Electricity generated from water: BlackLight Power announces validation of its scientific breakthrou

Originally posted by R_Clark
reply to post by boncho

 

Always nice to have trolls and cointel.. Nice.. you also do not mention the details books, information, and patents that he has provided. Saying only why it is 'not good enough' for you.. while only representing the negatives.. gives you away...

I'm curious how I am the troll. I posted references that show Mills is being deceitful, and that is a major red flag. My opinion is based on him lying or misleading people.

But feel free to post why you believe it is real. As you haven't done yet. Who was the troll again?

reply to post by zarp3333

That sounds like essentially the same thing, taking energy that was used in the orbit of an electron. I'm afraid I don't recognize the name though.

Plasma is a relatively new area of physics, so we may just be witnessing the culmination of several years' worth of experimentation by several different parties come to fruition. Rarely does an invention come about overnight; it sometimes just seems like it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by eriktheawful

I was wondering how they are splitting the water vapor, due to the energy required, and I too was wondering how they hold the hydrogen stable long enough to achieve this change, since hydrogen is sort of like super glue in a way and loves to bond quickly.

I believe Mills does gas loading in a PD lattice if I remember right. Like most people that are researching the same thing. (LENR/Anomalous Heat, "Cold fusion", etc) The only difference with his though, is he claims he unified quantum mechanics and created a different state of hydrogen that only his math can predict. Which numerous people have looked at and found errors in.

He claimed he produced the "hydrino" which is so bold, that it could easily be proven by analyzing it. But no independent labs have received it for analysis. And no one has reproduced it.

Does anyone have handy the formula for energy to convert water to hydrogen via electrolosis versus the energy you get out of it?

I've seen it before and the amount of energy returned is marginal, and thats just getting the hydrogen which transducing that into other useful energy will face inherent efficiency isusses.

So next comes how is their method truly different?

reply to post by ManFromEurope

Can you explain how that other new clean energy works. I will try to explain it. Something like how cell phones work, sort of.

Instead of plugging appliances into electric outlets the power comes from towers or whatever you want to call them.This has been developed and they were suppose to start using it this year in the U.S. But there are problems with this as they are concerned people could be exposed to high voltages of electricity or get electrocuted. I don't know if they have worked all of the problems out of this yet, as I haven't read much else about it

All new appliances would have to be redesigned that go on the market. More jobs there I would think.

Has anyone heard of a water wheel or a hydro damn?

Waterwheels were our first invention produced to create power and electricity through a clean non emissions format.

Water wheels were used back in the earliest days of man kinds power discovery.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boncho

 

Stop being such a freaking pessimist all the time.

This is AMAZING news and the source is solid.

This thread should be on the front page.

Nice find OP.

I do not doubt the validity of their claim, but the news comes from the company itself. I could issue a press release through market wire if I liked. Also, Pink Sheet stock release bogus press releases through Market Wire every day to pump and dump their stocks.

That being said, this company is a private company and I see no reason to release a bogus PR. Glad to see there is still innovation here in the states.

reply to post by tide88

That being said, this company is a private company and I see no reason to release a bogus PR. Glad to see there is still innovation here in the states.

The 80 million Mills has taken in from private investors is not a reason?

reply to post by misfitofscience

Take a look around. Almost every river that can be used for hydro production is being used for hydro production. There are three dams within an hours drive of me, all used for electrical production. And we still can't manage to supply the demand without a nuke plant running as well. April 27, 2011 proved that.

TheRedneck

Another suposed free energy device, i'll believe it when i see it. There's been countless threads started on these miracle devices and nothing ever comes from any of them.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Hang on a minute. "Low-energy form of water." Why does that...it's Ice-9, isn't it? My understanding of physics is fuzzy at best, but wouldn't creating a new quantum state of water be an incredibly bad thing for the planet?

reply to post by TheRedneck

I was speaking to a girl in Vegas. Some people are not gifted in their geographical and thermal environments. She said the airco is a life-support machine when you live there. 30-40 Celsius every day for months, at night the temperature might drop 5 or 10 degrees if you're lucky. Phew! If I ever go to Vegas I will make sure it is in the winter.

On a similar note, I believe China suffers from a similar power problem. Too many people living in hot climates and needing aircos.

Originally posted by boncho
Found a "confidential" report from Weinberg. You can get it off of Mill's site Here. In PDF format.

Which makes me wonder, if it is confidential, why is Mills posting it. And how is that considered validation?

Companies keep many things confidential until such a time that they are revealed to the public. It could be a report that was once confidential and now no longer needs confidentiality protection because of that reason.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by boncho
Found a "confidential" report from Weinberg. You can get it off of Mill's site Here. In PDF format.

Which makes me wonder, if it is confidential, why is Mills posting it. And how is that considered validation?

Companies keep many things confidential until such a time that they are revealed to the public. It could be a report that was once confidential and now no longer needs confidentiality protection because of that reason.

It's only four months old and it wasn't intended for public dissemination. There is no reason why it should be mentioned in a press release. Mills has had public attention, he doesn't offer those papers because they do not fit in with his scheme

Peer review or it didn't happen.

reply to post by boncho

While there is a lot of hype, there are no referenced papers that are mentioned, which might have been nice.

It is important to remember that "papers" are only published by institutions who like them, and nobody likes papers about free energy. Even universities are tangled in the web of energy money.

reply to post by boncho




Boncho you cad, I didn't know you were a troll and cointel. You really should have a warning or a sign in your signature to let people know these things.

ahh this thread, at it's finest..

Even if back to the future becomes reality, it'll be certainly stuck into a delorian and only given to mad professors and never to the lowly peons..

Originally posted by boncho
While this was all going down however, there have been a number of scientists that looks at mills work, and ... found nothing of interest. Not because it went against the mainstream but because it didn't make sense ...

I have no opinion on Mills. Though I would like to point out a curious dilemma I often run up against when engaging in technical conversations. More often than not this occurs when doing something like a code review. I can write efficient functional code (e.g. using C# reflection and an IL emitter) that doesn't make sense to your average run of the mill programmer. Without fail, if a regular coder who only has limited experience tries to review the code they'll bemoan how it's "needlessly complex and confusing." Does that mean it's wrong? Nope. It means that (maybe) it could be written cleaner. However in some instances, with, for example, policy classes, there is no way to make it simpler. I see a fundamental problem with scientific and engineering peer review, in that we expect breakthroughs for complex problems to come packaged using linguistic models that are easy and already well understood. I'm pretty sure whatever physics breakthrough we next discover is going to be a bit like Newtonian mechanics, and will likely require a new type of linguistic tool or math (i.e. calculus or whatever the future equivalent will be) to take us forward.

reply to post by boncho


An idea like this, which seems to have limited profitability (because you can't patent water). Probably will be bought and buried.

Good job catching how these people are all former managers of professors...so what do they do for $$ now? Give bogus testimonies.

Originally posted by CCLLCCLL
reply to post by boncho

 

While there is a lot of hype, there are no referenced papers that are mentioned, which might have been nice.

It is important to remember that "papers" are only published by institutions who like them, and nobody likes papers about free energy. Even universities are tangled in the web of energy money.

So therefore any "paper" self published or disseminated must be true?