Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 87643 times)

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #40 on: 04/30/2009 09:19 AM »
Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.

Is that what is going on here?

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #41 on: 04/30/2009 09:51 AM »
Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.

Is that what is going on here?

Mass of free neutron > mass of free proton + mass of free electron.

What you describe (I believe it's called "K-capture") happens only in some isotopes where the energy deficit is covered by the energy release from new nucleus formation (it is more stable than old one).

In hydrogen, it's impossible.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 09:52 AM by gospacex »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #42 on: 04/30/2009 02:49 PM »
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.

I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog.  People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #43 on: 05/02/2009 03:34 AM »
I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog.  People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.
I see you've simply ignored the fact that your original claim that Barth didn't provide data is wrong. Instead, you've just moved on to attacking the medium in which it was printed.

This is disingenuous in a couple of ways. First, its factually wrong: the article originally appeared in a print publication (Skeptic magazine), not a blog. Secondly, its simply ad-hominem (or should I say ad-medium ?) While the blogosphere certainly contains plenty of rubbish, it does not follow that anything found on the blogosphere is necessarily rubbish.

It isn't a peer reviewed article (and no one has claimed it was), but it does appear to be serious, well documented argument by an expert in a relevant field.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #44 on: 05/02/2009 02:51 PM »
Go back and reread the article.  Barth DID NOT provide the data.  He provided a reference.

Look, this is shmoe journalism.  Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.  There's no accountability.  No responsibility. 

I have to tell you the truth here, as an epistemologist it just grinds my shorts that skepticism has so dominated that field since Descartes.  It's one thing to use skepticism as a tool for critical thinking.  Its something else entirely to use it to show how we don't "know" anything except perhaps that we exist.  That's just pointless brain drain nonsense and Skeptic mag is known not for critical thinking, but for their own distinctive lack of common sense in this area.  Yes, if all you want to do is win an argument, meaning you're motivated not by finding the truth but rather by "winning" in some obscure fashion, then by all means; be a skeptic!  It's true!  If you like you can show that we have doubts about even our own existence!  But it's also a dopey waste of time.

In any event, it's a simple thing for you to go on the BLP web site and look at the origins of Mills theory.  You can also look at the real debate about it.  It was never with Barth.  It was with Rathke.  Go on the web site, look at what Mills says about where his theory came from, come back and report to us about how deceptive Barth is in his shoddy journalism.  Here's a clue for you: Barth is using a rhetorical fallacy know as the "generative fallacy" in order to discredit Mills theory, by trying to sell the notion Mills has simply plucked the theory from the air.  I'm not here making an ad hominem attack on Barth.  I'm saying this is what he did in his paper and why you are better off to ignore people like Barth.

Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence?  The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.  Screw what Barth said back in 2001.  He's not half dopey enough to say it today.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #45 on: 05/02/2009 04:15 PM »
Hop, I want to be sure I'm not being hasty here with you.  I made that mistake with Jim some months ago and created a conflict that was truly my fault not his.  While I'm on the subject let me make here a formal apology to Jim.  In the weeks and months since, its become very obvious to me that Jim is a sensible guy and though he does not suffer fools well, he always seems to be level-headed and correct.  I want to extend that same sort of assumption about you and everyone else here at NSF.

Given this, I think the reason you and I don't respond similarly to things like Barth is that we have very different backgrounds. So, let me take a moment and explain why I don't appreciate Barth nor the Skeptic.  It concerns the state of epistemology and the misuse of the tools of skepticism.

If you'll remember, and I'll try to get the story right though it's been a long time; Rene Descartes who was a brilliant mathematician and philosopher; was home sick one day.  He had a high fever and was hallucinating.  When the hallucinations were done with, he had a very sensible concern over how he could have been so wrong in his seeming apprehensions.  This sent him down the path to pondering what the limits of knowledge are.

