BlackLight's physics-defying promise: Cheap power from water
A small N.J. company says it has created a physics-defying power source. What do you think: Will BlackLight's discovery work or flop?
From Brad Arnold, St Louis Park, MN You'd have to be extremely dense to disagree that the BlackLight Process has been independently verified:
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."
From Robert Stahl, Birmingham, AL This response is so SLIPSHOD! There is not a hint of authority in it, or references to debate! Just a paradox introduced. But, I can tell you in the first example of Pascal's Paradox, there just is not the water there is to provide pressure that there is on the next, or the one after that. (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/NewtonianMechanics/PascalsParadox/PascalsParadox.html)Oh, yeah, I forgot. He was there. Big F*^&#ing deal. I guess it means he is worth $60 million for the braindead cells 'he' needs to spread all over creation.
From Burt, York SC Joe, Santa Cruz, Dec. 20: "Well can we at least all agree that Mercy Vetsel from New York, NY is a fraud." No, we can't all agree on that. Mercy's claims are no less believable than BLP's. Which is to say (intentionally, on Mercy's part) not believable at all, by anyone who has even a minimum understanding of physics. You and all of the other lunatic fringe/conspiracy theorists are free to belive in BLP, tooth fairies, bridge trolls or whatever else strikes you as credible.
Incidentally, it's now fall 2009 – where is the demonstration unit?????
From Tom Krawietz, Fort Walton Beach, FL I have met Dr. Mills. I witnessed a 30 minute briefing turn into a 3 hour train wreck. His math regarding "interesting" quantum mechanical findings was ripped apart by two Ph.D. physicists. I'm not talking ideas or concepts, but the complex math and the transforms that "supported" his "findings" were rubbish. After this meeting almost ten years ago, he drove away in his $100K shiny black luxury, sports car supported by venture capital and the desire of energy companies to believe (Pascal's paradox).
From Barrie Bentley, Henderson Nevada I have been in hydrogen technology for 30+ years and I don't believe in fairies!!!!!
From Mudge, Westport MA Thats the dumbest analogy I have ever heard….. Ben Franklin used candles, Tom Edison used kerosene lamps.
I bet you get stuck all day on the question; what came first the chicken or the egg?
From Rajen, London UK. Everything bizzare appears to have the same connections, e.g Boyd bushman's disclosure of black projects at Lockheed Martin, building now occupied by BLP, Bob Lazar's salary paid by the navy, four of BLP directors have navy connections. Of course the BLP reactor works, but was not invented by Dr Mills, where did the technology come from?
From Sid, Colorado Whenever I hear of someone with a working model like this, my question is always: Where does he get the power to run his lab?
If it's not powered by his device, and with the efficiency claimed, it's phony. If it is, I want one.
From lebirchan, Birmingham, UK Have a look at the abstact from the book by Nicholas Moller "Irving Langmuir and Atomic Hydrogen". Langmuir a senior scientist at General Electric achieved similar results using tungsten as a catalyst as those using the BlackLight power catalyst. Langmuir received the Nobel Prize in 1932.
It would be interesting to have someone with access to experimental facilities to reproduce the two different but similar methods and compare the results. Forget for the moment about the theory but only look at the experimental results. If they are correct and similar then this would be more important wheter or not the BlackLight Power theory is correct.
From John,Pensacola,Florida The first step in showing anyone a thing is telling them about it. Sticking your nose out and not being afraid to have it lopped off by assailing opponent of your works. Once done in the open arena of the media and market place you fight the battle till you overcome. No great achievements are made in secret.
"I would be willing to be a fair number of the believers in this mystery machine also believe in a sinister conspiracy behind vapor contrails. lol
It would be great if this gizmo actually worked, but the lack of serious evidence combined with it’s history suggests it is just a bunch of horse hockey. If it works, don’t just tell us – show us!
Posted By Joe, Charlotte, NC : October 22, 2008 6:02 am "
From Joe, Santa Cruz, CA Well can we at least all agree that Mercy Vetsel from New York, NY is a fraud. Mercy claims to have a functioning prototype using a similar blacklight process, only to reveal in the very same sentence confusion between neutrinos and the "hydrino." A neutrino is a fundamental particle that may well be massless, interacts exceedingly weakly with other matter and carries zero electric charge. The "hydrino" may sound similar but, but that's where the similarities end. The so-called hydrino is supposed to be a hydrogen atom in a different energy state. A hydrogen atom bears no relation to a neutrino whatsoever, consisting in a positively-charged proton (not a fundamental particle) and a negatively-charged electron.
From Thomas Campbell,Normal, Illinois Hay guys check out this web site which Ruggero Santilli of http://www.magnegas.com is doing with hydrogen which is also The Blacklight process too into a torch that sublimates tungsten on contact so yes they do have it for real !!! And also check out how hydrogen is being done inside your own car by Stan Meyer's dune buggy but The O2 Sensor is the problem here with the newer cars is why it will not work out in your newer cars unless you take the O2 Sensor out all together !! Randell Mills does not care to know this information whatsoever shame shame Randell
From Joseph Adan, Ph.D. I would like to know in what way the black light theory contradicts quantum mechanics.
From Dwight Roberts Houston, Tx Yes I think the idea will work, because that's the way all new ideas start. Just think how this idea can help in space travel. If this concept works, might it help in harden metals that can take high amounts stress. Metals are currently heat treated to create strength.
From Darius, Vilnius, Lithuania Scientific means experimentally approved. If it will be experimental evidence theory and explanations shall be created. It sometimes happens in opposite way but the greatest invention normally is made this way.
From Joe, Charlotte, NC I would be willing to be a fair number of the believers in this mystery machine also believe in a sinister conspiracy behind vapor contrails. lol
It would be great if this gizmo actually worked, but the lack of serious evidence combined with it's history suggests it is just a bunch of horse hockey. If it works, don't just tell us – show us!
From Ava Odoemena, Berlin, Germany "nothing but a theory"
This meme irritates me, because it's transported by people who mistake scientific theory as an informed guess or mix up theory with hypothesis.
Please people, at least understand what scientific theory *actually* means and that it's based on *facts*. Scientific theory is a wrapper for a collection of facts. These facts are REAL, however the interpretation of the collection of facts may change with the arrival of new facts. For example the bumble bee.
There is no magic. The models were wrong, the models claiming that bumble bees can't fly were based on fixed wings…
Just because there is a flexibility in scientific theory and the theory may expand, change or contract, does not mean it's all just fantasies or religion. It's based on facts.
From Bob, dallas, Tx The Laws of Quantum mechanics have been tested millions of times over the past century. In fact, most of the stuff you probably use in everyday life would not work if Quantum Mechanics were not true.
From Matt – Charlotte,NC Like SCHRODINGER'S CAT – Blacklight is in an undefined state of exististence until it is observed to be alive (a functioning prototype) or dead (a fraud).
From R.E.O, Portland, Oregon I logical response. Good for you!
From Robert Stahl, Birmingham, AL Mill's text is about STABILITY. The issue with paradigm maintaining aparatus of the past three epochs in western history (6000 yrs) has been the progressing "worldview" of stability, which has NOT been resolved on a broad cultural level until Mill's text and, at least, by a means capable of arresting it from the culprits of the former paradigm and their wide-ranging propaganda machines. It cannot be overstated that the issue of stability is the foremost issue facing humanity, and is on the grandest of scales of discovery. Mills fits in with the likes of members of the Lindisfarne Institute.
From Tim Sawyer, Hoboken,N.J. I rely on the private investors in this venture. They are experienced CEO's with access to people with knowledge. They are above all, putting their family name and finance on line. also they must have access to information that is confidential.
I wonder what information investors have access to that allows them to invest ($) millions of dollars , while the rest of us debate its feasability . I hope the company is successful.
From John Cserep, Valparaiso, FL Your questions make clear you haven't read the first thing about the BLP process, despite voluminous information available at their website FOR FREE.
Even I as a non-physicist casual observer of BLP know the answers to your questions. In short: No, the catalyst does NOT come into contact with water. It isn't a water reactor, it's a HYDROGEN reactor. Water is only the source of the hydrogen, which is liberated through electrolysis using the excess heat generated by the hydrocatalysis.
You made no effort to understand before throwing out a ridiculous counter-theory. Depending on a news report to supply all your information is lazy and really, really dumb.
From Dave Marti BLP’s claim to have working prototypes which produce 50000 watts of thermal energy is very deceiving. It is by no means a continuous process. Their prototypes produce a one time burst of energy which lasts about 15 seconds. The 753,000 joules of energy produced is equivalent to the energy content of 0.74 liquid ounces of gasoline.
I’m pretty sure I will not be using a BLP furnace to heat my home anytime soon. Maybe they just need more time. Perhaps another twenty years and they will have something truly impressive.
From Marc, Jupiter, Florida I went to College with Randell. He was the smartest guy I had ever met. I wouldn't bet against him.
From dbjbcjdduedhphhpeh4hcp msjd ,hwisdc nnnoWNKOlkjfnncsidceubjsdb3
Translation: Why do you think we left Mars? We burned up all the water.
From Tom Swartsbally My grandmother told me a story of how her family had the only electric lights in their town and people would come from miles around to watch her turn the porch light on at dusk. She said that people didn't understand what electricity was but the flick of the switch convinced them that it worked, was real and very useful.
I don't understand the physics behind the BlackLight process but wonder why BlackLight can't just cut to the chase and make a small demonstration version of their technology, say a 1kw generator, and put it on display powering something simple like a couple of home depot bought shop fans. You know those meter high fans they put out near the cash registers in the garden center to cool plant buying customers on a hot summer's day. BlackLight could take their 1kw generator and a couple of these fans and set them up on steps in front of Google's headquarter for a continuous 30 day run where anyone can go view it. This would convince myself and others that something truely amazing has been discovered.
The next time someone comes up with a 'breaking the laws of physics' method of generating electricity ask to see the "Google porch test" and my grandmother would be proud of you.
From chuck potts Your article states that the prototype produces 50 kilowatts of 'electricity', but the BlackLight Power press release says it produces 50 kilowatts of thermal energy. That thermal energy will then have to be converted to electricity, resulting in conversion losses.
From Mercy Vetsel, New York, NY Rob Salter:
> Is there a way to invest in BlackLight? Sounds like they are not public…is that correct?
