Electricity Generated From Water: Major Breakthrough In Clean Free Energy Confirmed

BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) announced last week a major breakthrough in clean energy technology, which experts agree holds tremendous promise for a wide range of commercial applications. The announcement comes on the heels of BlackLight’s recent completion of a $5 million round of financing to support commercial development of its new process for producing affordable, reliable energy from water vapor.

In six separate, independent studies, leading scientists from academia and industry with PhDs from prestigious universities including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, confirm that BlackLight has achieved a technological breakthrough with its CIHT (Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition) clean energy generating process and cell. The Process is fueled by water vapor that is a gaseous component of air and present wherever there is any source of water. The CIHT cell harnesses this energy as electrical power output and is suitable for essentially all power applications including transportation applications and electrical power production completely autonomous of fuels and grid infrastructure at a small fraction of the current capital costs.

“BlackLight’s continuously operating, power-producing system converts ubiquitous H2O (water) vapor directly into electricity, oxygen, and a new, more stable form of Hydrogen called Hydrino, which releases 200 times more energy than directly burning hydrogen,” said Dr. Randell Mills, Chairman, CEO and President of BlackLight Power, Inc., and inventor of the process. Hydrogen is not naturally available and has to be produced using energy. But, H2O vapor is ubiquitous and free, obtainable even from ambient air. Dr. Mills says that BlackLight has achieved critical milestones in scaling its new technology with typical electrical gain of more than ten times that which initiates the process, operating over long duration at the 10 Watt (W) scale. A 100 W unit is planned for completion by the end of 2012, and a 1.5 kiloWatt (kW) pilot unit that can serve the residential power market, as an initial target commercial application, is expected to be operational by 2013. (One kW is equal to 1000 W, and 1.5 kW is the typical, average power consumption of a US home.)

BlackLight has raised a total of $75 M for the development and commercialization of its breakthrough energy technology, and has license agreements with companies to use its patented commercial processes and systems in heating and electric power generation. The new BlackLight Process validation reports, including full documentation and results of theory evaluation, replication and testing of the CIHT systems, and Hydrino characterization, are publicly available at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. The website also includes links to validator resumes and to technical and business support materials, including recent presentations that further explain the BlackLight Process and a technical paper providing the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by analytical methods, which laboratories can follow and replicate.

Dogs don’t tend to be affected much by microorganisms, but I’d think if there were any sort of chemicals or dissolved metals in the water, it would cause problems. Of course, you probably wouldn’t see it for a very long time, and I don’t know what sort of metals are used in a dehumidifier anyway.

Per Wikipedia:

“Generally, dehumidifier water is considered a rather clean kind of greywater: not suitable for drinking, but acceptable for watering plants, though not garden vegetables. The health concerns are:

-the water may contain trace metals from solder and other metallic parts, most significantly lead (which is quite dangerous), but also copper, aluminum, and zinc. The trace metals pose a danger if used on edible plants, as they can bioaccumulate; however, the water is usable for irrigation of non-edible plants.

-various pathogens, including fungal spores, may accumulate in the water particularly due to its stagnancy; unlike in distilled water production, the water is not boiled, which would kill pathogens (including bacteria);

-as with distilled water, minerals are largely absent, hence it is somewhat flat-tasting.

Food-grade dehumidifiers, also called atmospheric water generators, are designed to avoid toxic metal contamination and to keep all water contact surfaces scrupulously clean. The devices are primarily intended to produce pure water, and their dehumidification effect is viewed as secondary to their operation.”

