Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 90501 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #20 on: 04/25/2009 09:36 PM »
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy.  It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.

Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .

Can you point to any studies by particle physicists in a reputable lab observing hydrogen becoming hydrinos?

I can't really but I haven't studied this in more than 5 years.  I still keep tabs on BLP but I'm not a cheerleader.  Just because I don't know off hand of a study like that doesn't mean there hasn't been one.  And didn't Vissiar (sp?) win his Nobel prize with his "tightened states of matter" theory?  Seemingly the same stuff only he wasn't telling everyone that their physics is wrong, just their chemistry.

You're not suggesting that's the only sort of evidence you'd accept?  You don't think looking at what BLP is saying is looking at evidence?  I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence.  Don't you?

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #21 on: 04/26/2009 12:33 AM »
I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence.  Don't you?
Yes, it's quite telling. In more than 10 years, BLP hasn't actually produced any evidence, despite pulling in millions from gullible investors.

What they have produced is incoherent pseudoscience and press releases.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #22 on: 04/26/2009 04:43 AM »
Oh it's worse than that.  They've already sold two commercial licenses.  You'd think before an electrical utility forks out tens of millions in cash they'd want some evidence.  But you say there is none.  I bet you looked really carefully too.  Poor electrical utilities. . .C'est domage.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #23 on: 04/26/2009 05:52 AM »
They've already sold two commercial licenses.  You'd think before an electrical utility forks out tens of millions in cash they'd want some evidence.  But you say there is none.  I bet you looked really carefully too.  Poor electrical utilities. . .C'est domage.
You mean poor utilities share holders. Big companies getting suckered isn't new. Look at the firepower fiasco in Australia.

This assuming the commercial licenses are real and properly represented by Blacklight. Blacklight claims it sold a license to Farmers' Electric Cooperative of New Mexico (not exactly a huge utility with an R&D wing capable of evaluating blacklights claims!), yet strangely the word "blacklight" doesn't appear on FECs site.

The other license is to Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative also of NM, also small, and also not mentioning blacklight anywhere on their site.

Nor is the value specified. Maybe these coops paid a dollar on the off chance that something comes out of it. Or maybe blacklight paid them, or took the board members on a nice golf outing.

If this stuff worked, and utilities were buying it, don't you think they'd be using it to produce power ? If a utility company builds a megawatt power plant based on this "technology" I'll take back every bad thing I've said about blacklight. Until then, I'll continue to call what looks, walks and quacks like a fraud, a fraud.

If something looks like fishy (which blacklight surely does) why would you trust their version of events ?
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 05:53 AM by hop »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #24 on: 04/26/2009 08:00 AM »
"If this stuff worked, and utilities were buying it, don't you think they'd be using it to produce power ? If a utility company builds a megawatt power plant based on this "technology" I'll take back every bad thing I've said about blacklight. Until then, I'll continue to call what looks, walks and quacks like a fraud, a fraud.

If something looks like fishy (which blacklight surely does) why would you trust their version of events ?"

The only thing that looks fishy in the least at BLP is the physics.  Everything else has a lot of reasons to trust.  Maybe you didn't read the posts in this thread and you'd like to go back and do that?

I don't trust BLP at their word except when, for example, my friends at CIA tell me that their board reads like a fortune 50 company and that none of these guys would ever dare get involved with something that isn't above board.  BLP may be wrong in their physics, but you really need to have something resembling evidence before you go waving the crookery flag about.  You don't have any idea what you're talking about.  These are ex-CIA senior officers, ex-CEO's from places like Johnson and Johnson and Westinghouse IIRC.  Why would guys like that risk their reputations selling a scam?

This is the perfect example of what I'm talking about above--people with passion over this issue who have not done more than read a piece of hack journalism, think they know what's going on and are not only willing to call this pseudo-science, but fraud.  All with no evidence and completely ignoring the evidence for the science.

The first commercial-grade pilot reactor plant is scheduled to start up this year.  Has been for some time.

I hate sounding like I'm advocating for BLP because I honestly don't know about their physics but truly, no one who glances over the 1,200 page thesis written by Mills could possibly believe this is a scam.  Mills totally believes he's right and thinks he's going to prove it to the world.  There is NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS to anyone who has viewed the evidence, just as there is NO DOUBT that Mills has done what he needs to do to throw the ball to academia.  There are now thousands of data points delivered to the American Chemical Society for them to verify.  This is not what a quack or a fraud would do.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 08:49 AM by GI-Thruster »

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #25 on: 04/26/2009 09:27 AM »
The only thing that looks fishy in the least at BLP is the physics.  Everything else has a lot of reasons to trust.
Funny, it looks like a classic "fleece the investors with bogus science" scam to me. On a larger scale than most basement nutjobs, but not qualitatively different.
Quote
I don't trust BLP at their word except when, for example, my friends at CIA tell me that their board reads like a fortune 50 company and that none of these guys would ever dare get involved with something that isn't above board.
You think these people are immune, or above fleecing suckers ? See firepower again. Those guys were selling a pill that would supposedly miraculously increase your gas mileage. Obvious baloney, but they pulled in millions and endorsements from all kinds of reputable people.

As for your "friends at the CIA"... yeah.
Quote
These are ex-CIA senior officers, ex-CEO's from places like Johnson and Johnson and Westinghouse IIRC.  Why would guys like that risk their reputations selling a scam?
Several options:
1) They are suckers
2) They think they can make a buck and pass the blame off somewhere else.
3) They don't actually exist, or aren't actually involved in blacklight.
Quote
All with no evidence and completely ignoring the evidence for the science.
ROFL. That's the whole problem... blacklight has no evidence, and, according to pretty much all of the physics community (including the astrophysicist you dismissed as a "hack journalist") who have bothered to look at it, their "theory" is incoherent. But they sure are big on press releases and wild claims.
Quote
The first commercial-grade pilot reactor plant is scheduled to start up this year.  Has been for some time.
Yes, classic scammer fashion, the big breakthrough is always some short time away, and has been for years.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #26 on: 04/26/2009 04:15 PM »
I'm always stunned at how otherwise rational people can go on and on like this, completely ignoring the evidence while claiming there is none, and making arguments from completely irrelevant illustrations of other situations.  The issue doesn't sit well with them so the issue needs to be demonized.

As it turns out, since I'm a philosopher and did careful study in epistemology about how and why this sort of thing happens, I should not be surprised.  Doesn't matter.  I am.  And Hop isn't the exception here.  Most of us are just the same.  This is why I said much earlier up in the thread that there is no way to tell whether BLP is wrong, or if they are what they claim to be, an instance of revolution in scientific structure.

Let me just describe what that's all about for a moment.

All of us have a host of beliefs we hold commitments to.  Almost all of those beliefs are internally consistent or coherent with one another.  This is called our "noetic structure."  In those few instances where we find a conflict between beliefs meaning, there is an incoherence; this generates angst and tension in us--what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" or "CD".  Any time a person is suffering CD, they will be highly motivated to remove the tension in their belief system.  Likewise, it is precisely because this sort of thing happens that people do not easily change their deeply held beliefs.  When we speak of someone changing a significant portion of their noetic structure or world view at once, we use special terms like "conversion", "reformation" and "revolution."  These things are difficult on everyone.  Even the thought of altering our understandings of science generates deep angst.  It's emotionally upsetting to think we could be wrong for example, about our "standard model" and all of our interpretations of seeming QM phenomena.  It is that emotional upset, not the consequence of reason, that drives people to persecute anyone who proposes a revolution in scientific structure.

Note, this is true whether the science proposed is good or bad science.  The emotional response to any such proposal will always be the same--irrational--just as the arguments here most recent above.

So nothing against Hop.  We're all this way.

If I may make just a handful of suggestions concerning how we can be more rational in considering things like whether BLP could be a revolution in scientific structure:

1) Read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  You can get it in paperback used for less than $5.  If you don't understand what scientific revolution is all about, you are in no position to judge BLP.

2)  Consider the benefits.  If BLP is right, this explains why physics has been at a stand still the last half century.  Something like this would remove road blocks to our scientific discovery.

3)  Stop making vain appeals to authority.  Forget standing on the status quo.  Forget what everyone else thinks and look at the evidence for yourself.  Especially if you're a technically-minded person, you probably have the skills to do a decent investigation for yourself.  Even if you don't have the advanced physics skills to argue with Mills, you can look at all manner of evidence for yourself.  You don't need to make recourse to the sad, irresponsible web journalism of our day for your authority for belief.  Invest yourself in some real thinking.  You'll have actually earned your commitments on the issue, wherever they fall.

BTW, Aaron Barth is a "hack" because he deliberately misleads his audience in the article sited above.  His telling of the story is completely and deliberately inaccurate.  For instance, where he writes;

"Mills' mistakes are legion. He starts with an incorrect equation of motion for the electron. He uses a wave equation which does not actually have solutions corresponding to bound states of an electron in an atom, because the equation doesn't account for the electromagnetic force which holds the atom together. He makes the unwarranted assumption that the electron is confined to thin spherical shells whose radii are given by the Bohr model. He ignores the fact that this assumption is mathematically inconsistent with the equation of motion he chooses, and he uses this internally inconsistent solution to predict that there are energy levels below the ground state of hydrogen. This doesn't amount to any kind of a meaningful physical theory."

he is deliberately misleading his audience.  The salient fact Barth is hiding from his audience here is that Mills did not pluck his theory from the air but rather, he was reading Maxwell when he discovered Schrodinger was wrong.  Pretending Mills' work is unfounded when it relies completely upon Maxwell is hack journalism and a deliberate attempt to deceive--which it seems he's succeeded at quiet well.  Anyone who invests 5 minutes in reading Mills knows that Barth is here completely disingenuous.  He deliberately avoids mention of Maxwell and where Mills says he got his theory from in order to make it seem preposterous.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 05:43 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #27 on: 04/26/2009 05:33 PM »
As it turns out, since I'm a philosopher and did careful study in epistemology about how and why this sort of thing happens, I should not be surprised.

I would say you need to get off your high horse, and stop generalizing how stupid we all are.

I can't talk for others, but I do not think that our current knowledge of physics is unshakeable. But, it also does not mean we are necessarily wrong about it all.

The truth is, today's scientific community is rather receptive to new ideas, even crazy ones. It's not like we burn "heretics" alive. No, we really do not.

However crazy your idea is, you will be listened to, and if you have tangible results, people will try to verify and reproduce them.

I do not understand what you are complaining about. You think that people _must_ take any wacky sounding idea for truth? That criticism is not allowed or that it is detrimental to the process of establishing the truth?

Cut the crap. Show the evidence you have.

Since blacklight people claim that they have working devices producing energy by converting hydrogen to "hydrino", they must have "hydrino" byproduct in kilogram quantities. Can they send it to labs for analysis? Until they don't, I reserve the right to think that it is a scam.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 05:34 PM by gospacex »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #28 on: 04/26/2009 06:00 PM »
As I said, I'm not going to spend my time here advocating for BLP.  I'm just saying if you want evidence, go out and find it.  The crystals were sent out to dozens of labs more than a decade ago.

And yes, we do burn heretics or at the least, refuse them their graduate degrees if they don't absorb the status quo.

