Blacklight Power Publishes Patent Application, Mills Responds to Questions

Continuing with the flurry of activity surrounding Blacklight Power, there are some new developments (to me, at least) that I thought warranted a separate post — and thanks to all the readers here who are keeping us updated on news and providing links.

First are some questions answered by BLP CEO Randell Mills on this Yahoo Groups site: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1618

Q: I assume that given that a high current is required to initiate the reaction in the SH-CIHT cell, that it occurs in bursts. I have some questions.

1) What is the maximum burst repetition rate?

A: can be continuous

2) What is the consequent average power density?

A: same as power burst

3) What is the ratio of output energy to input energy?

A: about 100X

From these responses it seems what Mills is saying is that somehow the initial electrical stimulation gets the BLP material into a high state of excitement which generates an electric current that can run continuously for an unspecified period of time. How much repeated stimulation to keep the current going is not clear here, but when Mills mentions a COP of 100, it seems there has to be some recharging — or else the COP would be infinite. When he says the average power density is same as the power burst, it implies to me that there is no reduction in the current after the initial stimulation.

The second development is the publication of a Blacklight Power Patent application which seems to be very new. The title is “Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same,” and it is 324 pages long! I am not going even think about starting to summarize it here, but here is the introductory text:

“The present disclosure relates to the field of power generation and, in particular, to systems, devices, and methods for the generation of power. More specifically, embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to power generation devices and systems, as well as related methods, which produce plasma and thermal power and produces electrical power via a plasma to electric power converter or a thermal to electric power converter. In addition, embodiments of the present disclosure describe systems, devices, and methods that use the ignition of a water or water-based fuel source to generate mechanical power and/or thermal energy. Furthermore, the present disclosure is directed to electrochemical power systems that generate electrical power and/or thermal energy. These and other related embodiments are described in detail in the present disclosure.”

It will take some time to study this document, but it’s useful to have it available.

Right now it seems all the news is Blacklight Power all the time — and that’s fine with me. I intend to follow news that I consider to be of merit as wherever it takes us. 2014 has started strong!

More resources at BLP press release: http://www.blacklightpower.com/press/011414-2/

  • Gordon Docherty

    Frank, As far as I remember, Blacklight’s original CIHT device concept was to allow water, as the “fuel”, to be continuously circulated round into the reaction cell, where it was to be split into H2 and O, and the H2 then dissociated into monatomic hydrogen. From there, this monatomic hydrogen was then fed through a catalyst to produce Hydrinos and electrons. Now, very little of the monatomic hydrogen and water was consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the Hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

    The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

    So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP) energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists for electron shells?

    Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point potential to decrease within the proton / electron combination, while simultaneously increasing the energy or spin speed of the vortices. If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

    The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

    • Gordon Docherty

      with this in mind, it is perfectly valid to consider the Blacklight Power work here – perhaps a new title for this site would be implosion-world! 🙂

      • Being temporarily optimistic and assuming Mills is honest as can be a man in love with his pet theory, I will assume that Hydrino is an error, but that CIHT may work as a classic LENR effect, maybe not far from Hydrino, based on QM as we experience it.

        What I would like is having phone to phone confirmation of the testing claimed by BLP…

        • Daniel Maris

          We’ve got scans of the reports. What more do you want? Presumably Enser and Perkin Elmer would soon issue denials or sue if they weren’t genuine.

          • hum, if they are unaware of being exploited…
            like Nelson, just checking they don’t deny.

            Mills let me perplex…

    • bitplayer

      Is there any known room in classical QM for the idea that variances exist in the properties of electrons *within* a particular shell? Or is that both beyond the sensitivity of the math and the detection?

      One of the things that keeps the door of possibility about woo-science open for me is that FACT that the history of science describes a continuous uncovering of phenomena at smaller and smaller scales of space, time, matter and energy that are relevant to human existence.

      Maybe electrons vibrate at different frequencies within their orbits, get too excited, and jump around…

    • GreenWin

      Nicely articulated Gordon. You pretty well cover at least part of what Mills’ theory claims. But he goes further by pointing to n/137 discreet lower than ground states levels. His specrtroscopic studies show heightened release of spectra in the soft X-ray (UV) range at each of these fractional ground states. The work done at the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics lab documents something happening to H in a pinch – causing the release of anomalous spectra. Hence the name of his company, BlackLight.

      BTW, the DGT theory suggests an elliptical electron orbit that then allows “electron capture” the favorite idea behind Widom Larsen explanation for LENR.

    • Ted-X

      Chemists know that hybridized orbitals indicate the electron cloud actually passes through the center of the nucleus. Majority of covalent molecules have this property. Stll, everybody talks about circular orbitals of electrons, which is a misconception.

    • BroKeeper

      I am impressed Gordon. You have an insight that helps describe the nuclear structure and the possible processes in the CIHT device. Would you have credentials you would care to share? Thanks!

  • Gordon Docherty

    Frank, As far as I remember, Blacklight’s original CIHT device concept was to allow water, as the “fuel”, to be continuously circulated round into the reaction cell, where it was to be split into H2 and O, and the H2 then dissociated into monatomic hydrogen. From there, this monatomic hydrogen was then fed through a catalyst to produce Hydrinos and electrons. Now, very little of the monatomic hydrogen and water was consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the Hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

    The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

    So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP) energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists for electron shells?

    Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point potential to decrease within the proton / electron combination, while simultaneously increasing the energy or spin speed of the vortices. If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

    The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

    • Gordon Docherty

      with this in mind, it is perfectly valid to consider the Blacklight Power work here – perhaps a new title for this site would be implosion-world! 🙂

      • Being temporarily optimistic and assuming Mills is honest as can be a man in love with his pet theory, I will assume that Hydrino is an error, but that CIHT may work as a classic LENR effect, maybe not far from Hydrino, based on QM as we experience it.

        What I would like is having phone to phone confirmation of the testing claimed by BLP…

    • Gerard McEk

      I am not a physicist, but that also crossed my mind when I wrote in a similar discussion on ‘nickelpower’:

      I wonder if Randell Mill’s Hydrino’s may not be the sort of state that is required to fuse Hydrogen with another atom and make LENR possible. Transmutation has often been reported in LENR research. The weak point of the Widom-Larsen theory is the fusion of the electron with a proton in terms of required energy. Maybe that is different for a hydrino in its lowest energy state? I have seen no reports of BLP in which they conclude transmutation definitely does not take place. Did they ever look for it? Probably not, as it does not fit in with Dr Mill’s theories.

      I do hope that some of Randell Mill’s Theories is right and that his SF-SIHT cell does does not turn out to be a Science Fiction SHIT Cell, as my friend fears.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If Mills’ hydrinos were able to penetrate into the nuclei of heavier elements, they could produce instable isotopes. In this case, they wouldn’t be as harmless as has been claimed. Think, for instance, what would happen if they were inhaled. I suspect that BLP could get problems with the safety certification of their devices.

        • We should stick to observation.
          Many LENR experiment were conducted, many ways, and many tried to find radioactivity in any form, or at least checked radiations for their safety…
          They could not find something noticeable and dangerous, despite much heat…

          If Hydrino produce high radioactivity, hydrino is wrong…

    • GreenWin

      Nicely articulated Gordon. You pretty well cover at least part of what Mills’ theory claims. But he goes further by pointing to n/137 discreet lower than ground states levels. His specrtroscopic studies show heightened release of spectra in the soft X-ray (UV) range at each of these fractional ground states. The work done at the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics lab documents something happening to H in a pinch – causing the release of anomalous spectra. Hence the name of his company, BlackLight.

      BTW, the DGT theory suggests an elliptical electron orbit that then allows “electron capture” the favorite idea behind Widom Larsen explanation for LENR.

    • Ted-X

      Chemists know that hybridized orbitals indicate the electron cloud actually passes through the center of the nucleus. Majority of covalent molecules have this property. Stll, everybody talks about circular orbitals of electrons, which is a misconception.

    • Brokeeper

      I am impressed Gordon. You have an insight that helps describe the nuclear structure and the possible processes in the CIHT device. Would you have credentials you would care to share? Thanks!

  • bejammin075

    What happens to the hydrinos that are created in a BLP reactor? Are they still bonded to Oxygen? Or combine to form He? Since hydrinos are in a very low energy state, do they suck up energy elsewhere? Would low-energy hydrinos be freakishly cold, like liquid nitrogen? Do they readily do any chemical or nuclear reactions?

    • If hydrinos are real, then there would be no ‘halfway house’ – an atom would be either in the hydrogen state or the hydrino state. In the hydrino state I don’t think that chemical bonding would be possible as valence depends on the involvement of an electron(s) in an outer ‘shell’. Possibly hydrinos would not exist in the diatomic (molecular) state either, for the same reason, although BLP seem to suggest that they might.

      If this state was reversible, the same relatively large quantity of energy that was released would have to be imparted to the electron in one go. An intense electrical discharge such as a lightning bolt might provide suitable conditions, or perhaps impact with a high energy photon, but ‘hydrinos’ would not ‘suck up’ energy piecemeal.

  • georgehants

    Bloomberg Busnessweek
    Independent Power Producers and Energy Traders
    Company Overview of BlackLight Power Inc.
    BlackLight Power Inc.
    develops and commercializes catalyst-induced-hydrino-transition (CIHT), a
    technology for producing electricity from hydrogen. The company’s
    BlackLight process of releasing chemical energy from hydrogen generates
    power either as electricity or heat with power densities and performance
    comparable to those of batteries and conventional central power plants.
    It sells power directly to consumers under power purchase agreements.
    The company’s CIHT technology has application in hydrides,
    microelectronics, diamond films, batteries, propellants, lighting, and
    lasers. BlackLight Power also develops computational, chemical-design
    software tools based on solving molecular structure…
    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=61802124

  • georgehants

    How the business world looks at BLP
    ——-
    Bloomberg Busnessweek
    Independent Power Producers and Energy Traders
    Company Overview of BlackLight Power Inc.
    BlackLight Power Inc.
    develops and commercializes catalyst-induced-hydrino-transition (CIHT), a
    technology for producing electricity from hydrogen. The company’s
    BlackLight process of releasing chemical energy from hydrogen generates
    power either as electricity or heat with power densities and performance
    comparable to those of batteries and conventional central power plants.
    It sells power directly to consumers under power purchase agreements.
    The company’s CIHT technology has application in hydrides,
    microelectronics, diamond films, batteries, propellants, lighting, and
    lasers. BlackLight Power also develops computational, chemical-design
    software tools based on solving molecular structure…
    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=61802124

  • SteveW

    A one cubic foot device capable of producing 10 million watts of power. A device requiring no fuel- atmospheric water vapor will do. A device producing electrical energy directly. Gee, sounds like something that would work perfectly in a military drone or a million other military applications. Imagine a drone being able stay airborne indefinitely, but not just hovering around- flying at high speed and firing high energy lasers. Imagine what a squadron of these things could do. And this technology is to be released to the public? And the DOD, CIA and the NSA are o.k. with this? If this is real, how could the NSA not find out about it and prevent it from getting out on national security grounds?

    I originally thought that this story might be something made up to justify putting the whole field of LENR including Rossi and all the other researches under wraps for national security reasons. It seems too coincidental that this should come out now- just when LENR technology looks like it is about to go commercial and the Chinese are getting their hands on it. It also provides a good reason for keeping it a secret and justifies the governments 25 years of suppression. Is this the governments last chance to put the LENR genie back in the bottle before it’s too late? What a better way to scare all the governments of the world into going along with a plan to keep LENR technology a state secret than BLP’s incredible device.

    LENR technology could be developed in secret government labs and provide power at secured power plants. Energy production would be controlled by the government. The cost savings of LENR would likely be offset by the high security cost and government bureaucracy and possibly a tax, but at least it would be clean for the environment. These government controlled LENR power plants would eventually produce liquid fuels as well. Eventually, all fuel could be derived from LENR reactors, but the reactors would not be allowed in the hands of the public. LENR technology would be controlled the way nuclear fission is controlled now. To get the rest of the world to go along with this plan and keep LENR technology out of the hands of the public, the United States would share the technology of these power plants with other nations as long as it was kept secure. Engaging in any LENR research or possessing any LENR reactors would be considered a crime.

    The governments 25 years of suppressing LENR through ridicule and defunding would shift to acknowledgment of LENR but keeping the technology at secured installations for national security. However, BLP has now supposedly released the patent to the public. So,is this actually a real device and did BLP actually get the jump on the NSA and release it and the patent before the government could take control of it? It all just seems outside the realm of reality to me- but who knows.

    • Dry Gulched

      Uh Oh. The government must have found a way to tax water vapor!

  • Daniel Maris

    Frank,

    Could you maybe link in your article to the BLP press release that has links to the three important independent reports.

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/press/

  • jousterusa

    I have posted an article on CNN about this development, which is at the iReport site for jousterusa, and on The American Reporter, where it is at http://www.american-reporter.com/4,893/1.html
    I hope to go to the demonstration on the 28th.

    • GreenWin

      Nice work Jouster. Note that now some 30+ hours after the news release not a single mainstream newspaper has covered the subject. Not one. The CNN section you post on is “unvetted by CNN.” This is a repeat of what happened with the 2011 Rossi demos after Fox News inquired at SPAWAR. And the non-coverage of the Levi-Elforsk validation. We can assume there is a general news blackout in the mainstream press – providing more evidence there is no honest mainstream journalism in this program. By inference that puts this program in the black.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, it’s becoming more and more evident that there is a blackout on these type of events. As long as these discoveries aren’t published on an established magazine, no MSM outlet is going to report it. MSM may not even be responsible, after all what else can they do to verify claims like BLP’s, but the current science review system surely is. When there finally is a breakthrough in the MSM, this really has to be adressed. Who knows what other discoveries have been denied to humanity because of this?

        • georgehants

          Zeddicus, I think you have hit the nail right on the head and many other discoveries are effected, but many still try to go on trying to blaming the media etc. instead of the corrupt and incompetent scientific community who are of course to blame.
          The groundswell of resentment building for the covering-up of the Evidence for Cold Fusion and many of these other subjects is growing and hopefully will blow the lid off this cartel of corruption.
          Then many of these scientists working at the publicly funded charities of university’s and “big” science, will have to go out and find a job more in line with their abilities, road sweeping comes to mind.

  • jousterusa

    I have posted an article on CNN about this development, which is at the iReport site for jousterusa, and on The American Reporter, where it is at http://www.american-reporter.com/4,893/1.html
    I hope to go to the demonstration on the 28th.

    • GreenWin

      Nice work Jouster. Note that now some 30+ hours after the news release not a single mainstream newspaper has covered the subject. Not one. The CNN section you post on is “unvetted by CNN.” This is a repeat of what happened with the 2011 Rossi demos after Fox News inquired at SPAWAR. And the non-coverage of the Levi-Elforsk validation. We can assume there is a general news blackout in the mainstream press – providing more evidence there is no honest mainstream journalism in this program. By inference that puts this program in the black.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, it’s becoming more and more evident that there is a blackout on these type of events. As long as these discoveries aren’t published on an established magazine, no MSM outlet is going to report it. MSM may not even be responsible, after all what else can they do to verify claims like BLP’s, but the current science review system surely is. When there finally is a breakthrough in the MSM, this really has to be adressed. Who knows what other discoveries have been denied to humanity because of this?

        • georgehants

          Zeddicus, I think you have hit the nail right on the head and many other discoveries are effected, but many still try to go on trying to blaming the media etc. instead of the corrupt and incompetent scientific community who are of course to blame.
          The groundswell of resentment building for the covering-up of the Evidence for Cold Fusion and many of these other subjects is growing and hopefully will blow the lid off this cartel of corruption.
          Then many of these scientists working at the publicly funded charities of university’s and “big” science, will have to go out and find a job more in line with their abilities, road sweeping comes to mind.

  • jousterusa

    I did, at the bottom of it. There is a line there that says “Resources:” and the link is right after that. Thanks for your interest, Frank!

  • jousterusa

    I did, at the bottom of it. There is a line there that says “Resources:” and the link is right after that. Thanks for your interest, Frank!

  • mecatfish

    Here is an interesting website that tries to debunk Blacklights claims.
    Another one of those “goes against what we already know” arguements.
    http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/

    • GreenWin

      This site has already been flagged as pseudoscience. The writer cannot comprehend the fourth state of matter.

      • mecatfish

        Thanks, just trying to get my facts straight. Rossi has been quiet for the last couple of days…I wonder if his team is discussing this.

        • ecatworld

          Rossi may well have been getting questions on the JONP about BLP, if so, he would have spammed them due to his policy of not discussing competitors. I would guess the team is aware by now.

    • Sanjeev

      The author is a coder, probably never held a screwdriver in his hands. How can anyone take a random blog by a random coder as a serious debunking of claims made by people who are in this field for many years, did experiments, published validation reports, measured everything by hand and above all risked their lives and careers?
      Is there any comparison?
      The truth is that we do not know if BLP tech is true. Its not difficult to say I do not know unless one has an insane amount of superiority complex. Those who know very little, and all of the pathoskeps fit this description.

