What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?

[Michaelangelica]

Can anyone explain this to me please?

 

Next Big Future: What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?

[Moontanman]

Can anyone explain this to me please?

 

Next Big Future: What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?

 

Michael, I read it and it makes no sense to me at all, compared to , say, cold fusion it is a 9.9 on my BS meter. Cold fusion is a 7.5. At least the mechanism of cold fusion can be understood and at least some researchers have been able to replicates it's effects. This is completely new to me and makes claims that are orders of magnitude more improbable, a new force? I'd like to see some proof of that for sure!

[modest]

The site above had to add an update (no doubt the consequence of informed readers complaining):

 

UPDATE:

For clarification, the ideas and new physics/chemistry proposed by the Blacklight people goes against current science. The highly regarded living and dead scientists (including nobel prize winners) would have to be wrong in regards to the areas of physics and chemistry effected by the Blacklight/Hydrinos/Nwe physics theories and experiments (IF Blacklight Power is right which is a series of huge IFs).

 

It would take a series of improbable events for Blacklight to be totally right. The device could partially work but for reasons other than the new physics and chemistry that they propose.

 

The new physics (Hydrino theory) is described here:

 

Hydrino theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The theory has not had good success in peer reviews. I would treat it very skeptically.

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

An "electrically minded" friend said this to me:-

The energy is obtained by reducing the electron orbit in normal hydrogen, which due to the reduction in the radius of orbit, with the speed of the electron remaining constant releases energy.

I dont understand the chemistry but the physics would make sense if they can get it to happen.

Not really sure that that helps.

[Jay-qu]

An "electrically minded" friend said this to me:-

 

Not really sure that that helps.

Well I dont know about the velocity part, but he has come up with a theory that proposes lower energy states of the hydrogen atom. So the way I see it is that basically this energy can be extracted via certain chemical reactions.

 

Apparently the maths of the theory starts with Maxwell's equations and applies it to a hydrogen system. At this point I think some rock hard experimental evidence needs to be put forward before it is taken more seriously.

[Michaelangelica]

Whatever you say!

I am out of my depth and madly dog-paddling ! :naughty:

[dobermanmacleod]

It really gets me the close minded banter on this thread. Why don't you research a subject before giving cynical replies? Here is the real skinny on BlackLight Power: 1. it is independently verified, 2. it has working scale models, 3. it is already fully funded, so isn't looking for any new investors, and 4. their board of directors would never allow any company they were associated with make false claims:

 

In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, "In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions."

 

BlackLight's physics-defying promise: Cheap power from water - Jul. 2, 2008

 

“The working models in his lab generate 50 kilowatts of electricity - enough to power six or seven houses. But these, Mills says, can be scaled to drive a large, electric power plant. The inventor claims this electricity will cost less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which compares to a national average of 8.9 cents…The business, Mills says, has attracted $60 million in funding from wealthy individuals, investment firms, and utilities such as Delaware's Conectiv, and it is no longer seeking money. BlackLight's board of directors reads like a Who's Who of finance and energy leaders, including Michael Jordan, former CEO of both Electronic Data Systems (EDS, Fortune 500) and Westinghouse; Neil Moskowitz, CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston; and Shelby Brewer, former CEO of ABB (ABB) Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power.”

 

Watch this 2 and a half minute long CNN report of BlackLight Power last December: YouTube - Blacklight Power First Commercial Licence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0

 

OK, now you see the energy technology is independently verified, there are working models using the energy technology, they don't even need any further investment, and their board of directors have a lot to lose if their company is making false claims. Heck, I even threw in a 2 and a half minute video of a CNN report. What will it take for you to accept that BlackLight has discovered a new primary form of energy production??

[pamela]

It really gets me the close minded banter on this thread. Why don't you research a subject before giving cynical replies?

wow, you sure charged in here like a doberman, macleod;)

welcome to Hypography:)

[UncleAl]

Blacklight Power?

 

STURGEON WAS AN OPTIMIST

[Jay-qu]

It really gets me the close minded banter on this thread. Why don't you research a subject before giving cynical replies?

 

OK, now you see the energy technology is independently verified, there are working models using the energy technology, they don't even need any further investment, and their board of directors have a lot to lose if their company is making false claims. Heck, I even threw in a 2 and a half minute video of a CNN report. What will it take for you to accept that BlackLight has discovered a new primary form of energy production??

One of three things:

1. I see it in a peer-reviewed journal explaining the mechanism and where the energy comes from

2. I experience it first hand

or 3. It is implemented for wide scale power production

 

Only then can I be sure there is no man behind the curtain. Call me a sceptic, because I am, but please dont call me close minded.

[dobermanmacleod]

One of three things:

1. I see it in a peer-reviewed journal explaining the mechanism and where the energy comes from

2. I experience it first hand

or 3. It is implemented for wide scale power production

 

Only then can I be sure there is no man behind the curtain. Call me a skeptic, because I am, but please don't call me close minded.

 

Jay,

 

First, I apologize if I hurt your feelings by calling you closed minded. On the other hand, the criteria you use to gauge is (in my opinion) limiting. For instance, how about a working scale model, or the release of the formula for independent verification?

 

It is beyond me why people won't believe a bunch of nerds from Rowan, I mean the odds of them forming some kind of conspiracy is pretty far out? Or how about the caliber of BlackLight's board of directors, like they are going to support fraud?

 

I mean there is no doubt if the BlackLight Process is legitimate it will eventually meet all three of the criteria you list, but it seems like everyone who I cross paths with concerning this are from Missouri (i.e. the "show me" state).

 

With respect,

 

Brad

[Jay-qu]

Look Im happy to be wrong, but a scale model just doesnt cut it for me (unless I see it myself). Large scale means that the power cant be coming from some hidden chemical process (intended or not).

[dobermanmacleod]

It seems to me that a 50 kilowatt scale model would be sufficiently large enough, but then it seems you are trying to exercise an abundance of caution. My analysis is that many people make the judgmental mistake of crossing the line from skepticism to cynicism. It seems pretty clear to me that it is either fraudulent or legitimate - I mean don't you think BlackLight would have ruled out a chemical reaction (or nuclear for that matter)?

[maikeru]

Blacklight Power?

 

STURGEON WAS AN OPTIMIST

 

Thank god for Uncle Al.

 

This is crap. It is nothing but crap. It is only crap. It is purely crap. It is clarified, concentrated, distilled, condensed, polished, packaged, and briskly shoved up your fundament while homing in on your wallet crap.

[dobermanmacleod]

Listen to my Uncle Al: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

 

"All truth passes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed;

Second, it is violently opposed; and

Third, it is accepted as self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

 

By the way, did you ever hear of the Roman General who wildly succeeded in a military campaign, then repeated the same strategy a couple of years later and lost big-time? He was heard muttering that today wasn't like yesterday the night before he committed suicide. The moral to the story is that cynics who bet tomorrow will be like today are sometimes catastrophically wrong (I often wonder what they say to themselves then).

[Jay-qu]

Go and spend 4+ years studying physics and/or chemistry as Al (and I) have and you too will remain more sceptical.

 

Your Arthur Schopenhauer is great in hind sight, most truths do go through that cycle. Bullshit goes through a similar cycle:

First, it rejected as obvious BS;

Second, it is ridiculed;

Third, someone finally sits down and proves it wrong, just to shut them up.

[dobermanmacleod]

I just don't understand why, when confronted with a novel phenomena, a fool is better able to accept it than an educated person. Just to explain, I consider myself to be a philosopher, and am interested in non-consensus reality and how people deal with it psychologically. Obviously, the BlackLight Process is too-good-to-be-true, so some will dismiss it out of hand. Frankly, they aren't any better than a cat, because a cat will never set on a hot stove again, but then it will never sit on a cold one either.

 

Here we have overwhelming evidence in the form of human behavior: a board of directors that simply would never associate themselves with charlatans, working scale models, and independent verification in the form of both a large group from Rowan University and the public release of the entire experiment to be repeated elsewhere.

 

Undeniably there is a lot of BS out there, but don't you sit down and take a close look where the smoke is coming from to determine if there is a fire? I can't tell you the number of interesting and valuable things I've learned by taking a closer look at things that seem on the surface to be fishy (although I reject an awful lot more, it is worth it for the few gems I find).

 

Is it really that important to you that you understand why something works? How much technology do you come into contact with every day that you don't understand the nitty-gritty of, but just accept as a convenience that works? Are you afraid of being fooled or taken advantage of? Look, I'm not trying to browbeat you, only understand your reluctance to give this non-consensus reality phenomena more stock than you seem to be giving it.