Hi All, 5-30-08 This news is exciting:
Jack Smith Source: "john_e_barchak" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:30:56 Subject: BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) today announced ... ``BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. BLP has developed a prototype power system generating on demand 50,000 watts of thermal power using its solid fuel in a batch process and has extensively characterized the hydrino products - Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen.'' http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC052708webS.pdf -------------- Mike Carrell wrote on 5-28-08: ``My take on BLP strategy. The publication of reports of experiments and theory lets all see the R&D, especially the patent department, a full log of reduction to practice over many years. In the companion paper "Commercializable..."you will find the approach is somewhat different from the research effects. There will be a flood of imitators and BLP has to protect its investors with strong patents. I expect some royal battles to establish patent rights. The performance of the solid fuel is spectacular, at 50 kW and rising. Reconstituting the fuel requires only standard chemistry, but design of the automatic proces will be interesting. The process is scalable, so there will be automotive and possibly the proverbial household water heater. New design everywhere. It will take time to debug and optimize the applications. The press release implies engagement of major construction firms to built megawatt prototypes for utilities to replace oil, coal and gas. This is perhaps a fulfillment of promises made to some of the early investors, who were/are utilities. The world will change, mark this occasion. It is comparable to activation of the first fission nuclear reactor in Chicago.'' -------------- Jones Beene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 5-28-08: ``Subject: BLP makes yet another announcment Take this with a grain of sodium chloride, as it is merely a first impression (for now), and comes from a Kibitzer who "wants" to be a Mills-advocate, but keeps bumping into those little obstacles called "facts". But it is more than a bit curious - and I hope that this is not sounding too cynical - since this "could be" a major announcement from BLP, or not ... ... but it is worth mentioning that, among other things, Mills now (but never before) goes to great lengths in the preamble of this rather well-camouflaged expose' to "shoehorn" the elements chlorine and sodium into the mix as catalysts- all of which is following (just a bit too closely) the Roy & Kanzius announcement. It is worth noting that rampant rumors have been circulating for about 5 weeks around two universities which are in proximity to Mills (in PA) of actual OU being found in that salt-water experiment! Plus - where is the reactor in question? Where is the data about its operation? I thought this paper was supposed to be substantive about that, instead of thinly camouflaged back-tracking (to take credit for something outside the previous range of what is a hydrino)? (i.e. the disappointment is found in lack of "details" but is not obvious, as there is much (too much) superfluous detail in the text, but little data-wise wrt the main supposed-subject: the reactor itself: where's the beef?)... CAVEAT: this Roy-Kanzius thing is now in the hands of major players, with resources and reputations greater than Mills - and was NOT ever announced as over-unity, and will not be, until or unless there is absolute certainty; so it is just high-level rumor thus far. That episode could be unrelated to this new announcement - or not- and is mentioned here with the caveat (and not on the HSG forum) only in the context of the "surprise" finding by Mills that the very same elements, which are active in Kanzius' work under RF irradiation, are "now" turning out to be hydrino catalysts. Surprise, surprise. Kinda reminds one of the haste in which P&F made their premature announcement in 1989. Excuse me! but is not this the very FIRST TIME in the past two decades of plodding hydrino-tech that sodium and chlorine have been mentioned as catalysts ? They certainly do not fit into the original formula very well - PLUS give me a break - the way the two are shoehorned in - there is little doubt that every element in the periodic table could now be included as catalysts by manipulating the numbers this way. And coming on the heels of the Roy/Kanzium experiment, well- red flags should be going up left and right and not just among Mills' critics... I hope that I am wrong on this, as I do admit that R. Mills is a very accomplished, genius-level inventor; therefore, I will now step=off my soap-box and let one of Mills apologists come along with the obligatory: "Mills is the new messiah" spiel - and he can do no wrong so obviously his critics have not "done their homework" LOL - and studied every word of "the Book" his CQM gospel, every implication of which is true, even if he failed to get it right the first time ... or maybe the BLP announcement today - has tainted everything and made me more suspicious than is reasonable - Ha! shades of the ghost of Art Rosenblum and the infamous Mills interview over a decades ago where Randy sez point-blank: operating hydrino reactor will be available in two years... Art fell for it, as did most everyone else. RIP Art Rosenblum: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/ArtRosenblum.html ... here is one more reason to harbor some doubts and suspicions about the timing, if not the reality of this "milestone" announcement from BLP about their "new" reactor ... Drag the jpeg image which accompanies the announcement of the new reactor: http://www.blacklightpower.com/applications.shtml#Power ... to your desktop (oops somebody forgot to lock it) and then hold the cursor over it, so that XP can read the Kodak info file and time stamp; now look at the exact date when the photograph was snapped <G> LOL - new reactor? old prop? or artistic license? Any bets on how long it will take before the BLP webmaster has the image locked, or instead someone modifies the info file to show that the photo of the new reactor was snapped over three years ago? Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Jones sez: Drag the jpeg image which accompanies the announcement of the new reactor: Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: done Jones wrote: ... to your desktop (oops somebody forgot to lock it) and then hold the cursor over it, so that XP can read the Kodak info file and time stamp; now look at the exact date when the photograph was snapped <G> LOL - new reactor? old prop? or artistic license? Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: If memory serves me correctly these images have been out on the BLP web site for some time. Anyone who has occasionally browsed the BLP web site would have seen them. They all appear to be dated around March 26, 2005. FWIW Personal Opinion follows: To be honest, I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Personally, I "bet" it will be a long time before the BLP webmaster locks the images. Who cares. I think you may be reading too much into the age of these obvious stock photos. ;-) I would speculate that the real evidence and accompanying photos remain carefully concealed due to proprietary issues, assuming there really is something going on over at the BLP labs. In the meantime, Dr. Mills probably authorized that they just throw something up that looks "official." ... Jones wrote: For all (or most) of the other images on that site, I agree- they have not changed in a long time. However, I do not remember the image purporting to be the new reactor being there until the last major update which was about a month ago ... but since it is obviously NOT the new reactor, then it is clear that they do not care very much whether the general public believes that they really have a new reactor - or not ...'' -------------- Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 May 2008 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT): ``Excuse me! but is not this the very FIRST TIME in the past two decades of plodding hydrino-tech that sodium and chlorine have been mentioned as catalysts? Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Actually Sodium is in the original list of catalysts (see "Observation of Extreme Ultraviolet Hydrogen Emission from Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas with Certain Catalysts" - which I can no longer find on his web site), that Mills produced years ago, but because it would be an m=8 catalyst, I doubt it is very active. I also doubt it, because it requires that 3 electrons be removed concurrently, which means IMO that it isn't harmonically resonant with H (however I haven't actually worked out the math, so I could be wrong about that). The shrub is a plant. [As previously pointed out, a bush is a shrub; and use the American slang for "plant".]'' ``Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Actually Sodium is in the original list of catalysts Jones wrote: Right! but it is not the same beast as now. I finally found it my old and original version of CQM (which I actually had to pay for!) but with a complex 3 level IP reckoning of 218 eV, it is not a realistic catalyst, as you state, and the rationale is/was completely different from the "new and improved" version. BTW I have no problem with "new and improved" at least until the author tries to make it retroactive ;-) As we discussed (privately) the chlorine issue is more problematic for Mills, but your solution is actually preferable (that is: if one is not seeking some kind of retroactive patent coverage for the Kanzius discovery). Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I think you hit it on the jackpot. It would appear that BLP really doesn't care what Joe Public thinks. They only care what their "wealthy investors" think, and I suspect they have all signed NDAs and are in the know. If we only had a mole!'' -------------- Willie Wong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 5-26-08: ``... Maybe I will kick myself 10 years down the road for not having invested in BLP right now (though I highly doubt this will happen) ... 1) Bohr's formulation of QM is certainly out-dated. 2) Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation I don't agree with. 3) But: for effective calculations, there are *certain* situations (one must be careful in understanding the limits of a physical theory) where quantum mechanics gives a good-enough result. And the especially good thing about quantum mechanics is that as far as its mathematics go, it is much more robust for numerical calculations (than say, quantum field theory with renormalization). So I wouldn't say Bohr's quantum mechanics is completely useless. Just like how for shooting an ICBM, Newtonian gravity is good enough to let you hit an elephant from 5000 miles away. 4) Of course, if one wants to understand how the Universe actually functions, sticking with old quantum theory is pretty much hopeless ...'' --------------------- Jack Smith writes: In my opinion, Mills has made two serious business errors. The first error is that he presents his experimental results in the context of a theory that purports to show how the Universe actually functions, opening himself up to attacks from believers in other "truths". He should have learned from the Galileo affair that his theoretical famework should have been as conventional, confusing, and meaningless as possible. Mills should have followed the example of the cell wall deficient bacteria and shed his ideological skin so that the antibiotics would find nothing to hook to. Personally, I agree with Democritus that "all that exists are atoms [things which cannot be cut] and the void; everything else is speculation." I would paraphrase "... speculation and design equations." Given the choice between an equation derived from theory and a power series with interaction terms which fits the data better, it is a good idea to use the power series. The worst feature of theoretical math is that it often prevents people from trying out interesting ideas. So as not to give the wrong impression, I have the highest regard for design equations because without them bridges would collapse, chemical plants explode, and ballistic missiles would miss their targets. In any case, no equation should be used beyond the range of the data to which it was fitted. The second error, which is probably worse than the first, is that Mills has not included Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) in his claims. Notice that I did not use the word "fusion" (or the words "cold fusion", since it would be rude to incite the believers to vituperation and apoplexy). Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ``Hydrinohydride formation is important because it can be an intermediary in the rapid formation of Hydrino molecules, which in turn are important for clean fusion see http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Molecular%20Hydrino%20Fusion.htm 1) Start with a single well shrunken hydrino (p<25, e.g. p=24). 2) Add one electron to form Hydrinohydride. 3) Add one proton to form a Hydrino molecule. 4) With a fast particle, break the Hydrino molecule apart into two well shrunken Hydrinos. 5) Return to step one with two Hydrinos iso one, thus doubling your inventory. This process rapidly converts ordinary Hydrogen atoms directly into well shrunken Hydrinos, skipping all the intermediary shrinkage steps otherwise present in the Mills process. If one starts with a level 24 Hydrino, then the total net energy release per new Hydrino formed is 7832 eV. All the Hydrinos formed are the *same* shrinkage level. They are essentially "clones" of the original. IOW this method also provides a means of consistently producing an homogenous population, of any level hydrino between 2 and 24, e.g. a population of Hydrinos where p=16. This could be extremely useful for chemical applications, e.g. battery technology. This method is the basis for a Hydrino "factory". Furthermore Hydrino molecules extracted from the "factory" can be used for fusion, producing on average 10 MeV per Hydrino molecule. Because the Hydrino molecules all have a consistent size, the fusion process should be easy to regulate, resulting in a smooth power output. This is the final piece of the puzzle, that should result in clean fusion with ordinary Hydrogen as the primary feedstock, and any of many other natural neutron heavy isotopes as the secondary feedstock. (See point 6 in:- http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Molecular%20Hydrino%20Fusion.htm). It has the added advantage that it makes us independent of Solar derived Hydrinos with their attendant uncertainties. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Jack Smith wrote: Hi Robin, This is great! Have you thought about posting it to the Hydrino list? Robin wrote: I am considering it, however I'm somewhat put off by the hostile reception it is likely to receive. Potential problems: 1) When being struck by a fast particle, a hydrino molecule probably won't always split neatly in two. I have yet to work out just how much of a problem this is. 2) If Dr. Mills is correct, and I am wrong, about the radius of the Hydrino, then p=24 may not be enough for rapid fusion. (However even slow fusion might be acceptable, depending one the actual half-life). 3) Dr. Mills wants nothing to do with fusion ... 4) The fast particles required might well be the alpha particles from the fusion reaction, and hence the fusion reaction may need to become an integral part of the process. With Dr. Mills being antagonistic toward any form of nuclear reaction, this is a struggle I would rather avoid.''