Descartes wrote a beautiful formalism concerning how he could be wrong about almost anything.  He systematically disassembled his entire noetic structure through skepticism or doubt about whether he could be wrong until he finally came to that bare essential, what he could find no way to doubt (though others have after him), the proposition that "I think, therefore I am."

After this, Descartes uses pure reason to make his own version of the ontological argument, the previous argument from pure reason by Aquinas for the existence of God.  Then he posits God would not allow him to be so deceived and from there rebuilds his entire noetic structure.  Even those of us who don't particularly think the ontological argument obtains can see some true elegance in Descartes method here.

In modern epistemology, Descartes' method of rigorous disassembly of belief has run amok. The skeptics have been using Descartes original method to doubt anything and everything and I can tell you first hand, they always win their arguments.  If you are at first willing to grant the skeptics their original premise, that all claims to "knowledge" entail what is called "intellectual justification" and that this justification requires that one could not be wrong in any way, then the skeptics will win their pointless argument and the result is you have to say you don't know much of anything, if anything at all.  After all, one can think of a situation where you'd be wrong.  We could be brains in a vat.

This is all a big waste of time and when you see debunkers using this method, rather than a common sense method, you know they're misusing the tools of critical thinking.

I prefer the common sense epistemology of people like G.E Moore and the brilliant contemporary champion of this, Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame.  Plantinga has brought the question of how we think back to basics.  Instead of asking , "is there ANY way I could be wrong?" he asks "what is the proper warrant for belief?"   and "How can I think rationally and be warranted in my beliefs?"

It would take too long to cover Plantinga here but let me just note that Plantinga posits that our ability to apprehend truth is tied directly to the proper functioning of our noetic faculties.  He's saying yes, we could be deceived through for example an hallucination, but that failure is do to a failure in our noetic faculties.  In general, we are justified like G.E. Moore in holding up our hand and saying "this is my hand."  To doubt this is generally a failure of common sense and I think once we come to understand this, we also come to understand that most of what we see in places like the Skeptic, utterly lacks common sense.  It is in the tradition of skepticism run amok, not in the tradition of those who earnestly want to find the truth.

So, you can see my commitment here.  I think if you want to find the truth about something like BLP, you have to first look at BLP's claims in a common sensical sort of way.  Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.  You need to go to the raw evidence, IMHO.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 06:18 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #46 on: 05/02/2009 04:37 PM »
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.

Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct? :)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #47 on: 05/02/2009 05:28 PM »
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.

Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct? :)

That's a good question.  You'd have to ask Dr. Jansson what they're doing with it.  If you want to do that, you'll want to do it soon since he's off to Cambridge soon.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #48 on: 05/03/2009 04:04 AM »
Go back and reread the article.  Barth DID NOT provide the data.  He provided a reference.
The reference is sufficient for any qualified individual to determine whether his interpretation representation of the data is accurate or not. So your complaint appears to merely be a dishonest diversion.
Quote
Look, this is shmoe journalism.  Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.
More vague ad-hom, again changing your story when your error is noted. First it was blogs, now just appearing in Skeptic makes it junk.
Quote
Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence?  The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.  Screw what Barth said back in 2001.  He's not half dopey enough to say it today.
If there were actual evidence, you'd have a point. The stuff at Rowan is run by Mills pals, using blacklights materials. This isn't independent validation.
Quote
Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.
This is classic scammer/kook argument. "The establishment wants to suppress the new revolutionary theory!". It's bogus, because anyone who could actually prove the kind of things Mills claims would be collecting their Nobel pronto. You're place in history would be assured if you overturned giants like Bohr and Schrödinger. If the theory made sense, up and coming physicists would be falling over each other to prove it, not trying to suppress it.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #49 on: 05/03/2009 12:02 PM »
Look Hop, you can stop putting words in my mouth.  I tried with you.  I honestly did.

Believe whatever you want but stop slandering people you know nothing about.  Have you no conscience?  Have you no common sense?  You think an MIT grad and Cambridge Fellow who teaches at a cutting edge university engineering program is running a scam because he's saying something you don't want to believe?  And the other 7 professors spread out over several departments and two colleges--they're all lying?  And their grad students, all lying too?

That's an aweful lot to presume with no evidence. 
« Last Edit: 05/03/2009 04:52 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 #50 on: 05/04/2009 02:56 AM »
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.

Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
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 GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #51 on: 05/04/2009 03:01 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.

Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.

When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon.  It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus.  Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system.  In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process.  It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity.  Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient.  And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.

Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2009 03:03 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 #52 on: 05/04/2009 04:38 PM »
Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.

When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon.  It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus.  Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system.  In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process.  It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity.  Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient.  And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.

Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.

Well not sure I buy all that. For power generation, all you really need is a differential between whatever energy state you are in and the ground state. Doesnt really matter if you are above or below the ground state (hence AC vs DC, etc) it is the potential difference that does the work.

IMHO the way to work it is you use the hydrinos to absorb waste heat IR photons, so this increases the temperature differential on either end. Hydrinos should come out supercool, so absorbing waste heat is the way they would get some additional work done.
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 GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #53 on: 05/04/2009 05:02 PM »
I've never seen anything talking about reversing the BLP process.   As I've said, it's 5 years since I've looked at all this carefully.  I only keep tabs on their progress these last 5 years.  After all, they're no longer seeking investment.

What I can tell you is that in every instance, atoms store their internal energy based upon the location of their electrons.  The closer the electron, the lower the energy state of the atom.  Moving the electron back out away from the nucleus is endothermic.  It will not release energy; it will require energy.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #54 on: 05/11/2009 04:50 PM »
Whew.  Coming in late to the party, I would have thought that a thread started by GI-Thruster, and entitled "Blacklight Power" would countenance a discussion of the merits of, well, blacklight power.

The power generation companies are not currently selling electricity generated by this method, nor, according to trade reports, are they widely experimenting with this methodology.

Color me confused.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #55 on: 05/11/2009 08:37 PM »
I am in favor of discussion concerning BLP but not between folks who know nothing about it.  Anyone who can claim that Mills says his process does not radiate, despite the salient fact the process is NAMED AFTER SUCH RADIATION, is quite confused and has nothing of value to share.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #56 on: 05/11/2009 09:01 PM »
Atoms store their energy in two things, not one:

a) velocity
b) electron orbits

lets say you've got a bunch of hydrinos mixed with hydrogen. The average velocities of both should be equal since they are of equal atomic mass. The hydrinos should absorb energy from the hydrogen atoms that have an electron at a higher than ground orbit due to photon absorption or impact with another hydrogen atom. Thus hydrinos should all return to the ground state while absorbing ambient waste heat, and thus should have a cooling influence on any matter above 0 K.
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 GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #57 on: 05/11/2009 09:20 PM »
I agree with all this though, I'm not certain whether the original premise, that you have hydrinos mixed with hydrogen, is something that actually occurs.  Lets remember hydrogen is diatomic and not normally found in single atoms except in plasma state.  Also, there is the quantum energy transfer issue.  It seems to me likely in theory that one could bump a hydrino back up above normal ground state in a manner like you suggest, but it also seems this energy transfer would need to be carefully mediated by a catalyst, same as the original process, or perhaps pumped with a laser of specific frequency, etc.  But in general yes.  I would think the process would be reversible.  I have just never read about it before.

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #58 on: 05/22/2009 07:09 AM »
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.

Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it. Let the scientists ensure there is nothing remotely interfering with the results.


I think both sides are doing more harm than good with this stuff. We dont need everyone calling snake oil which can be considered slander. And we dont need potential fanboys defending decisions by them to refuse simple but effective field evidence.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #59 on: 05/22/2009 09:26 AM »
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.

Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it.

In this case, it's even simpler. Give hydrino samples to the chemists interested in analyzing them. Hydrino atoms should be easily detectable, as they differ for any other known atom.

Sorry, "we offered samples but nobody was interested in doing that" does not count. Find somebody who is interested.

Tags: