I think you're optimistic about BLP's chances of changing minds. They say that Galileo's theory didn't change anyone's mind, it just outlived everyone who insisted on believing in geocentrism. I often wonder at the flaw in human nature that causes this problem.
eternalcarrot
· 1 year ago
Wow.
Count me a little less skeptical. Until today I dismissed it, but now I think there could be something to it. This is why I love science. It's possible to be wrong and pay dearly for being wrong. In politics there are bailout plans for big business, in religion there is (often) contradictory or meaningless beliefs, but in Science eventually someone wins and the other person loses. Like the other commentator said, it may take a century....
But hopefully not. This has the advantage of having immediate trillion dollar value.
optionsgeek1
· 1 year ago
OK, so capital "P" Physics has basically had their heads up their collective butt for about 80 years - ever since Quantum Mechanics and the Copenhagen interpretation. Only, everyone pretended not to notice because no one wanted to admit that he had his head up a butt.
Makes me wonder what else capital "S" Science has wrong for the same reason. First initials "G" "W" . . . Anyone?
nextbigfuture
· 1 year ago
I think the "if it is real" scenarios depend upon how cleanly and commercially BLP could work. Metamaterials had to fight through doubters but the scientific proofs and confirmation of the work was clearcut. Other controversial science can continue to gather evidence but provide incomplete proofs and evidence which leaves room for skeptics to validly claim another position.
As of right now, I can see how skeptics can validly claim the real possibility of scam and incorrectness.
If this remains just a matter of more universities and researchers showing that something is working, that would be far less interesting than change the world product. My preference is that working 50KW+ reactors start getting rolled out and verification comes from consumer and commercial product testing sources.
kurt9
· 1 year ago
Sorry guys, but I still remain a skeptic on Blacklight Power. I guess I will not believe it until I can buy a Blacklight power generator at my local Home Depot.
optionsgeek1
· 1 year ago
Apologies in advance for coming across as a dick, but what else could explain what the Rowan team is seeing? 1+ million joules seems difficult to explain away as experimental error.
kurt9
· 1 year ago
I said I was a skeptic, not a pathological skeptic. I really do want this to be real. However, wanting something to be real and something actually being real does not always correlate. As I said before, I will believe it when I can go down to home depot and buy one of these generators for myself.
optionsgeek1
· 1 year ago
BTW, I do apologize for coming across as a dick - it's always difficult to convey tone that mixes gentle but firm confrontation with respect.
For my own part, I have been reluctant to accept this as true as well. It's difficult to buy into something that generates reactions from bonafide physicists that range from neglect to antipathy. However, I've read the papers, I've cranked the equations, I've verified the tabulations, and I am now seeing purportedly independent validation. It's becoming harder and harder to see how this can all be one big confidence scam.
This announcement pushes me firmly over the line. I would now be willing to put some of my own money on the line.
eternalcarrot
· 1 year ago
It's difficult to imagine incomplete evidence given enough testing. It water still spewed from rocks and seas parted, and blind men could miraculously see, I would be a believer rather than a skeptic. The public can't measure the effectiveness of the process like a scientist can.
I have little doubt millions can be fooled. Consider bottled water that costs thousands of times more commercially than out of the tap. Do we really get a proportionally better experience?
Arguueing over theory isn't the point.. While theory is massively important in understanding nature, it really has no effect on whether or not the device works. The output of science isn't neat toys.
nova77
· 1 year ago
Well, I am sorry but this still does not convince me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and scientists are not harder to fool (as James Randi well demonstrated decades ago). It will take a much broader set of independent and reasonably controlled tests to prove they're not a scam. And such pompous and continuous stream of press releases just make my skeptic antennas tingle even further.
nextbigfuture
· 1 year ago
As indicated, I knew that the majority of skeptics would not be converted based on this new result. The Rowan University work still has to go through peer review.
The BLP claim is that they make the reactors for about $500 per kw. so the 50kw reactor would be in the $25,000 price range and run off of water. If it could be made safe then I would spend that kind of money to get one and run my house off of it or if it was needed arrange to get industrial zoned land where power plants could be installed and get them placed there. Set up a co-operative utility.
As Kurt9 noted, the basic claim is pretty much that this is the kind of technology that is just a far better version of a fuel cell/fossil fuel generator. Safer in some ways because there is no fossil fuel involved, just water and hydrogen.
Real - not scam has to mean widespread commercial availability 2010-2012. Commercial price could end up being 2-3 times higher. And their could be a waiting list of customers, but a lot of companies and people would have working versions.
University validations, peer review etc... needs to be happening as in the Rowan University case because real (and understood and usable for generating power within one year) means that anyone can kick the tires and the thing clearly and unambiguously works repeatedly.
But support for BLP in 2010 has to be a lot of happy customers generating a lot of power at breakthrough prices.
qraal
· 1 year ago
I wonder if the hydrino state would be easier to fuse than regular hydrogen? Now that'd be a breakthrough!
enantiomer2000
· 1 year ago
Does anybody know about the size of the 50kW reactor? The average car would need about 120,000kWs to power its needs (1Hp ~= 750W). Could you simply slap 3 of these units into a car and you have a car that runs on NaH & Water? How quickly is the NaH used up? The average cost of NaH is about $3.50/kg, so I guess fueling stations would be selling NaH. Or maybe the tech could be combined with EEStor and just be used for cheap stationary power... Neat possibilities.
The paper describes the 50kW unit as containing 1.5 kg of Raney nickel as the core, which seems like it would fit inside the unit Mills is holding.
Please note that the NaH and NaOH are not the fuel - these act as catalysts. The only fuel that would be consumed is elemental hydrogen, from, say ordinary water. The Hydrogen is turned into hydrinos and hydrino-compounds, which are described as stable and essentially non-reactive (i.e. safe). Mills claims that a 1GWatt power plant - enough to power a largish city, would draw about 1 liter of water per second to operate.
nferguso
· 1 year ago
No, folks. Read the Rowan University paper. The "50 KW" cell they tested is a laboratory apparatus. Neither it nor anything like it is going to be installed anywhere. The 50 KW heat was a relatively short burst that tapered off. I have been following this for several months as a "hope-against-hope"tic layman. Given all the information out there, anybody who flatly describes it as a scam or hoax is the embodiment of pathological skepticism. The evidence is overwhelming that Dr. Mills, his colleagues, and his backers are earnest and estimable.
It's my opinion that the theory could still fall apart. It's also possible that some unknown but conventional reaction or impurity arises in the fuel that produces the effects observed. Finally, it's possible that unforeseen difficulties with the overall process, for example with fuel reprocessing or handling, renders the technology less than world-shaking. The end-to-end process is going to be pretty complicated.
Nevertheless there's good reason to get excited. Why not? A little excitement never hurt anyone. And it's very possible that this is a game changer.
Menace
· 1 year ago
OK, found the Rowan report. Interesting but not conclusive. Maybe this isn't a scam? There are quite a few arguments going on about it but i see it in 2 simple parts: 1. Does the experiment do something useful? 2. Why does this experiment do what it does? and does it cause some embarrassment to theoretical physicists? Given that I'm an engineer and not a scientist the first is more important than the second in my opinion. I do find the report a bit odd though. It almost seems that it should be broken into 2 seperate problems. 1. proving the blacklight exothermic reaction. 2. using it to build a plasma rocket engine. They seem to be over complicating the experiment for novices like me.
A "major university" confirmed these results 10 years ago and the prototypes were one year away from commercialization. Mills had millions of dollars worth of investors money and was submitting his ideas to the ultimate judge -- the marketplace -- with results expected in a year.
Let's see that was 1999. I've had my BLP generator providing all of the energy for my house since 2001. It runs on water and hums along with zero maintenance. I'd show it to you, but why should I? I'm getting power for $0.01 and what to I have to prove to the same sort of skeptics who didn't believe Galileo or the Wright brothers. The real proof the toasty warm air circulating through my living room for free.
Actually, the real marketplace that Mills is testing is the market for stupid venture money. Let's see if he finds a new round of suckers with enough cash to keep his snake oil lab funded for another 15 years.
I guess the utter lack of professionalism that we see in the NYT political coverage has all affected their ability to sniff out the mushrooms from the bullshit in technology coverage as well.
-Mercy
nextbigfuture
· 1 year ago
From the web archive. They were generating 10,000 joules in previous verification. 50 to 100 times less than the current tests.
All Comments
Count me a little less skeptical. Until today I dismissed it, but now I think there could be something to it. This is why I love science. It's possible to be wrong and pay dearly for being wrong. In politics there are bailout plans for big business, in religion there is (often) contradictory or meaningless beliefs, but in Science eventually someone wins and the other person loses. Like the other commentator said, it may take a century....
But hopefully not. This has the advantage of having immediate trillion dollar value.
Makes me wonder what else capital "S" Science has wrong for the same reason. First initials "G" "W" . . . Anyone?
As of right now, I can see how skeptics can validly claim the real possibility of scam and incorrectness.
If this remains just a matter of more universities and researchers showing that something is working, that would be far less interesting than change the world product. My preference is that working 50KW+ reactors start getting rolled out and verification comes from consumer and commercial product testing sources.
convey tone that mixes gentle but firm confrontation with respect.
For my own part, I have been reluctant to accept this as true as well. It's
difficult to buy into something that generates reactions from bonafide
physicists that range from neglect to antipathy. However, I've read the
papers, I've cranked the equations, I've verified the tabulations, and I am
now seeing purportedly independent validation. It's becoming harder and
harder to see how this can all be one big confidence scam.
This announcement pushes me firmly over the line. I would now be willing to
put some of my own money on the line.
I have little doubt millions can be fooled. Consider bottled water that costs thousands of times more commercially than out of the tap. Do we really get a proportionally better experience?
Arguueing over theory isn't the point.. While theory is massively important in understanding nature, it really has no effect on whether or not the device works. The output of science isn't neat toys.
And such pompous and continuous stream of press releases just make my skeptic antennas tingle even further.
The BLP claim is that they make the reactors for about $500 per kw. so the 50kw reactor would be in the $25,000 price range and run off of water. If it could be made safe then I would spend that kind of money to get one and run my house off of it or if it was needed arrange to get industrial zoned land where power plants could be installed and get them placed there. Set up a co-operative utility.
As Kurt9 noted, the basic claim is pretty much that this is the kind of technology that is just a far better version of a fuel cell/fossil fuel generator. Safer in some ways because there is no fossil fuel involved, just water and hydrogen.
Real - not scam has to mean widespread commercial availability 2010-2012. Commercial price could end up being 2-3 times higher. And their could be a waiting list of customers, but a lot of companies and people would have working versions.
University validations, peer review etc... needs to be happening as in the Rowan University case because real (and understood and usable for generating power within one year) means that anyone can kick the tires and the thing clearly and unambiguously works repeatedly.
But support for BLP in 2010 has to be a lot of happy customers generating a lot of power at breakthrough prices.
The paper describes the 50kW unit as containing 1.5 kg of Raney nickel as the core, which seems like it would fit inside the unit Mills is holding.
Please note that the NaH and NaOH are not the fuel - these act as catalysts. The only fuel that would be consumed is elemental hydrogen, from, say ordinary water. The Hydrogen is turned into hydrinos and hydrino-compounds, which are described as stable and essentially non-reactive (i.e. safe). Mills claims that a 1GWatt power plant - enough to power a largish city, would draw about 1 liter of water per second to operate.
It's my opinion that the theory could still fall apart. It's also possible that some unknown but conventional reaction or impurity arises in the fuel that produces the effects observed. Finally, it's possible that unforeseen difficulties with the overall process, for example with fuel reprocessing or handling, renders the technology less than world-shaking. The end-to-end process is going to be pretty complicated.
Nevertheless there's good reason to get excited. Why not? A little excitement never hurt anyone. And it's very possible that this is a game changer.
Given that I'm an engineer and not a scientist the first is more important than the second in my opinion.
I do find the report a bit odd though. It almost seems that it should be broken into 2 seperate problems. 1. proving the blacklight exothermic reaction. 2. using it to build a plasma rocket engine. They seem to be over complicating the experiment for novices like me.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/blacklightpower.com/
A "major university" confirmed these results 10 years ago and the prototypes were one year away from commercialization. Mills had millions of dollars worth of investors money and was submitting his ideas to the ultimate judge -- the marketplace -- with results expected in a year.
Let's see that was 1999. I've had my BLP generator providing all of the energy for my house since 2001. It runs on water and hums along with zero maintenance. I'd show it to you, but why should I? I'm getting power for $0.01 and what to I have to prove to the same sort of skeptics who didn't believe Galileo or the Wright brothers. The real proof the toasty warm air circulating through my living room for free.
Actually, the real marketplace that Mills is testing is the market for stupid venture money. Let's see if he finds a new round of suckers with enough cash to keep his snake oil lab funded for another 15 years.
I guess the utter lack of professionalism that we see in the NYT political coverage has all affected their ability to sniff out the mushrooms from the bullshit in technology coverage as well.
-Mercy
Tokomak fusion projects have had successions of projects going back to 1968.
where is the prior claim that BLP was one year from commercialization ?