BLP news

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Two new papers on Blacklight Power

Rowan U. "Anomalous Heat Gains from Regenerative Chemical Mixtures: Characterization of BLP Chemistries Used for Energy Generation and Regeneration Reactions" http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/Rowan2010.pdf

From GEN3 Partners and Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA)
"Validation of the Observation of Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges in the Presence of Molecular Hydrogen."
http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
reporting confirmation of "hydrino"?

Edited - wrong link.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

parallel wrote:reporting confirmation of "hydrino"?
Yup. "In summary, considering the low energy of 2.6 J per pulse, the observed radiation in the photon energy range from 40 eV to 120 eV, and reference experiments with He and oxygen, no convention explanation was found to be plausible. . ."

Technically, it is not confirmation of the hydrino so much as confirmation they found a situation that can be explained by no other means--which is just how science is supposed to work. In the absence of an explanation for the physical observation, BLP has a right to claim an explanation that is not conventional.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

parallel wrote:Two new papers on Blacklight Power

....

From GEN3 Partners and Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA)
"Validation of the Observation of Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges in the Presence of Molecular Hydrogen."
http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
reporting confirmation of "hydrino"?

Edited - wrong link.
In the second link, the Methods state that the test and measuring equipment was loaned from BLP. That does not represent truly independent confirmation. It is more like having an observer in BLP's lab. It doesn't imply collusion, neither does it imply reproducible results in an independent lab. It they tore the interments apart, satisfied themselves of its function, reassembled and then tested, there would be more confidence in their claims.

And, why does low power imply no energetic reactions. Joules represents power (current * Volts), not potential. You could have a very low Joule powered device that could make cosmic rays, just not many of them.

Admittedly , this skepticism is derived from only the first few pages, I couldn't motivate myself to read the rest .

PS: Curious, I tried to find mention of this paper at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics web site. Also, the closest staff name at the site was Alexander Bykav (not Bykanov), with published papers in the 1980s. Also, the GEN 3 Partners logo at the top of the paper is not mentioned at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics web site.
The link above is through Blacklight's web site. Can anyone provide an alternate link that is not hosted by the Blacklight web site?

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

D Tibbets wrote:
In the second link, the Methods state that the test and measuring equipment was loaned from BLP. That does not represent truly independent confirmation. It is more like having an observer in BLP's lab. It doesn't imply collusion, neither does it imply reproducible results in an independent lab. It they tore the interments apart, satisfied themselves of its function, reassembled and then tested, there would be more confidence in their claims.

Dan Tibbets
You are ignoring that CfA ran the tests with other gases. If they didn't find any anomaly then, why not believe the results with hydrogen?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Technically, it is not confirmation of the hydrino so much as confirmation they found a situation that can be explained by no other means--which is just how science is supposed to work. In the absence of an explanation for the physical observation, BLP has a right to claim an explanation that is not conventional.
Fair enough. On the other hand, abductive reasoning is always dangerous, especially given confirmation bias.

I wonder if they've ruled out transmutation of nickel? Tom Ligon raised that possibility a while back, and it's always seemed to me to be the most plausible explanation extant.

Every year that goes by without them building 100MW+ power plants based on BLP tech makes the theory seem ever less plausible. What they claim to have should have been more productizable than what we've seen so far.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

A quick look at their website and at another couple of sources tells us that Gen3 partners is a service company, not a research institution.

http://www.gen3partners.com/
http://www.insideview.com/directory/gen3-partners-inc

Apart from the obvious concern that one might have from a small service company validating BLP impressive claims, I believe that the main surprises are coming from the BLP paper itself.

Characterization of the reverse reaction. The net efficiency of the reversibility process should be studied by measuring the amount of heat required to reverse the process and developing efficiency measures for assessing the quality of the reversal products.
So, the truth is coming out in the end.
After 20 years, loads of huge claims, tens of millions spent in research they are finally saying that they still do not have any idea of what is the amount of heat required to reverse the process.

This story is becoming so ridiculous....

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

TallDave wrote:
Technically, it is not confirmation of the hydrino so much as confirmation they found a situation that can be explained by no other means--which is just how science is supposed to work. In the absence of an explanation for the physical observation, BLP has a right to claim an explanation that is not conventional.
Fair enough. On the other hand, abductive reasoning is always dangerous, especially given confirmation bias.

I wonder if they've ruled out transmutation of nickel?
I expect you mean "deductive" rather than "abductive". Yeah, fraught with difficulties because we can't ever rule out possibilities we have not yet conceived of, but this is how empiricism works. This is in fact how SCIENCE works.

Yes, the nickel issue was ruled out by Rowan more than a year ago. (Is it two now?)

The big issue here is, we have yet another highly regarded institution, that cannot explain what they've found. In every case, what happens in revolutionary science, is that stuff comes up that the current paradigm cannot explain. . .and comes up. . .and comes up. . .and comes up again and again and again, until the peeps invested in the current paradigm realize their story is just not explaining the facts.

This is a big win for BLP.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

neutron starr
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: Brooklyn Polytechnic

Post by neutron starr »

I'm sure this has been covered to death and nothing in this entire thread is changing anyone's mind but I like to wast my time as much as the next man so here goes...

