BlackLight Power, Inc. has Changed its Name to Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (Becktemba)

Mary Yugo: Have been following some of your posts but not sure if you think LENR is a scam in general or just some of those who are claiming positive results?

BLP - like other "good" LENR companies, has results that get less impressive as time goes on. Like scams, it changes completely its type of experiment every so often to keep punters interested.

(Rossi fits this pattern too - except he does not bother changing things, he just states he has COP >> 1 when it is obvious he does not!)

Hot fusion scientists have working equipment and are doing real science.

The fact that their science is very very difficult to turn into practical nuclear power is both obvious and stated by them.

Whereas LENR people have experiments that don't work when anyone else does them, or that work but show nothing, and claim that their technology if well funded will feed the world, prevent disease, solve global warming - you name it they say they can do it.

I agree that neither LENR nor hot fusion offer realistic power sources over the next 20 years.

However, hot fusion does exactly what it says on the tin. The (large) containment and engineering problems are well documented and definite. The proof of principle is well documented. And no-one claims near-term power source

Cold fusion OTOH has many people claiming near-term cheap power source. But it has no well documented proof of principle, nor well documented understanding of what are the problems from here to practical power. In fact there is no evidence generally accepted for its working at all. You, and a few others, will argue that teh lack of scientific acceptance if because of bias on the part of nearly all scientists. I reckon, having looked carefully at a number of the claims and found them wrong, that bias on the part of a very few outlier scientists supporting cold fusion is more likely.

In fact even had I not my own evidence probability would make nearly all scientists more likely correct than the few advocating LENR given the driving forces:

All scientists would like LENR to be true, and anyone proving this would earn massive rewards. This is an inherent positive bias, because the utility is so clear.
LENR advocates have the same positive bias, but even more they have invested their career in chasing LENR. It is difficult in that situation to look objectively at negative evidence.

Sure some scientists will be hidebound, unable to accept any new idea, or biassed by the P&F history. But a significant number - if not nearly all - will be good enough scientists and open to new ideas with such great possibility of reward. You need only a few (say 10%) and LENR stops being fringe. In fact you only need one to publish a decent paper and it would lead to many others being interested...

Quote

Have you looked at BLPs "results"? It has been awhile for me, but as I clearly recall, they have had some impressive, truly independent verifications from a diverse cross-section of the scientific community; academic, commercial and governmental, of their CHIT reactors. Far more extensive in nature, and far better in quantity and quality, than Rossi has had with his Ecat.

I spent quite some time looking at BLPs results. you are right, they are better than Rossi's in quality. Unfortunately that is a very low standard.

(1) Their first results were claiming heat >> chemical from a large sealed container measured over weeks. However they had this done by one person from a non-research uni who was a BLP supporter, and hardly unbiassed.

Had these results been real they could easily have been replicated by independent parties and would have led to massive interest. The results however relied on some rather flakey calculations as to maximum chemical energy available from the container contents which considered only certain known reactions and did not bound the range of possible results, and so were not themselves credible even if done by someone independent. I'm no chemist but suspect that any independent chemist would cry foul.

They have to my knowledge had two other sets of results, each less credible than the previous.

(2) long-term electrolysis results with high power in/out and a very small claimed power imbalance that could have many mundane explanations. we are here back in clear 'near experimental error' territory. Note also how they present the numbers in a way that obscures the fact that the claimed generated power is 1% or so of the operating power.

(3) an explosion which they claim generates more energy than it should. Given that they put massive amounts of electrical energy into the system before it explodes, and measuring energy generated is very tricky given transients, I don't see how they can possibly make this claim.

However, the explosion makes an impressive demo.

Notice the trend? They move from one style of demo to a less convincing completely different one. Had the initial cannister results been real they would be valuable and extraordinary - but we hear nothing more.

Mills' claimed theory, and his claimed experimental justification for it, has been well refuted.

Link to Blackpower's validation report.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports

!!! Would you give up full tenure and the position of Senior
Science Editor at MIT?

Eugene Mallove did solely because he was in search of the truth

Eugene Mallove interview - discussion about
about "Cold Fusion"

Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and
astronautical engineering from MITand a ScD (ScD is a higher doctorate of science degree (1975)) in
environmental health sciences from Harvard University.
He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research
Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation,and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted
in research and development of new energies.

Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was the
chief science writer at MIT', a positionhe left as part of a dispute with the school over cold fusion. Pulitzer
Prize nominee for "Fire From Ice" - The Truth About Cold Fusion.

!!! By loading the metal lattice with 90% deuterium, "Cold Fusion"
experiments are easily repeatable.

MIT Cold Fusion - The Revolution has Begun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMx1mpcokBk
http://coldfusionnow.org/
I do not think that anyone has the proper theoretical explanation for "Cold
Fusion" but in light of all of the above there is no doubt that something
extraordinary is happening.

Blacklight Power says that it is not "Cold Fusion", but it definitely
is getting energy from water. For many years Blacklight Power was unable to
raise the money for commercialization. We all know that we can get hydro
electric power from a dam, but who has the money to build the dam and then
commercialize it. It seems that a couple of years ago, Blacklight Power while doing
experiments that normally produce excess heat, they accidently produced an immense flash of
light.The flash was 50,000 sunlights strong, and today we have commercial solar
panels that can capture 1,000 sunlights strong. So by combining their latest
experiments that produce light with solar panels, they have been able to build a
prototype that would be much cheaper to mass produce; at least that is the story that I
have been able to peace together.

