Power Source That Turns Physics On Its Head

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005.../energy.science

Gonna be interesting to see where this goes....

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

That was November 2005.
We don't have to wait, it's already almost 4 years later.

And his web site does not say, "this is how much power we are creating." He's had time for some prototypes.

You have to learn to think outside the box. Not all pretty web sites using words you don't understand are valid. You should stop being sheeple.

Why are the cranks so anxious to discredit modern science? Is it not "exciting" enough for them?

Alright, here is a more modern (this year) article...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...009+PRN20090730

and shortly after....

http://www.ecplaza.net/news/14/28818/black..._power_inc.html

They always under estimate the time frame. They're simply "behind schedule" if you go by that first article.

Talk about a failed attempt at a pre-emtive. This is outside the box. It is those (like you) that follow blindly behind the (about to be proved inaccurate) theories of other scientists that don't think outside the box.

It's a simple matter of being right...

I always believed that current theories are full of false conclusions. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some people have a natural nack for being able to spot the bs, take what's not and come to our own conclusions then use those conclusions to come up with possible "what ifs"? All without years spent at a university being fed nothing more than the opinions and views of the professor who is most likely a student as well going for his PhD while teaching those getting their bachelors his own thesis.....

Actually teaching is the wrong word to use....Lecturing is the word to use. They don't teach, they lecture.

Hi all,
H2O, those are both press releases. I would be just as excited as you if this were true, but a press release is not news. Keep digging.
Peace,
Ron

Um yes it is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_release

Just because the news companies haven't deemed it worthy for to be aired on TV or printed in the News Paper isn't grounds to dismiss the claims/findings as being false. Nor is it evidence against it.

Not all claims are accurate.

Edit: thr theories you doubt were there before you were born but they are the result of people who could think outside the box, and replaced previous thinking.
And they were able to demonstate why the old thinking was wrong.

And yes some people can spot but BS but you can't.

This post has been edited by buttershug on Oct 15 2009, 02:15 PM

Another news article I found that was published this month.

http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Cumbria/Kenda...e-Energy-trials

I especially like the part..

It seems to me that a large portion of the scientific community will end up looking like absolute fools. Especially if they become the reason that it is not in use (if they aren't already) the general public would be furious if word got out if that were the case.

Mills is smarter than you. I think Mills may be smart enough to invent a mish-mash of scientific-sounding words and equations to cover why a certain system appears to be out of energy balance. But it is a very flimsy cover and the simple fact is that he doesn't have a closed system. If he had a closed system, then this wouldn't be a purported over-unity device but a pure perpetual source of power. Instead we get nearly two decades of "development" -- making the system shinier but never more well-understood.

Unlike homeopathy, the only salable benefit of a power source is in the power -- there is no placebo effect in turning your TV on. But a power source under "development" permits the perpetual fleecing of investors, who need to be shown the trappings of science and progress even if nothing is there.

So right now, Mills is indistinguishable in methodology from a number of other proven fraudulent purveyors of purported power systems. As a fraud, Mills' actions are well-suited for his own benefit. As long as he never succeeds, he gets funds. When the lawsuits come (not every true believer stays converted) he has an impressive body of gibberish to beat over the heads of the jury, but nowhere does his "physics" connect with experiments not done by his associates. He will wrap his body in the robes of "scientific priesthood" and tell the jury he is only trying to share his discovery with all mankind. And he might get away with it since noone is funded to be a science cop if he's not funded by government dollars. (Although, as in the Dover, Pennsylvania anti-Intelligent Design case, detective work and the excellent presentation of the scope of scientific understanding from millions of observations can be distilled into a successful fact-based victory.)

Whereas, if he is legitimate, surely the fact that after 20 years the fact that he's still playing money to the electric company to keep the lights on ought to be a little troubling? Mills is too smart for that not to be the case.

H2O

Hardly.

Critical analysis of the hydrino model

It's basically like this.

So far the results have not been reproduced. Some of the people at Rowan have ties to Mills and are a bit suspect. Making it worse is the fact that Blacklight supplies Rowan with the materials and reactors to do their tests and that Mills and Blacklight are keeping aspects of the process secret. They claim that they will be able to finally prove it completely by October 2009. That would be now.

However... if the results are duplicated then we can talk about what they mean. Until then it's just vapor-ware.

(Edited to add... I didn't see Rpenner's post before writing mine.)

This post has been edited by RobDegraves on Oct 15 2009, 04:59 PM

You should really dig deeper before spewing such ignorant crap....

http://www.cleantech.com/news/4834/blackli...rd-party-valida

There is also this which explains better what "independently" means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power

And this...

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001849/b...lab-validation/

But I like the Wiki one the best because it tends to be the least biased and covers both sides of the coin. Although the final word seems to be that it works.

There is also a mention of NASA somewhere that have validated the results.

This post has been edited by H2O on Oct 15 2009, 05:25 PM

Note that none of those come from any other source than Blacklight or Rowan. When the companies involved are producing power with it or at least announce it themselves, we will see. So far no other lab has duplicated the results and all the claims have been from Blacklight press releases. Hardly the last word. It's still vapor-ware.

The first link is from 4 years ago. If he needs funds why did he not start a small power company?
He could have used that at a revenue source and kept adding to it.

So far it's him and his friends saying it works. And you claim to have a BS detector?

If it works why not sell the fuel to a coal fire plant. They have all the electricity generating equipment all they need is a source of heat.

Maybe if one can create an environment here on earth, like that in outer space, weightless, frictionless, or substantially such, it is possible to have a machine, like generator, that can generate electrical energy with unlimited power.

The magnet-lift commercial trains in China has proven it. In youtube, free energy, John Cristy demonstrates his magnet-lift generator that is 5 times more efficient than ordinary generator.Can operate much longer indefinitely.

jsaldea12
Scientist, Inventor

10.15.09

"Imbecile, clown." would be infinitely more accurate.