I fell for a BLP line of BS in high school, got excited and then learned better this resulted in a lasting resentment, so I'm not the most objective on this topic, BUT no mater what "data" is provided, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so here are some pertinent question that BLP must answer to be taken seriously. Where is the magic black box, that only BLP can make, into which water goes and energy, oxygen and "hydrienos" comes out of? When can I buy the box? When can anyone see the box and test current out Vs water in? What key technological hurtles must be overcome to make the box? What tests can be performed with ordinary off the shelf equipment that QM says should dis-prove BLP's claims but don't (if it's not falsifiable then it's an invisible garage dwelling dragon)? the list goes on but if you can find me anyone who can answer these kinds of questions (with numbers and dates please) I'll think about reading a BLP paper till then don't get upset when I roll my eyes. Especialy when BLP has given dates before and missed them.
Last edited by neutron starr on Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some ‘norm’), the freedom to learn from experience…The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable patterns.
Lawrence Kubie

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

neutron starr wrote:What tests can be performed with ordinary off the shelf equipment that QM says should dis-prove BLP's claims but don't (if it's not falsifiable then it's an invisible garage dwelling dragon)?
I've mentioned it before, and it is very simple, and possibly fun! All you need; one balloon full of hydrino gas, one full of helium, and a match.

The hydrino balloon will have a higher lifting capacity than the helium, but if you put the match to it then it won't go up in a whoosh !

Hydrino gas would be chemically inert.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

These last two posts--positive evidence that this is a free forum--not requiring intelligence in the least.

I can't imagine dopier responses than the two above.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

GIThruster wrote:The big issue here is, we have yet another highly regarded institution, that cannot explain what they've found.
ehm... what higly regarded institution? Gen3partners?
They are just a small service company doing tests under a payment contract with equipment and machinery and sensors supplied by BLP.
This is not an indipendent test at all.

GIThruster wrote:This is a big win for BLP.
Nope, just another self financed pubblicity bragging, not much different from a commercial spot.
It will be a big win when (and if) some real "highly regarded" institution will support at least part of their claims.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

GIThruster wrote:These last two posts--positive evidence that this is a free forum--not requiring intelligence in the least.
Blindly believing BLP claims does not require any intelligence.
Questioning their claims does.

BLP looks more and more like scientology crap to me. Believe me becouse I am right but do not ask questions.... silly.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:These last two posts--positive evidence that this is a free forum--not requiring intelligence in the least.

I can't imagine dopier responses than the two above.
Why? Explain your reponse, please? Why is is 'dopey' to suggest testing out hydrino gas' chemical inertness?

This is the kind of response that annoys me. If you have a point to make, then make it by showing something to be false. Don't simply 'claim' it is false because you have some divine omniscience.

I will make further comment on this type of comment in the poll on the supercon.

neutron starr
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: Brooklyn Polytechnic

Post by neutron starr »

These last two posts--positive evidence that this is a free forum--not requiring intelligence in the least.

I can't imagine dopier responses than the two above.
is there something wrong with free forums did anyone ever claim this site was not one?

and about that second sentence yes you're absolutely right asking for more evidence then your word, some graphs and a spread sheets or two with numbers from unrepeatable experiments, why thats, thats totally ludicrous. how dare I insinuate that scientific claims from some one of your ilk be proven by actual repeatable physical evidence, what nerv...

and yes all BLP experiments are the definition of unrepeatable because only BLP and people being paid by BLP can repeat them (as of right now no one other then these type of parties claims any evidence of BLP's theorys). Now whether this is because the theorys are really the intolerable load of bull that i say they are or it is because BLP won't let their process be looked at by anyone for fear of it being ripped off is immaterial, the process is still UNREPEATABLE
The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some ‘norm’), the freedom to learn from experience…The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable patterns.
Lawrence Kubie

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

Hydrinos = Dark Matter ???

Post by Nik »

IMHO, so far, BLP have done too much in ways that set off BS alarms and too little in 'transparent' demos...

Perhaps they really have found something new ? From what little transition chemistry I remember, Nickel --doped or otherwise-- can do some very strange things like reversibly 'adsorbing' stuff endo- and exo-thermically, forming intercalated 'alloys' and even genuine, if unstable and horribly toxic compounds. eg...

http://www.webelements.com/nickel/

Still, those 'hydrinos' worry me. They should have buckets of the stuff by now. They should be shipping it to independent labs up and down the country. Those should be publishing its anomalous spectra, physical and chemical properties, liquefaction and superconduction temperatures etc etc etc...

BLP imply that it is a form of 'collapsed' Hydrogen that is as inert as Helium: So, prove it !! It will not reveal their magic Nickel's secrets, but it would go a long, long way to proving that they have something *wild*.

Also, I'm sure nuclear physicists would love to try it as fusion fuel...

Thinking a little larger, such an inert material would have cosmological implications: From the infuriatingly limited description, 'hydrinos' may even qualify as 'dark matter'...

But, until they go 'open source' with 'hydrinos', IMHO, they are making extraordinary claims without presenting extraordinary proof...

That's BAD Science, and they should know it.

I can only hope that they're 'keeping stum' on the advice of their fully-informed 'Intellectual Property' lawyers, rather than mistakenly brewing Z-rays or, of course, selling snake oil...

So far, it looks horribly like the latter...

Post Reply