NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

There is a 44 minute audio file of an interview of Randell Mills by Sterling Allan that took place on July 29, 2014 posted on Blacklight Power's website:

www.blacklightpower.com...

This is the same OP as this thread, trumpeting "free energy" nearly four years ago:

I believe these guys will single handedly save the United States population from starving to death during the coming currency crisis.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In which he also calls Einstein a "retard".

Four years on, what have BLP done? Zero. Nada. Zip. They might have played a bit of Minecraft while they spent their $65m venture capital.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yeah, but until then...

BLP is an age-old scam. If you put any weight into their claims then, well, fairies is a better bet tbh

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yeah, but until then...

BLP is an age-old scam. If you put any weight into their claims then, well, fairies is a better bet tbh

The world isn't going to end because some dreamer on an internet forum believes in BLP. let him go. BLP or Rossi might eventually deliver; who knows. i'm not staking my life on it in any way. but the state of belief or disbelief of some guy on a forum ain't going to kill me one way another.

originally posted by: Rob48
In which he also calls Einstein a "retard".

And you took offense at that?

a reply to: Mary Rose

I know you think cold fusion is some kind of miracle to solve the world problems but this joker is a crack pot. Instead of doing serious research he takes money that could be used by real scientists not someone that bought their degree. His math over and over has been proved wrong and his theories are not even fringe at this point. There is fringe science being conducted and yes even in cold fusion. Would it surprise you to know we know how to do cold fusion?

Cold fusion does indeed work ! the trick is you use a heavier cousin of the electron, known as a muon, to make it happen. There is no question that muon-catalyzed fusion is a perfectly sound, well-understood process that would be an abundant source of energy, if only we could find or create a cheap source of muons. Unfortunately, it takes way more energy to create the muons that go into muon-catalyzed fusion than comes out of the reaction.Cold fusion that doesn't involve muons, on the other hand, doesn't work.

Certain NASA's scientists well one really have joined other cold fusion advocates in re-branding their work under the deceptively scientific moniker LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), and backing it up with various sketchy theories.
The main theory currently in fashion among cold fusion group is the Widom-Larsen LENR theory.This theory claims that neutrons can result from interactions with "heavy electrons" and protons in a soup of material. These neutrons supposedly can then be absorbed in a material such as copper which becomes unstable and decays to form a lighter material in the case of copper turns to nickel and giving off energy in the process.Now the bigest flaw with this theory is in order for cold fusion to occur we would form something called nuetrons. But yet oddly no neutrons have been detected by any of these experiments. So what does that mean we are dealing with chemical reactions and not cold fusion. If BLP wanted to confirm their research its incredible simple All you'd have to do is look for nickel in a sample that initially consisted of pure copper. Experiment proved and they become billionaires.

Thers another proof as well just show that in their process that nuetrons are being produced in the machine. But they know its not because they already made an excuse for this saying they are trapped in the sample material. the reality of this statement is almost laughable. See thermal neutrons where they claim the evergy is comming from move at 2000 meters a second, That means that a large fraction of them should escape the sample, and be easily detectable. Those that don't escape, but instead are absorbed by atoms would also lead to detectable radiation as the neutron-activated portions of the material decays. Either way, it would be pretty dangerous to be near an experiment like that, if it worked.

Trust me when i say science does study all possibilities but there will always be snake oil salesman even in science. People scheme to make money its human nature and sometimes even reputable scientists may fall for the hype but science doesnt work with hype but instead uses verification.

originally posted by: Rob48
In which he also calls Einstein a "retard".

Einstein, who never did an experiment in his whole life?

Or, did he?

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Rob48
In which he also calls Einstein a "retard".

Einstein, who never did an experiment in his whole life?

Or, did he?

There are two types of physicists one being experimental the other theoretical. Einstein was part of the later they did what is called thought experiments and would prove or disprove them with math. Today most of this is done by computer modelling meaning unlike Einstein something that could take him a year to complete can now be done in a couple of weeks. Science works like this someone dreams up the idea like say warp drive. Than if they can prove there theory is sound through math it moves on to experimental physics. Their job becomes to show proof of concept or failure. They will change variables trying to alter results if they get nothing dead theory if they find something tada we made a breakthrough. So back to your question he most definitely did experiments and rigorously examined them but he needed confirmation he was right. Oddly it seems he was right more often than wrong making him a good theoretical physicists. But his job wasnt to be liked and trust me he wasnt he trashed more than a couple of theories put forth by other physicists and im sure they thought he was a moron as well. But in the end a hundred years later his theory has yet to be replaced with a better one so id say he did something right.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Rob48
In which he also calls Einstein a "retard".

Einstein, who never did an experiment in his whole life?

Or, did he?

Gedankenexperiments, as explained in the post above this one.

I'm also fairly sure he never lost his shirt by investing in free energy scams!

Einstein was a genius and a giant of science. however he did not invent special relativity or general relativity out of a vacuum. he took the various bits of most of what became relativity and consolidated and synthesized them into a coherent whole. his contemporaries and predecessors developments already contained most of relativity but in separate bits and in inadequate mathematical formalisms. he took two years studying under a mathematical genius to learn the form of math he needed to complete relativity. he spent a further two years practicing before he could master it well enough to create the theory (theories) of relativity.

it was a formidable achievement. something that the time maybe three to six other people were capable of even understanding at the time including the people he borrowed from. but many science groupies think he did it all alone. he stood on the shoulders of giants.

"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"

They are waiting.. in the test chamber....gordon

But then all these 20 years why aren't the investors screamin for their returns?
a reply to: Rob48

originally posted by: dragonridr
Today most of this is done by computer modelling meaning unlike Einstein something that could take him a year to complete can now be done in a couple of weeks.

In reality, computer modelling seem not very successful in crunching out "anomalous effects". They are limited in application and in order for them to be very effective, scientists involved should have advanced knowledge of computational programming and program the model themselves. It is no easy task and quantum mechanical problems require special quantum or simulated quantum computers may be required furnished with quantum programming for quantum computations which requires nothing less than a supercomputer.

On top of that, we have to assume all theoretical equations / models perfectly model reality down to the virtual particles of space. So it might work, it might not. You'll have to always work with chances or probabilities when dealing with the unknown.

Computer modelling for theoretical research is far from perfect. It works with macroscopic and proven reality so it works if you're just designing cars or airplanes or rockets and not have to bother with the fabrics of space and time. But if you have to deal with quantum mechanics, it's still guesswork. Even the NASA warp drive theory failed!

So at the end of the day, you still have to get your hands dirty and do the damn prototype and see if it works!

originally posted by: Nochzwei
But then all these 20 years why aren't the investors screamin for their returns?
a reply to: Rob48

Because every couple of years they get drip-fed more rubbish: "Look, It works!" "Look, Professor X says it works!" "We just need a little more time to perfect it before we launch it to market!"

And so on ad infinitum. Nobody wants to bail out if the breakthrough is just around the corner!

Classic scam psychology: the big payoff is coming if you juuuuust wait a little longer.

originally posted by: Rob48
Because every couple of years they get drip-fed more rubbish: "Look, It works!" "Look, Professor X says it works!" "We just need a little more time to perfect it before we launch it to market!"

And so on ad infinitum. Nobody wants to bail out if the breakthrough is just around the corner!

Classic scam psychology: the big payoff is coming if you juuuuust wait a little longer.

I have one in the works by our very own.

The main difference in my program is that I will share all the results, even the replication process whether it's perfect or not.

There will be no give me $$xx$$ crap. You guys will have the full plans here for no cost. All you need to do is relax and wait, and pls pray for my safety until that time because my living situation is deteriorating by the day. It looks like the evil powers doesn't want me to succeed.

Prayers, pls, that's all the help I need.

a reply to: johndeere2020
Evil powers! Good one. Why not stick the plans up right now in case the black helicopters land?

originally posted by: johndeere2020

originally posted by: Rob48
Because every couple of years they get drip-fed more rubbish: "Look, It works!" "Look, Professor X says it works!" "We just need a little more time to perfect it before we launch it to market!"

And so on ad infinitum. Nobody wants to bail out if the breakthrough is just around the corner!

Classic scam psychology: the big payoff is coming if you juuuuust wait a little longer.

I have one in the works by our very own.

The main difference in my program is that I will share all the results, even the replication process whether it's perfect or not.

There will be no give me $$xx$$ crap. You guys will have the full plans here for no cost. All you need to do is relax and wait, and pls pray for my safety until that time because my living situation is deteriorating by the day. It looks like the evil powers doesn't want me to succeed.

Prayers, pls, that's all the help I need.

Well why not give some details now then when you are taken away never to seen again (well except under a new user name here) other people here can work on it

a reply to: wmd_2008

By the way, I've seen on the Board the fact that in some cases ATS looks the other way when a person who is banned comes back under a new username.

I think we need to be careful here, I'd say a high degree of skepticism is warranted. Let me start by saying I would like nothing better than for this to be true. When I was a kid I dreamed of growing up and becoming an astrophysicist. Space, and the exploration of space, has always filled me with a sense of awe and wonder. I long for the day where we have a major breakthrough, a paradigm shift, that makes interstellar travel feasible and common. I don't think that day is today. The problem with science journalism today is that often the journalist does not have the necessary credentials to understand what they're reporting on in the first place. NASA has NOT validated the EM drive nor are they claiming to have done so. The only thing they did was submit a one page conference paper saying here are some anomalous (read "interesting) results that were achieved on BOTH the test device and the null drive ( red flag), help us falsify this. This is basically just a call to other scientists to help them figure out if there is something wrong with their set up. That's it. This is NOT a submission to a peer reviewed journal claiming an actual 5-6 sigma level discovery. They are no where close to being able to make that claim and will need to do far more testing in order to do so. Here is an excellent write on what the NASA results do and do not say. I encourage you to take a look.

theness.com...

As I said, I want this to be true, but we can't say it is just yet.