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

"I have pointed out the theoretical shortcomings and criminal pasts of "LENR" hoaxers.

Nope. You have posted SUSPICIANS about ONE LENR researcher. All of Rossi's transgressions are financial, none related to any research or technical work that he has done.

There is ONE proven hoax in all LENR research, and that was done by anti-LENR researchers at MIT.

"This isn't shouting down anyone."

Your entire mode of presentation is nothing more than that.

"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.

Actually I agree. Which is why I post on LENR threads, and why YOU are the charlatan.

"In addition to doing that, I have also repeatedly provided citations from other scientists, just in case you don't believe me.

LOL. You've certainly never done so with me.

"I don't personally believe you have one...."

Another point where you are wrong, like much else.

"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.

Nope. What matters is the quality of the DATA. The quality of the argument, like credentials, as you say, means zip.

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."

As I have already told you, my interest in BLP is essentially zip. I have not studied their claims, either theorertical or experimental. My presence here is to see any responses that relate to LENR.

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.

Another wrong (and VERY pseudoscientific) notion. Science does NOT require extraordanry proof. That statement was cooked up by people debunking psychic research, and was popularized by another physics charlatan...the guy with "billions and billions" of galaxies.....too bad "nuclear winter wasn't real.

As to the interconnectedness of science....experiment often tears out big chunks of that spiderweb. And LENR is just about to do it again.

"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.

Nope. It does NOT. And your saying so simply points up your pseudoscience.

The ultimate proof of ANY physical phenomenon comes from experiment.

"Not when that theory explains countless other experiments which themselves imply that the experiment you're touting IS WRONG.

See above about tearing out chunks of the spiderweb

Good theories and good experiments support each other."

Of course they do. That is why, when experiment contradicts theory, no matter how "beautiful" the theory is, it gets tossed.

"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.

More pseudoscience bullshit.

"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.]

My "idea of science" is absolutely mainstream. Your notion that "theory trumps experiment" is at odds with REAL science.

"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.

How about Einstein?? He said the same thing. And since Feynman had been dead for months before P & F surfaced, it would be sort of hard for him to have an opinion....unless "you" have psychic powers and can communicate with the dead.

However, Feynmann shared the Nobel Prize with another physicist, who "did" live long enough to be involved in theoretical work on cold fusion. That would be Julian Schwinger.

Here is what he thought, and what happened to him as a consequence (http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html). And yes, you'll have to copy/past the link.

So, do you consider your knowledge of physics superior to that of Schwinger???

"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....

No. It takes a minimum of TWO (it's called "replication) experiments.

"I have read the theoretical papers of LENR advocates. AND THEY ARE NONSENSE.

Perhaps you should spend some time reading the papers on EXPERIMENTAL work, which actually mean something.

"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.

I don't doubt it.

"And they say that overcoming the Coulomb barrier does not, under any circumstances we understand, happen at low energies.

The crux here is "...under any circumstances we understand...". LENR is a phenomenon that "we" do NOT understand.

Case in point. A recent paper at the latest (at least I think it was the latest) ICCF (yes, that's "cold fusion") summarized work in which some physicists had bombarded a deuterium-loaded palladium foil with a low-energy beam of deuterons (far below the energy levels required for "kinetic fusion") and determined the cross-sections for various hydrogen isotope reactions. They found that the reaction cross-sections were "orders of magnitude" greater than expected from "kinetic fusion" theory, and that the branching ratios were also greatly different.

Now, this experiment "is" beyond my capability to judge, as it is well outside my knowledge bases, but the experiment certainly seems to be a good approach to studying the phenomenon, and completely different from a calorimetric approach.

"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.

And the above is precisely where you fail. "Rerunning those experiments" is essential (replication, y'know) to proof.

"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."

"...many other cold fusion "researchers"..." Who might they be. WITH proof.

"Frankly, I'll put my scientific ethics up against yours any time of the day, pal.

"I" read papers on experiments...the sine qua non of scientific proof. You do not. Therein lies the difference.

"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.

Well, they have certainly managed to spend a lot of money for something they had so little faith in.

It’s Official US Startup Admits to Purchasing Rossi’s E-cat LENR Technology
Mon 27 Jan 2014 09:54:24 PM PST · 12 of 14
Greysard to Kevmo
I would be more interested in your follow-up on the BlackLight demo that is supposed to happen tomorrow, as you reported earlier:

Currently their Web site is not mentioning this demo at all, which is somewhat strange for an event of global importance.