  • Guest

    Here is an interesting website that tries to debunk Blacklights claims.
    Another one of those “goes against what we already know” arguements.
    http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/

    • GreenWin

      This site has already been flagged as pseudoscience. The writer cannot comprehend the fourth state of matter.

      • Guest

        Thanks, just trying to get my facts straight. Rossi has been quiet for the last couple of days…I wonder if his team is discussing this.

        • Frank Acland

          Rossi may well have been getting questions on the JONP about BLP, if so, he would have spammed them due to his policy of not discussing competitors. I would guess the team is aware by now.

    • Sanjeev

      The author is a coder, probably never held a screwdriver in his hands. How can anyone take a random blog by a random coder as a serious debunking of claims made by people who are in this field for many years, did experiments, published validation reports, measured everything by hand and above all risked their lives and careers?
      Is there any comparison?
      The truth is that we do not know if BLP tech is true. Its not difficult to say I do not know unless one has an insane amount of superiority complex. Those who know very little, and all of the pathoskeps fit this description.

  • tlp

    The patent application is long, but quite readable. For example:

    “In an embodiment, a supercapacitor or a battery 16 (FIGURES 3 and 4A) is be used to start the SF-CIHT cell by supplying the power for the initial ignition so that power for subsequent ignitions is provided by output power conditioner 7 that in turn is powdered by plasma to electric power converter 6. In an embodiment, the output of the power conditioner 7 flows to an energy storage device such as 16 to restart the power generator.”

  • tlp

    The patent application is long, but quite readable. For example:

    “In an embodiment, a supercapacitor or a battery 16 (FIGURES 3 and 4A) is be used to start the SF-CIHT cell by supplying the power for the initial ignition so that power for subsequent ignitions is provided by output power conditioner 7 that in turn is powdered by plasma to electric power converter 6. In an embodiment, the output of the power conditioner 7 flows to an energy storage device such as 16 to restart the power generator.”

  • cx
    • Sanjeev

      I’m no expert and couldn’t understand the point of this report you mention. They tested two “samples” of materials using a special calorimeter (DSC, check google) and plotted the curve of heat transfer through these sample. All I can say is these two curves are different, thats all 😀

  • cx
    • Sanjeev

      I’m no expert and couldn’t understand the point of this report you mention. They tested two “samples” of materials using a special calorimeter (DSC, check google) and plotted the curve of heat transfer through these sample. All I can say is these two curves are different, thats all 😀

  • stefan

    This is an interesting read. In all it sounds like a true patent e.g. releasing the knowledge and in return own the technology for 20 years. What more important is that independent third parties should be able to debunk the patent if not true. It’s really intriguing that there is solid calculations that link the use of Ni to facilitate the forming of hydrinos.

    I also note that they have collected a lot of information about the process and it shows that 20 years of experimentation is used to get as solid patent as possible. It’s like they wanted to downplay the earlier result in order to be able to make the patent waterproof.

    Both Pd and Ni are shown to have catalytic properties it would not surprise me if forming of hydrinos would change the QM to enable actual fusion reactions at special active sites. Note that Kim’s theory for how this can happen would probably get higher reaction rates for the wavefuctions close to ground states of a set of hydrino deutrions.

    Cheers!

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    This is an interesting read. In all it sounds like a true patent e.g. releasing the knowledge and in return own the technology for 20 years. What more important is that independent third parties should be able to debunk the patent if not true. It’s really intriguing that there is solid calculations that link the use of Ni to facilitate the forming of hydrinos.

    I also note that they have collected a lot of information about the process and it shows that 20 years of experimentation is used to get as solid patent as possible. It’s like they wanted to downplay the earlier result in order to be able to make the patent waterproof.

    Both Pd and Ni are shown to have catalytic properties it would not surprise me if forming of hydrinos would change the QM to enable actual fusion reactions at special active sites. Note that Kim’s theory for how this can happen would probably get higher reaction rates for the wavefuctions close to ground states of a set of hydrino deutrions.

    Cheers!

  • bejammin075

    The theoretical “Hydrino” formation looks somewhat like the reverse of well-known beta decay. Beta decay releases energy, therefore the reverse of beta decay would require energy investment. How do believers in Hydrino reconcile this? I hope this doesn’t sound antagonistic. I’m just trying to understand the hydrino concept.

  • SammyM

    I asked Andrea Rossi a question on JONP:

    ‘SammyM
    January 15th, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Do you believe in hydrinos?
    1- Yes
    2- No
    3- Don’t know
    4- You can’t comment on this at this time
    Kind regards,
    SammyM
    Canada’

    He answered a few hours later. I was NOT expecting an answer:

    ‘Andrea Rossi
    January 15th, 2014 at 2:13 PM

    Sammy M, Canada:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.’

  • bitplayer

    page 16 of the patent, the gauntlet is thrown (represented here without scientific notation):

    “That is, in the formula for the principal energy levels of the hydrogen atom:
    (complex formula)
    where (variable) is the Bohr radius for the hydrogen atom (52.947 pm), e is the magnitude of the
    charge of the electron, and (variable) is the vacuum permittivity,
    =!!>> fractional quantum numbers: replace the well known parameter n =integer <=!!=
    in the Rydberg equation for hydrogen excited states and represent lower-energy-state hydrogen atoms called “hydrinos.”

    • John Littlemist

      Just a thought, but as it was disclosed last summer, the Etiam Inc. patent application has “inverted Rydberg matter” concept, could this Mills’ Hydrino concept equal to Etiam’s “inverted Rydberg matter” concept in any way?

  • Randy B

    I’ve been following Blacklight for a long time [about 20 years] with some interest, natural skepticism and growing acceptance. Mr Mills and his theory may seem quirky, but he has engineered this from the initial discovery through through multiple big improvements over that time, producing impressive results, verified by 3rd parties, that can’t be explained by classical physics, yet which were developed logically by following his theory.
    I am not sure what will be demonstrated in February, but his claims for 10+Mega watts may not materialize in this demonstration. I suspect a smaller system will be shown that can be developed into the larger scale, with money. I understand he has a system design and simulation results to back up his grander claim.
    If anything, Mr Mills has avoided product development these last 20 years, preferring instead to prioritize the acceptance of his theories. He has found a tough market for his theories as intellectual product. Fortunately, he or someone close to him has now rethought their priorities and wants to focus more on product development/licencing. We will all be the better for it.
    I look forward to finding out more about progress with licencors/manufacturers.

  • bitplayer

    You might be overestimating the intelligence and capability for coordinated action of “governments”. It’s important to notice that there have regularly been very high level, very visible and very embarrassing revelations about government (USA, in this case) attempts to do secret stuff: Pentagon papers, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Snowden/NSA. Of course they got away with the entire moon landing fraud 🙂

  • wapiti22

    BlackLight Power Vs. Rossi’s Cold Fusion – Related Technologies?
    http://pesn.com/2011/02/08/9501758_Black_Light_Power_and_Rossis_Cold_Fusion_related/

  • Daniel Maris

    I think the crucial issue will be whether the test is still in teh milliwatt/watt range. If so, then it will have no crediblity really, not after such a fanfare. If we are talking hundreds of watts or kilowatts, that will be much better.

  • Daniel Maris

    I think what we are looking for is a sizeable generator regarding which there is no ambiguity about the energy gain and which can clearly be linked up with other generators to create MegaWatt output.

  • Steve R

    I have no idea whether Blacklight will mount a convincing demonstration — but I didn’t find their patent application very encouraging. It’s a rather long read (if I were a patent examiner I might have problems with the length alone, not to mention all the extraneous background and rehashes) and by itself a confusing document doesn’t prove or disprove they can produce useful energy. But to me it is hardly indicative of a company that can think clearly, knows the legal and business framework or can distinguish between what they want to say and what the intended audience needs and/or wants to hear.
    Of course, I don’t even play a patent attorney on TV, so I could be wrong about this. But like other LENR-related patent applications I’ve read, Blacklight seems to be rather hazy on two foundational aspects of patents: you can’t patent the underlying ‘law of nature’ (even if you discover it first and no matter how much theory your provide), and you can’t patent the applications of your invention that would be obvious to the skilled practitioner of the art — once you say you have an engine that replaces an internal combustion engine and detail how to build that engine, you can’t then separately claim every possible application of engines (i.e, they claim applying this to lawnmowers, among many others). Similarly, if you put explicit numbers (i.e, “a current of 4,000A”) in your claims without some reason those numbers alone will work, you’d have a hard time alleging infringement against someone who used a slightly different value (i.e,, 5000A).
    I do think it’s unfortunate the Patent Office in the U.S. seems unreceptive to LENR-related applications. But if I had to wade through this, I might end up with a negative prejudice as well.

