Blacklight Power Demonstration

Blacklight Power has issued a press release to schedule a demonstration next Tuesday January 28th, 2014, of their process to produce abundant cheap power from the hydrogen atoms in water that will be used as a fuel. Dr. Randell Mills the scientist behind Blacklight Power has long claimed and made available his classical theory of physics that predicts hydrogen atoms can undergo a catalyst-induced transition to one of many possible lower energy states with the electron bound closer to the proton. According to Dr. Mills, the electron forms an orbitsphere that is a fluid spinning shell of zero thickness surrounding the nucleus with forces in balance equivalent to a pressure of 20,000 atmospheres. Catalysts under the right conditions can make the orbitsphere shrink to 1/2,  1/3,  1/4,  1/5 etc. of the diameter of a normal hydrogen atom, called a hydrino or “little hydrogen”, with a progressive increase in the energy released compared to the normal hydrogen ground state. The energy available from each hydrogen atom in conversion to a hydrino is much greater than would be obtained by burning the same amount of hydrogen gas, but is much less than the energies involved in nuclear processes such as fusing two hydrogen nuclei into helium.

The latest process apparently uses a solid fuel containing at least a catalyst and water that is subjected to a very high electrical current, 10,000 amps, although the current is apparently produced by a small DC voltage of only 6 volts. The hydrogen in water undergoes transition to hydrinos releasing a large amount of energy and converting the solid fuel into a supersonic plasma. Blacklight Power propose (but have not yet built) a ten MegaWatt power reactor contained on a footprint of one square foot.  The plasma produced by the reactor would expand through a superconducting magnet which would produce DC electric power in two electrodes placed orthogonally to both the plasma flow and the magnetic field. Blacklight have released high speed video of the plasma production and it is likely this is what will be demonstrated on Tuesday together with Dr. Mills explanation of his theory and experiments that verify the signatures of the resultant hydrinos.

To say this may be a huge deal is a gross understatement. If Dr. Mills is correct and energy can be produced from water, it changes almost everything about the way energy is produced and consumed, and would force both the energy and transport industries to undergo an almost instant revolution. It would also effectively solve the problem of global warming caused by fossil fuel use which would be a happy circumstance. Then there is physics itself that would undergo a revolution, assuming Mills is also correct about the theory, and has not just stumbled across a hitherto unknown nuclear process. There are major ramifications to the theory, if true, notably a solution for the problem of dark matter (hydrinos), whole branches of novel hydrino chemistry to be explored, the possibility of calculating molecular structure exactly, a possible novel fifth force, cosmological predictions that match the accelerating expansion of the universe and more.

Blacklight Power have had a reputation of being perennially 18 months away from producing a physically and commercially viable system. All the claims of excess energy have involved tiny real energies that require considerable scaling up to be useful. Let us hope that the forthcoming demo is convincing enough that the naysayers will not be able to make their usual claims of trickery.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. RICHARD B.LASER says:

    WHY DID YOU NOT MADE THE DEMONSTRATION AT 01.28.2014
    KEEP ONCE YOUR PROMISE PLEASE.
    GOOD LUCK

    • Admin says:

      This site (hydrinopower.com) is unrelated to Blacklight Power as a company, just an independent commentary site.
      I understand the demonstration did take place on January 28th at Blacklight Power and that a video of the proceedings will be posted at the Blacklight Power site in the near future.

      Dave

      • Subhash says:

        You are right to be cautious but the comntmes show that some of you don’t even understand what he is claiming. Electrolysis does require input energy- about 7ev to get two H atoms out of water but what he is claiming is that each of these atoms can be collapsed by a simple, reproducible mechanism that results in the release of hundreds of electron volts per atom. It’s nowhere near the output of nuclear but far in excess of chemical burning.I’ve been looking at this guy and his company for over ten years now. This isn’t some uneducated bumpkin in his garage with a magnetic motor. I think he is legit, his science and published papers are understandable and more importantly, testable. His papers detail the use of existing tech like NMR to show the electron is closer to the proton in hydrino based compounds. Personally I intend to invest but I would also be prepared to lose everything I invested. Even if the science pans out in the face of fierce opposition from mainstream science associations, the question remains if he can produce a working product. This is a very smart guy as even his harshest critics attest. He has 70 million dollars in private investment, 30 employees, many of them Phds (none of whom have broken ranks to claim the company is not legit) and is now backed in his claims by the entire chemistry department of Rowan University. It is useless pointing out that those that attack Mills have a lot to lose if he is right- their careers, their nobel prizes and perhaps their certainty in the universe. His theory explains dark matter quite adequately and links hydrino spectra from deep space to dark matter clouds, it explains the solar corona temperature difference, the expansion of the universe and his theory condensed into molecular modelling software provides a speed and accuracy in computation chemistry on a basic pc that outperforms QM based methods on supercomputers.The reason your friend believes he will be richer than Croesus is that if Mills is right all electricity in the world will ultimately be generated by this non-polluting process with BLP taking a cut for each watt generated. On top of that are the claims for novel chemistry with his shrunken hydrogen having binding energies that result in unusual properties- some potential claimed products are high energy explosives, rocket fuels, conducting plastics, rust proof coatings, diamond films and high energy batteries that store and outperform exisiting battery tech by at least ten and perhaps as much as a hundred times.So very high risk but what isn’t? If you want to be safer wait until the claimed 2011 demonstration of the new direct electrical conversion which is something the company has never claimed before and for which I think the patent was filed in April 2010 (not yet issued last I checked). If that demonstration succeeds it will prove that the core theory is correct and QM is fundamentally incorrect. If it doesn’t happen I’ll reappraise the company’s ability to deliver. Given his caution to date Mills won’t go public until he can show he can deliver and by the time that happens, every man and his dog will be subscribing.

    • Danny says:

      On March 19, 2013 at 5:26 PMDavid French wtoe: But there are numerous ccuilnsove demonstrations of “unexplained excess heat” that could not have originated from a chemical origin. No. There aren’t. There are numerous claims of such demonstrations, and some people conclude that they could not have a chemical origin. That’s not the same as ccuilnsove demonstrations as I understand the words. A ccuilnsove demonstration is one in which all or nearly all qualified observers agree on the conclusion. But we saw in 1989 what happens when qualified scientists think there just *might* be evidence for anomalous heat from metal hydrides. It was front page news in all the papers, Nature and Science made time and room for the imminent tell-all publications, scientists stampeded to their labs to try to get a small slice of the glory for themselves, and Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists. That’s not really happening now, because the vast majority of experts don’t believe there is ccuilnsove evidence. And that includes expert panels enlisted to examine the best evidence, and reviewers and editors at prominent journals (like Science, Nature and PRL) that continue to reject papers, and reviewers for funding agencies that continue (for the most part) to reject funding requests. If there were even one ccuilnsove demonstration (which would be one that others could reproduce), it would be celebrated universally. And I believe there are numerous cases of self-sustained events, albeit for transient periods, that qualify as self-powered reactions. Nothing could be easier to demonstrate to a skeptical audience than a self-sustained event that exceeded chemical heat. Just isolate the core undergoing the phenomenon, and watch the temperature climb. What an easy way to convince the DOE panel that cold fusion or LENR is real. As cold fusion’s most loyal proponent (Rothwell) put it: It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat . I do not think any scientist will dispute this. An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be.. Since scientists still do dispute cold fusion, it would seem such a demo has not yet been realized. Anecdotal claims from people with a stake in it are not persuasive. Mr Cude is so assertive that others are wrong. Yes, perhaps my language is a little over the top. Maybe it’s frustration. I’ve been watching the field a long time, and express this challenge frequently, and I used to do it more diplomatically, but no one ever actually gives an example that proves the claims wrong, so I have become bolder. I notice that you didn’t mention any specific examples. When pressed for a specific result, Rothwell usually falls back on McKubre’s 1994 electrolysis paper that claims 10.5 watts out with 10 watts in, not exactly earth shattering, especially when it was intended to validate P&F claim of 160 W out with 40 W in, but with better calorimetry. Instead, it showed that what P&F observed was probably all artifact (within uncertainty), and it would be a remarkable coincidence (one of many in this field) if the dramatically smaller effect McKubre saw was not a real effect.If there were a real effect, after 24 years, you would think that there would be one experiment that anyone could do and get a consistent result, even if it is only on a statistical basis, and even if it requires centralized preparation of the metal in question, but nothing like that exists, and the MFMP demonstrates just how far we still are from that.

  2. RICHARD B.LASER says:

    What’s going on with the Hydrino-waste ? Is this going in the atmosphere ?
    What is bringing back the Hydrinos to normal H2

    • Admin says:

      Hydrinos are apparently stable and form molecules. Mills proposes that dark matter is hydrinos – stable, non-excitable and the most common substance in the universe.
      They appear to be harmless and inert and can be vented to the atmosphere or collected if useful hydrino compounds are discovered.

    • Alin says:

      Another LENR patent gaentrd the energy to overcome comes from somewhere. Perhaps the energetics are focused by harmonics within the lattice creating superwaves’ .Patent EP1656678B1 Pulsed Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Power Generators Inventors: Herman Branover, Irving Dardik, Arik El-Boher, Dan Gazit, Ehud Greenspan, A. Boris Hachaturov, Vitaly Krakov, Shaul Lesin, Gad Shani, Tatyana ZilovAssignees: Energetics Technologies, LlcPatent number: EP1656678B1 Filing date: Aug 12, 2004 Issue date: May 4, 2011 [0021]According to the invention, there is also provided a method for generating a low energy nuclear reaction involving a material and hydrogenous atoms, the method being implemented on a low energy nuclear reaction cell containing an electrically conductive electrolyte having enveloped therein an anode-cathode electrode pair, the cathode electrode being formed of the material, the method comprising: applying across the electrode pair a train of pulsed electrical packets, to cause a correspondingly pulsed current to flow between the electrode pair, causing the electrolyte to dissociate, whereby oxygen is released at the anode electrode while the hydrogenous atoms migrate toward the material cathode electrode, each packet of pulses producing a surge of the hydrogenous atoms which are forced into the material cathode electrode, successive surges producing a dense packing of the hydrogenous atoms in the material cathode electrode; characterized in that: a cluster of pulses is superimposed on each packet; and each pulse in the cluster of pulses has a maximum amplitude that is proportional to an instantaneous amplitude of a major wave associated with the train of pulsed electrical packets, and wherein each pulse in the cluster of pulses has a maximum frequency that is proportional to an instantaneous frequency of the major wave associated with the train of pulsed electrical packets.[0022]Preferable features are set out in the dependent claims.[0023]A significant feature of the present invention which distinguishes it from prior cells in which the current through the electrolyte is pulsed, is that in a cell in accordance with the invention, pulsing takes place in a pulse pattern that increases the probability of LENR to occur and, hence, the level of reproducibility. [0078] In a generator in accordance with the invention, a resistance meter (LCR) 21, which may include a second modulator 20 and a voltmeter 22, may be implemented in order to measure the resistance of cathode 12. This measurement may then be used to indicate the level of deuterium atom-packing of the cathode.[0079]Highly effective computer pulse pattern programs afford optimum results, resulting in the greatest amount of nuclear reaction heat at the palladium electrode. These can be determined empirically by modifying the program of computer 16 to find the most effective pattern and by modifying the program to be responsive to the resistance of the cathode measured by LCR 21. In one example of a method according to the present invention, the change in resistance may be used to modify the modulating in order to maximize the atom-packing. A feedback signal representing the slope of the resistance, for example, may be used to optimize the relationship between any of the waves with respect to any of the other waves, the respective frequencies of the individual waves, the respective amplitudes of the individual waves, or any other suitable parameter.[0080]One example of the most effective pulse pattern is to incorporate a relaxation period corresponding to the downward phases of the major wave W1. Pulse packets in the pulse train may be completely turned off during the relaxation periods corresponding to the downward phases. FIG. 4 illustrates a pulse pattern with pulses (e.g., pulses of packet II, FIG. 3) completely switched off during the relaxation period.[0081]The program is developed from a formation of superwaving waves which are digitized so as to derive a pulse at the peak of each wave cycle. The aforementioned Dardik article illustrates various forms of superwaving waves.

  3. Dedes says:

    —–“Attorneys should not make ernixsuocs into nuclear physics.” I say, How pompous and arrogant can science get. But lawyers tell scientists not to practice law. In fact, they make it illegal for lay people to practice law.I think it’s arrogant for someone with little or no training in physics to come along and tell physicists who spent a decade learning their stuff that they’re wrong about the amount of energy needed to produce a neutron from an electron and a proton. Especially when it’s clear they don’t understand the basic kinematics of such reactions.It’s like a plumber presuming to diagnose your chest pain and offering to perform heart surgery using his pipe wrench and a blow torch.Some things require training, and it’s simply arrogant to think that you can make a significant contribution in nuclear physics without first understanding what’s already been learned. Rather than trying to make out one needs a degree in how to light a bunson burner to understand science… You don’t need a degree, and bunsen burners have nothing to do with it, but nuclear physics is an experimental science. Without knowing the results of the experiments, and how they ft together, it’s hard to build on the knowledge. No one could come up with the idea that nuclear reactions exist out of thin air. People who promote cold fusion only know such a thing is even conceivable because all those corrupt conventional physicists discovered fusion for them. They discovered how it works in the sun, showed how it works in accelerators, made commercial neutron sources using fusion, and predicted and then showed muon catalyzed fusion, and predicted and demonstrated plasma fusion, calculated branching ratios and measured reaction products, and on and on. And then the slow students of these experts come along and, failing to understand anything beyond that nuclear fusion releases energy with very little fuel, propose that it should work any damn place, because they want it to, and it would be so cool, and they call the experts idiots when the experts try to explain that they’ve misunderstood their lessons, and then try in vain for 24 years to achieve vindication. And never in all that time can anyone find a single experiment that a qualified scientist can perform with expected results (other than null results), even on a statistical basis. There is not a single nuclear reaction that people in the field can agree is occurring. There is not a single example of unequivocal energy density that exceeds chemical. There is not a single credible example where the energy from cold fusion can power the experiment itself, let alone the world.
 Scientists in many areas are incompetent and even corrupt, Cold Fusion is an example. People in many areas are incompetent and corrupt. And yes, cold fusion is an excellent example. Rossi, Dardik, Godes, and Mills are almost certainly corrupt. Celani, McKubre, Storms, and Piantelli, more likely fall into that other category.
 Science in all areas knows virtually nothing and yet tries to make out that they are experts. I don’t know what that means. An expert is just someone who knows more about something than most other people. And whatever you mean by virtuallynothing , scientists do know enough about solid state transistors and such to build iPhones. And they know enough about medicine to do heart transplants, and enough about gravity and space to land on the moon. And so on. And the people who do these things *are* experts. It’s how we define the word. You, on the other hand, are not an expert in writing, e.g., because your writing almost never makes sense. And this post is a good example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *