The energy Barack Obama needs to put us on the track to

[HysteryDiagnosis]

energy independance?? Nay sayers and quick shooting critics please join in.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPresentationPt3.pdf

[NNadir]

1. Unfortunately this scheme is pretty much nonsense.

Albert Einstein said of the laws of thermodynamics, that he thought they were the laws that would never be overturned. They haven't been overturned and there is no evidence that they represent a full, if computationally unreducible, representation of the universe.

Einstein was a thorn in the side of some of the most important interpretations of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics being a science he himself did so much to invent, but toward the end conceded that they were the most successful laws ever. His refusal to accept their Schroedinger was more emotional than scientific.

Pauling's work on the chemical bond is still first rate, decades after his Nobel for his work on the subject.

Randy Mills, is not Albert Einstein, and his attempt to claim to be smarter than Pauling (and, for that matter, Bohr) is just silly.

It won't work, doesn't work, and can't work. There is no such thing as a hydrazino, but there probably is a Ponzazino.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Good job, first rate criticism... and therefore nuclear energy simply

cannot work either. Interesting that.

[NNadir]

3. I stumble across Mills papers in certain journals where they are published.

They have the sort of self-referential characteristics of say, Ernie Sternglass papers.

As it happens, this company is local, so I happen to know something about it.

Nuclear energy, unlike "hydrazino energy," is well established on an exajoule scale.

One can read many tens of thousands of papers on nuclear energy, in many thousands of publications, by tens of thousands of authors from thousands of institutions.

In general, when all the publications on a subject come from the same author or the same research group, the idea is not "generally accepted."

There are many famous cases of ideas that were not generally accepted that proved to be true, but as a general matter, they are rare.

Some famous ideas that were advanced by famous scientists (in their fields) were the existence of N-rays and, more famously in modern times, "cold fusion." There was lots of hand waving about both, but both proved to be involved with wishful thinking and self-delusion on the part of the experimenters.

There is a lovely book on this subject, called "Yes we have no neutrons" by A.K. Dewdney.

It's a great fun read, and takes less than an afternoon to read.



Extraordinary ideas require extra-ordinary proof.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. He has 13 papers in peer reviewed journals... and a rebuttal

to Rathke here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Rathke%20Rebuttal%20S.pdf

I understand what you are saying but even the lab person in this vid admits that they are not sure what is taking place exactly between the catalyst and the hydrogen in their 50,000 watt prototype. So say this has been reproduced by other labs.


>>BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source with applications to heating, distributed power generation, central power generation, and motive power. It is based on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom, the BlackLight Process. On October 20, 2008, BlackLight announced off-site validation of a 50 kW reactor. Rowan Scientists confirmed BLP's 1 kW and 50 kW power source tests corresponding to 20 kilojoules and 1.0 megajoules respectively. Chemical analysis of the reactant and product R-Ni powder could account for less than 1% of the observed energy from known chemistry. BlackLight's results have been published widely and replicated by independent groups.<<

http://www.blacklightpower.com/Documentary%20Video/blacklight_experiment_video_v2.wmv