TESTING VALIDATES HYDRINO THEORY

BRADENTON, Fla., Dec. 18, 2010 -- A remarkable new energy source from fractional hydrogen will allow a gallon of ordinary water to become the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil, a team of physicists working near the onetime laboratories of Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein are saying.

"With further optimization," Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary of Rowan University in Glassboro, N.J., says, "there is no doubt that this technology will present an economically viable and environmentally benign alternate to meet global energy needs. If advanced to commercialization, it would be one of the most profound developments ever.”

The method of electricity production allows the fuel to reproduce itself by diverting part of the energy output to a catalyst that is then regenerated so fuel is only needed once. Using the process, about 10 100-watt bulbs could be lit 24 hours a day for a penny.

Hydrogen atoms of water can release an enormous amount of energy. Now BlackLight is promising an engine technology aimed at driving a car 5,000 miles on a gallon of water.

And if solar flares over the next 10 years have the power to blackout thousands of homes, as the National Oceanography and Atmospheric Administration has warned, the distributed power of the new cells could keep America lit up.

A working model is promised for 2011. Until it appears and independent laboratories confirm BlackLight's claims, most scientists will not accept such unorthodox technology, especially if it is based on classical rather than quantum physics. BlackLight's research has also been hampered in the past by its close ties to Rowan University, where several of its engineers have worked.

But the greater problem for BlackLight may be the oil companies and conventional utilities that will be displaced, if not destroyed, by hydrino technology. Even though the cells as described would collectively save homeowners and manufacturers trillions in electricity costs and generate many millions of jobs, it is also thought to be the target of a concerted foreign industrial espionage campaign.

The company, which has never tried to go public, keeps a low profile and has mounted a remarkably mundane website full of small type and dense physics with little appeal to readers. Even the weekly Cranbury Press has no mention of the company in its search database, yet there are thousands of search results on Google.

Ironically, the BlackLight Power facilities are located in Cranbury, N.J., a small town 8 miles from the Princeton University labs where Albert Einstein once toiled and 37 miles from the West Orange, N.J., laboratories of Thomas Edison.

"We have demonstrated the ability to produce electrical power using chemical systems for the direct production of electric power from the conversion of hydrogen to hydrinos, a more stable form of hydrogen,” said Dr. Randell Mills, chairman, CEO and president of BlackLight Power.

Working with a team headed by Dr. Alexander Bykanov at Harvard's Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics under contract with GEN3 Partners, the device showed hydrogen spectral emissions below 80 nanometers, the previously known "ground state" of hydrogen. Scientists formerly believed there could be no parts of the hydrogen atom smaller than the atom itself.

"This is decisive evidence of the existence of hydrinos as Dr. Randell Mills theoretically predicted," the BlackLight Power press release said. Hydrinos are a fractional element of hydrogen that skeptics in the world of quantum physics previously said could not exist.

“This is smoking-gun evidence of the existence of hydrinos," Dr. Mills said. "The light signature observed is from pure hydrogen and exists at a much higher energy level than deemed possible for this element in any known form.”

In a joint statement, Dr. Bykanov and Dr. Sam Kogan, chief operating officer of Boston-based GEN3 Partners, a company that evaluates new technologies and helps bring them to market, said "[BlackLight Power's] spectral results were identically [and] independently reproduced, and we could find no conventional explanation for the emission of bright light from hydrogen in this very high energy region. We believe that this confirms hydrino emission.”

Acceptance of Mills' ideas is largely the product of a battle between Einstein's old-fashioned "classical" physics and the newfangled "quantum" ideas of physicists like the late Richard Feynman.

One critic has been Stephen Chu, the Chinese-American physicist who was won the Nobel Prize and later became President Obama's Secretary of Energy. Chu urged investors to avoid BlackLight Power in 1999, saying he "felt sorry" for them. As many as seven Chinese-American physicists have co-authored some of the more than 80 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published by and about Mills and his work, however. Mills could not be reached for comment on this article. His corporate public relations firm, the giant Hill & Knowlton, has not responded to emails in the past, and a Hill & Knowlton spokesperson, Milly Coleman, had her calls forwarded to voicemail Friday.

The company published its latest findings in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen, and issued the news release Nov. 29 about the new power source, a system they call Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition, or CIHT, that produces electricity directly. Others seeking a more palatable name have called it "Electricity from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits,” or ECHO.

The company, funded with $70 million in investments by three large venture capital firms, says the technology allows an electric car, the size and weight of a Prius and costing about $9,000 to build, to travel more than 5,000 miles on a gallon of water. No combustion engine is required. A former chief of staff of the United States Air Force and a former CEO of Westinghouse Corp. have at various times sat on the company's board.

At least five American utilities, a Washington, D.C., energy broker and multinational firms in Italy and Holland are hoping to deploy the hydrino generators to produce an amount of electricity equivalent to that needed to run 1 million American homes - for as little as one cent per kilowatt.

An expanded team of scientists and engineers at Rowan University say they completed a thorough year-long series of additional testing of the thermal systems following the announcement and release of earlier validations, performed in October 2008 and August 2009. Using BLP’s proprietary solid-fuel chemistry, which is capable of continuous regeneration, they independently formulated and tested fuels that they found could generate on-demand energy greater than that of combustion but at the far lower power levels of kilowatts.

"When using BLP's chemical process, Rowan professors reported a net energy gain of up to 6.5 times the maximum energy potential of these materials from known chemical reactions," the release said. The Rowan team included Dr. Ramanujachary, who is Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, assistant professor of chemistry Dr. Amos Mugweru, professor of engineering Dr. John L. Schmalzel, P.E., and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., asssociate professor of engineering at Rowan.

"In additional independent tests conducted over the last 12 months, involving 13 solid fuel mixtures made by us from commercially-available chemicals and confirmed by multiple analyses, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.3 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions,” Dr. Ramanujachary said

Compared to thermal-based systems, Mills says, "[CIHT] produces electricity without requiring enormous thermally-driven mechanical generators." The power units would be distributed to individual homes, where they could power not just the home home but a neighborhood. The small unit in the car could even be hooked up to the house to power it.

Rather than relying on a giant utility, the units would make each home and neighborhood autonomous - "off the grid," as green energy activists like to say. That will make adoption of the units a quicker process, Mills says.

"Consequently, more rapid dissemination is expected by deploying many autonomous distributed units that circumvent the huge barriers of entry into the power markets such as developing and building massive billion-dollar power plants with their associated power distribution infrastructure," Mills said. "This is especially true in emerging markets.”

BlackLight Power focuses on using CIHT units to produce power to ultimately sell directly to consumers under power purchase agreements.

"The business plan is akin to that of solar leasing, but the costs are potentially vastly cheaper, and the systems may be deployable for essentially all applications of all scales untethered to the Sun or the grid, or as in the case of fuel cells and cars, a fuel supply," Dr. Mills said.

"To realize how transformational this technology will be, imagine that an electric car can travel over 5,000 miles on the hydrogen energy from a gallon of water without any pollution whatsoever. The power source can then be lifted out and plugged into your electrical panel to power your home with enough power to spare to also power your neighborhood,” Mills added.

Some of those hoping to exploit the new technology are already thinking ahead. "BLP’s breakthrough CIHT technology will allow us to become a major green-power producer for the DC metro area while enabling dramatic savings and unheard of independence," said John E. Akridge III, chairman and owner of Washington, D.C.,-based Akridge Energy.

"It is ideal for our needs across the full spectrum of our applications: powering apartment complexes, commercial offices, retail outlets, and mixed-use projects.” Akridge said. His firm, a BlackLight Power licensee that owns numerous buildings in Washinton, D.C., "intends to deploy distributed-scale CIHT electric power units at commercial real estate properties, sell electricity to its tenants and eventually into the local electric grid," he said.

At Rowan University, where much of the validation of the technology was done, the chairman of the college's physics department is emphatic about the process.

"The chemicals used in CIHT technology, similar to those used in thermal and chemical cells, were separately, thoroughly and diligently validated over the past three years by a team at Rowan University that included myself," Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary said. "Since the measurements on CIHT are electrical versus calorimetric, there can be no dispute over the power and the energy balance," he said.

