What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?

[Jay-qu]

The problem is that this isnt your everyday novel phenomena. A normal physicist, upon finding something new and strange would go and get another physicist to check whats up. They would both thoroughly test the phenomena and even if they dont find an explanation would publish their results in a peer reviewed journal. The guy who started all this is a known crackpot, his junk theories have failed peer review, a brief look at the black light wiki site has plenty of references.

 

Blacklight now, as far as I understand, dont care about the novel science, only generating capital. They wont divulge enough information about their process for anyone else to attempt to reproduce their results - this is a fundamental step in the scientific method.

 

If they are not bull shitting, they have nothing to fear - they hold the patents and their research should be years ahead of anyone else that could compete with them. So as far as I see it sharing a bit more information would only help them by giving them credibility, yet they dont..

[JMJones0424]

Here we have overwhelming evidence in the form of human behavior: a board of directors that simply would never associate themselves with charlatans, working scale models, and independent verification in the form of both a large group from Rowan University and the public release of the entire experiment to be repeated elsewhere.

 

No one knowingly and willingly allows themselves to be duped. And yet history is replete with very successful charlatans. EVERYTHING about their claims screams incredulity. It is neither my interest nor my duty to discover whether the parties involved are either mistaken, misleading, or (EXTREMELY unlikely) revolutionary. It is up to them to provide evidence of their claims, and since it appears they are not willing to release more specific details (which doesn't prove them wrong, just makes them appear suspicious), I will resort to waiting for their financial experiment to prove either a huge success or the next laughable hoax. Time will tell, and I'm not holding my breath.

[Moontanman]

This guy has been claiming blacklight power is ready to be used on a large scale if only he can get the funding for more than a decade. All he is generating is money from investors for his own use, no power!

[Zythryn]

Many board of directors also firmly believed investing with Madoff was a good deal.

Belief in something by someone doesn't support it's validity.

As mentioned by others, show the formula (sure get all the patents and such to protect your discovery first). Allow third parties to indipendantly reproduce the phenomenon and by all means get it into mass production.

But until it moves beyond the 'magic show' displays and into something peer reviewed I think skepticism is to be expected.

[CraigD]

Just to explain, I consider myself to be a philosopher, and am interested in non-consensus reality and how people deal with it psychologically.

Thanks dobermanmacleod. Knowing something of your background is helpful.

 

It’s important to read BLP’s claims carefully. For example, while Mills is reported in the linked money.com article to have said

The working models in his lab generate 50 kilowatts of electricity - enough to power six or seven houses

a BLP press release states:

BLP’s 50,000 watt reactor generated over 1 million joules of energy in a precise measurement made by Rowan University engineers, led by Dr. Peter Jansson.

To a trained physicist, chemist, mechanic, or merely an astute enthusiast – but possibly not a well-educated philosopher - a peculiar detail is immediately apparent in comparing these two quotes: 1,000,000 J of energy is the amount produced by a 50,000 W power process in 20 seconds, so the described test is claiming the reactor operated for over 20 seconds, not a duration most people consider consistent with the phrase “enough to power six or seven houses”, although technically the first claim doesn’t mention how long the reactor could power the houses.

 

For comparison, 1,000,000 J of energy is about what you’d get from burning 20 grams of butane, 32 g of coal, or 200 g (about 0.4 pounds) of dry wood. From personal experience with burning stuff, I know it’s not to difficult to get these ordinary fuels to burn completely in about 20 seconds (getting wood to burn fast is a bit, but not too tricky – chop it into powder of the right size) in a vessel about the size of the pictured BlackLight reactors, so their performance is similar to simply burning stuff in a can/boiler.

 

The essence of BLP’s claim – why they assert their reactor is better than just burning stuff in a similar size vessel – is that, unlike butane, which leaves nearly no ash, or wood or coal, which leaves ash that can’t easily be made to burn again, the BlackLight reactor's spent sodium hydride solid fuel – there looks from BLP’s photos and diagrams to be a kilogram or two of it – can be recycled by heating it and adding a small amount of hydrogen, allowing it to be used over and over.

 

Sources: BlackLight's physics-defying promise: Cheap power from water - Jul. 2, 2008; BlackLight Power Inc. Announces Independent Replication of New Energy Source ; Energy density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it really that important to you that you understand why something works?

Hypography is first and foremost a science site, not a investment advice or other “oracular” discipline site, so for most regular contributors here, knowing why things work is very important.

 

To understand why folk with some physics education find the Mills his supporters pseudoscientific (though most science enthusiasts use the term “pseudoscientific” derogatorily, from a psychological/sociological point-of-view, it merely applies to claims who’s proponents claim are scientific, but most recognized scientists in the field claim are not) hydrino theory offensive, one need consider both the way in which Mills has presented his claims – pseudoscientifically - and a bit of the history of the last century of physics. A good focus for this science history inquiry is a ca. 1900 prediction known as the ultraviolet catastrophe.

 

In short, this conundrum resulted from taking what physicists knew at the time about the structure of atoms and how they produced light, and arriving at the conclusion that atoms should begin emitting low-energy EM radiation (eg: infrared heat), then higher energy (eg: visible light), then increasingly higher energy (ultraviolet and beyond), ultimately emitting nearly infinite amounts Energy in the form of ultra-high energy EM radiation.

 

Physicists have a neat and funny term for this sort of prediction – they call it an “unphysical result”, meaning that no matter how you reasonably interpret experimental data consensual or non-consensual reality or anecdotal perception of reality, it simply isn’t happening. To be clear, what’s predicted is a universe roiling in near infinite amounts of ionizing radiation, blasting apart all normal matter into some sort of plasma soup reminiscent of conditions described in the Big Bang theory as having existed for the universe’s first few hundred thousand years. These are not conditions under which human physicists or philosophers consider anything, as they’re not conditions under humans can exist. When your best theory comes up with this prediction, you have a serious problem.

 

Mainstream science (in the big-name persons of folk such as Plank and Einstein) solved the problem ca. 1910 by replacing the best physics of the 19th century with essentially what we have now, quantum physics. Under the new, “modern” physics, the old, classical physics hold true only approximately when large numbers of particles are considered ensemble. When individual electrons in atoms – the entities 19th and 20th+ century physicists agree are emitting most everyday EM radiation - are considered, a new “notch-y-ness” applies, limiting the energy of the EM radiation that any electron in an atom can emit in its usual way by limiting the minimum distance an electron can be from its atoms nucleus. Where the old theory predicted an absurdity (an unphysical result), the new theory superbly fits the observed universe.

 

Jump forward to 1989. Small-name electrochemists Fleishman and Pons, after years of experimenting with running currents through heavy (hydrogen-2, AKA deuterium, rich) water to palladium metal cathodes believe they have a reaction where the energy out (heat mostly, but perhaps some radiated neutrons) can’t be explained by ordinary chemical theory, and suggest (critics might consider “suggest” too mild a term, preferring something like “fraudulently push”) that what’s actually happening is something mysterious whereby the palladium is causing the hydrogen-2 to fuse in to helium. No new physics is needed to explain where the excess energy is coming from – Hydrogen-to-helium fusion is well-known, being the processes believed to power both the Sun and the most destructive weapons known to man, fusion bombs. What new is needed is an explanation of how a low-energy current – “cold” conditions, infusing palladium with deuterium can be causing some of the deuterium to fuse into helium.

 

The explanation turns out to be simple enough, though a whole pseudoscientific publishing industry and culture will spring from folk who refuse to accept it – Fleishman and Pons were simply wrong. The unaccounted for excess energy isn’t due to a novel physical process – cold fusion – but an complicated accounting mistake – and their whole apparatus is merely a complicated exothermic chemical reaction generator.

 

Various folk, with varying degrees of success, attempt and continue to attempt to make money from cold fusion, but not too many people – Fleishman and Pons and their lab at BYU not excepted – get very rich from it.

 

In 1991, Medical Doctor Randell Mills comes to the conclusion that Fleishman and Pons were not wrong in their accounting, but in their explaining its cause as due to fusion. Instead, he concludes that the entire “notch-y” foundation of quantum physics is wrong, and that the right chemical catalysts – those found in Fleishman and Pons jar and his BlackLight reactor – can cause electrons in hydrogen to get a little bit closer to their nuclei, calling hydrogen atoms in this state “hydrinos”. He self-publishes a long book with his explanation, which acknowledged physicists claim is ridiculously wrong except for the parts that are simply copied from previous texts. Mills responds that these reviewers are lying because they know his ideas will discredit all of their work and likely lose them their grants and jobs.

 

While Mills appears utterly discredited by mainstream science (with the arguable exception of supporters such as Rowan University Engineering Associate Professor Peter Jansson), he and his business are favored, I think, by many sociological and psychological factors. I think the two most prominent are

1. Distrust of mainstream science by some groups of the general public, business entrepreneurs expecially
   
2. A strong desire from nearly everyone for simple, clean alternatives to present day energy sources
   

It’s interesting, I think, that in the 1990s, Mills promoted the idea that hydrinos theory could be used to make powerful explosives and rocket fuels, but later emphasized “friendlier” applications, such as power generation.

 

He also claims that hydrinos can be used to make strong, corrosion-resistant coatings for boats and similar applications.

 

Sources: various above linked wikipedia articles; 12/21/1991 Village Voice article “Quantum Leap”; above links to Rowan University website

[maikeru]

Is it really that important to you that you understand why something works? How much technology do you come into contact with every day that you don't understand the nitty-gritty of, but just accept as a convenience that works? Are you afraid of being fooled or taken advantage of? Look, I'm not trying to browbeat you, only understand your reluctance to give this non-consensus reality phenomena more stock than you seem to be giving it.

 

It is not necessary that I understand all the details but it's more important to know that they are there and knowable. To understand the whys and hows is to understand science. It helps to have some skepticism, for you see, science normally doesn't run on blind faith, but testable, verifiable, reproducible, quantifiable, explainable, justifiable faith, so help us Mr. Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[dobermanmacleod]

I really appreciate the detailed explanation of both the historical reasoning and personal thought process that went into your skepticism of the BlackLight Process. Frankly, I delved a little into Mill's theories and also read with interest the reaction (he was severely criticized for both his mathematics and grand attempt to rewrite modern physics), and came away much more skeptical of both Mill and his theories.

 

Only after I double checked my analysis of the physical evidence (i.e. the board of directors of BlackLight, the apparent scale working models, the independent verification by Rowan, etc.) did I regain my near certainty that this was the real deal.

 

In my opinion, the following quote says it all:

 

"Theories are difficult to kill, but a power-generating process is fairly easy to prove — does it release energy, or not? ...if the process is real, only a public demonstration is likely to convince its opponents." --"Blacklight Power claims nearly-free energy from water — is this for real?"

May 30, 2008, Blacklight Power claims nearly-free energy from water — is this for real? | VentureBeat

 

Does it release energy or not? Yet, only a public demonstration is likely to convince its opponents. In fact, I've been doing some research, and even a public demonstration doesn't convince opponents:

 

Tesla The Race to Zero Point Free Energy ( Documentary ZPE ) alternative science

 

A almost two hour Google video: Tesla The Race to Zero Point Free Energy ( Documentary ZPE ) alternative science. By the way, the first hour is what I am referring to, but I am reasonably certain you don't have the time to even watch that, sorry. Again, thanks for your time explaining your reasoning to me!

[Zythryn]

...

In my opinion, the following quote says it all:

 

"Theories are difficult to kill, but a power-generating process is fairly easy to prove — does it release energy, or not? ...if the process is real, only a public demonstration is likely to convince its opponents." --"Blacklight Power claims nearly-free energy from water — is this for real?"

May 30, 2008, Blacklight Power claims nearly-free energy from water — is this for real? | VentureBeat

 

Does it release energy or not? Yet, only a public demonstration is likely to convince its opponents. In fact, I've been doing some research, and even a public demonstration doesn't convince opponents:...

!

Production of energy isn't sufficient.

To prove this type of thing you must be able to show not only the production of energy, but also that the input of energy is in the expected range you are claiming.

Fusion generators produce HUGE quantities of energy. Do Fusion generators work? Well, no not really as you must put in much more energy than you get out.

 

Compressed air cars work too. However, once again, you must put in much more energy (in the form of compressing air) than you get out. It just isn't efficient in most cases.

When the 'inventor' refuses to allow others to attempt to reproduce the effect, it sends up HUGE red flags.

I hope my skepticism is misplaced and soon we will have tons of 2cent/kw electricity widely available. I'll just wait for the proof;)

[CraigD]

Only after I double checked my analysis of the physical evidence (i.e. the board of directors of BlackLight, the apparent scale working models, the independent verification by Rowan, etc.) did I regain my near certainty that this was the real deal.

I’d very much like to see some plain physical evidence, such as a paper by Jansson describing the test’s he’s done on the BlackLight reactor. I think the reason most of us here at hypography suspect that BLP is, rather than the real deal, a real scam, is the lack of such documentation, or testing by an agency that produces such documentation as a matter of course, such as the NIST.

 

Do you have any such documents, dobermanmacleod, or better yet, internet links to some :QuestionM

 

Without this, I’m left to guess at what BLP and Jansson have actually done. Here’s what I’m guessing:

• Connected the inlet and outlet on one of BLP’s fuel cells via a couple of tubes with a small electric pump to well-insulated reservoir of water with a thermometer in it
  
• Circulated water through the reactor and the reservoir
  
• Read the thermometer
  
• Activated the fuel cell (I guess this consists of wetting its solid fuel element by adding water to the reactor’s main vessel)
  
• Continue read the thermometer until it reaches a maximum temperature
  

Assuming about 20 liters of water in reservoir and lines, and the reported “over 1 million Joules” and “50 kilowatts”, the thermometer reading should have increased by about 11 degrees Celsius ([math]\frac{1000000 \,\mbox{J}}{1} \cdot \frac{1 \,\mbox{kg} \cdot \mbox{C}}{4418 \,\mbox{J}} \cdot \frac{20 \,\mbox{L water}}{1} \cdot \frac{1 \,\mbox{L water}}{1 \,\mbox{kg}} \dot= \frac{11.3 \,\mbox{C}}{1}[/math]) in about 20 sec.

 

A test like the above doesn’t constitute a test of an actual, electric power generator. For this, you’d have to add the system that recycles the spent solid fuel, and an electric generator to the water system.

 

The generator could use a straightforward steam turbine type, or a higher efficiency, lower operating temperature, but bulkier system, such a Sterling cycle piston engine.

 

Imagining the fuel recycling system requires another bout of guessing. BPL’s various press releases suggest recycling the fuel requires heat and hydrogen. If the process can be done without removing the fuel from the reactor vessel, is should be possible to make a continuous power delivering system consisting of multiple vessels, one of which is producing power at any give moment, while the others are recycling their fuel. If the whole recycling process takes, for example, 60 s, there would have to be at least 4 vessels in the system.

 

The bottom line is whether the power output of the power-producing mode vessel exceeds the power requirements of the recycling mode vessels. I’m guessing, from BLP’s various un-straightforward descriptions, that the recycling vessels need both power to heaters, and hydrogen gas, which must be produced from water via electrolysis, which also requires power. If these can be met by the electricity generated by the generator powered by the heat produced by power-producing vessel, with even a small amount of excess generated electricity left over, they system works. If not, it’ll require a constant supply of external power, electrical or chemical fuels (that is, other than water).

 

If it could possibly be built, such a system would, obviously and undeniably, given a supply of water, produce electricity, and as a by-product, free oxygen and hydrogen (according to Mills, of the unknown-to-science “hydrino” kind).

 

From all the information supplied by BLP, I don’t think such a system has been built. Thus, I think the statement that BLP or Rowan has built a “working model” is critically and deceptively inaccurate.

[modest]

I’d very much like to see some plain physical evidence, such as a paper by Jansson describing the test’s he’s done on the BlackLight reactor.

 

Under current research and projects:

Peter Mark Jansson's Home Page

In particular:

http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf

and it looks like there's a video. I skimmed the second link and it looks well-documented.

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

Conclusion

 

The scientific investigations completed at Rowan University make it quite clear that there is a source of heat being generated in these numerous chemical reactions that cannot be explained in the confines of conventional modern chemistry. Dozens of calibrations on both the 5X and 50X calorimeter cells have given our research team confidence that there is but a small error in the water flow calorimetry, (having coupling efficiencies averaging above 98%). In all cases the heat gains observed are many multiples greater than any potential inaccuracies of our measurement system. The chemical analyses completed by RU chemists have been performed on all the heat runs reported herein for both 5X and 50X scale reactions. These studies show repeatedly that the amount of heat generated in the reactions exceed known conventional chemical reaction pathways. Many additional studies by the Department of Chemistry indicate that an anomalous signature of a novel form of hydrogen (called “hydrino” by BLP) has been observed during characterization of the products. In addition to the dozens of experiments completed to date on BLP technology at the South Jersey Technology Park, several validation runs have also been observed at BLP by Rowan University professors and students. From this plethora of data our conclusion is that some novel reaction is causing large releases of excess energy as BLP contends. It is the sincere hope of the research team at Rowan University that other research laboratories across the world will find confidence from our results to begin reproducing these experiments for themselves.

[modest]

I read parts of RU's paper this morning. The process is described well enough to be reproducible.

 

It appears that all they are doing is creating a solid (and anhydrous) mixture of an alkali metal halide, an alkali hydride, and a metal powder in a support substance of activated carbon or TiC. They heat it up which initiates an exothermic reaction. The reaction appears to generate more heat than would be expected for these particular reactants. Rowan University has prepared the reactants themselves; buying, testing, and assuring their purity. They prepared and initiated the reaction, did the calorimeter tests, and tested the products to identify the reaction taking place. A specific example,

 

An anhydrous mixture of: 83g KH, 50g Mg, 200g TiC, and 154g (1/2 mol) MnI₂ react. When the reaction is complete all of the products detected are: KH, Mg, Mn, KI, KMgH₂, TiC, and a small amount of methane gas. The products were tested by x-ray diffraction both at RU and a commercial testing lab. As best as the chemists at RU can figure, the most exothermic reaction given those reactants and products would be:

 

MnI₂ + 2KH + Mg => 2KI + Mn + MgH₂

 

where MnI₂ is the limiting reactant (there was none found in the reaction’s products) the heat expected from the reaction above is 373.00 kJ/mol MnI₂. The mixture prepared above, however, released 672 kJ/mol which is 1.8 times more than expected. So... that’s somewhat strange.

 

The same thing happens when different reactants are used as they tested an assortment of metal halides besides MnI₂. In each case the detected heat was one to five times more than the calculated energy from the enthalpy of reaction. This has, I guess, convinced some people that a renewable fuel of this mixture is possible (that is: the reactants can be prepared/recycled using less energy than given by the reaction). But that would be... well, crazy. :hyper:

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I really wish one of these crazy ideas would actually work, I am getting tired of being teased by "free energy"

[Zythryn]

Well, if there is enough information so the tests can be reproduced, by all means, let's get some study going.

Are there any hypothesis yet as to where the energy is coming from?

I am still skeptical, although I admit a health dose of that is due to all the charletans in the past that have conned so many with the promise of 'free energy', but if it can be reproduced and done on a large scale, by all means!

[anonym]

Today is 01-01-2010.

Your question "What if Blacklight Power works in 2009 ?" has factually turned out to be a complete nonsense.

So is most likely also Mills' hydrino theory.

[Moontanman]

Mills' hydrino theory has claimed it would be here saving us all several times by some date but the deadlines always go past and the theory comes back from the dead. Like most pseudoscience it is as hard to kill as Medusa.