> Any other way to get exposure to them / their technology?
My company, Black Super-hydrino Power (BSP) has a working prototype using a slightly different technology. It’s also based on neutrinos, but I use a double quantum-flexion loop process to allow the hydrinos to jump two excited super-states at once. This allows electrical power generation in a much simpler device than BLP.
My 50kw prototype is one fourth the size of the BLP device and it will only cost $250 per kilowatt of installed power generating capability. This will allow fully capitalized electricity generation at a cost of 0.5 cents per kwh at the 1 gigawatt scale and 1 cent per kwh for the home model which is about the size of a standard dishwasher and powers an entire home.
In addition, a BSP electrical generator capable of powering a standard sized SUV will cost $3000 and eliminate the need for hydrocarbon fuel or batteries. It will be approximately the size and weight of the V6 engine found in a Honda Accord.
For security reasons we're keeping BSP's proprietary technology very tightly under wraps until commercial products are released in Q2 of 2009. Therefore BSP will not go public in the near future, but I am looking for additional early-stage investors. Please send the checks to my Newark, NJ PO box.
-Mercy
From Vito, NYC Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true and it works. (“There are more things in heaven and earth,…”) Any thoughts on the consequences regarding the human insatiable hunger for more energy and irresponsible behavior toward the environment? Try to imagine the scenario where we were given the chance to tap into unlimited and cheap source of the enormous quantities of energy. We know the cause for our environmental crisis beside carbon dioxide and poisonous fumes pollution is also a huge amount of heat we are generating with our “modern” lifestyle and activities using low-efficiency machines and devices. At the same time we’re uselessly trapping some that comes from the Sun by covering Earth surface with concrete and asphalt and cutting down the trees. Consequently the ice is melting and we’re exposing more of the sea surface to absorb some more Sun power. Which, as we are witnessing, is melting some more ice in return. We’ve already set up the planet on fire and we have every reason to fear that if we don’t direct our present attitude toward the wise and rational energy usage it could only speed up global warming. To continue to work more toward harnessing the power from the Sun sounds like a much better solution. There could at least lay some chance to achieve the input and output energy balance on the planet. I have no idea about the scale but the notion that the already scarce tap water would become a new planetary fuel feels uneasy as well.
From Peter Hunt,Mill Valley,Ca Usually I am doing home improvement projects on the weekend,however, I researched using U-Tube short videos and was impressed by the 5 about Ponds and Fleishman and how their Cold Fusion research inventions defyed conventions of Modern Science and created this riddle of Cold Fusion effect where at low temperatures there is Nuclear Energy Output with out Nuclear radiation biproducts back in 1989….about 19 years ago.I took notes and have been using Google Search to find out about each person mentioned in the 5 u-tube videos.Dr. Randall Mills is a professional that is building on these discoveries and has been it seems since the discoveries were made in 1989.If John Huizenga had not been harshly critical of Ponds and Fleishman and they had recieved Federal research funds like MIT was receiving more of these associated unknown principals would of been researched during the last 19 years and progress made.However,they were American Scientists driven into exile to France where their budgets and funding eventually dried up, so research stopped,I read.It is scary to hear that Dr. Eugene Mallove as well as Stan Meyer have been murdered,can anyone verify it,I hope it is not true?Eugene Mallove wrote a book called Fire from Ice in 1991,and worked on Infinate Energy Magizine.As for Dr.Randy Mills,he has Blacklight Power whose website is http://www.blacklightpower.com with 25 stated employees which the company expects to expand to 100 during the next year.They have a private company that is funded to 60 million dollars so their research can continue.They have received 2 patents in the last year, and I believe might be on the threshold of distributing power generation techknowology,DOMESTIC techknowology to decrease our dependance on foreign oil imports.T.Boone Pickens (see http://www.pickensplan.com) is spending as much as 10 billion of his own fortune to build a 4 gigawatt wind farm in Pampas,Texas and expects to free up Domestic Natural Gas used in Power Plants to be used for transportation and save Americans 300 billion a year over the next 10 years spent on foreign oil.Pickens needs help and asks people to join his army mostly because 700 billion dollars is spent on imported oil each year and it might bankrupt our country.I say with saving our economy in mind extend Dr. Randy Mills any thing he wants and let him assemble Power generation systems into the future even if he does not hit a home run in the next year,he is risking his own life persuing this quest.
From Thicket, Fergus, Ontario, Canada Dr. Mills and his claims have been around for a long time. Blacklight Power's predecessor was called 'Hydrocatalysis Power'. Here is an excerpt from about 20 years ago.
Quote
Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive and experimental research program of producing energy from light-water electrolytic cells. HPC and Thermacore, Inc., Lancaster, PA are cooperating in developing a commercial product. (Thermacore is a well-respected defense contractor and its expertise is in the field of heat transfer.). Presently, all of the demonstration cells of HPC and Thermacore produce excess power immediately and continuously. Cells producing 50 watts of excess power and greater have been in operation for more than one year. Some cells can produce 10 times more heat power than the total electrical power input to the cell. A steam-producing prototype cell has been successfully tested … The [original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor of one-thousand, and the scaled-up heat cell results have been independently confirmed by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering the composition of matter, structures, and methods of the HydroCatalysis process have been filed by HPC worldwide with a priority date of April 32, 1989. HPC and Thermacore are presently fabricating a steam-producing demonstration cell.
What does Dr. Mills think is behind this ordinary water energy source?
Dr. Mills and his colleges believe that the energy source in their ordinary water experiments is technologically extremely potent, but they have adopted a radical theory to explain the excess heat. Dr. Mill says that the source of excess energy is related in a catalytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen atom is induced to undergo a transition to a lower electronic energy level than the "ground state" as defined by the usual quantum-mechanical model of the atom. Thus, stored energy in the atoms is catalytycally released. Mill views many of the nuclear effects in "cold fusion" to be real effects, which he thinks can be explained by his theory.
Unquote
The claims of working units and the promise of commercialisation were the same then as they are now.
… and yet there are space cadets that continue to believe that Dr.Mills and Blacklight Power are legitimate.
From B, Zagreb, Croatia Brian said: Since the so-called “Laws of quantum Mechanics” are nothing more than a “Theory” that can never be tested in any labratory, I see no reason why those “Laws” can’t be broken.
Those laws that "can never be tested in any laboratory" are tested, for example, billions times every second in a computer you use. Read Skeptic's and Samuel's comments.
From Samuel Conner To Whom it may concern,
It would be worth your while to involve a skilled (PhD-level) inorganic chemist to carefully examine the Black Light Power energy generation scheme.
I'm not a chemist — I'm a physicist — but I know enough elementary (high-school level) chemistry to suspect that BLP may simply be reacting water with Sodium Hydride. This is a known technique for producing hydrogen for use in fuel cells (and BLP does not own the IP for this hydrogen
generation technique):
Consider, for example, this 1999 article:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890pp2.pdf
The reaction of Sodium Hydride with water produces a great deal of heat. The Hydrogen that is produced in the reaction may then be fed to a fuel cell to produce electricity and some additional heat. My back of envelope estimate is that 1 Kilogram of NaH reacting with water would produce about
4.5 KwH of energy — assuming 100% conversion of generated heat into recoverable power — at a cost (using the above link as an estimate for the price of industrial scale Sodium Hydride) of about $0.10 per kwh in 1999 dollars, which would probably not be competitive with current power generation technologies.
I think that I smell something fishy here. Blacklight power asserts that it is generating power using "new physics". There is already elementary conventional chemistry that seems to account for the phenomenon.
It is tempting to suspect that BLP's claims of revolutionary physics are simply an attempt to assert IP over previously public-domain chemical reactions for generating Hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
CNN Money is certainly aware that a business model that is pursued by some entrepreneurs is to assert very broad IP claims without actually developing or producing product, and then licensing the IP to others. There are some pernicious practitioners whose interest in owning IP is simply to prevent other companies from producing products unless they pay a "tax" to the interfering entrepreneur.
If other reports on the status of BLP's IP are accurate, BLP has been experiencing difficulty in establishing ownership of new technology IP based on its novel "hydrino physics." If BLP's claims were granted, it might be able to legally interfere with every conventional chemistry application that uses chemical reactions to evolve hydrogen gas from other compounds — by asserting that these processes involved "hydrino physics" in addition to conventional chemistry. The cost of litigating such claims might be higher than simply paying a "tax" to the holder of the "novel physics" IP. That could be a highly profitable business model, but it would be one that would not actually generate anything new or useful.
If you wanted to pursue this, you might want to contact an expert inorganic chemist (go for the best, MIT, or CalTech or Georgia Tech or Harvard or U Chicago), and involve him in a discussion with BLP raising the following questions (among others):
1) does the NaH come into physical contact with the water?
2) If yes to #1, how does BLP prevent the reaction
NaH + H20 –> NaOH + H2
from occuring? If this reaction does occur, then the Sodium Hydride is not a catalyst, but a reactant that is consumed in the reaction and that must be replaced at some cost in order for the power generation to continue.
3) If yes to #1 and if the BLP "fuel cell" does produce Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), what does BLP do with the produced NaOH?
4) If the intuition here that BLP is actually simply using long-established chemistry to evolve Hydrogen from NaH, what is the price of NaH that is required for BLP's fuel cell scheme to be competitive with other energy generation methods ?(my intuition is that it cannot be competitive as a GENERATION scheme, since it requires energy inputs to produce the NaH in the first place. As the above link suggests, it could be useful as a Hydrogen STORAGE scheme.)
I think that there may be nothing novel here.
This is the kind of business reporting that would be a real service to your readers and to the investment community, I think.
Sincerely,
Sam Conner
From bill michaels, 1264 West 200 North, Decatur, In, 46733 I have no opinion if Blacklight's principles will work or not, but the apparent unwillingness to demonstrate it makes me think that it primarily exists to secure grants and sell stock.
"DARLAP NFP" plans to install their first liquid air/atmospheric heat prototype in a golf cart and take people for rides, and offer more prototype turbines for sale for independent testing.
I would have more respect if Blacklight did something similar.
bill michaels
From Sal Hallini, New Orleans, LA What we're up against is the divided loyalties of the scientific community. A lot of them are bought and paid for. Either the doggone thing works or it doesn't. But the trap is for the guy to insist on developing it on a large scale like a power plant and then have it fail. Then his funding goes away and the whole thing collapses, and he's shelved as a kook. Another new technology that centralized capital can't build a fence around put out of commission. I've seen it happen before.
From Skeptic vineland NJ Pages 29-31 of this link
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~adamkam/teaching/phys321_f07/321F07_Chap08_Lect19_20_21.pdf
give the conventional quantum mechanical prescription for the computation of the transition rate for electric dipole radiation between an initial (excited) and final (lower excitation) state of a one-electron atom. This can also be found in intermediate-level undergraduate quantum mechanics textbooks.
It is an empirical fact that this prescription (and corresponding prescriptions for the transition rates of "classically forbidden" transitions, which do not occur through electric dipole radiation, but which can occur at lower rates through higher-order mechanisms such as electric quadrupole, magnetic quadrupole, etc) results in predicted lifetimes of excited states of atoms, and predicted transition rates to lower energy states, that precisely correspond to what is observed in the laboratory. This is one of the reasons why mainstream physicists regard standard quantum mechanics to be a valid, highly accurate, description of matter.
Something interesting happens if one applies this prescription to the "thin shell" charge distributions of GUTCQM.
Regardless of the radiation mechanism, the transition rate between states of different principal quantum number, n, is zero, since the initial and final states have radial delta function charge distributions (and implied wavefunctions) that are non-vanishing at different radii. So the integrand of the matrix element vanishes for all values of the radial integation variable. The implication is that, under this prescription for computing transition rates, even normal integer principal quantum number, n, states cannot undergo radiative transitions to states with different integer values of the principal quantum number. So, under this prescription for the computation of transition rates (combined with the thin-shell-electron concept of GUTCQM), not only would hydrinos not radiatively de-excite, but neither would normal excited states of Hydrogen. That consequence is, of course, completely at variance with more than a century of study of atomic spectra.
So, evidently, the conventional quantum mechanical prescription for computing electronic transition rates of one-electron atoms does not work in GUTCQM. Yet this prescription, when applied to the standard radially-extended electronic state wavefunctions computed by conventional quantum mechanics (and rejected by GUTCQM) leads to extremely accurate predictions of the observed transition rates. One is led to wonder "in what sense GUTCQM can be regarded to be a superior theory to standard quantum mechanics? Does it make predictions of the observed laboratory phenomena of atomic transition rates that are more accurate than those of standard quantum theory?"
So it seems to me that the mainstream physics communuity has grounds to regard with skepticism the theory underlying the proposed power generation scheme. And if there are reasons to regard the underlying theory as "not sound," then perhaps a power generation scheme that is based on this theory might not work.
And that would seem to be relevant to the question that CNN posed to open this discussion thread:
" What do you think: Will BlackLight’s discovery work or flop?"
My vote, based on well-established conventional physics: "flop"
From Brian Loudermilch, Nashua, NH Nice to see alternative technology getting some press coverage. As for not
being endorsed by Academia: What university did Tesla or Edison go to?
Since the so-called "Laws of quantum
Mechanics" are nothing more than a
"Theory" that can never be tested
in any labratory, I see no reason why
those "Laws" can't be broken.
From Rich, NYC, NY The comments in support be they based on a distrust of science and industry, and/or a deplorable ignorance of history and science are not as nearly disturbing as the money free lunch schemes routinely scam. The appeal of something for nothing is apparently so irresistable to many that they invent all kinds of reasons to believe with little or no actual evidence.
To all those people who think this might be on the up and up, all Mills needs to do to get the majority of science and industry interested is to produce testable evidence.
From mannfm11 dallas, tx I have to believe this is possible. These men that put their money into this thing aren't stupid, being heads of companies like J&J and Cerebus. There is a lot of intellectual pride at stake here that a smart guy with some theories he gleened from somewhere might pull off something the eggheads think is impossible. There has been talk for years of the idea that some kind of hydrogen or other light metal could provide endless energy, but no discovery. Maybe they were following the wrong rules?
From Neil Ferguson, Yuma, AZ Dr. Mills postulates that subatomic physics is quantitative. He believes that hydrogen does not fall to a lower energy state (a hydrino) because it can't emit a photon to get there. The process uses exchange of momentum between hydrogen and a catalyst to trigger the transition.
From Robb, city and state Why are so many of you angry or upset over this idea? It's one thing not believing in it – but being the defender of a religion and declaring every nonbeliever to be an fool!
If he succeeds it's a small revolution, if not – you boring people which consumes space and time with your annoyingly boring attitude was right – SO WHAT.
At least someone have a dream and even if you don't know what it is I can promise you it's more fun than your pitiful life.
Give the man a break – if your not an investor you are nothing more than a no good wannabe Messerschmidt.
With or without the laws of physics – its nice to see there is some half crazy half entrepreneur left out there!
From Roy, Glendale, Az If the scientists from the 1800's and early 1900's where allowed by god to come back on earth for one day, in the present, will they still be skeptics. No.
From Skeptic vineland NJ Here's a link that appears to be related to the company behind that 1999 article I previously linked:
The point is made very clearly that the Sodium Hydride is not an energy source, merely an energy carrier.
The energy is stored by creating the Sodium Hydride, and released on demand through ordinary chemistry as described in the 1999 article; no novel physics.
The reaction
NaH + H2O –> NaOH + H2 + heat
cannot produce positive energy output net of the enery required to produce the NaH in the first place, so this is not a baseline power generation scheme. But it can in principle serve as an energy storage scheme. The 1999 Powerball article proposed this as a Hydrogen storage/release mechanism for fuel-cell powered cars. If the energy recovery were sufficiently efficient, it might (this is an hypothesis, perhaps a silly one) be useful for power load management by conventional power generation utilities (storing energy during periods of low demand and recovering it at times of peak load) to handle higher peak loads without additional conventional generating capacity.
Hydrogen storage in metal hydrides appears to be of interest to a number of companies:
http://www.h2fc.com/industry/infra/storage.shtml
As far as I can tell, none of these relies on novel physics for their products.
From Regent It's hilarious to see these 15-year-old kids comment about the plausibility of BlackLight.
"Scientists all thought the Earth was flat!" – Oh wait the Greeks figured out the Earth had a curvature before AD, ROFL. Let's also completely not know when the scientific revolution really got started – hint: it wasn't the first human, think closer to the 1500s CE.
"You naysayers sound like the earth is flat crowd." – Rather, it's you, for ignoring all science, retard. If I came up with a magic food generator the size of a tennis ball, I bet you'd believe me.
Go back to failing remedial chemistry, rejects.
From Robert Gufler, Springfield,Mo. It might well be possible that hydrogen when disassociated will produce free energy upon combination again into molecules. This is the basis of why the atomic hydrogen welder works. See the MAHG generator or an explanation.
Robb
From Skeptic vineland NJ My "touche" comment refers to "DM"s reference to "burning ashes".
An implication of BLP's novel physics claims is that the conventional ground state of Hydrogen is not in fact the true ground state, since there are states of even lower energy.
It is not clear to me whether BLP thinks that there even IS a true minimum energy state. Their graphics seem to suggest that one can continue to extract energy from "hydrinos" by "catalyzing" their de-excitation into lower and lower energy states (these appear to be denoted 1/n, where "n" appears to denote the alleged sub-ground-state excitation level). If there were no minimum energy state, then that would imply that Hydrogen atoms are in a condition of infinite excitation.
One wonders why Hydrogen atoms in nature "levitate" at the conventional ground state instead of spontaneously de-exciting into the alleged lower energy states. When one adds energy to a conventional ground state Hydrogen atom, exciting it to a higher energy level, it spontaneously de-excites after a brief interval with the emission of one or more photons and it returns to the conventional ground state. If BLP's grand theory is valid, then normal "ground state" Hydrogen atoms are actually in excited states. Why don't they spontaneously de-excite?
The notion that Hydrogen atoms at the conventional ground state are in fact not at a true energy minimum invites analogy to the metastable excited states of atoms in laser. These atoms can spontaneously de-excite, but for reasons associated with quantum mechanical transition rules, their lifetimes are unusually long. The resulting "population inversion" permits stimulated emission by photons with energy corresponding to the long-lifetime transition. This results in a cascade as the stimulated photons have the right energy to stimulate other emissions, hence Light Amplication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
If BLP's novel physics claims were valid, it would suggest the possibility of using conventional ground state hydrogen as the working material for a high-powered UV laser.
And this suggests a simple test of BLP's physics. Expose a gas of atomic Hydrogen to UV light with energy (and perhaps other quantum numbers, such as the photon angular momentum) equal to the transition to the highest hydrino state below the conventional ground state. If there is a hydrino state, the gas should lase with vast energy output. The resulting UV laser output could be convered to energy for power generation.
From Skeptic vineland NJ Yes, you have hit the nail directly on the head. Touche!
From Skeptic vineland NJ I will note that the Hydrogen generation reaction should be
NaH + H2O –> NaOH + H2 + heat
(the reaction product NaOH, Sodium Hydroxide, was left out of the previous comment)
The article that discusses this reaction in the context of automobiles,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890pp2.pdf
proposes that NaOH produced in automobiles powered by this reaction be removed from the autos and converted back into NaH at fueling stations which would be built for this purpose. A car would discharge its NaOH and receive a fresh supply of NaH at each stop. This would be an alternative solid fuel infrastructure to the current liquid fossil fuel infrastructure. The energy inputs required to perform the conversion of NaOH back to NaH must, by thermodynamics, be greater than the recoverably mechanical energy outputs achieved in the auto power-train. This would, however, be a possible scheme for Hydrogen power of automobiles.
From Skeptic vineland NJ An important point in connection with the "Sodium Hydride + Water" Hydrogen generation scheme of this article:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890pp2.pdf
is that this is not regarded to be a competitive method for the GENERATION of power, the reason being that energy is required to produce the Sodium Hydride reactant. The net recoverable power output after including the energy cost of the Sodium Hydride is negative (as it must be, by thermodynamics). However, it is potentially a useful technique for STORAGE of Hydrogen in the solid form of Sodium Hydride. The storage problem is a long-standing obstacle to the use of Hydrogen as power source for automobiles. The Sodium Hydride technology is a potential solution to the Hydrogen storage problem.
Because the net recoverable power from the NaH + H2O –> H2 + heat reaction is negative (after accounting for the energy inputs required to produce the NaH), this reaction cannot be the basis of a net positive output power generation scheme. NaH is not a raw material that is found in nature and that can be mined or drilled and then fed to a power plant; it must be produced by an industrial chemical process that requires substantial energy inputs.
If the reaction
NaH + H2O –> H2 + heat
is a substantial contributor to the energy output of the devices that are reported in this article, then that would argue against their feasibility for power generation competitive with mainstream sources that exploit conventional natural resources such as fossil fuels, uranium, or renewable resources such as solar and wind.
From DM, Hydrino County Hi guys, I've discovered a way to get energy by burning ashes. It works by reducing the ashes to an even lower energy state, and is based wholly on the Grand Unified Theory. Reputable scientists all over the world has discredited my work, so my science must be true. I'm accepting funding now. Any one with millions of dollars to spend is welcomed to invest in my venture. Thanks bye!
From Thicket, Fergus, Ontario, Canada I have to wonder if the posters asking about stock or investment are genuine or plants.
Blacklight Power has done well generating income from naive and gullible investors.
Folks DO realize that Blacklight Power has made these 'physics-defying' claims on numerous occasions over many years, right? They've always delivered zero, nothing, nada. (Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.)
Blacklight Power is just one of many companies with 'physics-defying' claims. Check out Steorn, Lutec, Perendev, Archer Quinn. All are similar. Fantastic claims and zero results.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Amongst the posters are the usual sprinkling of
* Government/big oil/OPEC… are suppressing these technologies.
* I'm not an expert 'but'… followed by personal BS assessment of science.
* Scientists are close-minded folks protecting their research grants. LOL
Wishful thinking and a slick money grab from dumb investors won't produce results.
From Skeptic vineland NJ I hope that this is a valid report, but I'm skeptical. If there are energy states below the "conventional" ground state of Hydrogen, it is hard to understand why Hydrogen doesn't spontaneously de-excite to these lower energy states without need of a "catalyst." This is surely one of the elementary objections raised by critics among the professional physics community. For example, there are no unambiguous "hydrino" lines detected in the spectrum of the Sun.
Here is an article about generation of hydrogen for fuel cells through the reaction of Sodium Hydride with water. It sounds eerily similar, but has no novel physics, just standard chemisty.
And the Sodium Hydride isn't a "catalyst", but a reactant. It is consumed in the reaction and turned into Sodium Hydroxide, a toxic and caustic chemical. The article suggests that with intelligent mass production methods for Sodium Hydride (very expensive at present when purchsed from specialty chemical suppliers such as Sigma) the cost of powering a fuel-cell car could be less than a conventional gasoline car.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/28890pp2.pdf
From Skinny, Lafayette, IN here's a good read
http://noblefuse.com/samazar.htm
From M. Quinn, Alexandria, VA How about a secondary question of what are the implications of his actions assuming his theory is correct? A breakthrough in this area would indeed be impressive, but if he has started to tinker with "dark matter" then we must also look at what happens around it. He is harnassing the power of water, but are the by-products recyclable, renewable, and reusable? Yay cheaper engergy but at what cost?
From Gov't Fearing Man, Boston MA Yes, it does work. Dr. Mills has used the same principle Meyers and Xogen inc. used: resonant frequency manipulation to get covalent bonds to break at a far lower energy state than is possible with conventional electrolysis. In principle, the same way an opera singer can shatter glass with their voices.
The real problem has been heat management, stable production, and conductors which don't break down. These issues have been resolved apparently.
I've been following alt. energy production for over 10 years and have replicated several key experiments. I would be shocked if this reaches the mainstream though, Big Energy makes approximately $200 million per hour, if they don't want something released they have a very strong arm..
Meyers: murdered, Mallove: murdered, Xogen: disbanded and primary workers gagged and paid off. All research and materials from these sources confiscated for "National security reasons". Xogen passed Canadas version of UL btw, Meyers models passed the toughest regimen of US patent requirements (working models with 3rd party confirmation of claims, including NASA and pentagon scientists). Mallove was murdered outside of an upper class neighborhood supermarket and the murderers didn't even steal his wallet, but his wife reports his research was confiscated the very day of his murder.
There are more h2o molecules in a glass of water than there are cups of water in the ocean. Each cup of water has the potential to power an entire neighborhood for days.
And you won't EVER be able to get Blacklight stock. The board members are a whos who of the power elite, vice-admirals, GE Senior boardmen, etc. Mallove got the nod to do this research from the military who are currenly more than a little 'miffed' that energy costs are skyrocketing for no apparent reason (Yes, there is NO oil shortage). Releasing press that that this energy source 'might' be 2years away is probably a warning to the energy companies. An empty threat in my opinion as keeping citizens reliant on shared resources is key to principles of national unity.
From SteveJB I'd really like to invest in the raw materials used. If platinum is essential for cars, whats the rare commodity essential for blacklights tech?
From Gary7, Silver Springs, FL I've been studying a lot about quantum physics lately. While I am no expert, I have been made aware of how little we actually know about the nature of reality at that level. So when someone comes along and says, "that violates the laws of… " — I just have to ask what laws they are talking about. Do you mean the law of the quantum which are irreconcilable with Einstein's laws of macro-physics?
Those billion dollar atom smashers they've been building over recent years find new sub-atomic particles virtually every time they go into action. So don't tell me something "violates the rules".
Not only do we not know what the rules are, we don't even have a list of the game pieces.
So let's just wish this company good luck and sit back and see if it actually works. The proof is in the pudding.
From Robert Huntersville, NC Thinking outside the box! Going against the grain!, Stand-up for what you believe in… this is what makes great people great…. Congrats Blacklight… Ok now the money question, Stock on the market yet?
From fred Hawkey, CA Imagine what Mankind has accomplished in the past 100 years or so: we can drive a car, fly 500 passengers around effortlesly… we have mobile phones… a PC the size of your hand… we can send a message of text, video or sound across continents, in less than a second…we can produce energy from nuclear reaction, solar, wind and tidal power… send a man on the Moon… create endless strings of complex program languages to perform almost anything… at the speed of mankind's achievements, I can foresee this kind of energy available in the next 5 to 10 years. applying the laws of probability, the odds are on Blacklight's side, assuming it's not a complete fraud. If Bill Gates ever sits on the board, I will believe it's true. Remember Pythagoras, Galileo, Da Vinci, Pascal, Newton, Einstein ? or Arthur C. Clarke: all these Worlds are yours, except Europa… Use them together, use them in Peace. Let's all be positive and proactive and invest our time, money and imagination to be GREAT.
From Leo Houston Tx The Laws are man made? such as the Laws of gravity? yes we made them up and they are wrong and do not actually exist…why don't you test them and jump out of a building!
From Leo, Houston Tx To hell with Common laws Truman?..that's as idiotic as saying "to hell with gravity" then jumping out of a plane without a chute!
From Leo Pitre Truman, you have no idea what you are talking about!The U.S. government and European governments spend billions on alternative energy and grants to corporation working on alternative energies. As we type there are scientist and corporations around the world using government money,experimenting, researching and developing and improving existing and alternative energies..the most efficient solar cell that exist was developed with help from the U.S government!
You people need to get off your idiotic oil and government conspiracy B.S.!
If it was a conspiracy then they sure do suck at it, because we have Solar, Wind ,Geothermal, Hydro, Nuclear, Tidal, Methane from manure and Garbage dumps to generate power,
Hybrid cars, Electric Cars, Hydrogen fuel cell cars being developed,Natural gas cars etc.
From Rob Salter Is there a way to invest in BlackLight? Sounds like they are not public…is that correct? Any other way to get exposure to them / their technology?
From Brian O. Chandler, AZ Mills could very well be onto something. It is clear that many posters haven't read what this is about. This isn't about separating hydrogen from water for power. This is something totally different.
And to defend nuclear power, 3-mile island was a serious accident, but the safeguards worked well and very little radiation was emitted. Nuclear is far from hype. It is abundant, viable, relatively green, and available now if we just start building reactors.
From ron, los angeles, ca you'd think if this was legit they'd bring forth an example to demostrate to scientists.
I can remember the hype behind nuclear energy in the 60's. The hype was created by the energy sector and we ended up with 3-mile island.
From Jerry Kapes, Centralia Illinois I'm not a scientist or physcist, but after reading the comments; It tells me that the right people are thinking and working on the problem facing our Country. It's just a matter of time before Good Old American Ingenuity comes to the rescue.
From KohSamui The only flat earthers are the traditional scientists like Robert Park – he is a proven distorter of facts trying to protect his pathetic patch.
BlackLight and Randy Mills ae going to make him look like the witchfinder general that he is.
From Helena, Clearwater, FL This is very exciting. I want to know when stock is available.
From Truman Williams (16), Tampa Florida To hell with common laws…don't you know that these guys are only attempting to protect their own self-interests??? I wish we could just take a step back and look into the practical application of such a discovery…why doesn't the gov't take a chance on an investment that could lead to the restoration of the American economy…well that is assuming other companies eventually spring up!
From Sean Wiseman, Vancouver Canada @Freddy Rodriguez: You forget that these "LAWS" are man made. Anything man made has flaws, as will our laws of science. I'm a science man myself but I believe that even though we have "Laws of Science" it is taught to me in University that we cannot 'prove' anything.
From JM, Plano, TX They said that the car would never replace the horse. When the internal combustion engine was introduced, it was grossly inefficient compared to what it is 100 years later. If it works, it works. Watch the nay-sayers buy this product for their homes.
From Leonard Oliver If it works, why not feed the electricity into a grid? This would provide cash flow to build larger and better. Heck, make all of us eat crow. Or, is there a problem with the whole idea?
From MMHaffner Alameda Ca. Note to those that can't stand it when Mainstream Science is questioned.
BlackLight's board of directors reads like a Who's Who of finance and energy leaders, including Michael Jordan, former CEO of both Electronic Data Systems (EDS, Fortune 500) and Westinghouse; Neil Moskowitz, CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston; and Shelby Brewer, former CEO of ABB (ABB) Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power.
My advice?
Learn to deal with it and expand your mind to new possiblities. It's a vast & mysterious Universe out there.
From Bethlehem PA To the scientists condemning this 'new technology' I say put up or shut up. If you're not willing to investigate the technology then you have no right to condemn it. If this man is truly honest, then it is a good invention. However, the scientists criticising this invention should first confirm this technology is real before criticising it.
From Anonymous I'm not a Nay sayer, hey more power to the guy if we all start seeing giant copper coils filled with water around town as power plants. But the simple fact is you need energy to be able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. If you really want to know about a viable high yield source of energy, search fusion(not to be confused with fission which is a nuclear reaction). Sandia National Labs is developing the technology to sustain a fusion reaction, that like the sun. Sandia National Lab has been performing this research for more than two decades, I'm sure. Tony Starks you may say? Anythings possible, but defintely not by using a copper coil, some water and hopes and dreams.
From Neil Ferguson, Yuma, AZ Interesting example, the Wright Brothers. In fact parts of their endeavor were stalled because they accepted aerodynamic convential wisdom. But then they did their own (brilliant) research and learned that the conventional wisdom was bollocks. From Wikipedia (Wright brothers): "The poor lift of the gliders led the Wrights to question the accuracy of Lilienthal's data, as well as the 'Smeaton coefficient' of air pressure, which had been used for over 100 years and was part of the accepted equation for lift."
From RAS, Boston, MA It is possible to burn water.
It has been a science experiment since the '40's, and some backyard mechanics in the '50's have already run cars on water using the same principal.
All you are doing is taking the hydrogen out and using the oxygen molecules to help the burn.
Besides, there is an old saying,
"If you can think it, you can do it. All that is needed is the how"
From Freddy Rodriguez, Houston TX I agree with Thicket, Fergus from Ontario, Canada. When there are breakthroughs in science, it's not because someone made up a completely unheard-of new concept(Hydrino??Black Matter?? WRONG! Has this guy heard of a man named Albert Einstein?? ) and applied it to a much needed device… Case in point – the Wright Brothers engineered a powered airplane based on proven lift mechanics and used their knowledge of bicycle building to make something practicle.
This guy here is making unligitimized scientific claims that anyone with an engineering degree can denounce.I took thermodynamics in college. Clearly this principle violates the Second LAW (not theory, LAW) of Thermodynamics. I commend him though on being an excellent sales person and opportunist.
From M. Y. USA Bottom line is, we're not going to know until it's tested by an independent lab like Sandia, Oak Ridge, or a private company like Earthtech. What I don't like about this is that the company makes claims that are extremely unlikely, very important if true, and they offer absolutely no demonstration of a working machine. Be suspicious. Be VERY suspicious.
From Thicket, Fergus, Ontario, Canada The believers in Blacklight Power often dredge up old myths to support their contention that the company has a legitimate scientific breakthrough.
1. Flat Earth – People in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat. This is a MYTH that originated in the 19th century. The prevailing view in the Middle Ages was that the earth was round.
2. Wright Brothers – People felt that humans couldn't fly. This is an obvious MYTH. Human flight in balloons and gliders was widespread long before Kitty Hawk. The Wright Brothers were fine engineers although they were not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft. They were the first for controlled, powered flight. They used contemporary aerodynamic theory (developed by others) and successfully built and flew an airplane.
3. Bumblebees – Others have already commented on this. MYTH. This one really makes me laugh. See previous explanations.
I think there are better analogies for the myth of Blacklight Power.
a. Alchemy – For centuries, gullible folks believed that lead and other substances could be turned into gold.
b. Perpetual Motion Machines – Claims from fraudsters and delusional folks have also been around for centuries. As we all know, these perpetual motion machines are readily available at your local Wal-Mart. Right? The term Perpetual Motion has been tarnished by all the failures, and has been replaced with the term Free Energy.
c. Just about any claims involving magic. Magic is great in science fiction/fantasy and for entertainment, but real-world belief is for the superstitious.
From Anonymous Tony Stark built one of those things in a cave!
From Anony, Vegas, Vada Hey…here's an idea. Wrap some copper wire around some milk jugs. Claim you've developed a physics bending device that makes free power from nothing. Then just pass out your bank account number for the investor money to transfer too. Investors are so hard up to make money right now off anything that they will actually fall for this (God forbid investors have to actually work for a living). Details will be explained later…… What a scam. It may not produce energy, but money, well that's another story….I think it will do that just fine. There is no shortage of people who slept through their physics classes and became investors.
From Dean, Bronx, NY To Dave from Palm Bay:
After a bit of cursory poking around, I'm not certain of this, but I think your clock is essentially running on a conventional battery design, with the anode and cathode built in and the water acting as the electrolyte. If my understanding is correct, the actual energy to power the clock is coming from chemical energy provided by metal within the clock, and over time it is being used up — though it may be that a clock uses little enough power that it will take a long time to use up all of it. The water isn't really the fuel.
From Dean, Bronx, NY I'd like to note that it's possible he's found a way to produce energy without being correct in his explanation of it. His theory seems quite fanciful to me, but if it turns out to be wrong and yet he has a way to produce cheap energy, being wrong on the physics won't really matter.
As people are saying: We'll see.
From Kevin O'Neil Chicago, IL I'm not saying with 100% certainty that this is bullshit, but I have to say I am highly skeptical. I think $60 million in VC money would have been more useful (and more likely to see profit) if it were sunk into something that didn't require unseating the bedrock of modern physics in order to work (i.e. Next Gen Pebble Bed Reactors, Ultracapacitors, Nanotech Manufacturing, etc). If this does pan out the investors deserve every dime of their return for betting on this longshot.
On a side note, I have to say that the level of education and flat out B.S. in this comment string is appalling. Obviously, I'm not a huge stickler for spelling and grammar, I don't edit before I hit send, and I'm not bashing the ESL people who are taking the time to share & translate their thoughts. Even all the rampant speculation and odd questions are okay.
What I'm referring to as Awful is all of the people who say "My credentials are such and such" and then proceed to spout off completely inaccurate information that has no basis in fact or history. I'm not referring to everyone, much like the population of this country, there are a few insightful people on this blog talking sense, finding them is tough.
-A
From Aman Khan, Karachi, Pakistan Its great to hear that dedicated engineers are trying to find solutions . Hope the work done for the past 19 years comes to great success for all people. Best wishes and look forward to reading more in 2009 .
From Derek Becker MN This is all true but it takes the same energy to make hydrogen as it makes so it is a big expensive battery not made by the bunny.
From Mchael, Tsukuba, Japan So, if it's the same thing that makes up dark matter, which is nearly impossible for us to detect, how can you keep it in a bottle and how is it possible to see it?
Maybe it works, but the "why" sounds completely bogus.
From andy plattsburgh,ny Science in this country and much of the world has been taken over by the politics of funding and political correctness. You only need to look at manmade global warming the most ridiculous wealth transfer ever concieved. As far as DR Mills theory, we will see the results much sooner than most of the talking. We are the generations that saw nuclear power, space travel and copmputers developed. I am sure the scientists of older technology and methods thought these new inovations were frauds as well. I guess we will find out next year.
From William Wilgus Maybe it doesn't work, but:
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could fly
They told Marconi wireless was a phony, it's the same old cry
They all laughed at Rockefeller Center, now they're fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat, Hershey and his chocolate bar
Ford and his Lizzie, kept the laughers busy, that's how people are
But ha, ha, ha! Who's got the last laugh now?
From "They All Laughed" by George Gershwin.
From Dave, Palm Bay, Fl Check this clock out (link below). I own one and it works as advertised; just add water to the clock’s fuel cell to provide natural power for months, no batteries or other power source.
BlackLight is on to something very exciting. Congratulations Dr. Randell Mills!
http://www.starmagic.com/Water-Clock.html
From ted tan, baguio city, philippines that kind of technology, harnishing hydrogen from water is not new here in the philippines, 20 yrs ago, but our goverment find it not credible.I feel desame thing here.
engr ted tan
From J.W. Irvine,CA So let a physics layman equate this:
Human gets tired when grinding a mill.
Human meets catalyst and becomes zombie which never gets tired of grinding a mill?
From Jay Shea, Beverley Hills, Ca K Nagato might do better commenting on things he knows about
From Wayne , clearwater fl I built a software technology to eliminate programming, first fortune 100 company was up 22 years ago, but with no interest in VC's (and they have called) it has taken a long time to work thru 100's of accounts and get it correct as a commercial entity that i know would work in 80-90% of solutions. I don't care about the last 10-20% do it a different way.
Now i have something that would take a huge amount of money and effort to duplicate/copy and since i didn't share along the way it's a stretch for all the status-quo buyers to understand but the results speak for themselves when you get 10x the productivity.
I am sure if they had shared along the way then you help competitors with ideas and direction so i agree wait till you are ready then deliver the knockout blow.
From Alan Larson If they can do this, the proof is simple. Don't tell us, show us. Put one in a building with no power input, and nothing going in but the water it uses, and run a generator to export the 50 kilowatts of power. After a month or so, they would have probably proved their case.
If it doesn't work, it is probably just another fraud.
The same test can be made for the cold fusion proponents — show us the kilowatts.
From Richard R., Phoenix, Arizona If proof is what you are looking for. Try here.
http://www.hydrino.org/labreports.php
Quite a few laboratories seem to have confirmed Mill's early work in the 90's. It is also very reasonable that technology this new might take a few years to commercialize. Especially when there are so many theoretical physicists who, are so dead set against it. Maybe this has something to do with self-interest, or multi-billion dollar hot fusion funding (still 50 years away), or all of the people working on the Grand Unification theories. Which nobody can agree upon. Flaws anyone? What else? Much of the energy from the sun still unexplained? Sun spots, ultra-violet?
Here is a rebuttal to a published critic (Dr Rathke) of Dr Mills.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/10252
This post states that it is from:
Jonathan Phillips, University of New Mexico, National Lab.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/phillips.html
Nature is elegant, and this just feels right. I can wait 2 more years to see who is right.
From Ray Wilber Atlanta GA This is very encouraging news. Despite the criticisim from other scientists this is a theroy and as a theroy should be givin the opportunity to prove its worth. Also, to paraphrase Mr. Jordan , if it works who cares what the acedemic world thinks.The potential to free America from the Oil Cartels stragle hold is to important to not give this a try.
From Alex, Shirley, NY Stories like this tell me that our nation is beginning to step through the grieving process over dwindling energy supplies.
Does this sort of nonsense count as the 1st step in that process (denial) or the 2nd (bargaining)? The sooner we reach "acceptance", and begin to deal with the fact that no fairy godmother magic will save us from making hard decisions, the better.
From K. Nagato, Dallas, Tx I'm not an expert on physics by a long shot, but energy from water has to be the stupidest idea I ever heard. This guys a Harvard physician? Embarassing. And so are all the fools giving money to this venture, and the fools on the board.
Next, will he prove that Santa Claus really does exist?
From Rob, Orange Park FL Just what makes that little old ant, think he can move that rubber tree plant. Every one knows an ant can't, move a rubber tree plant…
My point being, that there are many in this forum that say it can't be done. That may be true and if so you are correct, then hurray for you. But wouldn't you be more proud if you said, "Well that idea may not work, but this will and I'll prove it"? Sounds like your wasting what you've learned to discount other's work, instead of creating your own. The more ideas out there, the more likely one is to work.
From Tessa B. ;Cincinnati, OH My brother, an electrical engineer, who I think is brilliant, was (and probably still is), a big fan of cold fusion. Some years ago, he left his stable and predictable job w/ a government agency and went to work for a small company working on CF. The job ended badly for other issues, and he returned to the gov't job. CF became a joke in the family–woah! Here he comes! Settle in for a discourse in CF! He sent me the link to this article, which has been interesting, as well as the link to Black Light, which I intend to check out.
I am a scientist myself, but neither a physicist or an engineer. I remember physics dimly, and what I remember contradicts (as many have said)both CF and Black Light.
However, if the experiments are replicable by independent (key point) parties with no interest either way, then what is observed is what is observed, and the conventional wisdom might have to change.
Like it hasn't before!
Think of 'flat earth', then came Magellan, 'miasmas', then came the discovery of germs, and air flight 'could never be done'and gee, have you been to an airport lately?
Also remember hearing that the U.S. Patent Office was almost closed in the late eighteen hundreds or early nineteen hundreds because "everything that could be invented had been invented."
These things shake out over time. The ultimate test will be whether it works–which should soon be obvious.
The problem is the 'true believers' of either camp. Fanaticism blinds the keenest of observers.
Whoever said the gov't would have found this by now if it was real, clearly has never worked for the gov't.
It might be wise to invest cautiously, however, and only with discretionary income, until it becomes clearer what is going on.
You know things are going to get very bad when someone comes along and says, "I represent the government and government is here to help you." Then things will really be FUBAR.*
(*See–Bush and the undeclared war in Iraq.)
From Mercy Vetsel, New York, NY CNN: “Such grandiose predictions invite comparison to cold fusion”
Um, no! That’s not really fair to the cold fusion guys who may have been honestly confused.
For me such grandiose predictions invite comparison to a company that claimed to be on the cusp of a physics-defying magic energy machine way back in 1999:
[Our] 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 [our company] produce thermal energy immediately, continuously and consistently.
Awesome! And this 1999 company was also ready to commercialize the product:
The Company has prepared a written product development proposal which it is currently using in hopes of establishing joint venture partnerships and/or licensing agreements with companies in the energy business including utility companies, architectural/engineering firms, and boiler and power plant manufacturers.
Great stuff. So what was the name of this mysterious company? Black Light Power. Yep, the same people making almost identical claims.
You can even check out their website on the web archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991116122703/http://blacklightpower.com
I actually think it’s reasonable that BW reports it when mainstream media get duped by a perpetual fraudster. We’ll find out in August 2008 exactly the same thing that we found out in
August 2000, August 2005 and what we’ll be promised in August 2009 – this is a crock.
-Mercy
From James, Fayetteville, AR You're contradicting yourself logically in your zeal to defame the skeptics – it is the extraordinary claim here that requires extraordinary proof.
If this thing worked, it would be a simple matter to verify it scientifically – open peer review is how science works. The 'we're keeping it quite untill it's market-ready' approach is a bunch of BS – it would be very simple to demonstrate the energy claims using a test bed without revealing any commerically patented technology. For example, Thomas Edison could have demonstrated his lightbulb to the world without revealing how to actually make one.W here is that test bed?
From John Neidviecky Why hasn't the government at least looked into this form of energy? The
payoff would certainly be better than the 400= trillion that George is
spending on his ego-trip.
From Mark Iverson Thanks for posting my comments as I really was sincere in my motivation.
Cold Fusion really has survived tremendous negative pressures, and practically no funding, and despite all the hardships has now become a very repeatable phenomenon that cannot be dismissed any longer.
Please understand that the importance of this breakthru cannot be overstated; it allows us to tap into the tremendous energy inherent in the nucleus of an atom WITHOUT the negatives of radioactive waste. The major byproducts of the CF reactions are heat and helium, both of which are useful and non-polluting. The planet NEEDS this kind of solution to ween civilization off of fossil fuels!!!
Most Sincerely,
-= Mark =-
From JP Straley, Hickory, NC Interesting to see the ferment in alternative energy. Blacklight considers itself proven and plans to go to market. EMC2 occasionally leaks positive comments on the Bussard fusion work, supposedly will release data sets & have a general conference late summer. "Cold fusion" continues to gain respectability. Hmmm!
Any of these techno — even a decent fission program — would force the power sources away from fossil fuel as well, with both economic and environmental benefits. Interesting times.
Perhaps we might have relief from peak oil (and by extension peak oil politics.)
Locally generated power, there's your "power to the people."
JP Straley
From Mark, Reno Nevada Alex Barabas wrote:
"It took me 2 minutes of research to figure out that what you guys actually see as a viable source of energy in this article is in fact a hoax. Maybe your writers should Google things like this before they come up with a story about a crazy person reinventing physics."
Care to enlighten us Alex? This is sooo typical of the arrogant, armchair know-it-alls. If you're going to make such blatent accusations in a public forum, then at least have the guts to tell us why its a hoax, why Dr. Mills is 'crazy', and better yet, point us to the sources of your data so we stupid-gullible-folk can check out your data ourselves.
-M
From Tony Myles, San Francisco, CA The quote about bumblebee flight is an outdated bit of folklore. Try googling "bumblebees can't fly". Insect flight is well understood today, and no scientist has ever seriously claimed that bumblebees can't fly. Mr. Mills' supporters are doing him no favors using this as a defense to the skepticism to which his claims have been subjected. If anything, it proves their point. If you're looking catchy quotes I would suggest, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
From Jason Stoons, Austin, TX In an earlier post I made a small error; I typed :
——————–
Sodium hydride is not a catalyst; it reacts with hydrogen, creating sodium hydroxide and releasing hydrogen gas.
——————–
It should read :
Sodium hydride is not a catalyst; it reacts with water, creating sodium hydroxide and releasing hydrogen gas.
————–
Now, after reading new comments, this I say:
Electrons orbit a nucleus in an integer multiple of their wavelength. So the smallest orbit around a proton will be one electron wavelength. It cannot get any smaller, unless the electron's mass were to increase, because an increased mass means a smaller wavelength. But increased mass means higher energy level, which causes the electron to want to escape the proton entirely, like an energetic little kid wants to escape his mommy.
The electron does not follow the laws of physics; it IS THE LAW OF PHYSICS. We humans have been trying to puzzle out its behavior and extract useful patterns to exploit. We are the ones bound by its behavior. This scientist claims to have puzzled out a new behavior and is building a power source to exploit that behavior.
I have a problem with it that most nifty physics behavior do not scale up to the power levels we humans like to have handy; other physics behavior intervenes to limit the power gain. For example, Teflon makes a great friction-reducing surface, but it is quite soft and cannot be used in some applications.
From Mark N. Iverson Dear Ms. Kimes:
In your recent article on BlackLight Power, you said:
“Such grandiose predictions invite comparison to cold fusion, a source of cheap and abundant energy that two scientists in Utah claimed to unearth in 1989, only to be immediately discredited by government and independent experts.”
If you’d take 5 minutes of your time and do your job of investigating the background material used in your article, you’d quickly discover that cold fusion has come a LONG way since 1989, despite the ridicule and in some cases, intentional fudging of data to hide excess heat. In addition, there have been two public demonstrations of cold-fusion technologies in Japan in the last two months, and recent work at the U.S. SPAWAR lab in San Diego which has drastically improved repeatability, and hard evidence of high energy particles (which could ONLY come from nuclear processes).
Given the current situation with energy prices, you are doing a significant dis-service to the planet by making uninformed statements like this. If you have any interest in becoming informed about the very interesting and promising field of cold fusion (a.k.a., Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), you might want to visit the following website which covers CF, the good, the bad, and the ugly…
http://www.newenergytimes.com
You also said:
“But while the cold-fusion scientists rushed to the media shortly after their ‘discovery,’… "
They were basically forced to do so since the University’s admin was going to go public if they didn’t. Put yourself in their shoes… would you want someone else to announce your breakthru discovery, knowing that it’d probably be exaggerated to who knows what level? At least they came out with carefully worded and reasonable information…
Best regards,
Mark N. Iverson
BTW, I do not work in any CF-related research, and have nothing to gain from its advance, thus, my motivation here is simply to help it get a fair shake with the scientific community. It is essential that we do not delay any further the investigation of what could be a truly low-cost, environmentally benign source of energy.
From Alex Barabas It took me 2 minutes of research to figure out that what you guys actually see as a viable source of energy in this article is in fact a hoax. Maybe your writers should Google things like this before they come up with a story about a crazy person reinventing physics.
Alex
From Naalie Ingalls My favorite statement in the article was and it says it ALL.
theoretically the bumble bee chouldn't be able to fly but no one told it so.
That says it all amen
From Thomas, Vancouver, BC I've spent around a 100 hours studying and watching Blacklight Power over the past 2 years. I believe they are on to some new physics, sort of the way the discovery of nuclear energy about 100 years ago upset the old paradigms. Making hydrinos is difficult, same as fission and fusion are difficult. Fission and fusion were eventually accepted, and I expect hydrino theory will eventually be accepted after the evidence becomes pervasive.
Mills and his buddies are years ahead of anyone else; there is no real hope of anyone catching up to them, so we just have to wait and see their results, buy their eventual products, and make them rich like we made Bill Gates rich.
It will be win-win, but Mills will be gaining from billions of transactions if he is really onto new physics.
From John Barchak, Fort Wayne, IN I would like to make it very clear that my usage of the term "quantum mechanics" implies Bohr's quantum mechanics. I have no problem at all with the work of Yang, t'Hooft, or Gell-Mann. These three are amoung the brightest physicists to ever walk the planet and are far above the non-sense of Bohr.
The proponents of Bohr's quantum mechanics have been taking credit for other peoples work for a very long time. Today, they even take credit for the laser. The work of Yang, t'Hooft, and Gell-Mann has absolutely no connection what-so-ever to Bohr's quantum mechanics.
From walter steele why not look into a nother process? such as hydrogen fuel process that
converts water into two gassses., LOOK at hydrogen fuel injection (HFI)
stock symbol HYHY. Look it over and give me your opinion. thank you…….
From Rob Salter Is there a way to invest in BlackLight? Sounds like they are not
public…is that correct? Any other way to get exposure to them / their
technology?
From Mark, Reno Nevada Andrew from Dublin Ireland wrote:
"What other applications or new science could be discovered based on this theory."
Four words can sum that up…
"Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"
With the recent public demos and the last several years of progress which validate 'cold fusion', a new chapter in the physics textbooks will need to be written. The chapter title will be, "Nuclear processes at low energy".
I like to explain it this way:
"There are two ways to break a wine glass: with the cold-hard steel of a sledgehammer (the brute-force, unintelligent method), OR, with nothing more than a voice (a little bit of acoustic energy at the right frequency)… aka, resonance. All of atomic physics has been using brute-force (particle accelerators, etc.). It's about time that the "intelligent" scientists try something a little more elegant."
For the latest on CF research:
http://www.newenergytimes.com
For the CF 'library':
http://www.lenr-canr.org
Things are getting very interesting!
-Mark
From John Barchak, Fort Wayne, IN Hi Andrew, Dublin Ireland
The sky is the limit – quantum mechanics (QM) has been the biggest drag on progress there has ever been. In the 1950s, QM said that the laser was impossible. Charles Townes ignored QM and got his Nobel prize and very much money.
http://tinyurl.com/5sbnzd
An interview with Carver Mead conducted by the American Spectator:
http://tinyurl.com/8r72c
From Russ Barnes, Bantam Lake, CT The naysayers are typical of the " Not invented here or by me " syndrome. If it works, it works. So shut up and be thankful that someone dared to discover.
It's just plain stupid to believe that all our laws are immutable. Someone discovered them, too, and proved that the sun does not revolve around the flat earth.
From Rob, Orange Park FL Not dogging the physicists here, but people tend to stick w/what they know or what they are taught. What we need is more innovation to get us to the next level. If Mr. Mills is wrong, then let him hang himself. But remember, nothing is impossible and if you think it is, someone will one day prove you wrong. Theories are just that.
Thinking we need to skip a step anyway. For those trying to make the battery better, I say why? That's like us using the combustion engine. Are you kidding me? Same goes for generating electricity. Let's go get the helium-3 from the moon ASAP. We went to the moon decades ago, but it's going to take a decade to go back? Now that is something the scientific community should be questioning. You know, we have the shuttles which we spent a lot of money on and we are just going to retire them. Why not use them to transit back and forth between the moon's and earth's orbit. The shuttle wouldn't have to land, just release a canistor full of the helium ore for a controlled re-entry. You physicists could find a way to gen O2 for the shuttle out in space. I'm sure w/a little bit of money as a prize, someone will quickly figure a way to mine the ore and get it into the shuttle. Let's use the transportation technology we have now, to take the leap in energy technology that's badly needed.
From Gen Y, Des Moines, IA Ok, to reiterate again for some people (Jason from Texas)… the point here is that the electron in a protium atom (hydrogen-1) enters a stable orbit an unusually high energy state relative to other atoms.
What BLP has found a way to do is to siphon off some of the energy that keeps the electron orbiting at a high energy state.
It's conceivably possible, it just throws physics for a loop because it means that hydrogen can achieve multiple stable energy states.
From Andrew, Dublin Ireland Ladies and Gents, I want to pose a question. Just supposing that Blacklight Power are correct and Quantum Physics is wrong. What other applications or new science could be discovered based on this theory. No sarcastic comments please!
From tom hagedorn, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Don't be so quick to reject work that is being done by Mills. Fifteen years ago, Dr. Thomas Kakovitch patented technology for the rankine power cycle that use helium with steam to creat a more ideal gas and was dismissed by many of the same in the "educated" community. Today he is in Bejing, China installing the technolgy after U.S. power plant operators refuse to incorporate the technology into to their facilities. "STEALIUM" (STEAM AND HELIUM)provides with 1% of heilum to mass at 16% reduction of any engery -oil, gas, coal or nuclear and may be scaled up to nearly 50% increase in thermal efficency. Go to mrti-usa.com and learn what has been proven to work for more than a decade.
From David, Charlotte NC I think this is where the saying 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is' comes into play. 60 million dollars sounds like a lot, but the idea that it is possible to develop such a remarkable technology on such little funding seems absurd. Just building a facility to suck oil out of the ground costs over 1 billion. I sure hope it's real, but for years there have been a thousand different people coming out with a thousand absurd miracle solutions. The only reason this is getting press is because of the high gas prices.
From Robin van Spaandonk, Melbourne, Australia James Riordon thinks the oceans would have already long disappeared. He also hasn't done his homework. This process only works for *atomic* hydrogen and perhaps also for certain very specific compounds (e.g. NaH). It doesn't work on water unless the water is first subject to highly concentrated microwaves (at least sufficient to produce a plasma).
From Robin van Spaandonk Michael Schmidt wants grams of stuff to play with. I suggest he contact Blacklightpower, who already have grams of stuff, and even provide it to labs that meet their criteria for testing.
From Robin van Spaandonk Rob W. Denver clearly hasn't taken the trouble to visit Mills' website (www.blacklightpower.com), or he would have understood that this is anything but ordinary chemistry. Hydrinos are hydrogen atoms where the electron is in an "orbital" lower than the normal ground state. This state cannot be reached from the ground state through emission of radiation, but can be acheived through collision with an appropriate catalyst. When such a transition takes place, considerably more eergy is released than is common in chemical reactions.
From Jim Scottsville, Ky. Well I hope this turns out the way Mr.Mills says its going to.I would like to see this happen. I think it could be one setp closer of maybe one day getting away from carbon based feul.After all we have only need gas for autos only a little over 100 years.And besides did they not say the Wright brothers could not fly?
I found Mr.Mills article after I had looked up about Nuclear Energy Power Plants and Nuclear Waste.
From Paul, Fort Collins CO It's quite amazing that something this dude just stumbled upon and is able to make a motor with can't be independently detected by third parties. Especially when those third parties are physicists, and he's saying he's discovered an entirely new form of matter. Which only he can find and use.
I've discovered that a big sign of scientific deception is not only having junk theories to explain yourself, but throwing them at anything perceived as mysterious at the moment — such as dark matter or the solar corona heating mystery. By the way, the solor corona thing isn't really so mysterious these days, see Science magazine.
Though scientists have often had mismatched models to predict the behavior of some things, like the problem old aerodynamic models used to have with bumblebees' flight, the laws of thermodynamics have been oppressively consistent at predicting the things they apply to, like energy systems.
From Jason Stoons, Austin TX I am puzzled by the comments.
Sodium hydride is not a catalyst; it reacts with hydrogen, creating sodium hydroxide and releasing hydrogen gas. And it is an exothermic reaction, so it produces heat.
If the hydrogen given off is collected and fed back to sodium metal, under the right conditions, it will form sodium hydride. Hence all you need is a supply of sodium metal, and water. The process yields one hydrogen molecule for every one molecule of sodium hydride and every one molecule of water.
It's the right conditions we don't know about – pressure, temperature – that his processes are using, or if he is extracting sodium metal from the sodium hydroxide (using electrolysis?). So somewhere, the energy costs are not being correctly calculated.
As for the theories about dark matter, that is pure hooey. The lowest ground state for a single hydrogen atom is the neutron – the electron no longer orbits the proton. But neutrons are not stable. Wonder if he is using a radioactive isotope – beta decay – for the sodium hydride ?
From Joseph Nowoslawsk MD Villanova PA Spin and orbital splitting energies do not superimpose…..sorry
From Joseph Nowoslawski A chemical reaction that will change the base state of hydrogen into dark matter. I have got to see that one.
Must be something out of area 51.
From Charlie, San Diego CA What I would like to know is why people can't make this device. Mills claims to be keeping no secrets. So why doesn't he design a simple proof of concept device that could be made by anyone?
If he has the process worked out why is it so difficult to replicate?
While I can understand the details being tricky of how to get it to work properly, it seems like the device itself should be very simple to make.
Why don't Mill's believers, all these professors I hear about that check out Mills work, why don't they get together and design a simple device people can make and make one themselves? Like people making their own aircraft like Orville and Wilburs.
From Charlie, San Diego CA That's like saying that because something is flammable here on Earth it should have burned up long ago.
The way I look at this lower enery state thing is to look at other planets that are coomprised of "flammable" liquids or gasses. They are only "flammable" if you have the other chemicals around needed to ignite them. If you have gasoline but no oxygen it won't ignite.
(I saw a mythbusters episode where they were simply trying to ignite gas fumes and oxygen in an enclosed space and it took them over an hour to do it.)
Similarly, the Earth doesn't have the right natural conditions to cause hydrogen to reach this lower energy state. What Mills' cells do is to create this environment.
From Linda, Las Cruces, NM If it works, power brokers and big oil will simply have the man killed and his work destroyed. Besides, he is marketing to the power brokers. If there is any real savings in production of power, they will line their pockets with it and the average joe will pay the same.
From John Barchak, Fort Wayne, IN Hi Rob
See:
http://tinyurl.com/6kpemb
From William, San Antonio TX I haven't run any thermodynamic calculations, but I wonder whether a reaction or series of reactions in which sodium hydride is a reactant, instead of a catalyst, might account for the energy. But at this stage of development, one would expect some cells would have been run long enough that sodium hydride would have been consumed and the production of "hydrinos" and energy stopped if sodium hydride was actually a reactant. Intriguing theory, but I've seen just enough junk science to be very skeptical of this claim.
From Tony, Jacksonville, FL Hyrdrinos explain the superheating of the Sun's corona as well? Wow. Maybe they are the also the source of unrest in the middle east.
From Rob W. Denver, CO This story is appalling. Mills' work is nothing more than another tired attempt to sell the old bromide that energy can be extracted from water. He would not be the first person or, unfortunately, the last person to sell (or buy) this silliness.
Water is already a fully-oxidized form of hydrogen. That is, any reaction which seeks to obtain hydrogen from water requires an energy INPUT. I don't know how Mills' Fuel Cell system performs this step, but presumably it is some form of electrolysis. Electrolysis is never more than about 60% efficient, although the recombination of the evolved Hydrogen with Oxygen will yield energy at a very high efficiency. But for the closed system of Electrolysis/Recombination, the energy return ratio is never better than about 0.6. That is, it requires an energy INPUT to run.
Even if Mills' trick is the use of a catalyzed reaction (the sodium hydride mentioned in the article), the energy required to create the Sodium Hydride needs to be included in the energy return ratio. Sodium Hydride isn't generally found laying around in nature. There are certainly anomalous behaviors seen in electrochemical reactions involving certain catalysts. As farcical as it seems now, certain aspects of "Cold Fusion" are still actively, if quietly researched for this reason. But I'm unaware of anybody who has conclusively demonstrated catalytic reactions using water as a feedstock, where the overall system has an energy return ratio substantially greater than 1. If anybody knows of such work in a peer-reviewed source, I would happily retract my statement (as any honest scientist would, regardless of his funding source).
As far as criticizing academia for being worried about "losing grant money", that is the first refuge of every scam artist trying to discredit mainstream science. If Mills' had a real discovery on his hands, he'd win a Nobel Prize and be handed all the research dollars he could handle. He would also have a line of talented scientists out the door wanting to work on his team, including me. The incentives for producing ground-breaking results would work in Mr. Mills' favor if he had really made such a stunning breakthrough. If the "Hydrino" really exists, Mr. Mills', then prove it, and you'll have all the acclaim you can handle.
Science, far from being retrogressive, is constantly being energized by the novel and the exciting. The entire Scientific Method is about improving our imperfect understanding of how the Universe works. Our knowledge is constantly being refined by new scientific work, and such refinement is accepted by our community as long as the empirical evidence is good. As rare as they are, even scientific revolutions are eventually accepted as long as the evidence is sound. Unfortunately, there are far fewer actual scientific revolutions than there are people trying to claim they've discovered them.
Finally, I'm offended that people would tar the good name of both Capitalism and Science by proclaiming Capitalism a bastion of "results" and Science a repository of "Theory". Our understanding of Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are based largely on 100 years of experimentation, in addition to the hard slog of theoretical work. To imply that Science is divorced from "results" is ignorant. To imply that Capitalists shouldn't care about the theoretical underpinnings of deeply technical subjects is also nonsense. Anybody with an ounce of fiduciary good sense shouldn't spend capital trying to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics.
From Michael Schmidt, Escondido, CA I looked at one of the peer-reviewed articles that has been published in support of BlackLight's efforts, specifically the one that shows more power out than in. It brought back memories of 1989 and cold fusion. Calorimetry is in principle very simple, but when you are looking at calorimetry of processes in which there is a significant amount of input power, it is hard to do well. In both the cold fusion and RT-plasma cases, there is substantial power in–the electrolytic current in the case of the electrochemical cold fusion, and the microwave energy input in the case of the plasma. In both cases, relatively small errors can give promising but deceptive results.
If the "RT" phenomenon is real, they will have no problem scaling up. But I wouldn't be surprised if they find that they can't get the power out they expect when they scale up. Of course, the investors will hear a good deal of talk about how this needs to be tweaked, and this efficiency needs to be improved, and we just need a more efficient microwave generator…but years will go by, and the thing just won't ever really work.
Of course, maybe they'll prove my prediction wrong. In which case we soon should have grams of this hydrino stuff lying around to play with, instead of just spectroscopic lines that look a bit unfamiliar.
If there aren't grams of the stuff to show, it might be the ultimate excuse of the developers to simply say that the hydrinos revert to normal hydrogen, sucking up all the energy that was created. "Nope, we weren't wrong, it's just that the process is too reversible."
I generally don't play the lottery but I think it may be a better investment than BlackLight.
From tony, ATL,GA I remain skeptical of this. If he is indeed getting energy out of converting hydrogen to hydrino, can he show us the hydrinos produced in the process? And if this process really works, what are the properties of this dark matter – and the ramifications of producing significant amounts of it on earth? Could it be dangerous? Could it end up creating an even greater problem?
From Dan Brown, Louisiana Scientists need to explain why it works instead of saying it couldn't work. I have yet to see anyone sit down and do the science on this thing. If the explaniation is wrong then find the correct one.
From Martin Patterson, Louisiana I have worked under & on H2O, I live on it, play on it, drink it and occasionally bathe in it.
Sure would like to be marketing manager for BL Inc.
From Miami, Fl Isn't the question of more energyout than in related to a local vs say global reference. I study Aikido, if I am attacked I use a small amount of force to redirect the attacker's force in a way that bebefits me. That small amount can be incapacitating, or deadly, depending on where I redirect the force coming at me. When we think globally, the attacker, myself, all forces acting on the system, all energy is accounted for. However locally to me, only a little force is used to do a much greater amount of work. Some of the Grad students at my university are trying to debunk Stan Meyers water car. Thing is they keep getting out more energy than they put in. Each time it happens they write it off to errors in measurements, but a 400% error??? Isn't it possible that it only appears that we are getting more out than we are putting in, when in fact it is simply an as yet undiscovered rule that is in play?
From Richard Kidd I'm not a physisist, as I imagine most of these commentators aren't, as well. So, I won't postulate on whether or not Mr. Mills' equations are accurate; it's irrelevant. Capitalism has very little patience for theory; it wants results. The fact is, regardless of the theory behind the process, the results have been replicated by NASA and others. And, if he is telling the truth, as of next year, his discovery will change our world forever. I find it difficult to imagine that in a world run rampant with lawsuits, Mr. Mills would shed such a bright light on his proposal if he were not on to something — and I hope he is. But, at this point, we will have to play the waiting game.
From John, Massapequa New York It was not that along ago that the greatest scientists of the world thought the sun revolved around the Earth. Then not long after that scientist swore the world was flat. Before the first atomic bomb was detonated some scientists thought that the Earth's atmoshpere would be set a blaze in the explosion and kill us all. All of these scientists used "theories" of the day and age to justify their beliefs. All were proven to be totally wrong. Let's all let Blacklight have a shot at proving to us that they are correct. Science should allow for radical ideas and thoughts, not poo poo them as heresy before studying the data.
From Antony, Melbourne Vic Why does that follow?
The claim here is that a resonant energy transfer mechanism exists between atomic hydrogen and an acceptor atom or ion or even a molecule (the catalyst) that is able to absorb an integer multiple of 27.2ev. The loss of that energy collapses the radius of H atom to new stable "below ground" states.
That's either a fact of nature or it isn't. Interesting the example he gave of a similar process is the formation of the H2 molecule. In that case a third body is used to non-radiatively carry off extra energy to permit two hydrogen atoms to form a stable molecule- each hydrogen atom in that case will have less energy than their ground states.
As you mention he claims dark matter are these "hydrinos". He also claims the higher temperatures in the sun's corona relative to its surface are due to hydrino reactions and that predicted spectra from the corona match hydrino transitions.
Can he build a reactor to replace coal, gas and nuclear? Who knows? We've known about fusion for years and we haven't had zip.
From Paul South Florida I guess we will be seeing the liquidation of all the major electric companies and oil companies being posted on http://www.sellmyinventory.com in the coming years huh?
From Roy Aber, Bethel Park, PA Damn. There goes my chance to harness safe, renewable energy from butterfly flatulence!
From Ernesto Suarez Storrs CT Chances are if you spend 19 years doing trial by error, you really don't understand what is truly happening.
From Gordon, New York, NY We know that tap water is cheaper than gasoline, but the sodium hydride catalyst in the proposed solid fuel is expensive and hazardous. The question is not whether it will work, but will it be cost-effective and safe?
From Tom Bavis, Macedon NY The laws of thermodynamics WILL let you extract energy from water… by running it downhill. Water is already at the lowest energy state – there's nothing there – we can't burn ashes…
That people accept the ridiculous claims ("Cheap energy from water") is a sad comment on education in physics.
From Frank, West Point, CA A phenomenon (or a reaction in this case) does not require an accurate scientific explanation in order for it to exist.
From John. Lunenburg MA You naysayers sound like the earth is flat crowd.
It will either work on not.
Let's see.
From JonPeter, Hartford, CT Don't bother debating quatum physics, the concept violates the principles of conventional chemical thermoynamics. Water is fully oxidized hydrogen. If you electrolyze water, you need to provide energy to reduce water back to hydrogen and oxygen.
When the hydrogen is oxidized by combustioon or in a fuel cell that chemnical energy is released. If the process is 100% efficient you recover the energy put into making hydrogen. If it less than 100% efficient you would be better of having used the energy directly.
The only way this could work is if additional energy were generated by a subatomic process, such as that proposed in the past for 'cold fusion'.
That isn't the case, and this is just a bunch of hand waving designed to make a few people rich.
From Brian, Atlanta GA Maybe now we can let the middle east return to what it was meant to be, sand.
-
These 7 entrepreneurs are bringing tech, medical research and design jobs to the Detroit metro area. More -
Arson. Scrappers. Blackouts. It's part of business for the last tenant in Detroit's Packard Plant. More -
Inventing is the easy part. Marketing? Trickier. Experts tell how they'd advertise 5 hard-to-tout products. More -
Every restaurateur knows about Cursed Locations, the addresses where no venture survives. More -
Detroit's churches are plowing millions into redeveloping local housing and businesses. More
I'm just a humble aerospace engineer. Theadore Karman met similar opposition from the Collegiate Elite for his mathematical theories and designs for super-sonic flight. Some made statements to the media claiming even if a pilot can achieve super-sonic speed, he will not be able to return to subsonic speed. Yet in 1949 Chuck Yeager made the first super-sonic flight proving it can be done. Six utility companies, five public and one private, are moving ahead with construction of Black Light power generators. Let's see what happens.