AR Correspondent Joe Shea can be reached at amreporter @ aol.com. Mark Goldes contributed additional reporting on solar flares.

Yes it is asking them to prove their theory, it is not unfait to ask for proof when someone makes a claim.
***Then where is the hot-fusion powered car we can expect if we follow your line of reasoning?

As I said if you are so naive to belive this BS Hydrino crap without proof, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
***You aren’t very good at inductive reasoning. Rarely does inductive reasoning generate proof. Never attack a 3 headed dog with a 2-pronged pitchfork. I’m glad I’m welcome to my opinion, you are so kind to allow that for me. And my opinion is that you couldn’t debate a bobble head doll when it comes to inductive subjects.

Personally, I will wait until there is a car on the road actually using water, or power plants producing electricity by using ocean water for fuel.
***There you go again. In the meantime, $Billions is spent on hot fusion projects which have given us nothing, due to reasoning which proceeds along the same paths you trod. That money would be better spent on projects which have yielded a thousand times more Megajoules. But such a position is conservative, and I wouldn’t expect that from you on a conservative website.

Until then, this crap, and it is crap being used to obtain grant money and nothing else, is just that: Crap.
***Your reasoning is just that: Crap. The $Billion Tokomak reactors and other research is all the same crap. We might as well spread the crap where it will grow something useful.

I can understand your skepticism, if not the rhetorical exuberance of your reply. Rather than plunge into a lengthy rebuttal, allow me to simply commend to your attention the following essay, -

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf

- which efficiently presents my position from a scientific perspective.

Happy holidays to you and yours.

You are basing your skepticism upon the “word of many physicists who have looked at Mill’s work and declared there are gaping holes in his math and conclusions”. Fair enough. The skeptics might indeed be correct in their assessment that hydrino technology is a false path. But that is not my point. My previous post was not a statement of belief in hydrino technology, but a vote in favor of open and objective scientific inquiry of such topics to a definitive conclusion. History shows that almost all steps taken beyond the scientific status quo have been met by wide skepticism. Sometimes the skeptics are right; on other occasions, they have been proven dramatically wrong. Apart from serendipitous accidents, most important scientific advances have been achieved by inquisitive minds leaving the comfort of conventional and well understood science and making forays into uncharted regions. Risk certainly attends any such venture, but it is also undeniably true that science has never been advanced by confining minds to comfortable and accepted principles.

I hope this clarifies my position a bit better.

Happy holidays to you and yours.

>> Sounds like another energy hoax.... like cold fusion.
> ***If you feel strongly about it then put your money where your mouth is, and take my money. I set up contracts at Intrade to trade on whether Dr. Yoshiaki Arata’s experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed journal and I made money on them, not through some smoke & mirrors hoax but through simple peer reviewed scientific method. But I have found that snipers like you don’t usually put their money where their mouth is — all talk, from afar, no action.

I don’t waste time or money on junk science.
As for peer review, I rely on my experience and degrees in chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and physics to tell me what is junk science or not. This is junk science. If you made money on this, then you are good at seeing a business opportunity and your business opportunity is based on lots of people not understanding the reality but being dazzled by the light show.

imho if you could convert Na+ to Na in the presence of H20 efficiently, you’d get an exothermic reaction which would include the makings of an internal combustion engine.

How would you do that? If you bombard H20 in solution with Na+ in solution at a frequency of 13.6 or the NMR of Oxygen—the H20 will break up. But the reaction is not exothermic.

However, if you bombarded the H20 and the Na+ with radio waves at the NMR of sodium Na— you might well be able to force the Na+ to collect an extra electron, change its valence to Na and explode in the presence of H20. And after the explosion the Na would revert to Na-. So the whole procedure could be repeated.

you’d have the combustion part of an internal combustion engine with a really cheap fuel.

BlackLight has had its supporters at FreeRepublic for about 10 years. Maybe more.

I’ve seen them making the same fabulous claims over and over again.

Each year the proof is just around the corner. But they are hampered by so many doubters.

If their stuff were on the mark — the list of supporters would grow.

Year after year the number of BlackLight supporters does not grow.

Heck even the number of cold fusion supporters seems to grow every year. So that tells you something.

I don’t waste time or money on junk science.
***And yet, you spend enough time to seagull on this thread.

As for peer review, I rely on my experience and degrees in chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and physics to tell me what is junk science or not.
***What a whimsical approach. The rest of the world relies upon peer review because they don’t have all those degrees, and even when they do have the degrees, they rely on peer review. You’re some kinda elitist, aincha? And how exactly are we supposed to know that you do have these degrees, since this is a primarily anonymous forum? We’re supposed to stack your anonymous, whimsical approach & degrees up against guys with PhD’s and peer reviewed literature available to everyone to examine and refute? I call bull shiite. Free Republic deserves more than that. And even if you DO have those degrees, you do all of us freepers a tremendous disservice by not using your knowledge and expertise to conclusively deal this information the decisive blow. Yeah, your lazy kind of science doesn’t work so well. But I’m glad you got enough paper to get a comfy job. People in positions like yours who have the ability but withhold it are basically
selfish and give science a bad name. No wonder there is so much seeking for some other answers other than what you arrogant, lazy bones elitists are generating.

This is junk science.
***Then it should be SO easy for someone with SO many degrees as you have, to refute it. If it ain’t so easy to refute, then maybe it’s just “pathological” science. What are you doing to refute it, with science rather than sniping anonymously? And if they keep producing evidence in the same manner that the tectonic plate theory was vindicated, maybe jerkwad lazy-bone scientists will end up saying it was science after all.

If you made money on this, then you are good at seeing a business opportunity and your business opportunity is based on lots of people not understanding the reality but being dazzled by the light show.
***So then, this is proof that you ARE lazy. Because if you had read my article then you would know that this is simply not the case, that is unless you are going to call Physics Letters an unworthy peer reviewed journal or Dr. Yoshiaki Arata an ignoramus. I’ve heard of him — he has a whole building in Japan named after him, but I probably have not heard of you. Why do you lazily seagull on an important thread if your value-add is so low? Why should we listen to you?

If their stuff were on the mark — the list of supporters would grow. Year after year the number of BlackLight supporters does not grow. Heck even the number of cold fusion supporters seems to grow every year. So that tells you something.
***Yes that does tell me something. Your approach to this inductive field is, unfortunately, valid. However, I consider it less valuable than simply examining the claims themselves. The reason why the cold fusion arena is in the backwater of science is due to the same approach that people took, where they examined what others were saying rather than examine the actual facts. So, while your approach is valid, I give it less weight than looking at actual facts.

One of the datapoints I use as a natural inductive cutoff point is peer review. That’s why I consider what these Blacklight slicksters to be doing is worth examining. Another datapoint is the patent process. There are a few cold fusioneers who have actual patents, which were obtained by hiding their references to Pons & Fleishman — essentially by employing tricks. I think this patent datapoint has been obscured in this particular inductive pursuit because of how modern science has corrupted the process. It has become highly politically charged for some areas of study, and cold fusion is a prime example. Blacklight’s experience with the patent process reinforces my view.

Blacklight has given us another inductive datapoint that is worth examining. They sell software that uses their modeling to explain chemical behavior. I am acquainted with a PhD who specializes in amino acids and he says that their software generates better results than standard modeling software. Eventually, this second little backwater is likely to yield results that can no longer be claimed to be pseudoscience.

It is OK for private money to finance this. We still have the right to do what we believe in, right or wrong. But, not a single tax payers cent should be wasted on a theory he says should replace quantum mechanics. QM is a theory that is confirmed daily.
***And so is Newtonian physics. And yet, relativity theory supplanted Newtonian physics in certain places with a correction factor of relativity theory and no one has any trouble with that. It’s because new observations no longer fit with the best attested model. The same is true today, and yet we’ve been spending tax payer $Billions on hot fusion and gotten nothing for it. These cold fusion guys have generated a thousand times more Megajoules than the hot fusion boys and guys like you want to keep throwing good money after bad.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.