Libertarian promotes free energy device

[DavidS]

Why, indeed? Consider, for instance, BLP's own description of the process:

<snip>

Oh, for a face-palm icon.

Methinks some posts may be misinterpreted..

I read the post from Horatius as an assertion that fastidious laboratory measurements and familiarity with process details were unnecessary, because the evolution of so much power from so little volume would necessarily raise local temperatures to table-melting levels.

My post was intended to question the logical rigor, or at least the obviousness, of that narrow assertion, without any consideration of process details. My apologies to Horatius if that wasn't his assertion.

I'm a big fan of such analyses that are independent of process details, particularly as hurdles that "free energy" claims must clear to warrant consideration of process details.

An evaluation that descends into details or measurements peculiar to a particular process must address not only the logical rigor of evaluation itself but also that the process details and measurements are correctly interpreted and constraining to the result. That invites moving the goalposts further into the process-detail weeds; a more cunning arrangement of magnets or weights or plasma or whatever, requiring ever more detailed analysis to track down the specific error.

A valid process-independent evaluation avoids much of that, or at least puts the burden back where it belongs. The hopefully familiar "spend any excess after drawing input from output" test for "free energy" machines is one such test; determining whether the machine works requires no knowledge about how it might work.

"Did it melt the table?" doesn't reach quite that level of assurance to either confirm nor deny that the machine works, at least not without presumption of some specific process details.

 

[Brian-M]

Our safe, non-polluting power-producing system catalytically converts the hydrogen of the H2O-based solid fuel into a non-polluting product, lower-energy state hydrogen called “Hydrino”, by allowing the electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus.

Wait... they're making it solid by allowing the electrons to fall into a smaller radii around the nucleus? That's just a fancy way of saying that they're freezing it!

(But hydrogen only freezes at around 14 degrees Kelvin, so it's not easy to produce.)

 

[michaelsuede]

Michael Suede,

As I understand it, you have two opportunities to make money off of this: (1) if it is true and you will obtain power this way, and/or (2) you have a financial link to Blacklight and will make money by convincing others. The (1) option seems very unlikely. Multiple people here have explained to you the extreme unlikelihood of this. If you continue to think your ideas are smarter than what has been told to you by other people in a better position to understand the science, fine. You have been warned. The (2) option would be much more disturbing to me and I hope it is not true. Of course this directs the nature of my posts: if you already know (1) is unlikely, there is no reason to explain anything to you and my posts should be directed at others,

LOL

 

[ThunderChunky]

Yes.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/press/

Hi michael, we have no idea what the details of those license agreements are. I am guessing that those utility companies did not pay a penny to BP for those licensing agreements, and just agreed to them because it posed zero risk. It appears that WhatRoughBeast has done some digging and verified this for at least one company.

Do you see the scam? BP goes to a utility company and says "hey we will license you our tech to produce power at a low cost, you will save a ton of money, you don't have to pay us a dime until we show you a working model." There's only upside for the utility company. Either it's a scam and they lose nothing or it's real and they get cheap energy, so they agree. BP then writes up a press release about the agreement and gets more investors.

 

[marting]

Hi michael, we have no idea what the details of those license agreements are. I am guessing that those utility companies did not pay a penny to BP for those licensing agreements, and just agreed to them because it posed zero risk. It appears that WhatRoughBeast has done some digging and verified this for at least one company.

Do you see the scam? BP goes to a utility company and says "hey we will license you our tech to produce power at a low cost, you will save a ton of money, you don't have to pay us a dime until we show you a working model." There's only upside for the utility company. Either it's a scam and they lose nothing or it's real and they get cheap energy, so they agree. BP then writes up a press release about the agreement and gets more investors.

I'm retired and the boss at my first job related a story about his first job. He as an EE and discovered after getting hired that his company had invested in a free energy device, a classic with flipping magnets and such. They had already put close to a million (real money back then) into it at that point and he was hired to fix whatever was wrong. Needless to say, he was shocked, clued his boss in, and started looking for another job.

It is really amazing how much stupid money there is out there.

 

[Giordano]

LOL

Glad to make you laugh! But my response would have been to deny I had any financial link to the company. I assume you do not. But so I can understand your position better, would you confirm that you will receive no money if others make this company a financial success?

 

[Ladewig]

Glad to make you laugh! But my response would have been to deny I had any financial link to the company. I assume you do not. But so I can understand your position better, would you confirm that you will receive no money if others make this company a financial success?

And that you receive no money for click-throughs (people leaving your site to go directly to the pretend-energy company's site).

 

[kookbreaker]

LOL

Huh, you actually tried that tactic. Thought it was a good idea?

 

[michaelsuede]

Glad to make you laugh! But my response would have been to deny I had any financial link to the company. I assume you do not. But so I can understand your position better, would you confirm that you will receive no money if others make this company a financial success?

No, I have no financial interest to gain.

I'm just laughing that all of you are focusing on the licensing agreements, rather than the numerous validation tests by third parties.

 

[Ladewig]

No, I have no financial interest to gain.

I'm just laughing that all of you are focusing on the licensing agreements, rather than the numerous validation tests by third parties.

So.
Where do you expect this type of power generation to be one year from now?
Still looking for funding or actually producing power.

 

[Ladewig]

There's only one thing that needs to be done to demonstrate the effectiveness of a device that claims to produce more energy than it consumes.

It's pretty simple, just show the device producing excess power without consuming power from any external source.

For example, if a prototype machine is able to power a 100W light bulb while consuming only 20W of power from a benchtop power supply, then replace the 100W light bulb with a combination of an 80W light bulb and a second 20W power supply.

You can then disconnect the original power-supply, and have the device power itself from the new power supply without consuming power from any external source.

Have they done any experiments like this that we can see?

All the other over-unity generator inventors that I have encountered assert that the output electricity has the wrong harmonic variations to use as input electricity. Of course, them sometimes use different technobabble, but the message is still the same.

But now that we are looking at devices that produce 5-50 times the input power, it should be easy to take some of that electricity, use it to boil water, use the steam to turn a turbine, and use the turbine to power a generator to make "fresh" electricity that has good vibrations. That electricity should then be acceptable to the little magic box that multiplies the electrical power.

Perpetual motion laws will be rewritten!

 

[Brian-M]

All the other over-unity generator inventors that I have encountered assert that the output electricity has the wrong harmonic variations to use as input electricity. Of course, them sometimes use different technobabble, but the message is still the same.

Tell them to nip down to Radio Shack and get a bridge rectifier (or four diodes) and a capacitor. Problem solved, DC has no harmonics.



(And if they need AC to power their device, the can just hook up an inverter.)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

............
Michaelsuede, will you be investing money in this project?

Or bitcoins?

No, I have no financial interest to gain.

same

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Looking at this page from that site, and the spreadsheet it links to, I see that it varies considerably from state to state.

The highest consumption is in Louisiana, who consume an average of about 41.8 kWh per day (paying 8.37 cents per kWh), while the lowest average consumption is in Maine, who consume about 17.7 kWh per day (paying 14.6 cents per kWh). I suspect that differences in price might be a factor in the difference in consumption.

It could also be the other way round, of course - electricity companies charge more per unit because customers use fewer units.

 

[catsmate]

I'm just laughing that all of you are focusing on the licensing agreements, rather than the numerous validation tests by third parties.

The evidence for which we are still waiting for you to provide.

 

[Giordano]

No, I have no financial interest to gain.

I'm just laughing that all of you are focusing on the licensing agreements, rather than the numerous validation tests by third parties.

Actually we were focusing on whether it was in your financial interest to state either position. The licensing agreements were brought up by you. In any case, I will believe your statement that you have no financial interest to gain, unless point (1) is true and of course you will eventually have a source of virtually unlimited power.

Fine; as I stated I have no problem with you believing in these free energy devices and I feel that we have fulfilled our moral obligation by pointing out to you the contradictions in theory and the suspicious aspects in practice (for example, the incredibly slow pace of the development of such a world-changing technology). I would only caution anyone else here to consider what all have posted here before investing.

Meanwhile and unrelated, I have a wooden and paper device that appears to convert blank sheets of paper to $20 bills. I can show it work in front of you: just feed in a blank sheet of paper and out comes a legitimate $20. Independent people have invested in similar machines in the past. It works by, oh say by gravitons and quantum realignment. Anyone interested? I need cash to further develop it...

 

[Giordano]

No, I have no financial interest to gain.

You know, I just now realized that you constructed that sentence in a somewhat funny way. Can I assume, as I would like to do, that you presently have no financial interest in these companies (i.e. you will see no money if the Blacklight company succeeds), or are you stating instead that you will not gain (i. e. obtain additional) financial interests over any you might already have now? Both?

Sorry to sound suspicious, I am just clarifying this statement, and I have known other people to use language to avoid being truthful. I remember the Nixon White House would label statements as "absurd" rather then deny they were true. In fact, they were true.

Thanks and as I have stated before, I hope and presume that you don't have a financial tie to this company!

 

[Horatius]

Methinks some posts may be misinterpreted..

I read the post from Horatius as an assertion that fastidious laboratory measurements and familiarity with process details were unnecessary, because the evolution of so much power from so little volume would necessarily raise local temperatures to table-melting levels.

My post was intended to question the logical rigor, or at least the obviousness, of that narrow assertion, without any consideration of process details. My apologies to Horatius if that wasn't his assertion.

Well, "melting the table" was mostly poetic license, but in service of a legitimate point: that the levels of power claimed should not be difficult to demonstrate. 10MW is not a trivial amount of power, and yet, there is nothing to suggest that BLP has done anything with this power. It's obviously not going to powering something useful, because if it was, they'd just show us that. So where does it go? How do they bleed it off? How can they bleed it off? Electricity, mechanical work, heat; those are the Big Three. And yet we see none of those, or anything else.

Show me where this 10MW went!

 

[roger]

Tell them to nip down to Radio Shack and get a bridge rectifier (or four diodes) and a capacitor. Problem solved, DC has no harmonics.



(And if they need AC to power their device, the can just hook up an inverter.)

No, No, No.

On my over unity device, I just use a battery as a power filter. It works great! The only downside is that the power is so noisy and plentiful that every day or so the battery seems to get destroyed and so I have to buy a new one. However, that will not be a long term problem for me. I am hooking up batteries that are twice as large, and I have already doubled the MTBF. I'm going to be rich! Eat that, skeptics!

 

[DavidS]

...
Electricity, mechanical work, heat; those are the Big Three. And yet we see none of those, or anything else.

Show me where this 10MW went!

(my emphasis)
We're back to violent agreement, but I'd pare your list back to the Bigger Two.

Mechanical work and heat output are easy to demonstrate compellingly. Once you lift some rocks, boil some water, stretch some springs, etc., whoever wants to deny useful energy output will have some 'splaining to do. Those demonstrations are so easy to perform and interpret, though, that until they're done there really isn't any useful energy output claim to deny.

Electrical power measurements, via (many kinds of) meter readings rather than via conversion to mechanical or thermal effects, are more disputable. Determining the (mathematically) real power available from voltage and current measurements can be tricky if either or both are very different from DC or constant-frequency sinusoidal variations. I'm led to believe that such power-factor calculation mistakes on "dirty" waveforms are common errors in over-unity circles. This is what I meant by "meter reading rumors that [power] passed by".

Of course, if that electrical power is real and useful, then it can be, you know, used... to produce unambiguosly measurable mechanical or thermal effects, entirely sidestepping the whole problem of power-factor measurement and correction.

If that electrical power is "real" but somehow not useful in any extant devices for making work or heat apparent, we'll probably need a reason to care. The Zorkmid bills I can print in my garage won't make me rich until they can buy something.