Blacklight Power

[hop]

11 million in funding...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?

~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!

(A BLP fan was assuring us that BLP had signed contracts with utilities back in 2009, and BLP had already been pushing variations on the theme with "real soon now" promises 10+ years before that.)

[Bob012345]

11 million in funding...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?

~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!

(A BLP fan was assuring us that BLP had signed contracts with utilities back in 2009, and BLP had already been pushing variations on the theme with "real soon now" promises 10+ years before that.)

There have been peer reviewed papers. And a lot of progress. There was a breakthrough regarding reaction kinetics around 2014 and the state of the device is advancing rapidly yet turning a high power reaction to a commercial device is not trivial.

[Bob012345]

Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;

You are making the claims, I am not going to do extensive research to support your claims, and searches on the subject mostly bring up many references and peer reviewed papers providing a long list of problems with Mill's experiments and theory. Meanwhile, everything you provided is from Mills, and based on the fact that direct replications of his experiments by NASA contradicted his findings, there is strong reason to doubt results that he publishes.

There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction ...

Then why did you not provide any?

and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.

Your confidence seems to be based on ignoring the preponderance of evidence. Wikipedia does not censor information, but I am guessing that the policy of "no original research" is one of the problems that people may have run into if what you say is true. (And if it is, you can easily prove it by looking providing a link to the relevant revisions in the article history.)

But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake.

This is basically you agreeing with the original point that extraordinary claims  require extraordinary evidence.

We should probably end the conversation here, but I'll respond to the rest of your post for completeness.

Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.

Schrodinger's equation hasn't changed to my knowledge. From what I have seen of Mill's theory, he takes an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation, plugs in numbers explicitly inconsistent with the derivation of the equation, and claims magic happens. This isn't modifying QM, this is just him making up a self-inconsistent theory.

It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.

Somehow I knew you would make exactly this point, and it is completely wrong. First you need to be aware of the difference between physics and engineering. The physics of fusion was demonstrated in the 50s, and I don't think there have been any real significant updates in decades. The engineering of controlled fusion is a harder problem, but we know the relevant physics and it has been clearly demonstrated. The only question is if we can find creative enough containment methods to make it economical, and solving some things that are difficult to model theoretically, like material degradation under high energy neutron bombardment.

On the other hand, none of the physics behind the hydrino has been demonstrated, your comment about government funding is both wrong (NASA did tests) and irrelevant (quick research indicates tens of millions of dollars of investment.) Meanwhile, if there were other states of the hydrogen atom, a simple high school level experiment of a glass tube full of hydrogen, with a pair of high voltage electrodes and a spectrometer would be able to demonstrate it. Also, electrons tend to the lowest available energy state, so lower energy states should literally be impossible to miss.

If you really want to discuss this further, we should take it to the relevant thread that as58 found. With your apparent agreement with the claim that started this tangent, there is no longer any meaningful relevance to this topic. (this site has nothing against resurrecting even very old threads, but it does have rules against off-topic posts)

First, I'm not 'making the claims', I'm telling you of claims others are making. They happen to be true irregardless of what you think. Second, the NASA results didn't 'contradict' Mills findings. The engineers involved recommended further work but the managers decided to end it. That's not proof it didn't work. Also,those experiments are not like the newest experiments at all so please don't lump everything together.

And regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work, if I point you to talks by them and they appear with Mills you are going to just claim they aren't 'independent' and discount their work.

Your comments on Wikipedia make little sense. You're saying it's  fine for them to keep Mills work unspecified and uneferenced while keeping public comments by Mills' critics, which are NOT scientific statements. So Wiki is only for old established ideas and not new, emerging ideas and one can only learn about new and controversial ideas by hearing from the critics and opponents but not proponents.

You missed the whole point about the 'key' equations of QM. It's not that the Shrodinger equation was modified, it was replaced with the Dirac equation because it was 'wrong', being incomplete. The Dirac eq. was replaced by Quantum Electrodymanics and so on. These equations are approximations that are used withing certain limits and they were constructed to fit the data that existed at the time, nearly a century ago.

Your point regarding physics vs. engineering is weak because the physics of hydrino reactions were introduced two decades ago and Mills is primarily working on the engineering of it to a commercial reactor. Your personal unawareness or rejection of the fundamental physics regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction is irrelevent to the argument. It exists in spite if your unfamiliarity if it. And since you are also dismissive of hydrino physics you wouldn't have an adequate handle of whether it's more or less complicated to engineer a hydrino based reactor than it is a fusion based reactor. All you know is that fusions difficult. But I'll tell you, I think it's a very hard problem but still much easier than fusion.

Your statement regarding what a high school student should be able to demonstrate hydrino's if they existed is wrong unless you modify the experiment to create the proper conditions to form hydrino's. Do you know those conditions? If you don't then please learn them and propose a better experiment. Your statement about electrons always going to lowest state and could not be missed also misses important aspects about the nature of the hydrino state, how it forms and how it doesn't form.

And no, I didn't contradict my original point, I'm saying that science can be held back by that attitude.

I think you should listen to Mills himself as he spoke at Fresno state recently;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00&feature=youtu.be

Finally, what do you make of this spectrum for the hydrino reaction? Are you going to claim it's just 'artifact'?

Thanks.

[whitelancer64]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

[Bob012345]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

[whitelancer64]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

[Bob012345]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

[whitelancer64]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

You linked to a youtube video.

That's not information. Anyone can post any drivel they like to youtube.

[whitelancer64]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

[as58]

Mills could convince everyone by giving hydrinos to other scientists. No one other than Mills and his associates have observed such things, but if Mills' devices work as he claims, they must be producing hydrinos as waste. However, he seems to rely on energy output demonstrations that are just about as convincing as Rossi's ECat.

[ChrisWilson68]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

There are two main problems I see here:

1. These reports are filtered through the company.  To really be independent, they should be published by a third party, where the reporter is free to report honestly everything that person observed.  If they are having some people make observations and report them to the company, then the company puts them on its web site, it brings up various kinds of issues.  Did the company agree in advance to publish the results no matter what they were?  Did they publish all reports from all observers, or did they pick and choose what to publish based on the reports?  What were the financial arrangements between the observers and the company?

2. The observers have no training in spotting deception.  Someone might be a good experimental physicist, for example, but not have the experience or training to spot deliberate fraud.  There are people who specialize in investigating claims that are counter to established scientific principles, both deliberate fraud and innocent mistakes.  For example, there is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.  I'm sure they would be happen to send an investigator to observe the claims of hydrinos and give and independent report.

http://www.csicop.org/si

[Bob012345]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.

[Bob012345]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

There are two main problems I see here:

1. These reports are filtered through the company.  To really be independent, they should be published by a third party, where the reporter is free to report honestly everything that person observed.  If they are having some people make observations and report them to the company, then the company puts them on its web site, it brings up various kinds of issues.  Did the company agree in advance to publish the results no matter what they were?  Did they publish all reports from all observers, or did they pick and choose what to publish based on the reports?  What were the financial arrangements between the observers and the company?

2. The observers have no training in spotting deception.  Someone might be a good experimental physicist, for example, but not have the experience or training to spot deliberate fraud.  There are people who specialize in investigating claims that are counter to established scientific principles, both deliberate fraud and innocent mistakes.  For example, there is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.  I'm sure they would be happen to send an investigator to observe the claims of hydrinos and give and independent report.

http://www.csicop.org/si

Regarding point 1, that's true but realize 'independent' vs. Collaboration doesn't mean true vs. False. I believe the Validators are competent researchers who understood what and why they are doing. Point 2 is speculation on your part and if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud. Also, CSICOP is in reality mostly oriented to debunk psychic phenomonon and not equipped to do this kind of science. They would be more likely to do a cursory (and wrong) analysis.

[gospacex]

Regarding point 1, that's true but realize 'independent' vs. Collaboration doesn't mean true vs. False. I believe the Validators are competent researchers who understood what and why they are doing. Point 2 is speculation on your part and if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.

I don't know whether he is a fraud or is delusional, and in the greater picture, it does not matter.

The claimed physics contradicts today's understanding of quantum electrodynamics, should have been discovered some 70 years ago if it were true, and as such is very very likely, almost certainly wrong.

[Bob012345]

Mills could convince everyone by giving hydrinos to other scientists. No one other than Mills and his associates have observed such things, but if Mills' devices work as he claims, they must be producing hydrinos as waste. However, he seems to rely on energy output demonstrations that are just about as convincing as Rossi's ECat.

He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas. What should convince other scientists are two things, spectra of the hydrino formation process which is the gold standard, and cosmic events anyone can observe which are very well explained by the hydrino formation process. Mills has reproduced spectra in the lab that mimics certain astrophysical processes as well as being far far beyond the spectra of normal chemical reactions. Mills is mainly interested in getting his device to market thinking that a stand alone working energy threat or will convince people.

[aceshigh]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

No, you have NOT.

Read the quotes.

"Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results."

He asked names but more specifically, he asked for links to the PAPERS OF THEIR WORK, THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND RESULTS.

You provided Youtube links and claims this is information?

The Earth is flat. I will post videos from Youtube providing all the necessary information. What you do with that information is up to you. But Earth is undeniably flat, as can be proved by Youtubers.

[Bob012345]

"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"

"if I point you to talks by them"

Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.

If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac

I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.

Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.

No, you have NOT.

Read the quotes.

"Who?

Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results."

He asked names but more specifically, he asked for links to the PAPERS OF THEIR WORK, THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND RESULTS.

You provided Youtube links and claims this is information?

The Earth is flat. I will post videos from Youtube providing all the necessary information. What you do with that information is up to you. But Earth is undeniably flat, as can be proved by Youtubers.

I pointed to what is available. There are no official papers yet. You can get the names of those Validators from Mills web site if you like and contact them for more details if you like.

[whitelancer64]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.

No, they did not do any experiments. The reports which I found listed on the BLP website are observations of a demonstration unit which was run by BLP.

They did not say there was a new reaction, nor did they confirm the existence of the hydrino.

If anyone is doing experiments that have confirmed the hydrino, please tell who has done / is doing so, and if possible, link to their papers.

[Bob012345]

OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."

Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.

There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.

No, they did not do any experiments. The reports which I found listed on the BLP website are observations of a demonstration unit which was run by BLP.

They did not say there was a new reaction, nor did they confirm the existence of the hydrino.

If anyone is doing experiments that have confirmed the hydrino, please tell who has done / is doing so, and if possible, link to their papers.

 Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.
The fact that that appear in public demonstrations with Mills is a tacit endorsement.

Mills says more validations will be forthcoming but aren't public yet. I don't have inside information. Obviously, if there were more professional interest there would be more papers. But interest is slowly growing.

BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.

[hop]

Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.

Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP.

BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.

That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.

Strangely, all those old press releases have gone down the memory hole, and their robots.txt is apparently configured to disallow archive.org from archiving.

Why anyone would presume good faith at this point is a mystery to me.