Terry Blanton wrote:
BLP's direct energy conversion basis (thanks MC!):
. . .
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/EngineeringPresentation.pdf
This document, "Blacklight Power Engineering Presentation," March
2010, describes three different systems that appear to be under
development. Terry asks:
80% efficient including hydrolysis. Why bother with a thermal cycle at all?
That's my question. Are they developing the first 2 in case #3 does
not work? I cannot think of any other reason. These slides should
address this question, because on the face of it, it seems utterly
stupid to be developing three different systems when the third one
has so many advantages. Systems 1 and 2 look immensely complicated
and expensive. Here is the text from slide 2, QUOTE:
Hydrino-Based Engineered Power Systems
Chemistries and engineering designs have been developed using the
corresponding experimental parameters for power and regeneration for
two thermal-Rankine systems and a direct electric system.
* One comprises a multi-tube thermally interacting bundle of cells
wherein cells producing power provide heat to those undergoing
regeneration. As a system, the power output is constant. The capital
costs are projected to be about $1400/kW electric.
* The other comprises an array of reactors wherein power and
regeneration chemistries occur synchronously, and each cell outputs
constant power. The capital costs are projected to be about $1050/kW electric.
* A third design called CIHT utilizes many options of tested
chemistry and comprises the direct production of electrical power
from the formation of hydrinos. The capital costs are projected to be
about $25/kW electric with no infrastructure requirements, and the
system is deployable for essentially any application at any scale.
End QUOTE
It is plausible that this works with "any application at any scale"
and it is 50 times cheaper than the other two. Oil-fired internal
combustion engines fit that description pretty well. So I am prepared
to believe it. But he should address the obvious question this
raises: WHY MAKE ANYTHING ELSE?
For some reason these slides are protected and cannot easily be
converted to text. You have to do annoying, time consuming
conversions. I wonder what motivates BLP to put the slides in this
format, making the information available yet not available. It is
visible yet difficult to copy and quote. This kind of behavior is
typical of people suffering from The Inventor's Disease (a.k.a. "own
worst enemy" syndrome). Much else about this site, and about Mills,
give me the impression that Mills suffers from this syndrome. He has
made promises of multi-megawatt reactors by such and such a date, and
then when nothing happens he offers no reasons. I disagree with Jones
Beene. I do not think that Mills owes his readers an "apology" for
this. R&D is always harder than you hope. Things take longer and cost
far more. Mills has no reason to apologize, but to maintain
credibility he should admit that dates have slipped, and explain why.
I have looked up some of the power companies he has contracted with
in the U.S. seem small and incapable of operating the kind of
equipment he proposes to sell. They appear to be "mom and pop" small
local power companies.
There is a lot else wrong with this web site. I do not mean
technically or scientifically wrong. I mean wrong from the Public
Relations (PR) point of view. I can see why people get a bad
impression. It seems amateur. It is evasive, and squirrely. Not what
you expect from a company that has attracted tens of millions of
dollars of investment capital. They should hire a PR firm. Either
that, or shut the web site down and stop trying to communicate.
Mike Carrell may disagree, but as I said, I think Mike has calibrated
his standards for so long with Mills he no longer recognizes abnormal
behavior. He think that outrageous arrogance is "just confidence in
his own insight." As I said, it would not be outrageous arrogance if
Mills were a movie star, but in the context of academic science his
style is much too bold, and he has cried wolf too often, and lost credibility.
- Jed