***Well, since you insist. There is some penetrating discussion on Vortex-L

I have been mostly ignoring Blacklight because he’s been selling vaporware for 2 decades. Randell Mills is a tricky one because he’s a brilliant theorist with a Harvard MD background. Significantly, he made progress in the 1990’s in Nickel/Hydrogen.

Rossi got ahead of everyone else because he split H2 gas into monoatomic hydrogen before loading up his Nickel lattice, and that led to far more replications than anyone else prior to him. So he’s a tinkerer. And he’s had time to tinker more than anyone else.

Mills has a published theory; Rossi doesn’t. But Mills’s theory has a self-defeating problem. The place to look where the rubber meets the road for BlackLight Power is to find nuclear ash.

————————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89246.html——————

Finding even tiny amounts of radioactive ash is absolutely devastating to
Mills in the IP arena. It can, and will, cost him millions, possibly
billions . and he has dug himself into a hole on the issue - since it keeps
him from actual 3rd party independent testing without incredible NDAs. There
is not a single true replication of his work without these restrictions.

———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89304.html-———————

So far, it appears the blacklight demo was a disaster.

…
Posted on January 28, 2014
BLACKLIGHT POWER – THE DEMO THAT NEVER WAS

http://freeenergytruth.com/blacklight-power-the-demo-that-never/

This is what really shits me. Blacklight announce they are having a demo of a revolutionary new power source. Everyone gets excited at the prospect. We wait. And then we wait some more.

Then they do it behind closed doors, say nothing and publish nothing. All we have are some comments that may / may not be from people who were actually there

Who the hell is advising Blacklight of a PR strategy here? Sure way to piss people off in droves.

-———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89572.html————————

RE: [Vo]:BLP Coverage on the E-Cat site

Jones Beene Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:52:17 -0800

-——Original Message-——
From: a.ashfield

> You seem to have a down on BLP. My take is kinder.

Be kind but not blind. You have not suffered through 24 years of continual
disappointment, hyperbole, arrogance and double talk. When one insists on
controlling information flow in order to raise ever more investment - that
is NOT science, it is hucksterism. Will the video change that assessment?

Actually, I hope so and want to see BLP succeed but those who choose not to
remember the past - are doomed to repeat it. Please remember that for many
years - myself, Robin and Mike were persistent voices of support for Mills
on vortex. We were following this niche before there was a BLP. It was
called HydroCatalysis, Inc. back then. And it looked fabulous.

Mills’ papers were a cut above anything in LENR, his experiments were
professional and he was being published in Fusion Technology, which was more
highly respected than today. The Thermacore work was especially compelling
because they had their own patent, and the work for the Air Force seemed to
validate everything. Mills had money and LENR was operating on a shoestring.
Mills was promising real products, not prototypes.

Things changed for me after two many failed promises and too many missed
opportunities, going back over a decade. Not to mention the sudden
appearance of Rossi, who even with all his baggage was showing something
exciting and even Millsean.

The Capstone microturbine fiasco was particularly catastrophic for Mills
reputation - because of the publicity and interviews, where Randy was
promising a prime energy producing product in six months, and that was
widely circulated. A lot of people thought Mills was the new Dirac at the
time, if not the techno-messiah.

It is not so much that Mills failed to deliver on the Capstone project - but
that it was the tip of a giant iceberg with many more false promises to
come. After a significant number of repeat failures - the suspicion that RM
could be little more than a well-educated PT Barnum had to be addressed.

Now we have the stark contrast with Rossi, who had less credibility at
first, even more scorn from the mainstream, a Barnum personality and trouble
with the law. But when push comes to shove Rossi can deliver - when Mills
can do little more than go silent on past failures.

The demo yesterday had all the ear markings of an old time Tent Revival,
hastily put together for nervous investors by a charismatic but failing
Prophet - who has to reassure his flock that the megabucks already tithed
was put to good work. Pass the collection plate, brother & Praise the Lord.

In fact, there is little indication that there is anything more than new
labels to show for all of that investment. Did I mention that those who do
not remember the past are doomed to repeat it?

Is Rossi really in production? That is the question we should be asking
ourselves today on Vortex - not when is Mills going to have something beyond
vapor ware.

Jones

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.