Is Blacklight Power a Revolutionary Energy Source or a Physics Anomaly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power
AI Thread Summary
A new device claims to provide a nearly limitless power source using minimal water and producing little waste, challenging established quantum theory. Critics argue that the concept is based on flawed mathematics and label it as a hoax. The company behind the technology has a history of revocation of patents due to fraudulent claims. Skeptics warn that the inventor may re-emerge periodically to exploit public interest. The discussion highlights the tension between innovative claims and scientific scrutiny.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head

· Scientist says device disproves quantum theory
· Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Friday November 4, 2005
The Guardian


It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head...cont'd

Dunno

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

Crackpot alert?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Yes, that is a hoax. The company has been around for a while. Every now and then someone inexplicably does a news story about them and doesn't mention that their patents were actually revoked (unprecidented!) because while they were able to fool one patent official, the hoax was revealed in an investigation. The guy will lay low until people forget he's a hoaxter, then he'll cash in on fresh gullibility and short attention-span every 5-10 years.

We have a thread in S&D about it, so I'm locking this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98326
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top