I'm not suggesting the scientific community should be or even could be more open than it is.  I'm just saying the lack of objectivity is fully human and the natural result of how emotions come from reason.  This is not a generalization that we are all "stupid" but rather that we are all human.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #29 on: 04/27/2009 12:15 AM »
Quote from: GI-Thruster link=topic=16535.msg395666#msg395666
3)  Stop making vain appeals to authority.
This is rather amusing given your own repeated appeals to your alleged contacts at the CIA etc.
Quote
...snip pointless ramble about philosophy of science...
This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ? From what I've seen so far, the answer is a strong no. A few people of questionable independence (Marchese who did the NIAC work was already associated with BL AFAIK) have produced potentially interesting results, but that's a long way from confirming "hydrino theory".
Quote
Forget what everyone else thinks and look at the evidence for yourself.
When I want an opinion on a highly technical matter, I look to experts in the field. If I find the opinion at odds with my experience or common sense, I might go for a second or third opinion, but working things out from first principles isn't really an option. Particularly in science, a long standing, well established consensus in the field is a strong indicator that it represents the best available model to date.
Quote
He is deliberately misleading his audience.  The salient fact Barth is hiding from his audience here is that Mills did not pluck his theory from the air but rather, he was reading Maxwell when he discovered Schrodinger was wrong.
Your argument here seems to boil down to claiming that Mills is right and Barth is wrong. This is not the least bit convincing, especially given Barths demonstrated expertise in this field. Nor is Barth alone in calling Mills "theory" nonsense. Mills may think he discovered Schrodinger was wrong, but that doesn't mean he wasn't effectively pulling his "theory" out of thin air.

For someone who claims to not be advocating BLP, you seem to have spent a lot of time doing exactly that.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #30 on: 04/27/2009 12:57 AM »
"This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ?"

No.  That is not the question at hand.  I have repeatedly stated I am not advocating for BLP.  The question is whether it is intellectually justified for people to accuse people they don't know, and groups they know nothing about of pseudo-science, fraud and lying.  You've now moved from accusing BLP of pseudo-science and fraud, to accusing me of lying--all with no evidence.

You see the problem here?
« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 01:03 AM by GI-Thruster »

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #31 on: 04/28/2009 03:22 PM »
"This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ?"

No.  That is not the question at hand.  I have repeatedly stated I am not advocating for BLP.  The question is whether it is intellectually justified for people to accuse people they don't know, and groups they know nothing about of pseudo-science, fraud and lying.  You've now moved from accusing BLP of pseudo-science and fraud, to accusing me of lying--all with no evidence.

You see the problem here?

Okay then explain the purpose of your thread?  You created it - you claim to not advocate for it, yet attack those who question the merits of the subject itself.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #32 on: 04/28/2009 03:31 PM »
No, I didn't start the thread.  We bumped into this issue when, in another thread; I said that the BLP reactor ought to have a higher power density than using solar for electric propulsion.  Chris separated those thoughts from that thread and started this one.  From that time everyone here has been calling this stuff snake oil, pseudo-science and fraud.  I'm sure it's just a matter of time until it gets called "oogie boogie."

My point is as any philosopher.  If you want to castigate anything, you ought to have some evidence.  I've yet to see evidence anyone here has done anything other than taken the word of those in the status quo position.  So point in fact, if indeed Mills were right and this were an instance of a revolution in science, everyone here would be doing EXACTLY what they're doing--not because this is good science but because this is what even good scientists do!  But truly, out of hand rejection like this is the practice of religion, not science.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #33 on: 04/28/2009 04:39 PM »
I will admit one thing I would advocate for with regards BLP and that is, someone at NASA to consider replacing JIMO with a spacecraft using a BLP driven power system.

I always thought JIMO was a great idea.  If we're to learn more about our planetary system, we have to have these more capable spacecraft with KW's of power aboard rather than a few watts.  JIMO was scrapped because it was just so spendy--more than a billion dollars.  Imagine if the power system could be replaced cheaply?  A few of these 50 Kw reactors and their subsequent sub systems are apparently not going to cost much.  You can do direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity so very little radiator mass is needed.  No need to build an enormous spacecraft.  It seems to me if we could take BLP's word for a thumbnail sketch study, we'd learn what it would take to build and fly a JIMO-like mission without a nuke.  Also, if indeed their reactor works the way it's claimed to, this is a fabulous opportunity to improve VASIMR by a couple orders magnitude thrust efficiency.  Imagine if we had a JIMO like craft capable of both huge thrusts and super high Isp's, that drew it's power from the stuff it uses as plasma?

I don't know about you but I think this is all worth some investigation and its not as if BLP has been hiding from the scientific establishment.  I'd bet anyone who has the skills to do a JIMO type mockup could get the answers they need from guys like Peter Jansson as well as from BLP.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2009 10:52 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #34 on: 04/28/2009 09:54 PM »
I will admit one thing I would advocate for with regards BLP and that is, someone at NASA to consider replacing JIMO with a spacecraft using a BLP driven power system.

I always thought JIMO was a great idea.  If we're to learn more about our planetary system, we have to have these more capable spacecraft with KW's of power aboard rather than a few watts.  JIMO was scrapped because it was just so spendy--more than a billion dollars.  Imagine if the power system could be replaced cheaply?  A few of these 50 Kw reactors and their subsequent sub systems are apparently not going to cost much.  You can do direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity so very little radiator mass is needed.  No need to build an enormous spacecraft.  It seems to me if we could take BLP's word for a thumbnail sketch study, we'd learn what it would take to build and fly a JIMO-like mission without a nuke.  Also, if indeed their reactor works the way it's claimed to, this is a fabulous opportunity to improve VASMIR by a couple orders magnitude thrust efficiency.  Imagine if we had a JIMO like craft capable of both huge thrusts and super high Isp's, that drew it's power from the stuff it uses as plasma?

I don't know about you but I think this is all worth some investigation and its not as if BLP has been hiding from the scientific establishment.  I'd bet anyone who has the skills to do a JIMO type mockup could get the answers they need from guys like Peter Jansson as well as from BLP.

Lets see a working generator on earth first that is selling power back to the electric grid.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #35 on: 04/29/2009 11:11 AM »
All I can say is that when I looked at BLP (which admittedly was some time ago), all I saw was yet another perpetual motion machine. They claimed at the time that they somehow could extract energy from ground state hydrogen, somehow dropping it to a lower than lowest energy state. But in practice, it was just a fancy closed cycle loop.
Karl Hallowell

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #36 on: 04/29/2009 04:12 PM »
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition.  They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional  or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right.  The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933.  With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question.  Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.

Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills.  When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model.  However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work.  Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.

As I said, the reactor is running. . .

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #37 on: 04/29/2009 07:33 PM »
As I see it, the problem with that claim is that we haven't seen evidence of this hydrino state in nature. Remember roughly 3/4 of visible mass is in the form of hydrogen and we've experimented with hydrogen for more than a century. If the hydrino state truly were a lower energy state for atomic (or perhaps molecular) hydrogen in either stars, near Earth conditions, or nebula, then we would see it. In other words, we have strong negative results for hydrinos already.

That implies to me that if the hydrino state really exists, it's at a much different temperature, density, and pressure than the usual for hydrogen (say something like metallic hydrogen). That means you have to expend considerable energy to get hydrogen to the desired intermediate state where it can then fall to the hydrino state.

And sure the reactor is running, but does it produce net power?
Karl Hallowell

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #38 on: 04/29/2009 08:31 PM »
Well, this is why we need to have more scientists involved in examining BLP's claims.  They do for instance claim that there is cosmological evidence for this state of hydrogen and those claims need to be examined more closely.  In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect.  That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.

That said, there are reasons to suppose this contracted state of hydrogen would be rare because it can only be formed through use of a catalyst under low pressure conditions.  Still, some posit that it is the hydrino state of hydrogen that is the "dark matter" out there.  Conjecture like that is not interesting to me personally because we'd need to find some evidence that's so but, it does provide a possible answer to your objection.

And yes, the 50 kW reactor is running at Rowan and less than 1% of the power being generated can be explained through recourse to normal chemistry and physics.  The whole point of Rowan running the replication is so others can come in and examine their protocols so this is very open science.  Anyone with an interest can examine and comment on the techniques used to measure the heat.  They're looking to improve their methods in any way possible.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf
« Last Edit: 04/29/2009 09:31 PM by GI-Thruster »

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3233
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #39 on: 04/30/2009 07:05 AM »
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect.  That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.
If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.

Tags: