Randell
MILLS
SunCell
Related : MILLS,
Randell : Hydrino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siHCRp7TpoU6
Brilliant
Light Power's SunCell Announced on CNN International
CNN International's announcement of the SunCell, the world's new
energy source that releases massive power by conversion of
hydrogen to dark matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PYe-4090g
Brilliant
Light Power Demonstration, January 28th 2016
On Thursday January 28th, Brilliant Light Power hosted an
invitational public demonstration of its SunCell® technology.
During the live demonstration Dr. Mills and his team of
engineers successfully presented a working prototype SunCell®
producing continuous high light power.
During the event Dr. Mills shared historical and current details
about the design of the SunCell® and its operation.
The SunCell® is expected to be available for commercial use in
2017. Dr. Mills expects commercial units at volume to have a
capital cost around $100 per kilowatt capacity. The units will
use water as hydrogen fuel, resulting in an on-site, total
generation cost of electricity of less than a cent per
kilowatt-hour. The BrLP business plan promotes a leasing model
for units under power purchase agreements. BrLP anticipates that
SunCells® can be used to replace all power sources, such as
stationary and motive sources.
0-38 minutes covers a technology and market overview, theory
fundamentals, and a history of the evolution of the power system
design.
38-53 minutes is a discussion of SunCell design being
commercialized, the emission unlike any other light source at
hundreds-of-thousands-of-watts power levels and the means to
harness it as electrical power.
53-58 minutes is the SunCell plasma demonstration showing
hundreds of thousands of watts of power of a nature that was
previously only observable on the surface of the Sun and stars.
58+ minutes returns to SunCell hardware details.
Q&A starts at 1 hr 27 min with a focus on design
implementation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ZLqp1dX14
Preliminary
video of Brilliant Light Power's December 6th, 2016
Washington, DC Roadshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjJYg4Abv50
Brilliant
Light Power Demonstration, June 28th 2016
US2016290223
POWER
GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS REGARDING SAME
A solid fuel power source that provides at least one of thermal
and electrical power such as direct electricity or thermal to
electricity is further provided that powers a power system
comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of
atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture
comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H20
catalyst or H20 catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic
hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H20 catalyst or H20
catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one
or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen;
and a material to cause the solid fuel to be highly conductive,
(iii) at least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and
an electrical power source that provides a short burst of
low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid
kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to
forming hydrinos, (iv) a product recovery systems such as a
condenser (v) a reloading system, (vi) at least one of
hydration, thermal, chemical, and electrochemical systems to
regenerate the fuel from the reaction products, (vii) a heat
sink that accepts the heat from the power-producing reactions,
(viii) a power conversion system that may comprise a direct
plasma to electric converter such as a plasmadynamic converter,
magnetohydrodynamic converter, electromagnetic direct (crossed
field or drift) converter, direct converter, and charge drift
converter or a thermal to electric power converter such as a
Rankine or Brayton-type power plant.
WO2015184252
ELECTRICAL
POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS REGARDING SAME
A solid or liquid fuel to plasma to electricity power source
that provides at leas; one of electrical and thermal power
comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of
atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical feel mixture
comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H2O
catalyst or H2O catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic
hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H2O catalyst or H2O
catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one
or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen;
and a material to cause the feel to be highly conductive, (iii)
a fuel injection system such as a railgun shot injector, (iv) at
least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and an
electrical power source that provides repetitive short bursts of
low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid
kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to
forming hydrinos to torn! a brilliant-light emitting plasma, (v)
a product recovery system such as at least one of an augmented
plasma railgun recovery system and a gravity recovery system
(vi) a fuel pelletizer or shot maker comprising a s me Her. a
source or hydrogen and a source of H2O, a dripper and a water
bath to form fuel pellets or shot, and an agitator to teed shot
into the injector, and (vii) a power converter capable of
converting the high-power light output of the cell into
electricity such as a concentrated solar power device comprising
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photoelectric cells or a
plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window.
WO2011116236
Electrochemical
hydrogen-catalyst power system
An electrochemical power system is provided that generates an
electromotive force (EMF) from the catalytic reaction of
hydrogen to lower energy (hydrino) states providing direct
conversion of the energy released from the hydrino reaction into
electricity, the system comprising at least two components
chosen from: a catalyst or a source of catalyst; atomic hydrogen
or a source of atomic hydrogen; reactants to form the catalyst
or source of catalyst and atomic hydrogen or source of atomic
hydrogen, and one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of
atomic hydrogen. The electrochemical power system for forming
hydrinos and electricity can farther comprise a cathode
compartment comprising a cathode, an anode compartment
comprising an anode, optionally a salt bridge, reactants that
constitute hydrino reactants during cell operation with separate
electron flow and ion mass transport, and a source of hydrogen.
Due to oxidation-reduction cell half reactions, the
hydrino-producing reaction mixture is constituted with, the
migration of" electrons through an external circuit and ion mass
transport through a separate path such as the electrolyte to
complete an electrical circuit. A power source and hydride
reactor is further provided that powers a power system
comprising (i) a reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic
hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture
comprising at least two components chosen from; a source of
catalyst or catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic
hydrogen, reactants to form the source of catalyst or catalyst
and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one or more
reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a
support to enable the catalysis, (iii) thermal systems for
reversing an exchange reaction So thermally regenerate the fuel
from the reaction products, (iv) a heat sink that accepts the
heat from the power-producing reactions, and (v) a power
conversion system.
WO2016182600
ULTRAVIOLET
ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS REGARDING
SAME
A molten metal fuel to plasma to electricity power source that
provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising
(i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic
hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture
comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H20
catalyst or H20 catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic
hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H20 catalyst or H20
catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; and
a molten metal to cause the fuel to be highly conductive, (iii)
a fuel injection system comprising an electromagnetic pump.
WO2016182605
THERMOPHOTOVOLTAIC
ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATOR
A molten metal fuel to plasma to electricity power source that
provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising
(i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic
hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture
comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H20
catalyst or H20 catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic
hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H20 catalyst or H20
catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; and
a molten metal to cause the fuel to be highly conductive, (iii)
a fuel injection system comprising an electromagnetic pump, (iv)
at least one set of confinement electrodes that provide
repetitive short bursts of low-voltage, high-current electrical
energy to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an
energy gain due to forming hydrinos to form a brilliant-light
emitting plasma.
WO2015134047
PHOTOVOLTAIC
POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS REGARDING SAME
A solid fuel power source that provides at least one of
electrical and thermal power comprising (i) at least one
reaction, cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form
hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture comprising at least two
components chosen from: a source of H2O catalyst or H2O
catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen;
reactants to form the source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst and
a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one or more
reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a
material to cause the fuel to be highly conductive, (iii) at
least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and an
electrical power source that provides a short burst of
low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid
kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to
forming hydrinos, (iv) a product recovery systems such as a
vapor condenser, (v) a reloading system, (vi) at least one of
hydration, thermal, chemical, and electrochemical systems to
regenerate the fuel from the reaction products, (vii) a heat
sink that accepts the heat from the power-producing reactions,
(viii) a photovoltaic power converter comprising at least one of
a concentrated solar power device, and at least one
triple-junction photovoltaic cell, monocrystalline cell,
polycrystalline cell, amorphous cell, string/ribbon silicon
cell, multi-junction cell, homojunction cell, heterojunction
cell, p-i-n device, thin-film cells, dye- sensitized cell, and
an organic photovoltaic cell, and an antireflection coating, an
optical impedance matching coating, and a protective coating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
Brilliant Light Power
Founded : HydroCatalysis Inc.[1] in 1991.[2]
Founder : Randell L. Mills
Headquarters : 493 Old Trenton Rd.
Cranbury Township, New Jersey, USA
Website : BrilliantLightPower.com
Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BLP), formerly BlackLight Power,
Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey is a company founded by Randell L.
Mills, who claims to have discovered a new energy source. The
purported energy source is based on Mills' assertion that the
electron in a hydrogen atom can drop below the lowest energy
state known as the ground state. Mills calls these hypothetical
hydrogen atoms that are in an energy state below ground level,
"hydrinos".[1] Mills self-published a closely related book, The
Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics and has co-authored
articles on claimed hydrino-related phenomena.[4][5]
Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a
relic of cold fusion. Critical analysis of the claims have been
published in the peer reviewed journals Physics Letters A, New
Journal of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics. These works note that the proposed
theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, and that the
proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key
equations that have been experimentally verified many times.
In 1999, the Nobel prize winning physicist Philip Warren
Anderson said he is "sure that it's a fraud",[6] and in the same
year another Nobel prize winning physicist, Steven Chu, called
it "extremely unlikely".[7] In 2009, IEEE Spectrum magazine
characterized it as a "loser" technology because "[m]ost experts
don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the
experiments don't present convincing evidence" and mentioned
that Wolfgang Ketterle had said the claims are "nonsense".[8]
BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver
commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not
delivered a working product.[8]
Company
The company, originally called HydroCatalysis Inc.[1] was
founded in 1991 by Randell Mills [2] who claimed to have
discovered a power source that "represents a boundless form of
new primary energy" and that will "replace all forms of fuel in
the world,"[9]
In 2008, Mills said that his cell stacks could provide power for
long-range electric vehicles,[10] and that this electricity
would cost less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.[11]
BLP holds several patents based on graphic modelling
software.[12]
Randell
Mills
Randell Mills is the founder and CEO of Brilliant Light Power.
Funding
By December 1999, BLP raised more than $25 million from about
150 investors.[2][13] By January 2006, BLP funding exceeded $60
million.[10][14][15][16] In December 2013, BLP was one of 54
applicants to receive ~$1.1M grant from the New Jersey Economic
Development Authority.[17]
Among the investors are PacifiCorp, Conectiv, retired executives
from Morgan Stanley[13] and several BLP board members like
Shelby Brewer who was the top nuclear official for the Reagan
Administration and Chief Executive Officer of ABB-Combustion
Engineering Nuclear Power[18][19] and former board member
Michael H. Jordan (1936 – 2010), who was Chief Executive Officer
of PepsiCo Worldwide Foods, Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
CBS Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.[18]
In 2008, Robert L. Park wrote that BLP has benefited from
wealthy investors who allocate a proportion of their funds to
risky ventures with a potentially huge upside, but that in the
case of BLP since the science underlying the offering was "just
wrong" the investment risk was, in Park's view, "infinite".[20]
Claims
Mills first announced his hydrino state hypothesis on April 25,
1991, in a press conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as an
explanation for the cold fusion phenomena that had been reported
in 1989. According to Mills, no fusion was actually happening in
the cells, and all the effects would be caused by shrinkage of
hydrogen atoms as they fell to a state below the ground state.
Mills added that the increased proximity between the atoms would
cause them to fuse sporadically, and some of those atoms would
be deuterium atoms (a hydrogen atom with one extra neutron),
which would explain why there were occasional readings of
neutrons. No experimental evidence was offered by Mills at the
time to support his claims which violate accepted nuclear
physics.[1][21][22][23] In a 2007 review of cold fusion
research, researcher Edmund Storms put forward the hydrino model
as a possible explanation for cold fusion.[24]
Experimental results
NASA
In 1996, NASA released a report describing experiments using a
BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat
gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains
ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported,
which, whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source
of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling".
The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and
oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.[25]
Rowan
University
Around 2002, the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC)
granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical
engineer at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket
propulsion that would use hydrinos.[26]
In 2002, Rowan University's Anthony Marchese said that whilst
"agnostic about the existence of hydrinos", he was quite
confident that there was no fraud involved with BLP and although
his NIAC grant was criticised by Park, Marchese said "for me to
not continue with this study would be unethical to the
scientific community. The only reason not to pursue this would
be because of being afraid of being bullied."[26]
European Physical Journal D
In 2005 Šišović and others published a paper describing
experimental data and analysis of Mills' claim that a resonant
transfer model (RTM) explains the excessive Doppler broadening
of the Hα line. Šišović concluded that: "The detected large
excessive broadening in pure hydrogen and in Ne–H2 mixture is in
agreement with CM [Collision Model] and other experimental
results" and that "these results can't be explained by RTM". The
collision model explanation for excessive broadening of the Hα
line is based on established physics.[27]
Criticism
Publications
New Journal of Physics
In 2005, Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency, publishing
in the New Journal of Physics, wrote that Mills' description of
quantum mechanics is "inconsistent and has several serious
deficiencies", and that there is "no theoretical support of the
hydrino hypothesis". Rathke said it would be helpful if Mills'
experimental results could be independently replicated, and
suggested that any evidence produced should be reconsidered in
the context of a conventional physical explanation.[28] One
inconsistency of Mills' CQM with quantum mechanics regards its
inability to be reconciled with the probability density function
in quantum mechanics. Rathke stated, "However, while solutions
of the Schrödinger equation with n<1 indeed exist, they are
not square integrable. This violates not only an axiom of
quantum mechanics, but in practical terms prohibits that these
solutions can in any way describe the probability density of a
particle."[28]
Journal of
Applied Physics
In 2005, the Journal of Applied Physics published a critique by
A.V. Phelps of the 2004 article, "Water bath calorimetric study
of excess heat generation in resonant transfer plasmas" by J.
Phillips, R. Mills and X. Chen.[29] Phelps criticized both the
calorimetric techniques and the underlying theory described in
the Phillips/Mills/Chen article. The journal also published a
response to Phelps' critique on the same day.[30]
Physics
Letters A
In 2006, a paper published in Physics Letters A, concluded that
Mills' theoretical hydrino states are unphysical. For the
hydrino states, the binding strength increases as the strength
of the electric potential decreases, with maximum binding
strength when the potential has disappeared completely. The
author Norman Dombey remarked "We could call these anomalous
states "homeopathic" states because the smaller the coupling,
the larger the effect." The model also assumes that the nuclear
charge distribution is a point rather than having an arbitrarily
small non-zero radius. It also lacks an analogous solution in
the Schrödinger equation, which governs non-relativistic
systems. Dombey concluded: "We suggest that outside of science
fiction this is sufficient reason to disregard them."[31] From a
suggestion in Dombey's paper, further work by Antonio Di Castro
has shown that states below the ground state, as described in
Mills' work, are incompatible with the Schrödinger, Klein–Gordon
and Dirac equations, key equations in the study of quantum
systems.[32]
Journal of Physics D
In 2008, the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics published an
article by Hans-Joachim Kunze, professor emeritus at the
Institute for Experimental Physics, Ruhr University Bochum,[33]
critical of the 2003 paper authored by R. Mills and P. Ray,
Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium–hydrogen. The
abstract of the article is: "It is suggested that spectral
lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum
numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but
artefacts." Kunze stated that it was impossible to detect the
novel lines below 30 nm reported by Mills and Ray because the
equipment they used did not have the capability to detect them
as per the manufacturer and as per "every book on vacuum-UV
spectroscopy" and "therefore the observed lines must be
artefacts". Kunze also stated that: "The enormous spectral
widths of the novel lines point to artefacts, too."[34]
IEEE
Spectrum
In 2009, IEEE Spectrum magazine criticized BLP, concluding that
"Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they
say the experiments don't present convincing evidence." It also
pointed out that BLP has made similar claims before, announcing
that it was on the brink of commercializing its revolutionary
technology but failed to deliver.[8]
Opinions
Robert L. Park
Since 1999, Robert L. Park, emeritus professor of physics at
the University of Maryland and a notable skeptic, has been
particularly critical of BLP. In 2008, Park wrote:
"BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis,
announced last week that the company had successfully tested a
prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal
power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to
18 months. The BLP process,[35] discovered by Randy Mills, is
said to coax hydrogen atoms into a "state below the ground
state", called the "hydrino." There is no independent scientific
confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So
they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is
therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow
brains." – Park[36]
Steven Chu
In 1999, Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1997, said
"it's extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for
the funders, the people who are backing this".[7]
Phillip
Anderson
In 1999, Princeton University's physics Nobel laureate Phillip
Anderson said of it, "If you could fuck around with the hydrogen
atom, you could fuck around with the energy process in the sun.
You could fuck around with life itself." "Everything we know
about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so
sure that it's a fraud."[6]
Wolfgang Ketterle
Wolfgang Ketterle, a professor of physics at MIT, said BLP's
claims are "nonsense" and that "there is no state of hydrogen
lower than the ground state".[8]
Michio Kaku
Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist based at City University of
New York, adds that "the only law that this business with Mills
is proving is that a fool and his money are easily parted."[6]
and that "There's a sucker born every minute."[7]
Peter Zimmerman
While Peter Zimmerman was chief arms-control scientist at the
State Department, he stated that his department and the Patent
Office "have fought back with success" against
"pseudoscientists" and he railed against, among other things,
the inventors of "hydrinos."[37]
Legal threats to physicists
In 2000, a law firm engaged by BLP sent letters to four
prominent physicists asking them to stop making what it called
"defamatory comments". The physicists had been quoted in the
Village Voice, Dow Jones Newswire and other publications as
dismissing BLP's claims on the basis that they violated the laws
of physics. In response, one of the physicists, Robert L. Park
of the American Physical Society, said that if BLP sued, he was
confident the scientific community would lend its support and
that the court would side with the physicists.[38] Park later
wrote that a number of the recipients of the letter, who had
"responded honestly to questions from the media", had since
fallen silent. Scientists, Park wrote, are easy to intimidate
since they are not rich enough to risk costly legal actions.[20]
Patent issues
A 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[39][40]
was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and
other concerns about the viability of the described processes,
citing Park and others.[37]
A column by Robert L. Park[37][41] and an outside query by an
unknown person[42] prompted Group Director Esther Kepplinger of
the USPTO to review this new patent herself. Kepplinger said
that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant
was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion
that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and
chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion
and perpetual motion.[41] Kepplinger contacted another Director,
Robert Spar, who also expressed doubts on the patentability of
the patent application. This caused the USPTO to withdraw from
issue the patent application before it was granted and re-open
it for review, and to withdraw four related applications,
including one for a hydrino power plant.[37]
USPTO court case
BLP filed suit in the US District Court of Columbia, saying that
withdrawal of the application after the company had paid the fee
was contrary to law. In 2002, the District Court concluded that
the USPTO was acting inside the limits of its authority in
withdrawing a patent over whose validity it had doubts, and
later that year, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit ratified this decision.[41][42][43][44]
Applications were rejected by the UK patent office for similar
reasons.[41][45][46][47][48] The European Patent Office (EPO)
rejected a similar BLP patent application due to lack of clarity
on how the process worked. Reexamination of this European patent
is pending.[41] Park wrote:
"Unlike most schemes for free energy, the hydrino process of
Randy Mills is not without ample theory.[49] Mills has written a
1000 page tome, entitled, "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical
Quantum Mechanics", that takes the reader all the way from
hydrinos to antigravity.[50] Fortunately, Aaron Barth [...] has
taken upon himself to look through it, checking for accuracy.
Barth is a post doctoral researcher at the Harvard–Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics, and holds a PhD in Astronomy, 1998,
from UC Berkeley. What he found initially were mathematical
blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however,
portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns
out, were lifted verbatim from various texts. This has been the
object of a great deal of discussion from Mills' Hydrino Study
Group. "Mills seems not to understand what the fuss is all
about." – Park[51]
References
Robert L. Park (April 26, 1991). "What's New Friday, 26 April
1991 Washington, DC". and Robert L. Park (October 31, 2008).
"What's New Friday, October 31, 2008".
Jacqueline A. Newmyer (May 17, 2000). "Academics Question The
Science Behind BlackLight Power, Inc.". Harvard Crimson.
Retrieved February 10, 2009.
"BlackLight Power Company Facilities". BlackLight Power.
Retrieved 2016-01-18.
Mills, Randell L. (August 2011). "The Grand Unified Theory of
Classical Physics" (DjVu) (August 2011 ed.). BlackLight Power.
Retrieved 2016-01-18. (Self-published)
"Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head".
The Guardian. 4 Nov 2005.
Erik Baard (December 21, 1999). "Quantum Leap: Dr. Randell Mills
says he can change the face of physics. The Scientific
Establishment thinks he's nuts.". The Village Voice. Retrieved
February 10, 2009.
Erik Baard (October 6, 1999). "Researcher Claims Power Tech That
Defies Quantum Theory". Dow Jones NewsWires.
Erico Guizzo (January 2009). "Winners & Losers 2009—Loser,
Power & Energy: Hot or not? Blacklight Power says it's
developing a revolutionary energy source—and it won't let the
laws of physics stand in its way". IEEE Spectrum. 46 (1). p. 36.
doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2009.4734311.
Gerard Wynn (September 3, 2000). "Sweet dreams are made of
geoengineering". Reuters. Retrieved October 15, 2009.
Morrison, Chris (October 21, 2008). "Blacklight Power bolsters
its impossible claims of a new renewable energy source". The New
York Times.
Mina Kimes (July 29, 2008). "BlackLight's physics-defying
promise: Cheap power from water". CNNMoney.com
Chris Morrison (May 30, 2008). "Blacklight Power claims
nearly-free energy from water – is this for real?". VentureBeat.
US 7188033US 7689367
Erik Baard (January 22, 2008). "Quantum Leap".
http://professional.venturewire.com/story.asp?sid=NIMHPJLMMQ
(dead link)
"Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter
nonsense?". VentureBeat.
"SiliconBeat: Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or
utter nonsense?".
