Blacklight's technology

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Blacklight's technology

Postby antiaristo » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:33 am

Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head <br><br>· Scientist says device disproves quantum theory <br>· Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths <br><br>Alok Jha, science correspondent<br>Friday November 4, 2005<br>The Guardian <br><br><br>It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.<br>Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.<br><br>The problem is that according to the rules of quantum mechanics, the physics that governs the behaviour of atoms, the idea is theoretically impossible. "Physicists are quite conservative. It's not easy to convince them to change a theory that is accepted for 50 to 60 years. I don't think [Mills's] theory should be supported," said Jan Naudts, a theoretical physicist at the University of Antwerp.<br><br>What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy.<br><br>This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to get any closer.<br><br>According to Dr Mills, there can be only one explanation: quantum mechanics must be wrong. "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use."<br><br>Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."<br><br>But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."<br><br>Dr Mills's idea goes against almost a century of thinking. When scientists developed the theory of quantum mechanics they described a world where measuring the exact position or energy of a particle was impossible and where the laws of classical physics had no effect. The theory has been hailed as one of the 20th century's greatest achievements.<br><br>But it is an achievement Dr Mills thinks is flawed. He turned back to earlier classical physics to develop a theory which, unlike quantum mechanics, allows an electron to move much closer to the proton at the heart of a hydrogen atom and, in doing so, release the substantial amounts of energy he seeks to exploit. Dr Mills's theory, known as classical quantum mechanics and published in the journal Physics Essays in 2003, has been criticised most publicly by Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency. In a damning critique published recently in the New Journal of Physics, he argued that Dr Mills's theory was the result of mathematical mistakes.<br><br>Dr Mills argues that there are plenty of flaws in Dr Rathke's critique. "His paper's riddled with mistakes. We've had other physicists contact him and say this is embarrassing to the journal and [Dr Rathke] won't respond," said Dr Mills.<br><br>While the theoretical tangle is unlikely to resolve itself soon, those wanting to exploit the technology are pushing ahead. "We would like to understand it from an academic standpoint and then we would like to be able to use the implications to actually produce energy products," said Prof Maas. "The companies that are lining up behind this are household names."<br><br>Dr Mills will not go into details of who is investing in his research but rumours suggest a range of US power companies. It is well known also that Nasa's institute of advanced concepts has funded research into finding a way of using Blacklight's technology to power rockets.<br><br>According to Prof Maas, the first product built with Blacklight's technology, which will be available in as little as four years, will be a household heater. As the technology is scaled up, he says, bigger furnaces will be able to boil water and turn turbines to produce electricity.<br><br>In a recent economic forecast, Prof Maas calculated that hydrino energy would cost around 1.2 cents (0.7p) per kilowatt hour. This compares to an average of 5 cents per kWh for coal and 6 cents for nuclear energy.<br><br>"If it's wrong, it will be proven wrong," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace USA. "But if it's right, it is so important that all else falls away. It has the potential to solve our dependence on oil. Our stance is of cautious optimism."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/scienc...24,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blacklight's technology

Postby Qutb » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:24 pm

Wow... this is rather amazing. You can't exaggerate the importance of this, if it really works. I'm going to have to find more information on this.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>According to Prof Maas, the first product built with Blacklight's technology, which will be available in as little as four years, will be a household heater. As the technology is scaled up, he says, bigger furnaces will be able to boil water and turn turbines to produce electricity.<br><br>In a recent economic forecast, Prof Maas calculated that hydrino energy would cost around 1.2 cents (0.7p) per kilowatt hour. This compares to an average of 5 cents per kWh for coal and 6 cents for nuclear energy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blacklight's technology

Postby manxkat » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:03 pm

Wow is right! Thanks antiaristo for posting this. I love mavericks. If this turns out to be true (which I dearly hope), we can kiss Peak Oil goodbye.<br><br>Looks like the company is seriously moving forward. I can't imagine they'd build this facility without their claims being true:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.blacklightpower.com/" target="top">BlackLight Power, Inc.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=manxkat@rigorousintuition>manxkat</A> at: 11/4/05 11:47 am<br></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

i'm suprised

Postby michael meiring » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:53 pm

I'm suprised this technology hasant been shipped and confiscated into the invention secrecy act 1951. Kidnapped into the danger to national security euphamism mountainous file.<br><br>Perhaps its these household names, such as General motors et al who are all lining up to take control.<br><br>Sooner or later this trillion dollar rip offoil market is going to end, just think, no more pollution, no more wars of terror started for an oil and land grab. Perhaps thats why theres so many mythical terrorists invented to circumnavicate this slight future 'hiccup'?.<br><br>IMHO theres many such technologies already developed by the self elected masters and black departments who seem accountenable to no one.<br><br>When so many technological advacements in the past have been hijacked under the invention secrecy Act 1951, my first question would be, why this technology seems to have been sieved out for special attention? <p></p><i></i>
michael meiring
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

I've been skeptical of this guy for years

Postby glubglubglub » Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:48 pm

primarily because anyone whose energy technology actually seems to work usually dies a mysterious death, vanishes into thin air, or both...<br><br>his 'theory' in a nutshell is derived from the observation that the mass-energy of a neutron is ~~ that of a proton and electron, from which he 'concludes' that under the appropriate circumstances you could collapse hydrogen molecules into 'hydrinos' or neutrons -- I've seen him explain this both ways, really -- and liberate a lot of energy in the process. It always seemed a tad dodgy, time will tell I suppose.<br><br>Even if this guy is onto something there's no telling if he actually understands what he's doing -- he may have arrived at a recipe, so to speak, without knowing what makes it tick -- but I'll be watching in 2007 or so to see if what he's got ever turns into something tangible. <p></p><i></i>
glubglubglub
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Skepticism...

Postby manxkat » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:44 pm

I share your skepticism. I also wonder why this guy hasn't been taken out -- why he's been allowed to move forward, unless the PTB stand to confiscate this technology for their own (or maybe they have already). Sure seems suspicious. I'm trying to be optimistic though.... god knows we need a few crumbs here and there. <p></p><i></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

be skeptical

Postby revelation » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:44 pm

Mills wrote a book in which he claims to have discovered not only the grand unified theory of physics, but the nature of consciousness as well!<br><br>link:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/bookdownload.shtml">www.blacklightpower.com/t...load.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I've seen this before. Nuts of the geekish variety love to present the doubting masses with grand unified theories (Bearden comes to mind), and they _especially_ love to explain consciousness in 114 pages of mathematical esoterica.<br><br>This is not to say that his machines don't work, though; merely that he is most likely a megalomaniac and a fraud. His device should be disassembled, inpected, and ran under strict laboratory conditions(i.e. not his laboratory) by qualified engineers (not his engineers), and shown to work _exclusively_ by application of his theories before one more investor is flim-flammed.<br><br>My prediction: an off-site independant analysis by reputed scientists and engineers will be requested and refused; alternatively, one of the blacklight guys will stick around and refuse inspection of some critical component. They will claim that the risk to their trade-secrets is too great (a standard alt-energy BS excuse; ask a lawyer about non-disclosure agreements). And, ultimately, they will recede into the underground, using sites like zpenergy.com to solicit donations.<br><br>The story of Stan Meyer is a good one to remember when we consider any claims of hydrogen devices. He impressed many engineers and officials with demonstrations of his hydrolysis device, and in the earlier days allowed complete auditing of power input\output. Over the years, though, he became increasingly paranoid, and would refuse any attempt to measure or inspect his device. He died in a parking lot after bolting out of a diner, screaming the whole time that he had been poisoned.<br><br>In my opinion, Meyer had cribbed his design from one of the numerous other hydrolysis patents, and paniced when men like Eugene Mallove expressed an interest in inspecting it. His secret would have come out, he could have been exposed to charges of fraud re. his patent application, and he would have lost all rights to his device; something he himself had publically expressed fears of.<br><br>Until it's proven otherwise, I'm placing Meyer and Mills in the same boat. <p></p><i></i>
revelation
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

revelation: just a nitpick or two

Postby glubglubglub » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:50 am

depending on the field you're in nondisclosure tends to be of limited impact at best to completely worthless...in software, for example, most VCs won't sign nondisclosures to hear your idea, so you either tell them and risk it or fund things yourself. For software it's just like movies or other 'creative' fields: good ideas are about two-dozen-gross a penny, but good ideas with solid implementations -- or even just implementable with the staff available -- are exceedingly rare; noone with money to invest is willing to sign a nondisclosure only to hear 'the next great thing' from a brilliant but shiftless character, only to be unable to fund someone more stable with the same idea in a month or two.<br><br>I'm not sure with technical inventions what the drill is -- it's been a long, long time (decades at least) since people were in the regular habit of developing entirely new devices and/or entirely new operating principles, and as a result most modern patentable stuff isn't really stealable; even if you pitched it to a VC and gave a layman's explanation of how it worked there'd be little chance of the VC hiring a squad to rapidly replicate it.<br><br>And, on top of all that, there's a growing trend not to rush out and patent anything that's difficult to discover -- ie that won't be brought to market or discovered by your competitors anytime soon -- until it's within a month or so of going on the open market: even as obfuscated as a typical patent is it's not impossible to reverse engineer a patent and find an equivalent, non-protected solution, so <br><br>All of the above make it even harder to spot the frauds from the real deals: unlike the days when nondisclosures were binding, patents were sought right away, and people were nice, today even the legitimate types tend to adopt behaviors resembling those with something to hide.<br><br>Another nit: as a trained mathematician, Bearden et. al. don't even count as mathematical esoterica -- it's more like mathemostrology (math + astrology) versus anything remotely rigorous.<br><br>IF -- and that's in caps for a reason -- IF Mr. Mills actually produces workable energy, I'm guessing -- and going on a limb here -- that it's operating off of the same reaction in the pons-fleischman runaway reactions...so I'd love to crack his device open and see how it works, but suspect I'd have to find a partner and play 'jaded independent consultant'-style bad cop to the partner's 'wealthy but naive investor'-style good cop role, and try to bilk Mr. Mills out of his devices' internals. <p></p><i></i>
glubglubglub
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

If only someone invented an engine...

Postby banned » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:52 am

...that ran on bullshit, we'd never have to worry about energy needs again!<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

similar enough topic

Postby glubglubglub » Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:43 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=95defd1e-f25c-4a33-8002-a69aca481e6a">www.opensourceenergy.org/...9aca481e6a</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>This guy's far more legit, imho -- he's been a regular on the fusor.net boards and has been building (energy-losing) fusion reactors for years...wouldn't surprise me if he figured it out for real now. <p></p><i></i>
glubglubglub
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

thhough for completeness's sake

Postby glubglubglub » Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:46 pm

Mr. Lerner's also a bit of a crank on all non-fusion related topics -- good with plasma physics, a bit of a nut on everything else. <p></p><i></i>
glubglubglub
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Stanley

Postby marykmusic » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:04 am

Another interesting guy that got offed is here: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://befreetech.com/energysuppression.htm" target="top">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Stanley Meyer's Water Powered Car. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

hi glub

Postby revelation » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:25 am

Good point. I've been doing research on software licensing recently (rolling out my first useful program soon! already have a few customers), and I've read some of the horror stories. I'd thought the laws concerning patented physical devices was different somehow. Still, a man who claims to have made Einstein his bitch should be able to prove the theory ( fractional-energy-state hydrogen molecules) without giving away the keys to the kingdom.<br><br>As for the mathemostrology, my own mathemostat is set at a constant, comfortable 68 degrees; preventing me, at times, from accurately guaging the level of bullshit I'm being subjected to. I'll save the term 'esoterica' for notes scribbled in the margins of undergrad papers.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :evil --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
revelation
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Excellent link

Postby Peak Oil bullcrap » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:09 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Another interesting guy that got offed is here: here.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Thanks for that link Mary. It should be compulsive viewing for everyone on this forum , and just about every other forum everywhere.<br><br> Im wondering what the "Peakoilers" have to say about this ??? <p></p><i></i>
Peak Oil bullcrap
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:09 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

"So you think we have an energy problem? No..."

Postby Prac » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:34 am

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"So you think we have an energy problem? No, we have a political problem."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>A link in my email today. (Syncronicity?)<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://byronw.www1host.com/">byronw.www1host.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The Oil Industry has been right there behind the curtain with their banker mates. For a long time. They are still there.<br><br>Good link Mary. This one has more, many more.<br><br><br>__________<br><br><br> <p>What's done in this world is what's paid for...<br>...Who's had the Money</p><i></i>
Prac
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest