Pages

June 18, 2008

What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?


Top view of the apparatus [Blacklight power is using] for scattering an electron beam from a crossed atomic or molecular beam and measuring the fifth-force deflected beam. NOTE: this is not the generator but a device for testing some of the science behind it.

Dec 11, 2008 UPDATE: Blacklight Power has signed its first commercial deal.

UPDATES: Rowan University has recently published independent validation of the Blacklight Power claims. Rowan university generated a megajoule of power beyond normal chemical reactions. Prof Jansson of Rowan University who did the work has a B.S. from MIT and Ph.D. from Cambridge.

Venture Beat has investigated the Rowan University validation.

A Phd chemist blogger is investigating as well.


MORE UPDATE: Further Rowan University confirmation has been published
END UPDATE

Blacklight Power, a company with $60 million in funding from respected funding sources, claims to have built a 50 kw prototype power generation device.[this link is to a prior article with a picture of the generator] They claim that the device will generate power at ten times less cost than the cheapest coal, wind and nuclear power now. They are expecting to have built a factory for mass producing power generation devices in 2009 and to scale the system up to 3MW or more and down to smaller power levels. However, even more important than solving all energy problems would be that Blacklight power could then be right about Hydrinos and a fifth physical force and a possible grand theory including gravity. Their power system can be 137 times more powerful than traditional chemistry. A better power system would help many space applications and they also discuss a better ion propulsion drive. The claims are fantastic but they are looking to put out purchasable and useful systems next year.

The fifth-force acceleration based on this estimate is over twelve orders of magnitude greater. As one application, even a micro fifth-force device has great promise as a replacement for micro-ion-thrusters for maintaining the orbits of satellites.

Hydrinos are hydrogen atoms with the electrons in a theoretical lower energy state which allows 100 times more power to be generated than typical hydrogen chemistry.

They are claiming that quantum levels are not integers but that fractional subquantum levels are possible from (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/137)

They claim that Li and NaH are catalysts for achieving these subquantum level states for hydrogen. H2 (1/p) is claimed to be stable and lighter than air and cannot accumulate in the earth's atmosphere.



Power generation with Blacklight power system

When the hydrino is created through a reaction between hydrogen and a catalyst, according to Mills, it lets go of more than enough energy to fuel electrolysis in common water, thus producing more hydrogen. The excess energy — the majority — would go to producing electricity. The only outside ingredients needed are a catalyst, to turn the hydrogen to hydrinos, and heat (which would also be generated once the reaction had started). And the hydrinos created by the process? They’re non-reactive and can be released to float up into space, as they’re lighter than helium. Or, even better, they can be processed into unique chemicals with a range of useful applications.



Schematic of the fifth force test system

UPDATE:
For clarification, the ideas and new physics/chemistry proposed by the Blacklight people goes against current science. The highly regarded living and dead scientists (including nobel prize winners) would have to be wrong in regards to the areas of physics and chemistry effected by the Blacklight/Hydrinos/Nwe physics theories and experiments (IF Blacklight Power is right which is a series of huge IFs).

It would take a series of improbable events for Blacklight to be totally right. The device could partially work but for reasons other than the new physics and chemistry that they propose.

Chemistry that is one hundred times more powerful would have a massive effect.
New physics (especially if what was a correct Grand Unified theory) would also be huge.
New power sources.

All of the claimants in these areas have always been wrong except for Einstein, Newton and a few other instances where fundamental science changed.


52 comments:

Barba Rija said...

gw, I understand that you like to be amazed at the novelty of things, but to give credit to an invention that tries to redefine physics in order to succeed to give an "infinite" (it always is) amount of power, your BS detector should just give you a red alert.

Is your spam detector that naive?

Snake Oil Baron said...

It aggravates my chronic skepticitis.

Matthew said...

a cheap source of power, combined with vertical farming, makes it possible to live more independently.

They have a software package which simulates chemical reactions. If it works so well, why hasn't anyone noticed? Or is it not all that different from other packages using quantum mechanics? Somethings amiss here. A very efficient package for predicting chemical bonds and structure is an obvious sign they have something but i can't find anyone talking about it on google.

al fin said...

The proof is in the pudding. The company has set its goals in a short enough timespan so that we will soon know whether they are just trolling for investors, or if they actually do have something new.

Brian isn't vouching for the technology or science. He is only letting us know what the company is doing and what its claims are. You can do what you want with the information.

bw said...

I agree that there is a lot to doubt about Blacklight power (thus the "WHAT IF" in the title), but they are fully funded so we will see what is produced in 2009 and 2010. Either the devices and their science will work or they won't.

We will find out on the dime of First Boston and the other funders.
$10 million from electric utilities Conectiv and PacifiCorp. unnamed hedge funds.

If it does not work then the shareholders and limited partners for those companies can take action that they feel appropriate. They are big boys who can afford lawyers.

I am not putting money into it, but I want to see tech development risks taken even if it means ridicule for the developers or spectacular failures.

This does not look like a long term scam because the developers have set up a timeframe to deliver in 2 years which they could only semi-credibly delay for 2 more years after that.

Belief is not necessary. It is just wait until they deliver and see. This is just to have things inspected to see what it means if they win the scientific lottery and are right.

Dezakin said...

What if Santa Claus poisoned the worlds water supply?

bw said...

As Al fin said. this information is just being presented. Belief is left open. If I believed it or had confidence in it then I would be working into the future predictions.

Dezakin: If someone called Santa Claus was threatening to poison a lot of water supply starting in 2009 and had $60 million worth of backing to achieve his goals and had a few barrels of what was claimed to be toxin (and was making a factory to produce thousands of barrels of toxin per year), then I think it would be worth reporting that those claims were being made and it would be worthwhile for authorities to investigate the maker of those claims.

bw said...

As Al fin said. this information is just being presented. Belief is left open. If I believed it or had confidence in it then I would be working into the future predictions.

Dezakin: If someone called Santa Claus was threatening to poison a lot of water supply starting in 2009 and had $60 million worth of backing to achieve his goals and had a few barrels of what was claimed to be toxin (and was making a factory to produce thousands of barrels of toxin per year), then I think it would be worth reporting that those claims were being made and it would be worthwhile for authorities to investigate the maker of those claims.

bw said...

The fantastical claims about revising commonly accepted physics in making the toxin would reduce credibility, but each of the claims would need to be examined separately. Certainly if 2009 came around and the things were produced which met the first claims (power generation and low cost) then there would be more urgency to investigate the proposed new physics.

Strling Westrup said...

This is sheer nonsense. Mills is explicitly saying that Quantum Mechanics, the most rigorously tested theory in all of science is flat out wrong.

For him to be right, the last 30 years of experiments would have to have all been falsified.

The chances are MUCH higher that little green men will arrive tomorrow and give us advanced alien energy technology. Why not write about them instead?

John said...

It's very dangerous to let the mainstream scientific establishment dictate what should be funded, when they admit themselves that they don't fully understand everything about the universe.

Of course the mainstream is going to be skeptical of anything that is not mainstream. That doesn't mean they are right though, or that the public and gov't/private investors need to toe the line for them and support whatever they say.

Consensus and peer review has its merits, but there are faults also. But I guess a billion Chinese can't be wrong, eh?

bw said...

Given the amount of testing and work that the Blacklight power guys are doing if their device does work then it would be a collision course for the science as well where only currently accepted theory on a major part of current quantum theory is right or these guys are right.

Mercy Vetsel said...

I really, really love the site, so I hate to always post complaints, BUT this is a well-known, long-running scam.

Go to the web archive and look at their website from say :

LP's electrolytic cells have produced 30-1000% excess power or greater for extended periods of time; some have been in operation for more than 1 year. The prototype cells created by BLP produce thermal energy immediately, continuously and consistently.

Wow! Did they say PROTOTYPE?!?! It's all there back in 1999, the evil physics community, a working prototype, major investors, the cusp of a revolution, the excitement, the feeling of "what if?....."

That was NINE years ago. The Moller Skycar has been right around the corner for 30 years and that doesn't violate modern physics.

Anyone want to bet what the BLP website looks like in 2017?

-Mercy

phaik said...

Strling Westrup,

huh... I would have thought gravity to be the rigorously tested theory in all of science.

I'm no scientist, but I test the hell out of gravity every day.

bw said...

The difference between 1999 and now is that in 1999 there is no 50kw generator or the claim that production would start the next year.

Stephen said...

Remember it once was a scientific believe that the world was flat. Things change and knowledge is discovered.

Joffan said...

"The earth is flat" is a good local approximation, when you're building houses for example. You can rely on the earth's gravity field to give you parallel verticals to the precision required over a relatively large site.

That approximation was succeeded by a more powerful description that holds true on more scales - describing the earth as a sphere was sufficient precision for ocean navigation, for example - but the original description is still (tacitly) in use where appropriate. Like Newton's laws of motion - superceded (by relativity) but still useful.

This hydrino concept does not work as a refinement of existing knowledge, as far as I can tell, so is much less likely to be correct. If Blacklight happens to truly generate power, my betting would be that is was due to a lucky chance utilitization of an unknown/untapped effect that IS consistent with existing knowledge, rather than the intended effect. But my expectation is strongly that it will be a bust, and any power apparently "generated" will be an implicit recapture of some of the power expended during device construction/operation.

J. Paige said...

I don't trust or understand Mills' explanationfor his phenomena, but I am intrigued that he has attracted large dollars. Doesn't it seem likely that some of the investors would have demanded a demonstration before releasing millions to Black Light?

Oops, I forgot, those bankers were formerly subprime mortgage lenders.

But maybe the investors were competent and duly diligent? For this reason alone I am very interested in following their story!

JP Straley

likmybike said...

So it's been 3 weeks since the press release and the 50kW plant went online. More than enough time to verify it's functionality one would think. I'm a skeptic by nature but I want to believe that something new has been discovered here. Given the potential for this technology why aren't more media hounds sniffing around Cranbury NJ?

Mercy Vetsel said...

Oh, now they claim to have a 50kw prototype. That's better than the working prototype they had in 1999 because....it's bigger? Want to bet $100 that if I dig through the web archive that won't find a similar claim that expired 5 years ago?

Why is it so freakin' hard to demonstrate that you've producing net positive energy for about 10 years? Right. Because they know it works, so they don't need to prove anything, except to file lawsuits against the scientists who dispute their published nonsense.

That's why they've been sitting for a DECADE on a working prototypes of an invention that would be worth $100 billion. Apparently you true believers didn't get suckered into false hopes for future tech scams when you were a kid (no flying car enthusiasts?). This puppy has all of the flags of a giant fraud.

In addition to the obvious fraud flags (prototype is perpetually one year out, lack of independent verification, similar claims made in the past, inexplicable secrecy, focus directed to "imagine if this is true" not "IS this true"), here's another one. When a presentation for the general public is stuffed full of obviously incomprehensible equations that's a sure sign you're being snookered.

Now you can appeal to the inverse Pascal's wager and insist that every time some quack makes infinitely good claims we have to pursue it simply because the rewards are infinite.

The only problem with that approach is that we'll miss out on the next big future that's for real, namely 95% of the stuff which BW admirably brings to our attention each day.

Mills is either a quack and a fraud or an honest man acting like a quack and a fraud.

-Mercy

Mercy Vetsel said...

Santa Claus,

Here's a closer analogy:

I CLAIM to have $60 million in funding which I claim to have received from the easy-money billionaires and corporate welfare queens funding Barrack Obama, but the source of the funds is not independently confirmed.

I'm developing an armageddon device based on my own version of physics that is 1000 times more powerful than the largest H-bomb. If I were to set it off in my lab in New Jersey, it would destroy the entire northeastern U.S.

Okay, so maybe this interest in explosive devices warrants a visit from the FBI, but how much time would you all sit around speculating "what if" the entire north-eastern U.S. were destroyed by a superbomb built based on physics that contradicts 80 years of quantum mechanics.