I personally tried to do business with Blacklight Power, it is a long
story, as I was rejected at first. Only after I brought in substantial
resources, was I able to get an interview. You must understand that Blacklight
Power does not ask for any money up front as a partner. They only lease the
engines without any up front money, and then they ask that the engines power a substantial business so that
they are operational 24 hours a day. You, as partner pay half of your proceeds to Blacklight
Power. This then cannot be a scam for a partner as the partner does not put up
any money that Blacklight Power might receive. Yes, principle investors in the
company itself could be deceived, but this company has been going on for years, and there have
not been any law suits whereby the principle investors have sued on the basis of
fraud.
I did not succeed in getting all the parties to agree, so I failed to do
business with Blacklight Power. My problem was more of credibility, no one found any
fraud. Unfortunately Wikipedia's denigration of Blacklight Power was always thrown
in my face. If one reads Wikipedia closely one will see over and over again that Wikipedia says
Blacklight Power cannot be true, because it violates the known laws of physics. This is contrary to
the scientific method that says verifiable and repeatable experiments come first, before
theory.
I am saddened by Blacklight Power not going any farther than it has in the
last year. Obviously there are problems. Perhaps it has been very difficult to
manufacture their prototype on a large scale. But there is another issue that confronts
all such energy ventures.

As an example:
I also talked to Peter Hagelstein who is the senior researcher at MIT on
"Cold Fusion". Although I knew money that had been granted by a large corporation for
commercialization, was later rescinded after pressure from the "Hot Fusion" department; I was
shocked when Peter Hagelstein told me the Vice President of the company granting the
funding was fired. Also he told me that all the "Cold Fusion" researchers had to pay
out of their own pocket for the research; all grants for such research are rejected.

What about Eugene Mallove, he was on the verge of an incredible energy device,
derivative of Tesla, then he died. Okay, but why did not the Correas continue.

Go to about 6 mins into this video
and you will see a short discussion of their apparatus.
Part 6

I have so many stories that I could tell, but how would you know to believe
me.

So please look at the following which is clearly on public record.

"Who Killed The Electric Car"

This was 20 years ago when General Motors produced an electric
car that was as fast as a "Firebird" and went 200 miles on single
charge (a prototype did 400 miles) and while only leased was
expected to cost $20,000 to $25,000. The cost of the battery
was less then $1500. less than the cost of the engine. (Tesla battery costs
$25,000 or more). The inventor of the battery (Nickel Metal Hydride Battery,
which no one has been able to reproduce), Standford Ovshinsky
was on the cover of Time Magazine as the "Inventor Of The Decade"

Eventually the car was discontinued and all the electric cars were
literally crushed and General Motors sold the rights to the batteries to the oil
companies. If they stopped a wonderful and inexpensive electric car from General
Motors 20 years ago, why would not they stop an energy power source much more
powerful than an electric battery, today.

A Super super capacitor, which can hold more energy than a Lithium Ion
Battery and yet very lightweight and inexpensive and charges in less then a couple
minutes. https://vimeo.com/51873011

Sunvault Energy has been given the rights to this technology and
they say they will have solar panels and a super capacitor battery
better than Tesla's lithium ion battery for one tenth the cost.
Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and CLinton's Energy
Czaris on the board of directors. This technology does not violate and
known laws of physics, it simply uses the advances made in graphene,
to build a combination super capacitor and energy storage device;
which can hold as much energy as a lithium ion battery and yet charge
in 2 to 5 minutes. And the cost of energy storage is one tenth the cost of the Lithium
Ion batteries.
If this company or any like it is blocked, then it will be all to obvious
nothing has changed.
http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/web20/

Quote from Mary Yugo

Papp engines and the like, deserve what they get. And those who believe those claims are credulous fools.

From my view, Rossi is just another fraud like the above.

Mary, are you anti-American?

We here have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. If believing in LENR, or the Papp engine, or any other claim, it is our right to pursue that belief if that action is our prerogative. Mary you shall not shaim us in changing our behavior so mind your own business.

I claimed to have studies the first one (the large reactor with claimed heat excess beyond chemical). What in that set of PR clips changes your opinion? I know you are influenced by superficial stuff but where in that "evaluation" is there any serious analysis of the science of any of these demos? Shall we start with the "bomb"? What here is there other than the observation that a control sample does not detonate and the active sample detonates? Given that this stuff is powers by an arc welder it is hardly surprising it is capable of detonation. Where is the evidence of energy excess beyond what would be expected?

It is always possible to find a few scientists who for money or just because they are outliers will say nice things about some weird claims. Science needs outliers, so take any wrong opinion (e.g. creationism) and you will find a few scientists, generally without the skills needed to critique it, who say they believe it.

It is one of the free energy / scam enablers. You find a few (preferably famous) people to endorse you. This lot are remarkably unfamous BTW.

@axil,

Every US citizen has the God-given right to be a credulous fool, and many (some posting on ECW) exercise it. It is luckily also true that everyone has the right to be wise, noble, self-sacrificing, etc and many do that.

What's your beef?