BlackLight Power Announces Generation of Millions of Watts of Power

BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces the Game Changing Achievement of the Generation of Millions of Watts of Power from the Conversion of Water Fuel to a New Form of Hydrogen

BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) today announced that it has produced millions of watts of power with its breakthrough Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) patent pending technology in its laboratories.

Using a proprietary water-based solid fuel confined by two electrodes of a SF-CIHT cell, and applying a current of 12,000 amps through the fuel, water ignites into an extraordinary flash of power. The fuel can be continuously fed into the electrodes to continuously output power. BlackLight has produced millions of watts of power in a volume that is one ten thousandths of a liter corresponding to a power density of over an astonishing 10 billion watts per liter. As a comparison, a liter of BlackLight power source can output as much power as a central power generation plant exceeding the entire power of the four former reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in history.

Our safe, non-polluting power-producing system catalytically converts the hydrogen of the H2O-based solid fuel into a non-polluting product, lower-energy state hydrogen called “Hydrino”, by allowing the electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus. The energy release of H2O fuel, freely available in the humidity in the air, is one hundred times that of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline. 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. Simply replacing the consumed H2O regenerates the fuel. Using readily-available components, 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. To protect its innovations and inventions, multiple worldwide patent applications have been filed on BlackLight’s proprietary technology.

This breakthrough transformational power technology can be witnessed in a live demonstration hosted by BlackLight of on January 28th at 11 AM. Details and updates will be posted at the company website (http://www.blacklightpower.com/). Those interested in attending can contact BlackLight to preregister for this limited availability event.

Applications and markets for the SF-CIHT cell extend across the global power spectrum, including thermal, stationary electrical power, motive, and defense. Given the independence from existing infrastructure, grid in the case of electricity and fuels in the case of motive power, the SF-CIHT power source is a further game changer for all forms of transportation: automobile, freight trucks, rail, marine, aviation, and aerospace in that the power density is one million times that of the engine of a Formula One racer, and ten million times that of a jet engine. The SF-CIHT cell uses cheap, abundant, nontoxic, commodity chemicals, with no apparent long-term supply issues that might preclude commercial, high volume manufacturing. The projected cost of the SF-CIHT cell is between $10 and $100/kW compared to over one hundred times that for conventional power sources of electricity.

BlackLight’s previously reported pioneering solid fuels and CIHT electrochemical cell use the same catalyst as the newly invented SF-CIHT cells, and they served as a model for Dr. Mills to invent the breakthrough plasma producing SF-CIHT cell. These background technologies have been validated by industry. BlackLight’s results of multiples of the maximum theoretical energy release for representative solid fuels was replicated at Perkin Elmer’s Field Application Laboratory at their facility using their commercial instrument. Moreover, our advanced CIHT electrochemical cell was independently replicated offsite as well.

“We at The ENSER Corporation have performed about thirty tests at our premises using BLP’s CIHT electrochemical cells of the type that were tested and reported by BLP in the Spring of 2012, and achieved the three specified goals,” said Dr. Ethirajulu Dayalan, Engineering Fellow, of The ENSER Corporation. “We independently validated BlackLight’s results offsite by an unrelated highly qualified third party. We confirmed that hydrino was the product of any excess electricity observed by three analytical tests on the cell products, and determined that BlackLight Power had achieved fifty times higher power density with stabilization of the electrodes from corrosion.” Dr. Terry Copeland, who managed product development for several electrochemical and energy companies including DuPont Company and Duracell added, “Dr. James Pugh (then Director of Technology at ENSER) and Dr. Ethirajulu Dayalan participated with me in the independent tests of CIHT cells at The ENSER Corporation’s Pinellas Park facility in Florida starting on November 28, 2012. We fabricated and tested CIHT cells capable of continuously producing net electrical output that confirmed the fifty-fold stable power density increase and hydrino as the product.”

The disclosure of one of BlackLight’s patent application that was recently-filed worldwide, its 10 MW electric SF-CIHT cell system engineering design and simulation, high-speed video of millions of watts of supersonically expanding SF-CIHT cell plasma, The ENSER Corporation and Dr. Terry Copeland validation reports on the prior generation CIHT electrochemical cells, and the Perkin Elmer report on solid fuels are publicly available on BlackLight’s webpage (http://www.blacklightpower.com/). Technical papers by BlackLight providing the experimental tests of plasma to electric conversion, results of excess energy production from solid fuels, results of continuous electricity production at fifty times higher power density than prior generation CIHT electrochemical cells, and the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/.

BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source applicable to essentially all power applications such as thermal, electrical, automotive, trucking, rail, marine, aviation, aerospace, and defense. The BlackLight Process, the power source, is the process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom by forming Hydrinos. The SF-CIHT cell was invented by Dr. Mills to release this energy directly as electricity from water as the only source of fuel.

BlackLight Process: A novel chemical process invented by Dr. Mills causing the latent energy stored in the hydrogen atom to be released as a new primary energy source.

Hydrino: Hydrinos are a new form of hydrogen theoretically predicted by Dr. Mills and produced and characterized by BLP. Hydrinos are produced during the BlackLight Process as energy is released from the hydrogen atom as the electron transitions to a lower-energy state resulting in a smaller radius hydrogen atom. The identity of the dark matter of the universe as Hydrinos is supported by BlackLight’s spectroscopic and analytical results as well as astrophysical observations.

SF-CIHT Cell: Each SF-CIHT cell comprises two electrodes that confine a highly electrically conducive H2O-based solid fuel that serves as a source of reactants to form Hydrinos. A low-voltage, very high current (about one thousand times that of household currents) ignites the water to form hydrinos and cause a burst of plasma power of millions of watts that can be directly converted to electricity using proven plasma to electric power conversion technology such as a magnetohydrodynamic converter.

Magnetohydrodynamic Converter: An electrical generator that uses no moving parts. It comprises a magnet as in a conventional generator, but the conductor that moves in this case is the flowing plasma that produces a voltage at a pair of electrodes that are perpendicular to both the direction of plasma flow and the magnetic field of the magnet.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20140114005647/en/

BlackLight Power, Inc. Media: Beata Stepien, 609-490-1090 Ex 125 Assistant for Dr. Randell L. Mills bstepien@blacklightpower.com

IF the device can be operated continuously, why has it not been?
***That is a presumption on your part, and the demo on Jan 28 will bear things out one way or another.

This is why your ridiculous fallback to the claim that “running the ‘reactor’ for 20,000 seconds is a ‘hypothetical’” is so lame.
***Bullshit. It is a simple hypothetical calculation that you can’t seem to do. Here, I’ll handhold for you, walk you through with baby steps on a very simple hypothetical. Let’s start with “what is 1Watt + 1Watt”?

Real generators are supposed to run all the time. That’s why — for a real generator — the difference between a KWH and a KW or a KWs and a KW or a KWY and a KW DON’T MATTER.
***Yawn. Look back upthread to see where this isn’t even an issue.

Because in a typical year, a real generator or reactor will be running all year except for [possibly] short maintenance periods.
***POTO

For this device the distinction matters because the “inventor” has never produced the slightest proof [and his own bloviating assurances aren’t proof] that his machine can produce power for any significant length of time,
***His demo is scheduled for Jan 28, so your own bloviating against this is basically an argument from silence, the silence of the future. The thing about that particular logical fallacy is that, even if you turn out to be right about what happens in the future by a precipitating event, your argument itself was INVALID at the time. Because you don’t know the future. Otherwise you could tell me the score of the next super bowl and the next world series. You won’t because you can’t, and arguing from the future is a logical fallacy... Duhh.

and why, in this case, quoting “wattage” is part of his con. Absent sustained capability, we are left with the suspicion that he’s simply charging capacitors or some other smoke-and-mirrors gimmick that isn’t doing anything more than storing the power from the wall for an “impressive” discharge.
***Well, then, we shall see. What’s weird is that when sustained capability HAS been demonstrated by another inventor, the skeptopaths still don’t believe it because the guy isn’t giving out his secret for free.

You have done nothing on these thread but try to shout down, shut out, and prevent discussion.

Nonsense. I have pointed out the theoretical shortcomings and criminal pasts of "LENR" hoaxers. This isn't shouting down anyone.

Those are NOT the actions of a legitimate practitioner of science.

Scientists have an obligation to point out to interested laymen and other scientists not necessarily schooled in a particular field when they are being scammed. It is unethical to do otherwise. If an astronomer were alerted to some astrological claim which purports to be "science" on FR, or a psychologist saw claims that ESP has been scientifically validated, their ethical obligation is to point out that this is nonsense, and to say why. In addition to doing that, I have also repeatedly provided citations from other scientists, just in case you don't believe me. This is the Internet. Anyone can claim to have a PhD. I don't personally believe you have one, and I don't personally believe that Kevmo has ever even taken a science course, let alone passed one. But credentials are irrelevant for the reason given; the quality of argument is all that matters here, and other than sloganeering you've never produced any.

On this thread, I have told you and Charlatan #1 why this BLP's claims are ridiculous. Look up-thread. I'll repeat it and elaborate: The eigenstates of hydrogenic wavefunctions have been known for 90 years. The solutions are EXACT. There are no lower energy eigenstates. If you disbelieve the Schroedinger equation, which is perfectly adequate for all but the finest structure of hydrogen-like atoms, you can use the Dirac equation, which adjusts the result very marginally. Neither of them allows for the existence of lower energy eigenstates than principle quantum number n=0, and neither of them have energy eigenvalues that could produce energies anywhere near those claimed by BLP's "theoretical" mechanism. If you want to argue that those equations for some reason don't apply, you have an even bigger problem, because even if they're wrong, THEY CAN'T BE WRONG BY MUCH: the Uncertainty Principle places an absolute lower bound on the average radius of a hydrogen wavefunction, and it is many orders of magnitude larger what BLP's "theory" claims.

Oh, but since you're an experimentalist, AND "experiment trumps theory," try this on for size: the manufacturer of the spectroscopy equipment BLP uses has been saying for years that their equipment cannot measure the wavelengths claimed by this "experimentalist."

Contrary to the nonsense you constantly post, that "extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary proof," the fact is that if you want to challenge literally thousands of experiments and a whole edifice of scientific thought which is interconnected with additional supporting evidence, experimental and theoretical, then YES, you must provide extraordinary proof of your claims, part of which includes at least a plausibility argument for why earlier experimenters results supports a theory which yours doesn't.

Example: Researchers at CERN claim to have seen neutrinos moving at greater than light speed. Does anyone currently believe them? NO! Why not? Not because there is any bizarre conspiracy against CERN and its researchers, but because even an experiment that's been verified as well as their result has, is simply NOT going to be accepted until it's duplicated in more than one place -- AND -- and this is a key feature that you don't seem to understand -- we must also have a mechanism which explains this experimental result in light of the fact that so much science, so many experiments by competent researchers over so many years and so many interconnected results say it CANNOT happen.

So ... whatever the reason for superluminal neutrinos -- IF THEY EXIST -- we must know not only why this result is seen, but why it does not -- [and cannot] -- overturn so many other, previous experiments which at least appear under existing explanation to say it shouldn't happen.

Instead, you and Charlatan #1 jump around like a bunch of aborigines in war paint around a campfire screaming "Experiment Trumps Theory! Experiment Trumps Theory!" NO. IT DOESN'T. Not when that theory explains countless other experiments which themselves imply that the experiment you're touting IS WRONG. Good theories and good experiments support each other. The "absolute trumping" of theory is only valid science in very young fields when there is no previous experimental work held together by mutually supporting explanations. Your idea of "science" is troublingly immature and naïve for someone who claims to have a PhD. [And one of the reasons I don't believe you do.]

And please don't quote Feynman to me. Feynman was not a child, and the oversimplification he felt necessary to explain complex scientific principles and the scientific method for public consumption doesn't mean he believed a few people diddling with electrodes should overturn quantum electrodynamics.

Do you seriously believe that if an experimenter came up with a result that seemed to contradict the basics of atomic theory that every scientist in the world -- including all but a handful of experimentalists would throw up their hands and say, "Well experiment trumps theory. And, after all, he only really required ordinary proof to overturn everything, according to Wonder Warthog, so ... OK. And even though he has nothing even so much as a sketch of how this works, we've got to erase all the blackboards... just because."

No.

I have read the theoretical papers of LENR advocates. AND THEY ARE NONSENSE. We have literally hundreds of thousands of experimental results which say that low energy nuclear reactions CAN NOT HAPPEN, and we have a number of theories which support each other, from basic classical nuclear understanding of 100+ years ago, through non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum field theory to say why this is so. These theories all come at this issue from different perspectives, and they all reinforce each other, and they explain the countless experiments. And they say that overcoming the Coulomb barrier does not, under any circumstances we understand, happen at low energies. And ... other experiments verify them, and don't validate LENR.

And until YOU have a workable theory which explains why we should overturn countless well established experiments by competent researchers, no one gives a sh!t about some silly, badly reported, very problematically duplicated heat anomalies in a handful of cases. And simply rerunning those experiments doesn't make them any more convincing, nor supply any explanation for why we should believe them.

In addition to which, your problem is compounded by the fact that BLP, Rossi, and many other cold fusion "researchers" are frauds and conmen. Rossi is a convicted tax cheat and conman.

To this Kevmo replies that everybody cheats on their taxes, including thousands of FReepers. Sorry, BUT I DON'T cheat on my taxes, and painting your fellow conservatives as criminals to defend one hoaxer isn't going to get you any credibility or friends on this site. Kevmo also claims that Rossi never defrauded anyone but himself -- WRONG. I've put up a link to the court record against Rossi. Charlatan #1's response: Oh that's from a biased source. No, it isn't. It's from the Italian Court in which he was convicted and sentenced, reproduced in full on a web site he simply doesn't like because it has fully documented all of Rossi's crimes.

Frankly, I'll put my scientific ethics up against yours any time of the day, pal. People who post crap and then call everyone else names because they don't have the science on their side are NOT going to get a pass from me. 99% of what Kevmo breathlessly posts -- and you support -- is complete drivel. My only ethical lapse is that I only weigh in a small fraction of the time to refute this bilge. I should be on every thread denouncing you two scam artists, but frankly, your constant name calling and ad hominem attacks, and the fact that in all of these years you haven't yet produced a single clue as to how this stuff supposedly works, or why it can't be turned into practical energy are self-refuting, and I don't even need to bother. When I do, it's for the benefit of educable but naïve FReepers who think these press releases are "science." They aren't.

Finally, I'll tell you this: I myself was not a high energy physicist, and in fact most practicing physicists aren't. They suck most of the air out of the room in terms of money, public awareness, and public interest, and given the fact that almost all actually useful science being done in physics is being done by condensed matter physicists and materials researchers, and not by cosmologists and particle guys, I actually have no particular use for them, knew very few of them when I was in the life, and don't feel any compulsion to defend them ... but ... Contrary to the lies told by faux fusion fanbois, hot fusion researchers have NEVER claimed they were on the brink of producing a controlled fusion. They always said this is a very remote endeavor. They have been honest about that. I did go to seminars, and heard them say it on every single occasion where they represented the state of their work, including some of the most famous people in the world.

But even if they had, their failures DO NOT justify the con-artists plying their trade in the cold fusion business.

“Kevmo: Since I do know my stuff, if I had published that the resistor was dissipating too much heat in Joules, my boss would have changed it to the industry standard of Watts. If you knew YOUR stuff, you’d know that.”

Aqua: It’s “engineers” like you who cause thermal issues in the field. You don’t even understand the basic concepts, you just “cook book” it, and hope you have low warranty returns. So typical of the laziness of many.
***You just made a huge stride here. You acknowledge I’m an engineer, that I’m a published author, that there is evidence I’m involved in heat calculations and perhaps even warranties. That’s a far cry from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a Watt and a Joule, which if you look upthread I didn’t make that misstep, but you PRESUMED it. And you presume that the product I generated was somehow cookbooked or lazy WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT. You might want to look in the mirror on that laziness thing.

Did you happen to work on the XBOX 360 by any chance?
***And on top of that laziness thing, you throw in a demonstrated hyperwillingness to engage the mean-spirited vector. Double loser.

If you don’t plan for the amount of thermal *energy* you are dumping into a system, your stuff will more than likely fail rapidly.
***Gosh, that’s EXACTLY what a THERMAL CALCULATOR is for. And I am the one who developed it. Your presumptions just go on to infinite, don’t they?

Sorry you can’t see this,
***Once again, a presumption. But we can all see, without presumption but with REAL PROOF, that you didn’t look at my thermal calculator and proceeded from a bunch of presumptions plus mixed in mean-spirited and ignorant comments. That’s an amazing level of uselessness.

most UC engineers I know, are actually very smart. You give them a bad name.
***You have demonstrated a high index of useless presumption just in this one post.

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.