Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 90279 times)

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #400 on: 09/13/2017 04:10 AM »
Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos.
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production, not venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
Quote
That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math. And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.
Expanding a research facility for more employees, experiments and equipment (like BLP, General Fusion and others) after establishing the funding to do so is not the same as investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #401 on: 09/13/2017 04:14 AM »
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdf
FIG. 2I88 is a beast - a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.


bold emphasis, mine. Referring to them as "electrodes" implies currant, which I can only assume is ground?

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #402 on: 09/13/2017 05:28 AM »
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.

venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
 investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.

Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #403 on: 09/13/2017 02:54 PM »
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #404 on: 09/13/2017 03:29 PM »
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.

Maybe that's what will tip the scales for the patent judge to grant a patent.  It has "some" utility.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #405 on: 09/16/2017 06:43 PM »
They are stating they'll have a commercial product in 2019. They've made such statements before, of course.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #406 on: 10/05/2017 05:46 PM »
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.

venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
 investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.

Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.

Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #407 on: 10/05/2017 05:57 PM »
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Offline wavelet

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #408 on: 10/10/2017 11:57 AM »
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.

In the pictures of the "reactor" there are copper tubes that go near two big black tubes below the chamber. These tubes go up and down with no apparent function, but I might be wrong here.
Hmm. 

Online Tulse

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #409 on: 10/10/2017 03:00 PM »
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
As that article notes, electron capture changes a proton to neutron (as one might expect), and thus reduces the atomic number of atom involved.  This cannot be the mechanism involved here.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #410 on: 10/11/2017 06:03 PM »
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #411 on: 10/11/2017 06:11 PM »
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.

To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #412 on: 10/11/2017 06:21 PM »
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.

Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?

Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.

To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?

I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #413 on: 10/11/2017 06:50 PM »
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #414 on: 10/11/2017 07:11 PM »
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.

The paper I want you to see is this;

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5

Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox



Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #415 on: 10/11/2017 07:50 PM »
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2

However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #416 on: 10/11/2017 07:59 PM »
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.

Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.

The paper I want you to see is this;

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5

Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox
The abstract is enough. They might as well be describing a box where you heat one side, and then extract energy from the temperature gradient of the box, which is both pointless and not a violation of the second law. I could describe more issues but as I already said, Sheehan's work is off topic.

It now seems like your only purpose in asking me about the 2nd law and hydrinos was so that you could pull out this reference and claim that it invalidates that criticism (which it wouldn't) and then pretend that invalidating one criticism lets you ignore all of the other problems with hydrinos. This chain of logic is so bad that if that is what you were doing, it would be hard to describe it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that hydrinos are nonsense.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #417 on: 10/11/2017 08:02 PM »
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2

However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
Good example of Maxwell's demon. Small scale fluctuations exist, but the local and short lived nature makes them impossible to combine and create large scale effects.

Tags: