http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.htm l new announcement from BLP and my reply
. GoatGuy http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1291416079/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.ht ml#comment-106300194> 1 day ago <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.ht ml#comment-106216644> in reply to froarty . Really? Bullsnot. First - as was intended - there is an implied, but no actual correlation to astrophysics except that the experimental spectrum measurement was made AT an astrophysics facility that happened to have the spectrometer to "do the job". Read it again, goats. Bullsnot II: Dr. Ramanujachary has been working with Mills for quite awhile. Insofar as I can tell, his department is a shill for the whole enterprise: it gives credibility to Mills, and allows them to talk about "universities" and "publishing" and "independent research". But the mouse in the pocket remains the mouse in the pocket. Bullsnot III: no new results regarding the production of actual power are presented. Or, if there are new results, could someone point them out? Bullsnot IV: there are no processes - including nuclear - that release the potential energy contained within the system that don't consume SOMETHING. Or, alternately (e.g. chemical systems), that don't require the investment of at least as much energy into the system as eventually, later, removed from it. IF "hydrinos" are being created, AND they are an energy system containing an extraordinary amount of energy, THEN it must take at least as much energy to create them as is released when they are "returned to relaxation state". Period. Thermodynamics 101. Bullsnot V: The references to "anomalous time dilation in highly red-shifted quasars" are just the height of bullsnot. So... we've gone by some extraordinary brain-spin from impossible-from-a-quantum-perspective hydrogen states to explaining quasars, which actually have pretty decent theory to describe anyway? I could go on, but it isn't important. In several previous posts, I set several criteria that will aid believability of the theory. So far, none of the goalposts have been achieved. 1) availability of the hydrino gas, in ampoules, for other labs to experiment with. (It is gaseous according to their theory, and stable. It is also produced in copious quantities from the experimental process. Ergo... there should be macroscopic quantities available for experimentation) 2) demonstration of lab-scale power generation as a continuous system, not as a single thermal pulse from a highly abstracted "bomb" experiment. (Bomb refers to thermodynamic measurement, not explosion). Look, researchers ... just build a system that takes some well characterized inputs, and run it 24 hr/day for several weeks, producing some measurable amount of thermal energy. Such a system is reproducible by others. There are others, but these two are key. If "hydrinos" can't be exported in ampoules, then ... do they exist? Or, if they can't, but are supposed to be highly stable, then where are they? Or, if they're supposed to be manufactured "on the spot", and no one except Mills and his derivative group can make 'em, why not? Further, having an engineering system that - however it is mocked up - that produces (for example) 100 kW of heat continuously, with only 7 kW of input, and a delivery of 20 kg/hr of some reactants ... for days ... would then allow the thermodynamics of the 20 kg of reactants to be characterized. Then, and only then would one be able to determine whether there is a net energy gain "beyond known physics/chemistry", or not. Only then. G O A T G U Y . froarty in reply to GoatGuy . Bullsnot IV: there are no processes - including nuclear - that release the potential energy contained within the system that don't consume SOMETHING. Or, alternately (e.g. chemical systems), that don't require the investment of at least as much energy into the system as eventually, later, removed from it. IF "hydrinos" are being created, AND they are an energy system containing an extraordinary amount of energy, THEN it must take at least as much energy to create them as is released when they are "returned to relaxation state". Period. Thermodynamics 101. You are not getting something for nothing - I am skeptical of Mill's theory as well but he is not alone in demonstrating "excess energy" - I will refrain fom the term "over unity" because you might interpert this as a violation of COE -it is not! The theories in play (and there are many) is that the catalytic environment is creating the dam that can be rectified by gases translating between monatomic and multiatomic states. Science has known for many years that gas law is based on Heisenburg uncertainty principle and that even at 0 degrees Kelvin this keeps liquified gas from solidifying. this is a macro display of the accumulated effect of vacuum fluctuations that we can actually observe and interact with. We have been told these forces are chaotic and can not be rectified because they are so localized as to be physically unmanageable - and it is THIS rule that is being broken.. an exception is implied where you can use the natural supression of Casimir cavities (inherent in the catalytic material through which the gas is migrating ) to create a tapestry of different energy levels - light speed propagation through a casimir cavity has been measured to seemingly increase from our perspective outside a cavity which gives us a clue what these changes in energy density/casimir geometry are having on the hydrogen/space time inside the cavity - Mill's calls them hydrinos but I think Jan Naudts nailed it when he suggested hydrinos are actually relativistic hydrogen. -- All that said it is still not enough to produce excess heat, you nead a knot or a rectifier to create an asymetrical path in your dam or as you said the transition would be a net gain of zero. The jury is still out but my favorite theory is that the atomic hydrogen translates through the different geometry unaware of any relativistic or equivalent relativistic acceleration BUT the h2 does NOT. the covalent bond opposes these translations and greatly discounts the energy needed to disassociate the molecule. If the discount exceeds the delta between h2 formation and h2 disassociation you will release the difference in heat energy and the discount will start accumulating again in an endless cycle as long as the atoms remain moving through the appropriate changes in Casimir geometry. Keep in mind it is HUP that is pushing the random motion of these atoms not energy that we have to supply - Garret Moddel did calculations early on regarding the Haisch- Moddel patent which utilizes Casimir Lamb pinch that indicated the energy needed to pump these gases through changes in Casimir geometry does not directly subtract from heat energy produced. kind of like the pressure we supply pushes the drill but HUP energy is making the drill spin :_)
<<image001.png>>