Most of the posts about this invention and the theory underlying it are really completely clueless. For one this is claimed to be a low energy nuclear reaction so the claims of it violating the laws of thermodynamics are the same as claiming a nuclear reactor or bomb violates the laws of thermodynamics, absolutely ridiculous. Two senior NASA officials, Bushnell and Zawodny, have very recently come out and clearly and emphatically stated that LENR is real, though, they are still unraveling the limitations, doing Edisonian tests on catalysts etc.. and testing to see which theory best explains it. Then there are the typical fallacies such as appeals to ignorance; no one has seen a hydrino, that is because no one was looking for it because it was assumed to be impossible! The appeal to history; no one has predicted or observed this phenomena, the same is true of neutrinos and many other discoveries before they were empirically and experimentally verified; so that is meaningless. Then the appeal to authority, which should be called the appeal to group think, the most ingrained fallacy of all but also the one that, paradoxically, is the easiest to show to be absolutely ridiculous with just a slight familiarity of history and the many, many times ideas that were dogmatically ascertained to be the absolute truth or, on the flip side, impossible, lasers etc.., but which have fallen flat on their face and then eventually been superseded by a more correct, though again not infallible, theory or hypothesis.
As far as no one seeing hydrinos that would be because they would be extremely nonreactive having the following theoretical properties:
• Extraordinary blocking of X-Ray and gamma radiation.
• Negative enthalpy-of-reconfiguration-to-normal form, (which would only occur under very specific conditions).
• Rapid tunneling through ordinary materials, unscathed.
• Remarkable resistance to ionization.
• Black-line ionization (prominent absorption lines in the deep UV).
• Complete inability to participate in chemical reactions, esp. with fluorine.
• [inability to be ‘burned’ like hydrogen].
• Strong adsorption on most metals;
• interference with topological crystalization phenomena.
• Existence solely as mono-atomic species.
• Outstanding insulating properties [electrical].
• Extremely light quickly leaving the atmosphere of Earth in the rare event that they actually are created on Earth (due to lightning and a very few other terrestrial events)

Most of the above can easily be passed of as anomalies which is an entirely logical conclusion if one is working from a viewpoint based on the assumptions of conventional QM, hence the reason this phenomena would not be noticed without a theory that directly predicts it. Rapid tunneling through ordinary materials and the low mass of hydrinos causing them to permeate out of materials and then float into space would make it extremely hard to isolate and experiment on them in it’s pure form. The above characteristics also make hydrinos a logical choice for explaining the indirect evidence for “dark matter”, which according to conventional theory would be one of the most abundant materials in the universe, directly contradicting both criticisms that state it should have been seen and should be extremely common. The above when combined with how light it would be also explain why it is not seen on Earth.
Being extremely skeptical of the some guy working out of his garage who has absolutely no patents, peer reviewed papers, theory, hypothesis or validations by independent academic institutions, who is then asking you to give him your money is entirely logical. But when a guy who flew through Harvard med school in record time devises a paradigm shattering physics theory that can actually be conceptualized in opposition to QM’s Achilles heal, the point where QM becomes superstition, “matter”/”energy” duality and gravity. A scientist who after formulating this theory then goes on to have his work, patented and peer reviewed in fields ranging from molecular modelling,genetic sequencing, imaging technologies to novel energy production of which the latter is independently verified by outside academics who have solid reputations, as the above article clearly attests, and who has a company the average person could not invest in even if they wanted to, well, then it is time to, while maintaining a HEALTHY skepticism, allow some suspension of disbelief. If that is really too much to ask then it strongly indicates one is no longer honestly appraising the facts based on there merit and instead they are involved in pseudo-skepticism borne out of cynicism and emotional reactivity having completely left behind the realm of logic.

A scientist who after formulating this theory then goes on to have his work, patented and peer reviewed in fields ranging from molecular modelling,genetic sequencing, imaging technologies to novel energy production of which the latter is independently verified by outside academics who have solid reputations, as the above article clearly attests, and who has a company the average person could not invest in even if they wanted to, well, then it is time to, while maintaining a HEALTHY skepticism, allow some suspension of disbelief.

If that is really too much to ask then it strongly indicates one is no longer honestly appraising the facts based on there merit and instead they are involved in pseudo-skepticism borne out of cynicism and emotional reactivity having completely left behind the realm of logic.

By far, the best comment on this thread so far.

I concur with you, that simply reviewing the inventor's credentials, then scanning through the comments at the end of the article from scientists of unquestionable stature, should help even the most skeptical of people suspend their disbelief long enough to wrap their heads around the fact that, for once, they are likely witnessing a true technological breakthrough of historic magnitude.

Thank you for adding your educated evaluation to the thread.

“Pauli predicted the neutrino twenty years or so before it was experimentally confirmed.
Contradicts your contention.”

Not really a prediction, it was more of an ad-hoc attempt to explain beta decay while retaining conservation of energy. Neutrons are a better example but as I stated above it would have been ignored, as would neutrinos, if there was not some compelling theory or hypothesis that indicated they should be looked for.

“Has anyone solved the Schrodinger equation for the hydrino? Or calculated energy-dependent reaction cross sections for creation of hydrinos of various states upon collision of hydrogen with other species?”

Yes to both, Dr.Mills has an entire book with just such details: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/. He postulated a boundary condition and it led to what he calls an “orbitsphere” derived from Maxwell’s equations and based on a paper by Hermann Haus, which it is claimed Haus actually handed to Dr.Mills when he did a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that shows there is a classical non-radiation condition when a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. Essentially a solution to the problem Bohr and many others were faced with at the start of modern QM.
The general idea of hydrinos is that only resonant non-radiative energy transfers to catalysts will cause hydrogen to release energy and become a hydrino. Under certain conditions hydrogen is self catalyzing, though, its affinity for becoming a molecule would limit that outcome in most environments. The entire idea is not unheard of and is very similar to “Förster resonance energy transfer”.
According to Dr.Mills: “Since the potential energy of atomic hydrogen is 27.2 eV, two H atoms formed from H2 by collision with a third, hot H can act as a catalyst for this third H by accepting 2·27.2 eV from it. By the same mechanism, the collision of two hot H2 provide 3H to serve as a catalyst of 3·27.2 eV for the fourth. Following the energy transfer to the catalyst an intermediate is formed having the radius of the H atom and a central field of 3 and 4 times the central field of a proton, respectively, due to the contribution of the photon of each intermediate. The radius is predicted to decrease as the electron undergoes radial acceleration to a stable state having a radius that is 1/3 (m = 2) or 1/4 (m = 3) the radius of the uncatalyzed hydrogen atom with the further release of 54.4 eV and 122.4 eV of energy, respectively. This energy emitted as a characteristic EUV continuum with a cutoff at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm, respectively, was observed from pulsed hydrogen discharges. The continua spectra directly and indirectly match significant celestial observations.”
There are no current conventional explanations for the observed “EUV continuum with a cutoff at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm”. Two papers, among many others, proposing the extremely controversial hydrino hypothesis have been peer reviewed and published by the European Journal of Physics.

“Or for the conversion of a hydrino back to regular atomic hydrogen?”

If it is possible to directly reverse the catalyst process that causes hydrinos. I would imagine that converting hydrinos directly back to hydrogen through a reverse non resonant energy transfer using a catalyst would be extremely hard and would most likely impossible.

According to Dr.Mills regarding hydrinos as “dark matter”:

“gamma rays impinging on dark matter will result in pair production. The characteristic signature of the identity of dark matter as hydrino being the emission of the 511 kev annihilation energy of pair production is observed.”

Also see below.

“Can one excite a hydrino electron with lasers?”

My understanding is no. They are extremely nonreactive and cannot absorb or emit light. According to Dr.Mills:

“Resonant photon induced excited state hydrino transitions are forbidden. Considering that hydrinos are the identity of dark matter that is why the latter is dark. It does not absorb or emit light from electronic transitions. But, hydrogen can be formed from hydrino by a high-energy collision that ionizes the hydrino atom to a
proton and an electron that recombine back into atomic hydrogen.”

“As for the tunneling — is there a theoretical basis for rate of tunneling — how does it compare to that of protons?
(what is the activation barrier to creation of a hydrino anyway?)s”

According to Dr.Mills there are 137 hydrino H 1/n states between hydrogen and a neutron. H 1/2 would have half the diameter of a hydrogen atom.
H(1/2), MW = 1 g/mole, should effuse
about twice as fast as He, MW = 4 g/mole, because effusion rates (and the velocities of the respective particles) depend on the square root of the MWs (at
a given temperature).
As n in H 1/n gets higher the “tunneling” rates should speed up proportionally until they are very similar to neutrons.

Dr.Mills book can be downloaded free here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/

and on that site are many clarifications of his theory. It is also steadily updated to counteract criticisms and to reflect new understandings. That would give you a better understanding then I can.

“If it is a stable state (energetically favored) then one ought to see significant quantities of them if one knows where / how to look”

Mills had samples of simple chemical compounds available for chemical characterization by interested labs which repeatedly showed a previously unseen and unexplained upfield hydrogen shift in the NMR spectra.
This can surely be handwaved away as an inexplicable or meaningless anomaly if one rejects Dr.Mills theory though.

As a clarification I am not saying this is %100 true or that hydrinos definitely exist as stated in Dr.Mills theory but the entire affair is way out of the league of the average, or even extremely adept, scammer and it is, therefore, worth approaching with an open mind while retaining a healthy skepticism, the same skepticism that should be directed at all theories. I have seen numerous people that have validated that the Millsian molecular program can accurately calculate binding energies for complex molecules using simple closed form equations and nothing more than a few simple physical constants. That alone puts him heads and tails above anyone else that has claimed anything remotely similar.

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.