  • Wholewitt

    From the press release:
    BlackLight has developed a system engineering design of an electric generator that is closed except for the addition of H2O fuel and generates ten million watts of electricity, enough to power ten thousand homes. Remarkably, the device is less than a cubic foot in volume.

    Really? I would not believe this in a million years. I would call this kind of power density a nuclear bomb. I suppose the generators are another cubic foot.

    • Veblin

      Your concern about the size of the generator comes from your great knowledge of magnetohydrodynamic energy converters using superconducting magnets?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator

      From the press release:
      The power is in the form of plasma, a supersonic expanding gaseous ionized physical state of the fuel comprising essentially positive ions and free electrons that can be converted directly to electricity using highly efficient magnetohydrodynamic converters.

    • Charles Hansen

      “developed a system engineering *design* of an electric generator”

      boo… sounds like they just have a bunch of papers about it and no prototype.

  • Veblin

    Your concern about the size of the generator comes from your great knowledge of magnetohydrodynamic energy converters using superconducting magnets?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator

    From the press release:
    The power is in the form of plasma, a supersonic expanding gaseous ionized physical state of the fuel comprising essentially positive ions and free electrons that can be converted directly to electricity using highly efficient magnetohydrodynamic converters.

  • LB

    If the power levels and the claim of continous operation are correct we expect to see something like this ?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpPlkzXYiCE
    From the demonstration they promise this month.

    • Veblin

      Why would you expect a large blow off of steam? There is no steam involved.
      Maybe something closer to a pre-industrial version of what is shown in this animated video.
      http://www.blacklightpower.com/10-mw-generator/

      • SteveW

        The power output has to be put into some kind of load and for demonstration purposes, producing steam would be both dramatic and quantitative. Safety issues though may preclude it.

        • Veblin

          Maybe they have an arrangement to feed power to the electric grid. If the power company meter shows it doing that, would it be less convincing than solar panels or wind turbines doing the same?

          • jousterusa

            I’m hoping they’ll demonstrate electric power, perhaps by shutting off the grid and firing up their box…

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If Mills’ hydrinos were able to penetrate into the nuclei of heavier elements, they could produce instable isotopes. In this case, they wouldn’t be as harmless as has been claimed. Think, for instance, what would happen if they were inhaled. I suspect that BLP could get problems with the safety certification of their devices.

    • We should stick to observation.
      Many LENR experiment were conducted, many ways, and many tried to find radioactivity in any form, or at least checked radiations for their safety…
      They could not find something noticeable and dangerous, despite much heat…

      If Hydrino produce high radioactivity, hydrino is wrong…

  • Fortyniner

    If hydrinos are real, then there would be no ‘halfway house’ – an atom would be either in the hydrogen state or the hydrino state. In the hydrino state I don’t think that chemical bonding would be possible as valence depends on the involvement of a ground state electron in an outer ‘shell’. Possibly hydrinos would not exist in the diatomic (molecular) state either, although BLP seem to suggest that they might.

    If this state was reversible, the same relatively large quantity of energy that was released would have to be returned in one go. An intense electrical discharge such as a lightning bolt might provide suitable conditions, or perhaps impact with a high energy photon, but ‘hydrinos’ would not ‘suck up’ energy piecemeal.

  • Veblin

    Why would you expect a large blow off of steam? There is no steam involved.
    Maybe something closer to a pre-industrial version of what is shown in this animated video.
    http://www.blacklightpower.com/trialgraphix-video/

    • SteveW

      The power output has to be put into some kind of load and for demonstration purposes, producing steam would be both dramatic and quantitative. Safety issues though may preclude it.

      • Veblin

        Maybe they have an arrangement to feed power to the electric grid. If the power company meter shows it doing that, would it be less convincing than solar panels or wind turbines doing the same?

        • jousterusa

          I’m hoping they’ll demonstrate electric power, perhaps by shutting off the grid and firing up their box…

  • catbauer24

    “developed a system engineering *design* of an electric generator”

    boo… sounds like they just have a bunch of papers about it and no prototype.