess. I have to say that though I am not convinced of Mills' physics, I find the weight of evidence for the effect almost overwhelming. The situation is nothing like what you paint it. BLP has been exceedingly active in presenting evidence every year for many years and they are not doing ANY marketing or fund raising. They're not even accepting private investment. They're selling licenses . I don't think you're current on the situation, as I am not; I just peek in on them seasonally to see what's new.
Just saying, if you want to form real judgements about this work, it can't be based upon preconceptions of what the world ought to be like. You have to look at the evidence which is a substantial investment of time. Given you're not want to make such an investment, I suggest at least a cursory appraisal of the published works by independent sources, like Rowan.
BTW, LENR does not explain MW of power coming from a reactor the size of a basketball, and it cannot explain the thruster results from 2002 either. Something, we do not know what; is going on. . .
I actually asked links from someone different than Rowan or Blacklight, but is clear already to me that you are a firm adept of Blacklight, so this discussion will not bring us anywhere.
My position stands. The only effort I have seen from BLP in the last 20 years has been in the marketing department. I still have to see one convincing evidence of their claims.
If what has been pubblished is enough for you, than I am happy for you, but is not sufficient for me.
My position stands. The only effort I have seen from BLP in the last 20 years has been in the marketing department. I still have to see one convincing evidence of their claims.
If what has been pubblished is enough for you, than I am happy for you, but is not sufficient for me.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Giorgio, Not sure what I was meant to see from your link. From a quick look, Rabbet seemed in error about heat of formation numbers. I don’t claim to understand if Mills’ physics is correct, but I think he deserves a better hearing than he has received from the scientific community.
I commented because I don’t like the accusations of fraud/stupidity without some proof of that. As others commented, there are many that think the same of the Polywell, that has even less published experimental proof so far. Should one assume you think this is fraudulent too, until it has been replicated by several major universities?
I commented because I don’t like the accusations of fraud/stupidity without some proof of that. As others commented, there are many that think the same of the Polywell, that has even less published experimental proof so far. Should one assume you think this is fraudulent too, until it has been replicated by several major universities?
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I don't remember seeing any accusations of fraud here in this thread but to that issue, let me offer the following.
Some years ago I asked a friend who is an ex-senior officer at CIA dealing with tech like this, what he thought of the BLP issue. He didn't know but did some research and got back to me. What he said was that there is no way this is fraud because those on the board are just NOT the type to ever risk their reputations with such a thing. Every one of them would have become extremely well informed before risking their enviable careers. From another source (less reliable) I heard that four of the lesser known members on the board are also ex-senior officers from CIA.
None of these guys are dopey and we have to presume they're all a LOT more informed than we are. So even if Mills' physics is wrong, there's just no basis to call this fraud, just as there's no basis to say all the professors at Rowan, both directly involved in the papers and indirectly involved in the chemical analysis of the reaction products, are frauds.
Mills may well be wrong, but BLP is no fraud.
Some years ago I asked a friend who is an ex-senior officer at CIA dealing with tech like this, what he thought of the BLP issue. He didn't know but did some research and got back to me. What he said was that there is no way this is fraud because those on the board are just NOT the type to ever risk their reputations with such a thing. Every one of them would have become extremely well informed before risking their enviable careers. From another source (less reliable) I heard that four of the lesser known members on the board are also ex-senior officers from CIA.
None of these guys are dopey and we have to presume they're all a LOT more informed than we are. So even if Mills' physics is wrong, there's just no basis to call this fraud, just as there's no basis to say all the professors at Rowan, both directly involved in the papers and indirectly involved in the chemical analysis of the reaction products, are frauds.
Mills may well be wrong, but BLP is no fraud.
Hrm, I can't find them in a quick Google but I remember reading some descriptions of failed attempts (maybe at earthsea?)."other researchers have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate Mills' experiments."
Who? Links?
I haven't been following it closely, but have not seen that reported.
The successul tests at Rowan seem to be using BLP's equipment, which is problematic. I can give you a permanent magnet generator in a black box that will run for a while, and claim all sorts of exotic new physics are behind it. Works great as long as no one else asks to build one themselves.
Looking at the BLP page, it looks like they've moved from "catalyst" to "solid fuel." Heh.
