Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 167799 times)

Online adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 344
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #140 on: 02/10/2014 09:29 pm »
The 'safe harbor' legal disclaimer at the beginning of the video, and on-display on the monitors during the presentation is a clear indication that someone in BLP believes they might not be able to deliver on all the promises they make verbally.

The presentation was missing two tell-tale signs of a scam:
a] requests for the last bit of funding needed to complete the research,
b] references to a secret/black-box technology that can't be revealed for IP/patent-protection reasons.

In fact, the absence of b] is likely to scare away investors because the BLP implementation could be copied.

However, here's one guess at a scenario that fits what we see: They already have investor(s) lined up who will only release funds if/when BLP do the following:
a] Perform a public demo of the technology working,
b] have their results verified by an independent third-party (Dr Ramanujachary of Rowan University.)

And that's what this video shows.

So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2014 09:35 pm by adrianwyard »

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Germany
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #141 on: 02/11/2014 09:19 am »
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either.

The difference between dark matter and any sort of scam: Everyone is free to observe the universe. Everyone is free to estimate the masses of galaxies. Everyone is free to come up with a mathematical, replicable and understandable model how gravity/centrifugal forces/... interact and form our universe. In the end, your model's output should somehow fit the current universe.

Physics doesn't prove! Physics observes and tries to deliver an mathemtical model which explains what's going on. Over time we observe more, models change, ..., there is and will never be a "proof of dark matter", there will be experiments/observations/... which can be explained by dark matter.

The guy in the 2h15min Video and with his 1820pages book could have defined an experiment which can be repeated by others, he failed for a long time to do that. He could have had a nda with some corporation scientists, who could check his model/experiments/results. Science is all about repeatability. Didn't happen with these guys statements.

I watched the movie "The wolf of wall street", where the bad guy is asked "couldn't you sell the stocks to rich people, which can afford to loose the money", and he answers "rich people are to clever to by this trash". I don't like the implication of rich=clever, poor=...., but watching this thread this words came to my mind. Very esoteric. Very scam.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2014 09:21 am by Remes »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3589
  • Liked: 795
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #142 on: 02/11/2014 01:39 pm »
So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.
So far their MO has been to just disappear for a few years and then return to light when they needed more funding. Some skeptics have raised doubts about Rowan universities credibility in regards to this technology.
To be fair, Mills has a lot less of a black box issue than the infamous Rossi has. At least Mills has published a theory and some technical details about the process.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #143 on: 02/12/2014 05:18 am »
There is no such thing as a "hydrino" - it's simply fiction. You can't make up your own science - no matter how slick and appealing - and then expect things to work in real life.

Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.
Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".

To your first statement - Are you sure? I'm not either way, but the theory, function, mathematics and experimentation make it much more plausible than the absurd quantum and sonic alternatives to dark matter and coronal heating, respectively, while explaining spectrographic observations. It also explains and defines the often-dismissed results of cold fusion experiments dating back decades - the reason of which BLP and hydrino research began.

And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5575
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #144 on: 02/15/2014 12:01 pm »
What they're saying is that there's some "new ground state" which hasn't been detected before - in which case, how come it's not more obviously manifested in nature?
Or else they're saying that the new state is "below ground state" - in which case, that's an oxymoron, since any deviation from ground has elevated energy potential by definition, since you can't fall away from the ground.


Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5575
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #145 on: 02/16/2014 03:23 am »
Come on  - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof is on them not me, since I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims.

Offline MP99

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #146 on: 02/16/2014 10:38 am »
And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

ISTM that misses the point. It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified.

EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Liked: 592
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #147 on: 02/16/2014 11:10 am »
Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.
Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.  It is also the foundation for all modern physics. The "leaps of reasoning" are certainly not baseless, they are based on direct observation and have consistently led to extremely accurate predictions, often on the order of 15+ decimals, an accuracy that was previously unheard of in the history of science. Following the scientific method isn't a fallacy.

Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for. In particular, Bell's inequality which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. Arrays of real numbers as in classical mechanics simply won't cut it, as the experimental confirmation of Bell's theorem has explicitly falsified all such theories. Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.

You could technically replace QM with something more complicated, but you can't replace it with anything classical and fully describe the real world at the same time.

And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

While in General Relativity gravity isn't a force, General Relativity is still a gauge theory and it can be quantized straightforwardly. Quantizing it will lead to a graviton, which is nothing more than the exitation modes of the field. The "problem" is that due to various symmetries the graviton has to have spin 2.

The fact that it's spin 2 complicates attempts to describe it with perturbation theory, as that approach will lead to infinities - unless you introduce a very natural concept called supersymmetry, in which case all the infinities disapear and predictions can be made fairly easily. However that simply means that finding solutions in a given theory of gravity is going to be hard, which is hardly surprising considering that this is already true in General Relativity, where exact solutions to Einstein's equation are only known for highly symmetric cases.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2014 11:46 am by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #148 on: 02/16/2014 01:50 pm »
1)... It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified.
2) EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions.

Cheers, Martin
Re1) When it comes to gravity, General Relativity may be right or wrong (everything points to right), but the Quantum Theory notion of gravity as an actual force, defined by a quantum force or field has proven itself repeatedly wrong. If something is unequivocally fallacious (like the quantum definition of gravity), how can you say it must be included and "unified" into General Relativity or GR must become inaccurate to merge with QM?
Re2)  You just combined two different theories. There have repeated attempts to steer QT's interpretation of gravity away from a force or field and towards a spacetime distortion (like GR) so it makes sense. These are based on describing ST as quantum foam formed by Loop Gravity (includes mass and is nearly GR), Entropic Gravity (which is variable and falls completely apart except in rare instances) and String Theory (which is like LG, but includes all forces, multiple extra dimensions and the most malleable and fungible mathematic assumptions to work - a grand unified attempt).

All these QT attempts at redefining gravity are necessary lest all QT falls apart. So far it's been completely unsuccessful. Another excuse is the incorrect claim GR breaks down within singularities and needs redefining - it doesn't. As gravity approaches infinity and volume approaches zero, GR still applies. If the math is twisted to achieve infinite gravity/energy and actually zero volume, GR doesn't work. But that situation is only a mathematic exercise, not a possible occurrence as infinity is just an expression (not a thing) and even QT postulates there is no zero volume.
When it comes to gravity, General Relativity is currently accurate in every test while QT has failed in every way (though Loop Gravity shows the highest promise).

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.
4) It is also the foundation for all modern physics. ... Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for.
5) In particular, Bell's inequality (entanglement) which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. ... Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.

Re3) Physics is the understanding of the Universe and mathematics is the language used to describe and predict it. Once statistics and probabilities are thrown into the math it is no longer a description of the Universe, but a tangential exercise in mathematics alone. A century ago, and apparently ever since, physicists' noses have been so close to their calculations they forgot it is supposed to describe actual physics and the Universe, not just kick out a desired result. That's when contrived ignorance replaced knowledge.
Re4) Really, because that's how you view things now - everything else must work within it? What nave arrogance and dismissal of The Fact science is always our "current understanding", not the absolute truth and often that "understanding" branches onto dead ends. What experiments do you "require" the QT definition of the Universe exclusively and why does QT fail when scaled beyond the micro to the macro, fail at it's micro level and require distorting the ties between the Universe and Quantum math to show any relevance at all? You can't keep rowing that failboat while demand everyone jump aboard. That would just devolve all scientific understanding to a common point of failure, or lowest common denominator - Quantum Theory.
Re5) So because you can't figure out how entanglement works or how wave-particle duality can exist with a Relativistic understanding of spacetime, there must be something really complicated at work (meaning you don't get it)? And if chasing absurdity or prioritizing formula over function doesn't work (QT) there must be something even more complicated, bizarre and theoretical (you really, really don't get it)? Or, the scientific community of the last century is neither clever, wise or even scientific, but myopic, foolish and oblivious. The Universe indicates the latter and I'm inclined to agree.

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Liked: 592
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #149 on: 02/16/2014 06:09 pm »
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

A very large class of models(classical physics) has been falsified experimentally. It turns out that a very simple modification, replacing (commuting) real numbers with (non-commuting) linear operators, makes everything work. It turns out that this modification ends up being consistent with the results of thousands of experiments over the last century, many of them explicitly designed to disprove it. This has nothing to do with ignorance, it is simply a damn good theory.

There is no loss of intuition either - it is perfectly possible to build a strong intuition in quantum mechanics, which also ends up being damn useful when considering classical problems. As it turns out, QM also has numerous applications in industry, including designing transistors for the computer that you are currently using to read this.

Trying to replace a highly reliable century-old model, with a model based on an outdated understanding that has already been falsified by countless experiments, is simply not following the scientific method. This applies to both anti-quantum zealots trying to reintroduce classical mechanics, and young earth creationists trying to "prove" that the earth is 5000 years old.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9226
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1101
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #150 on: 02/18/2014 02:35 am »
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2225
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #151 on: 02/18/2014 03:48 am »
A few things to remember:

"Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Oxford Dictionary

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #152 on: 02/18/2014 01:19 pm »
i have been reading this thread for as long as it's recent resurrection until the present and rated it's possibility of being true as lower than Rossi's ECAT which has more going for it probability-wise than this in my opinion.

However; I have been thinking about if something like this could be possible or not due to the thread. I would never have even considered the possibilty were it not for this thread. that being said there is a tenous chain of reasoning that could just put it on the microscopically possible. i decided to describe  my speculation on it and That does not mean I think it is true just that it (very remotely) could be.

all the fuss about the ground state and lower than ground state argument and conjecture: 

the energy states of an electron are determined by quanticisation. It is a quantum property. No electron has ever been observed in an energy state lower than the accepted ground state.

however there are  ground states that exist below what we think of as ground state in other things such as the vacuum. it has often been called the false vacuum. it is this false ground state that is credited with the possibility that the universe can even exist at all. but it has also been said that the universe's vacuum state could collapse to true vacuum and that that would cause the universe to cease to exist.

Google "false vacuum" for cites on this concept.

so there exists ground states below the apparent ground state of the universe.

in physics there are several special states of matter beyond the four we are familiar with; in addition to solids, liquids, gases and plasma. Bose Einstein condensates and several other weird states also exist in which matter takes on strange properties that you would never expect if all you knew was the ordinary states of matter.  There are also strange configurations of nuclear and electronic shells such as nucleonic isomeres.

it is possible that some procedure could force an electron into a extremely rare situation where it exists below its normal orbital so long as the new orbital is quanticized. and it is entirely possible for such a state to be completely unobserved by science to date because no one is looking for it and there are countless electrons the vast majority of which would be where we would expect them to be and doing what we expect them to do.

there is physically plenty of room between the lowest electron shell to the nucleus. an atom is mostly made of space. I mean there is so much room if you enlarged an atom so that it's nucleus was the size of a basket ball the first orbital electron would be miles away from it.

i think some set of circumstances could drop an electron below the accepted lowest ground state. but cannot see a way for that to happen and actually produce a gain in energy. It would take energy to produce the circumstances and forces that would make the electron behave abnormally. at best you would have a battery to store energy but you would have to provide the energy to charge that battery. and there is no telling what the relaxation time would be. it would probably be worse than the nucleonic isomer relaxation problem.

so anyway It is on the edge of possible that there is something to this stuff. a finite but tiny probability. personally i have more faith in LENR than this and that is saying something. but i will not completely rule it out as some seem to be eager to do. too eager in my humble opinion. i just don't know enough about the proper physics specializations to go beyond that. i kind of doubt that most of the most vocal critics do either.

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3589
  • Liked: 795
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #153 on: 02/19/2014 07:44 pm »
A couple of new "validation reports" have been posted on the BLP website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/
report Glumac:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf

report Weinberg:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf

Now, the reports are rather short. They also were conducted at the BLP facilities and as it seems with BLP equipment during experiments conduced by BLP staff. These things raise some flags with me as they mean that these are not truly independent validation reports, but rather reports about experiments that were merely observed (and not conducted) by the people writing the reports.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2014 07:46 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #154 on: 02/19/2014 08:25 pm »
well such things do not always mean fraud. it might be a protective measure for the intellectual property. or...

it might be to protect humanity from itself.

imagine someone invents some sort of gravimetric propulsion system that easily gets up to 99.9999 percent light speed. can you then give every kid that hover board? make all cars and trucks flying vehicles. give everyone access to relativistic speed? when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it? one lapse in security anywhere, one stolen machine or wreck of a machine and the thing will be weaponized by up to several billion crazed thanatos-esque nihilistic psychopaths. could you give it to the govt that couldn't keep spies from stealing the atomic bomb? the one that de-protected computer tech which is now used in the weapons of every enemy nation on earth for profit? leaks like a sieve even when it doesn't want to? could you leave it s principles, schematics and so forth on university servers? in text books? the patent office? there are no safety interlocks, performance governors or anti tamper schemes that could possibly prevent all reverse engineering. what inventor would be confident enough to unleash this on the world? who would be willing to be responsible for delivering a true doomsday weapon into the hands of anyone who wants it?
« Last Edit: 02/19/2014 08:35 pm by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #155 on: 02/19/2014 08:45 pm »
it might be to protect humanity from itself.

when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it?
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #156 on: 02/19/2014 08:56 pm »

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.

the destructive potential of even an atomic bomb is miniscule compared to a relativistic impact. a 20 kilogram slug of inert metal travelling at 1.3 percent the speed of light is equal to 10 hiroshima bombs. increase the mass...increase the velocity and the damage is exponentially greater. sufficient mass and velocity can quite literally reduce the earth to gravel and fling the gravel out of the sun's gravity well.

compared to that McVeigh was a dust mote.

EDIT: and the presence of people like McVeigh in the hundreds of millions is a big part of my point. They must never have access to such knowledge or technology.

EDIT 2:  Example of relativistic impact of 1 kilogram mass at 90 percent Light speed:

Relativistic weapon: 1 kilogram at 90% c

1.2 x 10^17 Joules    29 Mt of TNT (larger than a city killer type atomic bomb)    

multiply that by a vehicle mass of 1000+ KG (for a car sized vehicle) to millions of KG for an super tanker sized craft.

and then imagine millions of them all over the world waiting for a madman bent on death and destruction to get at the helm.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2014 09:13 pm by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #157 on: 02/19/2014 09:39 pm »
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.


What do you have in mind?

Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications.  If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on.  These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9226
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1101
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #158 on: 02/19/2014 09:45 pm »
What do you have in mind?

Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications.  If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on.  These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.

All of Taxonomy? (I was specifically thinking Taxonomic Entomology, but any field will do).

Observation and measurement are science too, and they inevitably precede hypothesis formation.

.. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.

Heck, Mathematics?

The Queen of the Sciences - Carl Friedrich Gauss.
The science that draws necessary conclusions - Benjamin Peirce.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 01:45 am by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Ric Capucho

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #159 on: 02/20/2014 09:00 am »
(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.

Heck, Mathematics? (snip)

How about string theory? So tautological that it can mathematically describe everything... and so tells us nothing specific about anything.

Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. So what *accepted* physical process could explain the flash bang? Can the state changes from water to steam to plasma (or "plasma") really be so energetic?

TW

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1