NASA Admits Blacklight and E-CAT Are Real Deal !!!

reply to post by boncho

No he is completely right in that respect. As it takes a certain amount of energy to break the barrier that produces a nuclear reaction.

No, he claimed the energy released is what keeps the reaction going, by basically stating "it's hot because it needs to be", but in fact the binding energy released has nothing to do with it. The neutron particles released keep it going, we harvest the binding energy. The so called barrier is broken when the Uranium atom becomes destabilized during the moment it takes on an excessive amount of neutrons and the nuclear forces can no longer hold the atom together. Typically we require an isotope of Uranium for this process to work properly.

That is what you were talking about with critical mass. Except the materials used in LENR research are not radioactive, and they do not operate the way Uranium does.

They don't need to be radioactive because if you watch the NASA video they claim to be artificially adding neutrons into the system to cause decay, instead of trying to control a natural decay chain reaction process as with a Uranium reaction.

This is great, reading these posts is like hearing little kids pretending to speak in a foreign language. Convincing to other kids, but to adults who speak it, obviously wrong, hilarious, and possibly borderline racistly offensive!

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Moduli

 

I don't think you even know what energy is, let alone how energy is conserved in a nuclear reaction.

First of all, everything is energy, just in different forms.

In other words, no, you don't know what energy is.

Now let me explain in more simple terms how a typical nuclear reaction works.

Uranium 235 atoms spontaneously decay and release neutrons along with the binding energy that was holding the atom together.

Do you know the difference between fusion and fission? Or either of these and decay? Doesn't help your case here.... (Not to mention the fact that this explanation is wrong because you don't understand energy, but we've moved long past that argument!)

Even if the binding energy of this process wasn't released, a chain reaction would still take place so long as neutrons were released.

In other words, you don't know what energy is. You don't even know the whole point of a reaction.

And it gets even better with the next post!

Originally posted by Aim64C
I didn't quite see where these questions are applicable to the quoted post.

Because you don't understand this either...

In "theory" - fusion is an entropic eventuality.

... as evidenced by the entirely made-up phrases...

New particles, unexpected particle/field interactions, etc can change what the interaction cross-section of a nucleon means (or further define it to predict other undiscovered/undefined interactions). Which makes it kind of difficult to use in an argument against a fundamentally physics-enhancing discovery.

... and complete lack of understanding as to what any of those words mean.

Science isn't technobabble. You can't just string words together that sound good and make grammatically reasonable sentences.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C

 

I think the fact that there have been hundreds of experiments that show excess energy can be produced under certain conditions, and not only that, but it is unexplained by the researchers involved -shows that something is going on.

There have been zero experiments that show this. There have been hundreds of claims, but no experiments. Experiments are easy to set up, if it were a real, demonstrable effect, every engineer in the World would be building them and people would have a very good understanding of how they work.

Science has no trouble doing this kind of thing every day with a million other ideas. There is no reason this is any different.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Moduli

 

I don't think you even know what energy is, let alone how energy is conserved in a nuclear reaction.

First of all, everything is energy, just in different forms.

In other words, no, you don't know what energy is.

lol, your posts are absolutely laughable. I think it is you who is "pretending to speak in a foreign language". Have you ever heard of e=mc^2? (rhetorical question) EVERYTHING is energy and can be converted into other forms of energy. Even so called particles can be directly converted into another form of energy. Take two quarks and separate them from each other far enough, eventually the bond between them will break - however, that binding energy will not be released as thermal radiation, it will go directly into creating two more quarks. Where you started with one pair of quarks you finish with two. Even the energy contained in an electrons "orbit" around an atom is convertible into electromagnetic radiation. When an electron spontaneously "leaps" into a lower "orbit" around the nucleus is will release a photon with an energy equal to the difference in energy states of each "orbit". If a photon hits an electron and is "absorbed" by the electron then it will jump into a higher energy state around the nucleus.

Now explain your concept of energy. Explain to me how I am wrong. Explain why all these things are not actually a form of energy. Go on.

reply to post by boncho

I was actually just thinking about posting this. New nano materials was the first thing I thought of when I read about all the gas loading lenr tests they were doing in LENR.

Aww... didn't mean to ninja your post.

That said - this is exactly the type of thing I was talking about, earlier. The electrons in this situation are behaving as though they are under a much more energy-intensive field. A very similar effect with a fraction of the energy.

While the given example may not be directly coupled to LENR research - it serves as an example for the type of phenomena we need to be searching for to make it reliable. Ways of getting particles to occupy predictable energy states and using that to achieve reliable fusion reactions and/or minimize the resistance to fusion is the way to go.

Though a random thought did occur to me... basically a twist on quantum tunneling that has two atoms tunneling into the same space at the same time. ... Quantum mechanics shouldn't preclude the impossibility of an entire atom tunneling... but doing that might be a very difficult challenge in and of itself. ... and, of course, there's no guarantee two tunneling particles can/will attempt to occupy the same space at the same time (or even be in proximity).

Still - would be interesting to set that up and see what happens.... presuming someone hasn't done it already (and even then, it would still be interesting).

How's that for creative thought?

reply to post by Moduli

There have been zero experiments that show this. There have been hundreds of claims, but no experiments. Experiments are easy to set up, if it were a real, demonstrable effect, every engineer in the World would be building them and people would have a very good understanding of how they work.

Science has no trouble doing this kind of thing every day with a million other ideas. There is no reason this is any different.

What was SPAWAR doing for 20 years then?

What are your thoughts on this?

reply to post by Moduli

....every engineer in the World would be building them and people would have a very good understanding of how they work.
Science has no trouble doing this kind of thing every day with a million other ideas. There is no reason this is any different.

If you havent noticed, Iran is having trouble putting a bomb together. And they are working off technology developed from 50 years ago.

You are starting to be obtuse.

Unless of course you believe that every engineer and every scientist all have equal access and equal understanding to everything discovered before them.

Some people I disagree with in this thread, but instead of cutting them up, how about you put your money where your mouth is and explain something instead of telling everyone you are a physicist and you know more than them.

reply to post by Moduli

This is great, reading these posts is like hearing little kids pretending to speak in a foreign language. Convincing to other kids, but to adults who speak it, obviously wrong, hilarious, and possibly borderline racistly offensive!

With all due offense intended: www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...

Regurgitating text book information is not a sign of intelligence.

Because you don't understand this either...

Clearly, if there were people so well versed on the field of low energy nuclear reactions as to be considered worthy of authority... we would have low energy nuclear reactions producing power right about now, wouldn't we?

... as evidenced by the entirely made-up phrases...

Perhaps you need to become re-acquainted with the broader field of energy science.

You do know what entropy is, yes? The laws of thermodynamics?

Science isn't technobabble. You can't just string words together that sound good and make grammatically reasonable sentences.

That's your attempt to compensate for your lack of literacy, my friend.

Pull out a dictionary and string the words together... or just use a bit of common sense and operate off of their base word. Shame that degree didn't teach you to think, kid.

You and I both know that LENR is a field of research predicated upon discovery. We aren't developing known phenomena into something useful, here. We are trying to discover how the hell to do it in the first place.

Nuclear fission turned atomic theory on its side, and brought about much of what became quantum mechanics (and its derived theories). LENR may not bring about as many sweeping changes - but it will prompt a similar revision of the known field of physics as previously unknown phenomena are accounted for and factored into the larger model.

Which makes predictions and evaluations grounded in the existing and known model regarding LENR a fool's task. You're essentially mocking the Wright Brothers because their aircraft's wings don't flap.

There have been zero experiments that show this. There have been hundreds of claims, but no experiments. Experiments are easy to set up, if it were a real, demonstrable effect, every engineer in the World would be building them and people would have a very good understanding of how they work.

scientificcomputing.com...

"Our finding is very significant," says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, CA. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."

Science has no trouble doing this kind of thing every day with a million other ideas. There is no reason this is any different.

I suggest you choose your targets more wisely.

reply to post by Moduli
Maybe you could tell the kids why there are some adults(physicists) who don't dismiss LENR as you do then:

Sergio Focardi
Francesco Piantelli
Giuliano Preparata
George Miley
Allan Widom
Yoshiaki Arata

I think the NASA guys are especially keen on the Widom-Larsen ideas. This is not meant as an appeal to authority. I am just curious about your opinion as physicist regarding their work.

Originally posted by Fromabove
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.

Could you explain to me where all the energy in the universe came from after the big bang...

Interested readers might want to take a look at this link from another thread:

Abstract from University of Illinois students e-cat style device with COP greater than can be accounted for by exothermic chemical reactions:
www.lpi.usra.edu (pdf)

They classify the device as a Radioisotope Thermal Generator.

Or this:

Nasa basic test of an early cell from BLP with COP lower than can be accounted for by other means:
Nasa (pdf)

reply to post by Fromabove


Convert the objectionable free into cheap, cheap energy standard today is oil.

I believe we will sooner see bioengineering of oil that this cold fusion. All will of course destroy the field of "renewable" energies...

There are many interests against such revolutionary changes.

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Fromabove
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.

Could you explain to me where all the energy in the universe came from after the big bang...

What? Do I look like (G)god(ess)??

I could have told everyone this exist.
They've had this technology on the black-list for a while.

But I guess no one will listen until it comes from an "official" or "credible"
source like NASA.

Originally posted by wilburn
As a side note, these inventions will obviously undermine the dollar’s oil backing, which reigns today because of violent US foreign policies that overthrow any regime that dares to sell oil outside of the dollar system.

Everything is pointing to E-CAT being a big scam. Not one valid, verifiable test has been conducted. I've read the many articles regarding this with great interest, but it always comes down to Rossi refusing to conduct a legitimate test of his technology. I've sadly concluded that he is a modern-day flim-flam man. He's getting rich off of the bold promises he makes, but there has been no indication that he can even begin to fulfill these promises. I think the fact that the oil industry has taken no interest in his "technology" is proof that it's bogus, because if it were legit, big oil would be the first to jump on the bandwagon. The statement that this would unravel the US dollar is laughable, does anyone seriously think that big oil is going to step down from their position of power when someone else develops a better technology than fossil fuels? LOL! No, they will be all over it and they will figure out how to convert it into gold to line their own pockets with.

Originally posted by wilburn
If we couple the undermining of the US dollar by these new energy systems with the emergence of crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, a future of peace and prosperity for mankind seems assured.

Bwwwahaha! Peace??? This won't bring peace, it'll just bring another form of control.

Originally posted by wilburnOf course, the American empire will crumble and Americans themselves will experience the pain and deprivations they have heaped upon the world until they can rebuild their consumer goods industrial base, but in the end, the condition for humanity overall has never looked better.

There's no such thing as an "American empire", the world is under a single system of control and those who pull the strings feed you misinformation to turn you against others so they can continue to control you. Americans have not heaped "pain and deprivations" on others, America is the most generous country in the world. And if you think that all Americans are fat and happy while there's suffering elsewhere in the world, you are seriously misinformed. There is plenty of suffering in America these days.

reply to post by SavedOne


Whether or not the scientists are reporting something legitimate, or whether it is just another story of the garage inventor with plans for a device to solve the world’s energy problems is, from the standpoint of the wider history and implications of the whole phenomenon itself, a moot point.

I remain skeptical of the claims, but I am equally skeptical of the scientific junta’s skepticism.

reply to post by wilburn


yawn - another " nasa admits " thread - that turns out to be nothing of the sort

*snip*... if they a regular joe could harness nuclear fusion than NASA could basically become an interstellar agency over night.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Now explain your concept of energy. Explain to me how I am wrong. Explain why all these things are not actually a form of energy. Go on.

edit on 7-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

My "concept" of energy is that it is the conserved charge associated with the Hamiltonian. You know, the definition of energy.

Go ahead, tell me how position, electric charge, momentum, angular momentum, isospin, and every other conserved charge, quantum number, or parameter is energy!

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Moduli

 

Maybe you could tell the kids why there are some adults(physicists) who don't dismiss LENR as you do then:

Sergio Focardi
Francesco Piantelli
Giuliano Preparata
George Miley
Allan Widom
Yoshiaki Arata

I think the NASA guys are especially keen on the Widom-Larsen ideas. This is not meant as an appeal to authority. I am just curious about your opinion as physicist regarding their work.

Maybe you can explain why every single other high energy theoretical or nuclear or particle physicist thinks this is hilariously stupid? Or maybe all those lunches I had with top physicists I had where we made fun of things like this didn't happen? In my entire carrier I have never met *one* physicist who works in those fields who hasn't thought this is laughably stupid.

But hey, I guess that's just proof we're all paid off by the oil companies, TPTB, and the reptilians to suppress this technology that only some people on an internet forum with no formal training in physics can truly appreciate!