Randy Booker Responds to Reader Questions about Brilliant Light Power Testing

Thanks to ECW reader Neil Ferguson for posting the following:


Because the report raised several questions in my mind, I e-mailed Professor Booker, asking him if he would answer any of them. He kindly responded, answering a couple that he was allowed to, given IP considerations. My e-mail follows. His response is at the end. [Also posted to reddit/BrilliantLightPower]

——- e-mail to Professor Booker, 1/25/20 ————
Professor Booker,

I along with numerous other observers of BLP activities are naturally very excited by tests whose results you have documented in “Report on the Power Output of Liquid Gallium Suncells at Brilliant Light Power”. (I attach a copy from the BLP website.) There are a couple of points I would ask you to clarify, subject, of course, to any contractual agreements with BLP. With your permission I will convey any responses you are kind enough to give me to groups such as [list of interest groups].

1. The report includes two abstracts that decisively assert remarkable performance of the BLP SunCell. “Brilliant Light Power has discovered a novel power source, the liquid gallium SunCell®, which produces a large excess of heat. These input power and output power numbers have been validated by me and are correct.” Firstly, because of the extraordinary test results, I wish to confirm that the abstract paragraphs in the report appear as written by you.

2. There is very limited information about the composition and quantity of gas fed to the reactor during the tests. “Fuel for the reaction was provided in the form of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas, which were supplied from tanks into an oxyhydrogen torch for optimal mixing. The resultant mixture was then piped into an external heated tube (~90 °C) containing granular platinum (Pt) catalyst supported on alumina to allow for spontaneous reaction into ~1% water vapor in atomic hydrogen that was flowed into the cell.” Can you tell us about what methods were used to measure the mass quantity of gas fed to the reactor and to analyze its composition?

3. Do you happen to have particular theoretical knowledge of the reaction of H2 and O2 involving the platinum catalyst? If so, could you tell us what can be expected to occur in such a reaction?

4. With respect to the input gas 1% water vapor, does that mean the gas was 1% water vapor and 99% hydrogen? Or would that be 99% hydrogen and/or gasses other than water vapor? For example, in previous information released by BLP, the bulk of gas in the reactors is inert (argon, I think.) Unless it touches on proprietary information, can you give us more details about the reactor’s gas fuel mixture?

5. BLP has announced successfully running their reaction for long durations, even extending for hours. The tests you report are short duration, under 5 seconds. The methodology for calorimetry of such relatively short reactions strikes me as rather delicate. Considering the extraordinary performance documented by your report, would you say that it is highly desirable to perform and publish well-calibrated and observed tests of much longer reactions?

I thank you for any feedback you are free to give us on any of the points above.
Neil Ferguson

—– response of Prof. Booker – 1/25/20 —-

Dear Neil,
I can vouch that this report is indeed written by me. The two Executive Summary “abstracts” were also written by me.
The gas flows were measured by gas flow meters. The reaction that takes place is a hydrino reaction, where hydrogen in the presence of HOH and Platinum (which are catalysts for the hydrino reaction) forms a hydrino state of smaller radius than Hydrogen with the release of large amounts of energy. The answers to your other questions involve proprietary information.
Dr. Randy Booker
Professor and Chair
Department of Physics & Astronomy
UNC Asheville
Asheville, NC