BlackLight Power, Claims Game Changing Achievement of the Generation

[TinselKoala]

Sure. Just like a firecracker is the real deal. You input a tiny energy and it releases a big flash.

Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo.

Problems only arise when the cost of storing the energy in the firecracker has to be accounted for.

[tim123]

..Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo...

Hi TK,
  Can you please elaborate?

I read the report as saying there was a confirmed gain - that the output clearly exceeded the input... Did it not say that, or are they mistaken?

A little while ago - someone said that if a genuine OU device was waved under your nose, you wouldn't see it... Could that be the case here?

Regards, Tim

[d3x0r]

Sure. Just like a firecracker is the real deal. You input a tiny energy and it releases a big flash.

Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo.

Problems only arise when the cost of storing the energy in the firecracker has to be accounted for.

right; it's in the form of 1/1 hydrogen, releasing contained energy to 1/137 hydrogen; which gets re-stored with energy from ambient... yes it's a finite amount because a finite amount was converted...


probably if they were captured, and applied as a constant sink  they'd make a pretty good cold spot too... and the other side is electrical; and not a hot spot... hmm

[tim123]

Video of Jan 28th 2014 demo / presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Fy8Iv5qMM

1) The fuel is in the form of a metal hydrate - something like 'epsom salts' - magnesium sulfate (heptahydrate)

2) Output was 1000 Joules per detonation, but I didn't hear what the input was.

3) The sound quality of the vid is so bad - I gave up after 25mins. I couldn't hear 50% of what he was saying...

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK,
  Can you please elaborate?

I read the report as saying there was a confirmed gain - that the output clearly exceeded the input... Did it not say that, or are they mistaken?

A little while ago - someone said that if a genuine OU device was waved under your nose, you wouldn't see it... Could that be the case here?

Regards, Tim

They have not proven, or even properly demonstrated, their contentions.

Water arc research has a long history of making "overunity" claims that are not substantiated with further, proper research. I myself have performed literally thousands of high-energy capacitor discharges into water chambers of all kinds, and I can show you results that indicate overunity ratios of 7 or 10 to one. Unfortunately the analyses that so indicate.... are wrong, and further, more careful research showed our group, which included Peter Graneau himself, that the early analyses were wrong due to circular arguments, unwarranted assumptions and use of the wrong mathematical model (based on momentum conservation). When the correct math model was used and better experiments performed, it became clear that no OU performance was actually happening.

BLP's present course... even including the MHD output stage... seems like a repeat of the work Graneau and his son Neal Graneau were doing ten years ago.  So I'm afraid I'll need more solid evidence than BLP has so far provided. Kiloamperes of current, peak power levels in the megaWatt range.... all of this is no big deal for a big cap discharge into water, and it doesn't indicate any OU. My position is that BLP hasn't proven their claims.... EVER.... in their long history of burning other people's cash, and I don't see any reason to revise my position at this time.