-Mercy

Enemy of Dreamers said...

I second mercy's opinion.

How hard is it to determine net power on a device you don't understand?

Ok, now how hard is it to demonstrate net power?

Like I said BW something very fishy is going on here.

optionsgeek said...

I've been following BLP for some years now. I'm reasonably skeptical, but at the same time I am unable to turn away completely. Here's my take:

1. Mills' math does tie out when calculating bond energy, bond angle, and other molecular properties. He has an accurate closed form solution for these values that heretofore have required inelegant workarounds when using standard QM. I've run the numbers myself and compared to experimental values in standard texts.

2. According to him, the process only occurs under rare and difficult to master circumstances. The recent claim of a solid fuel is apparently a major breakthrough and it's lack has been what has prevented progress for these many years.

3. The parts of QM that he claims are broken aren't really all that well-tested after all. Heisenberg Uncertainty principal (c'mon who among us went "Wow, cool." when we first were taught this particular gem?) and the Schrodinger probabilty distribution of the electron are the two biggies. I for one would jump for joy if it turned out that all that "spooky action at a distance" stuff was dispelled once and for all.

4. I have a really hard time understanding how the solar corona can be three orders of magnitude hotter than the surface of the sun without some having some source of its own energy. I'm a big proponent of the second law of thermodynamics - the heat just can't go from the colder sun to the hotter corona on it's own. There's something pretty important going on in hydrogen that we don't understand.

5. At the same time, I have an equally hard time understanding why BLP has proceeded as it has. The lack of demonstrable progress besides mere press releases is very concerning.

All in, I think Mills is on to something, but I seriously doubt whether we'll see anything made public anytime soon. I have a feeling there are more roadblocks, such as the importance of a solid fuel, that we aren't being told about.

Stephen said...

VCs bet using expected values. If the potential outcome is huge and the investment is small, it can be OK if the probability is low.

That said, if the probability is zero, as it appears to be, then the expected value is zero. Let's say you've got $60m, and don't know physics. You could look to see if the principals have an exit strategy.

Stephen said...

The solar corona can be three orders of magnitude hotter than the surface of the sun due to magnetic fields. We've known they're there. It's just the details that have been such a bother. No laws have been broken, to my knowledge.

optionsgeek said...

Yes, I'm familiar with the standard theories that attempt to explain the corona's heat. None seem very satisfying, do they? Somehow magnetic fields can 'whipcrack' vast amounts of energy across much colder space and then release all that energy millions of miles away as fantasic amounts of heat? I suppose it may turn out to be true but so far the evidence doesn't really support this interpretation. And why would these fields somehow choose to skip the intervening space before they release their energy? We don't see that type of behavior anywhere else in nature.

Gregory said...

Wow. Some people are really heated about this issue.

What it comes down to is this:

A PALTRY $60 million has been invested into this technology by various people who are not you.

It does exactly zero harm to simply agree that someone may have discovered something amazing, and wait two years to see.

@Mercy: Just calm down. No one disagrees that the thing could be a complete fraud. But no one here paid $60 million for it, either, so they have nothing to lose by watching and letting their minds remain open to possibilities. And even the investors themselves have very little to lose. A few million here or there is nothing to them.

bw said...

As gregory noted, the wealthy could instead just buy some nice mansion(s) or three trips to the space station on Russian rockets.

Or 30 really big parties Dennis Kozlowski style.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dennis-kozlowski?cat=biz-fin


Kozlowski used Tyco money to furnish his New York apartment and $5 million Nantucket home with a $6,000 shower curtain, a $15,000 antique poodle umbrella stand, a $2,200 gilded wastebasket, and $2,900 in coat hangers. Above all, there was a videotape of Kozlowski's weeklong party for his wife's 40th birthday on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. It cost $2.1 million, including $250,000 to Jimmy Buffett for a one-hour performance. A Tyco event planner—and former Kozlowski mistress—charged over $1 million of the tab to Tyco for a management meeting.

Or 11,000 hours of Elliot Spitzer hookers.

sandalwood83 said...

IF it's true that this thing works it needs to be forbidden as fast as possible, or at least become heavily regulated.

Traditional forms of energy production (yeah, i know energy doesn't get "produced") take part in some kind of cycle. Even though they might throw the local (earth's) ecosystem out of balance no (or at least little - normal hydrogen and helium are also quite volatile i guess) resources (elements/matter) are irrecoverably lost, beside regular Atmospheric escape.

...but by using this device we would either volley our most important resource (water) into space or need ways to convert hydrinos back into normal hydrogen (same as the original energy problem, because we would need the same energy that has been won by the original conversion + the energy due to lossiness in the reconversion process). The first option would probably be one of the best examples for pure (practical) stupidity. It's a definite nono.

Water is abundant now but this might change over time and i wonder how cheap this energy stays when incorporating the last two arguments (space faring hydrinos and reconversion) and what it's impact on the environement would actually be.

My personal opinion is that this would be one of the most damaging energy sources to the environement, in the sense of completely breaking "the cycle", by depleting it's most important catalyst (water). Independently of how much water would be needed for a certain amount of energy the fact that it could be irrecoverably lost and that it would amass over time is enough for a knockout argument. Also keep in mind, that if (in the beginning) this energy source would be cheaper the energy consumption would also rise so one must not use current consumption for calculating the impact on the environement but could only guess.

PS: There's a contradiction in this article but i don't know where it originated:
"They’re non-reactive and can be released to float up into space, as they’re lighter than helium. Or, even better, they can be processed into unique chemicals with a range of useful applications."
It can eiter be (completely) non-reactive or be processed into other chemicals. The first is imho impossible and therefore it would be absolutely irresponsible to release a virtually new element into the atmosphere (even though it is volatile - on the way upwards it might react with something and create non-volatile elements which would amass over time), as long as it has not been sufficiently studied.

optionsgeek said...

I think some perspective is in order. According to Mills, a 1-Gigawatt power plant running on his process would require about 1 liter of water per second. If true (a big if) one cubic mile of ocean water would power all human energy needs for the next 20,000 years.

Spencer said...

I've been following BLP for the same long nine years, and I have always wondered why they have never simply created a device that makes the academic argument about whether it works irrelevant. With the 50KW generator it should be easy to determine whether it's working or not right?

richie73 said...

Some of the skeptics here are essentially saying that Mills has to be wrong because his theory implies that established quantum physics is wrong, and we have no reason to believe that quantum physics is wrong.

We actually do. The field of LENR (Low-energy nuclear reactions) provides plenty of evidence of physical phenomena that are unexplained and unpredicted by conventional quantum physics. There is reproducible excess heat and nuclear transmutation in apparently electro-chemical systems.

An overview of the evidence can be found on newenergytimes.com.

Given the fact that well-documented and reproducible experiments exist that are completely unrelated to and independent of Mills and BP and behave in ways not predicted by standard quantum physics, there is no logical basis for the assertion that any challenge to standard quantum physics must automatically be baseless.

My personal feeling is that given the inability of standard quantum physics to explain low-energy nuclear reactions, it is likely that the latter is at least incomplete.

A second point I would like to make is that wrong theories CAN make correct predictions, and this goes both ways. Wrong theories can be approximations.

Mills' theory may be wrong, and yet correctly predict new phenomena that existing quantum physics has not predicted. Conversely, existing quantum physics may be ultimately wrong, but a very good approximation to physical reality nonetheless.

A third and final point is that it is not unusual for a technology company to spend 10 years in basic R&D. Turning even a conventional scientific idea into a working product is not trivial. Setbacks and roadblocks are a normal part of new technology development. The fact that Mills has now been working on his technology for 10 years proves very little.

The only rational thing to do is to wait and see, and to suspend judgement until there is either a product, or whoever is paying the bills for BP pulls the plug.

Joseph said...

My instinct is that it is not real but man if it was-- the hydrinos could be a non-reactive lifting gas lighter than helium. If light as hydrogen they would float up to space at say 45 mph or so, very quickly.
Even with massive energy use, we save the hydrinos and get floating cities houses etc
Helium I think is about $7 a cubic meter and way too expensive for personal use (unless you're Steve Fosset) in quantities needed for transportation.
But if hydrinos were a nonreactive, safe waste product, the power plants could sell kilometer-sphere blimp fulls (at hydrogen density maybe 70 kt) with around 1.22 million tons of lift-- enough for incredible uses.

Joseph Friedlander

Cyril Gupta said...

At a certain point of time the common 'tested' theory was that the world is flat, and when someone dared to say it wasn't, stakes were set up.

I am not saying that blacklight power is for real, or that it isn't. What I am saying is that much of our 'science' should be taken with a grain of salt. After all how much of nature are we really able to explain?

I think we need a healthy dose of perspective about our own state of development. Considering that most of the science we have has been developed in the last 2000 years, I feel there's a LONG way to go.

Let's not suspend disbelief, let's not discard anything. Who knows how much of REAL science has been lost thanks to the skeptics?

optionsgeek said...

Assuming that hydrino theory is real (again, a big if), I doubt they will become a cheap replacement for helium in balloon aviation. According to Mills, di-hydrino gas is difficult to contain and rapidly escapes into space. If hydrinos exist, they will almost certainly not be a candidate for lighter than air travel. However, Mills has claimed that hydrinos can be coaxed into generating a strong anti-gravity effect. Real sci-fi type stuff. See http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/F%5E2%20102307web3.pdf

Jeremiah said...

The concept of a "flat earth consensus" is a pernicious myth.

The Myth of the Flat Earth
with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.

Jeremiah said...

Sandalwood, rather than screaming alarmist FUD, let's run the numbers.

Using optionsgeek's quoted figure of 1 liter of water per second / GW, here is the rundown on water consumption.

2007 global primary energy consumption: 11099.3 million tonnes oil equivalent (48.8 PWh = 4.88 x 10^13 KWh)
One million tonnes of oil produces about 4400 gigawatt-hours (=4.4 terawatt hours) of electricity in a modern power station.

That is equivalent to a global generator capacity of 5.6 TW.

At current energy consumption, that would equal water consumption of 180 trillion liters per year.

The world's oceans contain ~1.3 x 10^9 km^3 of water. That is 1.3 x 10^21 liters.

If our energy consumption grew to 1000x its current rate, it would take 70,000 years to consume one percent of the water in the oceans.

Primary energy | Statistical Review 2008
Volume of Earth's Oceans

Tony said...

We all want to believe it for all the exciting possibilities it offers- but at the same time, we don't want to get burned for believing in an impossible dream. If Mills has something even remotely close to what he claims, he has to be careful and secretive. Even one rogue employee could sell him out and then he loses years of research and investment.

The fact that he keeps trying to patent a theory says a lot. If he tries to patent his device or process- he has to disclose a lot of the details which then would open the door to people finding ways around his patents to produce energy cheaply too.

Pure speculation on my part- but food for thought.

Old piano tuner said...

A principle that I have observed often is: If the new idea was valid, the established leaders will reject it because, if it was valid, they would have figured it out

Ashok said...

any update on this tech ?

bw said...

I had an article with some links to updated technical information The article also talks about the claims related to better molecular modeling and better lasers from hydrino tech.

A CNN article indicated that there are 20 prototypes of the 50 KW generator.

It still is boiling down to, check in 2009 for successful commercial product.

Ray The Money Man said...

Yes, I don't think so. Fun to check out though!


Fun post!

Thomas said...

I've been watching Blacklight for years. What's new is the claim of replication by a university. It's not just Blacklight's claim anymore. Rowan University is saying that it does work. Also, the former CEO of Westinghouse is on the Blacklight board. That's interesting company.

paul55566 said...

Quantum mechanics cant be wrong any more than Newtonian Physics can be wrong. Oh... Wait! Newton's Theory of orbital physics was proven wrong by Einstein, and only after years of skepticism and testing (He tried to get photos of an eclipse several times to prove his theory, and one group that did photograph an eclipse said they didn't see the stars behind the sun, thus Einstein was wrong... but here we are). Newtonian Physics was wrong, but it is still taught today because it is really really close. Maybe quantum mech, is wrong. We'll see. I'm not investing, and from what I see, Blacklight isn't asking me too. Now that's a refreshing change from most of those "power from water" types.

Nina said...

That's funny there is so much leaning to dismissing this as fraud or a scam, so little support to investigate new propositions, much more support to continue to spend money in the same old inefficient ways. 60 million now compares to 14 billion to make more energy-inefficient cars : ha ha this time around it IS our money that is asked for (taxpayer money). Wouldn't it be interesting to invest 1% of all bailout money in R&D of new clean technologies? You have to shoot to score.

philip said...

I want a flying car powered by Blacklight power and flying by Emdrive. http://www.emdrive.com/
Fly anywhere powered by water.

Its an exciting future if these two turn out to be true.

EliRabett said...

There is a rather simple chemical explanation for all this. It is well known (and published in 1955) that Raney nickel will explode when heated in vacuum.

In other words, merry Christmas, and there is no Santa Claus

froarty said...

the hydrino is real and Cal-Tech has the correct equation but radius did not achieve sub zero state. Casimir effect changes ratio of short to long vacuum flucuations we perceive as time.
see http://www.byzipp.com/energy/

Black Light, Cold Fusion, and some HHO anomalies are all unknowingly utilizing Casimir Cavities.
Method cited in a 5/8/2008 CalTech patent and description is proof enough of actual method at work. The cal-tech patent chose to use nano holes drilled in plates where BLP used skeletal catalysts to provide cavities. This means that Cold Fusion and HHO kits are about to go on steroids now that the theory is out of the bag, see my proposal below.
I propose that anomalous heat readings reported in failed cold fusion experiments are being generated by Casimir force. Instead of just pushing microscopic plates together and extinguishing the exclusion field, we utilize Casimir cavities where permanent exclusion fields exist because the plate geometry is fixed. This creates a "safe harbor" where longer vacuum fluctuations are restricted and the ratio of short to long fluctuations is different than normal. These cavities can be formed inadvertently thru chemical leaching of metals immersed in an electrolyte to form primitive skeletal catalysts some portion of which will meet Casimir geometry. These cavities allow gas atoms to relax their electrons into novel orientations only possible inside the Casimir exclusion field which will be lost when the atom exits the field. The SECRET to making these relaxed atoms into a hydrino molecule is that they must form a covalent bond while still inside this exclusion field. The covalent bond then preserves the novel electron orientations outside the field with one atom’s orbital leveraged against the others' through their molecular bond. When this new molecule exits the Casimir field the stream of normally chaotic vacuum fluctuations must align in an organized boundary of potential energy waiting to sweep these arrogant little electrons back down into their normal orientation of least resistance and contributing energy to the reaction that released the bond. If Casimir geometry gets smaller the exclusion field becomes stronger causing orientations that accumulate potential energy in excess of the covalent bonding force and immediately rips the hydrino apart releasing the potential energy as the "anomalous" heat readings under discussion.

sparky said...

Man, if this comes true how world changing would it be eh? Like other people have said science is only true until is is proven wrong.

qtimo said...

I find the picture on BLP's homepage (5/09/09) very telling.

q: What are they up to?

pot. a(s):
a) they are busy trying to prove something
b) education and training
or c) they are producing some substance under a cover

I'll choose c and check on the investments/investors.

David said...

It is interesting that 2 energy companies in New Mexican are licensing their technology. We will need to wait and see the result!

dobermanmacleod said...

Frankly, I find it hard to believe people are so dense as to not be able to evaluate this situation: either the people at Rowan University are committing fraud, or the BlackLight Process works.

Forget about the explanation of why it works, instead consider the likelihood that this is a giant conspiracy involving the staff at Rowan. Quit being cynical, and start being rational: it is over 95% likely that this isn't some big conspiracy.

"In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, "In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions."