Le côté obscur de la force (blacklight power)

Modérateurs : Rod, Modérateurs
et sur Futura science AlainCo est ''AlainSep'' dans ce fil sur l' EMdrive http://forums.futura-sciences.com/astro ... ost4731909 à reciter son galimatias.energy_isere a écrit : .....
enerzine fait un torche cul la dessus dans sa livrée de ce jour.
c'est la : http://www.enerzine.com/603/16801+des-m ... deau+.html
![]()
et dans les commentaire il y a un gars dont le pseudo est Alain94800 qui commencant par '' Blacklight n'est pas le plus crédibles des acteurs....'' ne peut étre que AlainCo ici présent.![]()
.
et alors, une fois le 28 Janvier passé ?ToTheEnd a écrit :Bah pour ceux qui veulent rêver et qui sont dans le coin, Blacklight Power fera une démo le 28 janvier prochain de leur Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition... ils disent avoir produit des millions de W grâce à leur techno secrète qui est sans arrêt reportée...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/press/011414-2/
Bien que la date soit fixée, aucune info sur lieu et circonstances de la démo...
T
Certaines parviennent à être surunitaires en argent, avec comme intrant de l'argent, du matériel et de la communication.mais que croyez-vous qu'il ressortira de toutes ces machines surunitaires avec de l'eau comme seul intrant
March 11, 2015
English translation of an article that appeared in Natutech in 2005. This article is relevant to today in that it discusses the proof of a new energy source by two otherwise inexplicable observations: (i) the format of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power or any known chemistry at the required energy level, and (ii) the emission of soft X-ray radiation at a voltage far less than that of the light energy and the inability of any known chemistry to release such high energy. BLP’s SunCell demonstrates the same characteristics as the experiments discussed in this article, but at millions of times the power density. Translator: Bob Kelly, 2015 Original version.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/f ... re-of.htmlForbes covers repeated failure of Blacklight Power to commercialize and cites Nextbigfuture
brian wang | August 17, 2015
Forbes Michael Lynch reviews Blacklight Power as an example of potentially revolutionary energy technology that has failed to deliver on commercialization.
Forbes linked to Nextbigfuture where in 2014 we had updated the claims made by Blacklight Power.
There is a July 29th, 2014 audio interview. Sterling Allan, the host of Greater Things on the Rense Radio Network interviewed Mills for 43 minutes.
5:50 into the interview claims 700 joules released in half a millisecond in ten millionth of liter. Power density 100 billion watts per liter in the form of light
200 times the energy of burning hydrogen from hydrinos
Auger (mechanical system) feeds the fuel droplets into the roller electrodes. 1000 times household current causes the hydrinos to explode.
................
Latest Updates
Dr. Mills’ presentation at the Emerald Investment Forum held in Philadelphia on February 5, 2015
On September 2, 2014 BlackLight Power closed on $5 Million in private equity financing. On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 Million in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 Million. Both financings were under the same terms.
In March 2015, High-speed (17,791 frames per second) photography of brilliant light-emitting expanding plasma formed from the low voltage, high current detonation of the solid fuel with voltage and current waveforms that show plasma at a time when there was no electrical input power for a fuel having no known energy-releasing chemical reaction. Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable observations:
(i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of this high energy.
(ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and the inability of any known chemistry to release such high energy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellyn ... 907bf5baa7
Warning Signs For Energy Technology Investors 3: Yes, They Can Be That Stupid
Jun 1, 2015 Michael Lynch ,Contributor
The story of Blacklight Power is a startling case demonstrating how Cleantech investors can go seriously astray. The founder, Randell L. Mills, claimed in 1991 to have refuted quantum mechanics and developed a new energy source relying on previously unknown “hydrinos,” and received tens of millions of dollars in investment despite widespread skepticism. He himself said, “It's a revolution very fitting to the 21st century, in a chain of revolutions man has had with fire, steel, fossil fuels, and Maxwell's description of electromagnetism. This is grandiose stuff…”
Others agreed, at least with the importance of the claims. “I would say without reservation that if Mills were proved right, it would revolutionize physics and solve the world’s energy problems overnight, and he would easily win a Nobel Prize and become a multibillionaire,” said John Connett in 2009. (Connett was expressing skepticism.)
Cleantech advocates were not deterred. A writer on the Huffington Post said, “Earth2Tech writes that the new BlackLight Power deal doesn't prove much except a willingness out there to take risks. Of course, that's encouraging in and of itself.” I would disagree, as some risks are clearly not worth taking, in particular, investing in Blacklight Power.
Indeed, some small utilities were said to have signed contracts years ago for Blacklight’s revolutionary new power system, including Escatado, and a number of experts expressed interest and optimism, including from NASA and Siemens Westinghouse. Academic validation has been repeatedly claimed, though mostly from chemists it seems.
It’s worth stepping back and considering the claims made by Mills. The scientific claims include that he has refuted quantum mechanics, can explain “mysteries of the sun” and has identified dark energy. His inventions can: produce power very cheaply through “’shrinking’ the hydrogen atom's orbitsphere” with a power density of 100 billion watts per liter. Additionally, the materials created can act as an explosive or propellant, make ships rustproof and endowed with stealth properties, produce an anti-gravity effect that will allow a vessel to elevate, and “form the basis of batteries the size of a briefcase to drive your car 1000 miles at highway speeds on a single charge.” Apparently, it won’t enable a pen to write in whipped cream, but you can’t have everything.
At different times, the company and its founder have pushed two separate approaches to generating power. First, the thermal effects from creating hydrinos would turn a turbine; and more recently, the light emissions from the unit could be converted into electricity through the use of conventional photovoltaic cells. At least some note that he hasn’t delivered on his initial promises.
Still, few seem impressed with the grandiose promises made but never kept. Mills insisted in 1999 that he would “demonstrate an entirely new energy process by the end of 2000,” and a board member noted, “We're past the scientific verification stage. The talk now is about commercial applications.” Later, Mills said there would be an operating commercial scale plant by 2012, then by 2013. I can find no evidence that a single plant has ever operated commercially.
This case has many things in common with other failed new energy technologies, including a charismatic leader who generates lots of press, claims of academic validation and criticism of expert skepticism, ample fundraising, and frequent reports of interest from potential buyers. What you don’t find are actual ongoing operation of a power plant outside of demonstration models controlled by the promoter. To quote Mills himself, "the good thing about materials is that they exist, or they don't. There's no argument."
Apparently, money has flowed into Blacklight Power because some investors are impressed by the incredible claims and have faith in them, as well as perhaps naïve hope for an energy revolution. While this would seem to be an extreme case of poor judgment, the field is rife with lesser examples where a little skepticism would have had big payoffs—at least in avoided losses.