Mills has a bit of a credibility problem, having been caught in plagiarism in his book, and the theory is a mess. But there does seem to be something there, and some serious people have joined BLP. So there's a small chance something useful will someday come of this. Check back in a couple years and see how those commercial installations are working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Concerns about stuff hidden in the box, have no basis in fact, in this case. Took 30 seconds for me to find this:
". . .The detailed chemical combinations are fully disclosed herein and include mixtures consisting of potassium hydride, sodium hydride, magnesium, calcium, titanium carbide, manganese iodide and other chemicals detailed in Table 1.
What is most significant about this new work is that our Rowan University (RU) team was able to consistently generate anomalous heat through these reactions in our South Jersey Technology Park calorimeter laboratory in quantities ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known exothermic reactions. Also, we were able to procure the chemicals used in the reactions from normal chemical suppliers (e.g. Alfa Aesar and Sigma Aldrich). Of particular import is that the specific quantities and mixtures of reaction chemicals are fully disclosed in this document (See Tables 1 and 4). This significant disclosure by BLP now presented for the first time in this report makes it possible for any laboratory with a nominally accurate calorimetry system (1-3% error) to demonstrate the repeatability of these reactions which produce anomalous heat regularly in our university laboratory. Finally, the scientists of the Rowan University Chemistry and Biochemistry Department have analyzed the reaction products and are confident that the procedures we have followed and chemicals we have procured and reacted are not capable of generating the quantities of heat we have observed. . ."
Lets bear in mind this stuff is all more than a year old now, and the same old objections are still coming because people keep commenting on work they haven't looked at.
". . .The detailed chemical combinations are fully disclosed herein and include mixtures consisting of potassium hydride, sodium hydride, magnesium, calcium, titanium carbide, manganese iodide and other chemicals detailed in Table 1.
What is most significant about this new work is that our Rowan University (RU) team was able to consistently generate anomalous heat through these reactions in our South Jersey Technology Park calorimeter laboratory in quantities ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known exothermic reactions. Also, we were able to procure the chemicals used in the reactions from normal chemical suppliers (e.g. Alfa Aesar and Sigma Aldrich). Of particular import is that the specific quantities and mixtures of reaction chemicals are fully disclosed in this document (See Tables 1 and 4). This significant disclosure by BLP now presented for the first time in this report makes it possible for any laboratory with a nominally accurate calorimetry system (1-3% error) to demonstrate the repeatability of these reactions which produce anomalous heat regularly in our university laboratory. Finally, the scientists of the Rowan University Chemistry and Biochemistry Department have analyzed the reaction products and are confident that the procedures we have followed and chemicals we have procured and reacted are not capable of generating the quantities of heat we have observed. . ."
Lets bear in mind this stuff is all more than a year old now, and the same old objections are still coming because people keep commenting on work they haven't looked at.
Indeed accurate calorimetry is fraught with problems, when the energy generated in the system is a small fraction of the external energy in & out.GIThruster wrote:Calorimetry is notorious for being very difficult while seeming very easy. Those who are uninformed think this stuff is simple. Those who know better know that these sorts of experiments are very expensive to do.
The only sorts of labs who can do this work are either universities or private labs receiving largish grants. Universities have the benefit of free slave labor so they're the first place to look. Rowan is interesting in that they have a vested interest in doing world class work with high visibility, since they are still in transition from dumpy state college for studying vacation and leisure; to world class engineering institution. Their facilities and staff are second to none and I would be hesitant to judge their work without a very, very thorough going over.
For instance, Peter Jansson who oversaw this most recent work at Rowan is an extremely accomplished MIT graduate and Cambridge PhD. He conferred with the physicists at Earthtech down in Austin, who had indeed tried to replicate BLP's results years earlier and failed. There's lots of this sort of stuff that's happened over the years and just because someone hasn't gathered the info for you doesn't mean it isn't out there. Fact is, if you don't read the papers, you have no right to complain for lack of info.
However for any system with the potential for significant power generation it is easy. You set up a closed system and measure total energy out over time. If the results are not incontrovertible, or do not persist long enough to rule out absolutely chemical reactions, the system is not going to lead to significant power production.
Put it the other way round, if this is as BLP says it should be easy to get indisputable results that will make the whole scientific establishment take notice.
The work from Rowan is in no way proof of principle for BLP, there are many too many loop holes.
So they are very high on my BS list, too, and will remain there unless BLP provide unambiguous evidence of something extraordinary.