-
#400
by
Propylox
on 13 Sep, 2017 04:10
-
Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos.
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production, not venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO
2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math. And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.
Expanding a research facility for more employees, experiments and equipment (like BLP, General Fusion and others) after establishing the funding to do so is not the same as investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
-
#401
by
Propylox
on 13 Sep, 2017 04:14
-
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdf
FIG. 2I88 is a beast - a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.
bold emphasis, mine. Referring to them as "electrodes" implies currant, which I can only assume is ground?
-
#402
by
meberbs
on 13 Sep, 2017 05:28
-
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.
venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.
Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.
-
#403
by
bad_astra
on 13 Sep, 2017 14:54
-
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
-
#404
by
Stan-1967
on 13 Sep, 2017 15:29
-
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
Maybe that's what will tip the scales for the patent judge to grant a patent. It has "some" utility.
-
#405
by
bad_astra
on 16 Sep, 2017 18:43
-
They are stating they'll have a commercial product in 2019. They've made such statements before, of course.
-
#406
by
Bob012345
on 05 Oct, 2017 17:46
-
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,
By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.
venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.
Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
-
#407
by
meberbs
on 05 Oct, 2017 17:57
-
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
-
#408
by
wavelet
on 10 Oct, 2017 11:57
-
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_captureAn electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
In the pictures of the "reactor" there are copper tubes that go near two big black tubes below the chamber. These tubes go up and down with no apparent function, but I might be wrong here.
Hmm.
-
#409
by
Tulse
on 10 Oct, 2017 15:00
-
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
As that article notes, electron capture changes a proton to neutron (as one might expect), and thus reduces the atomic number of atom involved. This cannot be the mechanism involved here.
-
#410
by
Bob012345
on 11 Oct, 2017 18:03
-
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
-
#411
by
meberbs
on 11 Oct, 2017 18:11
-
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.
To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?
-
#412
by
Bob012345
on 11 Oct, 2017 18:21
-
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?
Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.
To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
-
#413
by
meberbs
on 11 Oct, 2017 18:50
-
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
Some brief
research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
-
#414
by
Bob012345
on 11 Oct, 2017 19:11
-
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
The paper I want you to see is this;
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox
-
#415
by
whitelancer64
on 11 Oct, 2017 19:50
-
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
-
#416
by
meberbs
on 11 Oct, 2017 19:59
-
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.
I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
Some brief research on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
The paper I want you to see is this;
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5
Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox
The abstract is enough. They might as well be describing a box where you heat one side, and then extract energy from the temperature gradient of the box, which is both pointless and not a violation of the second law. I could describe more issues but as I already said, Sheehan's work is
off topic.It now seems like your only purpose in asking me about the 2nd law and hydrinos was so that you could pull out this reference and claim that it invalidates that criticism (which it wouldn't) and then pretend that invalidating one criticism lets you ignore all of the other problems with hydrinos. This chain of logic is so bad that if that is what you were doing, it would be hard to describe it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that hydrinos are nonsense.
-
#417
by
meberbs
on 11 Oct, 2017 20:02
-
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2
However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
Good example of Maxwell's demon. Small scale fluctuations exist, but the local and short lived nature makes them impossible to combine and create large scale effects.
-
#418
by
endofpetroleum.com
on 22 Oct, 2019 18:43
-
We are scientists from the private side trying to help connect some innovations in energy back to academia and gov. Perhaps some of these conversations will go offline, but here, let's talk physics.
Hydrino energy - don't have a conniption if you have history here - is now at the 100kW level so we think it has some good possibilities for space propulsion. The energy densities are pretty spectacular even today besting fossil fuels. Note sure links are allowed here: brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video - if they aren't let me know.
Anyway I think it is time the community takes new physics seriously as no quantum chemistry allows for a down-conversion of atomic hydrogen to a smaller stable form.
We are experts happy to educate, from our side of the universe -- it is almost like we've been space traveling for a while and are coming back with ideas from another planet.
Here is the first idea I'll introduce. Electrons are photons that go round and round but not moons. They are extended particles. They aren't point charges in a probability wave. The double slit is an electromagnetic interaction where electrons interact with surface photons on the slit surface. Electrons can interact with photons (1905!) and remit photons - this can cause (angular momentum shift) to the transverse plane. The resulting diffraction pattern looks like interference but it isnt' - it is mapping electromagnetic interactions. It is all calculatable. Feymann said the double slit is the central mystery of qm. Think baseballs, not points. Think baseball bunting, not collapse of a wavefunction.
---
to keep things civil and on track these people are behind this new era
· Dr. Reinhart Engelmann, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
· Dr. Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy, MIT Nuclear Engineering
· Dr Günther Landvogt, retired scientist, Philips Research Lab
· Dr. John J. Farrell, Franklin & Marshall College
· Dr. Henry Weinberg - A professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology for eighteen years, a professor of Chemical Engineering, co-founder and CTO of Symyx Technologies for 13 years
· Dr. Nick Glumac - Mechanical Science and Engineering Department, University of Illinois
· Dr. Gil Crouse - Professor at Auburn University
· Dr. Terry Copeland - former manager of product development for several electrochemical and energy companies including DuPont Company and Duracell
· Dr. James K. Pugh & Dr Ethirajulu of Enser Corporation
· Dr. Johannes Conrads - former director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics at Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany
· Prof. Richard Maas UNC Chapel Hill full professor in the Department of Environmental Studies in 1998.
· Dr. Mark Nansteel – PhD in mechanical engineering from UC Berkley.
· Dr. K. V. Ramanujachary - Professor Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Rowan University.
· Dr. Peter Jansson - Associate Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Bucknell University.
· Prof. Randy Booker - Professor of Physics, University North Carolina Ashville..
· Dr. Joe Renick – ex-Chief Scientist at Applied Research Associates, a firm that performs weapons testing for the U.S.
· Dr. Jonathan Phillips – PhD in materials science, currently teaching at the Naval Postgraduate School.
-
#419
by
Paul Howard
on 22 Oct, 2019 18:54
-
Not sure if this was written by a bot, especially with the spammy username, as this reads like it was translated from a foriegn language, but what does this have to do with space flight?