"20 Middlesex companies receive part of $60 million state
grant". NJ.com.
"BlackLight Power lands first license agreement for electricity
from ... water?". VentureBeat.
"Management".
Park RL (2008). "Fraud in Science". Social Research: An
International Quarterly. 75 (4): 1135–1150. "Companies
frequently designate a percentage of these funds for investment
in high-risk, high-payoff startups. Most will fail, but it is a
hedge against technological obsolescence. Mills had just what
they were looking for—except the risk was infinite."
E. Sheldon (September–October 2008). "An overview of almost 20
years' research on cold fusion". Contemporary Physics. 49 (5):
375–378. Bibcode:2008ConPh..49..375S.
doi:10.1080/00107510802465229. "[Mill's paper], which involves a
nowadays widely discredited 'hydrino' model that was proposed in
1991 to account for the excess heat observations in 'cold
fusion' studies. (...) [the notion that there are electron
orbital states that are less energetic than the ground state],
is contrary to conventional quantum principles and unacceptable
to me or to the general theoretical-physics community."
Robert L. Park (2002). Voodoo science: the road from foolishness
to fraud (illustrated, reprint ed.). Oxford University Press.
pp. 133–135. ISBN 978-0-19-860443-3.
William J. Broad (April 26, 1991). "2 Teams Put New Life in
'Cold' Fusion Theory". The New York Times.
Storms, Edmund (2007). Science of low energy nuclear reaction: a
comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations.
Singapore: World Scientific. p. 184. ISBN 981-270-620-8.
Niedra, Janis M.; Myers, Ira T.; Fralick, Gustave C.; Baldwin,
Richard S. (February 1996). "Replication of the apparent excess
heat effect in light water-potassium
carbonate-nickel-electrolytic cell" (PDF). OSTI 236808.
Erik Baard (January 21, 2008). "Eureka?".
Šišović, N. M.; Majstorović, G. Lj.; Konjević, N. (January 4,
2005). "Excessive hydrogen and deuterium Balmer lines broadening
in a hollow cathode glow discharges". European Physical Journal
D. 32 (3): 347–354. Bibcode:2005EPJD...32..347S.
doi:10.1140/epjd/e2004-00192-1.
Rathke A (2005). "A critical analysis of the hydrino model". New
Journal of Physics. 7 (127). doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127.
Phelps, A.V. (October 2, 2005). "Comment on 'Water bath
calorimetric study of excess heat generation in resonant
transfer plasmas'". Journal of Applied Physics.
doi:10.1063/1.2010616.
Phillips, Jonathan (October 2, 2005). "Response to "Comment on
'Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in
resonant transfer plasmas'". Journal of Applied Physics.
doi:10.1063/1.2010617.
Dombey, Norman (August 8, 2006). "The hydrino and other unlikely
states". Physics Letters A. 360: 62. arXiv:physics/0608095Freely
accessible. Bibcode:2006PhLA..360...62D.
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2006.07.069.
de Castro, Antonio S. (April 4, 2007). "Orthogonality criterion
for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics".
Physics Letters A. 369 (5–6): 380. arXiv:0704.0631Freely
accessible. Bibcode:2007PhLA..369..380D.
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2007.05.006.
"Ruhr-Universität Bochum information page on Hans-Joachim
Kunze". Ruhr-Universität. Retrieved 2011-02-20.
Kunze, H-J (2008). "On the spectroscopic measurements used to
support the postulate of states with fractional principal
quantum numbers in hydrogen". J Phys D: Appl. Phys. 41 (10):
108001. Bibcode:2008JPhD...41j8001K.
doi:10.1088/0022-3727/41/10/108001.
"What's New by Bob Park - Friday, April 26, 1991".
Park, Bob (June 6, 2008). "Hydrinos: How long can a really dumb
idea survive?". What's New?. University of Maryland. Retrieved
2010-12-04.
Erik Baard (April 25, 2000). "The Empire Strikes Back.
Alternative-Energy Scientist Fights to Save Patent". Village
Voice
Reichhardt T (2000). "New form of hydrogen power provokes
scepticism". Nature. 404 (6775): 218. doi:10.1038/35005254. "A
law firm representing the energy company BlackLight Power, Inc.
of Cranbury, New Jersey, sent letters earlier this month to
Nobel laureate Philip Anderson of Princeton University, Michio
Kaku of the City University of New York, Paul Grant of the
non-profit energy agency EPRI and Robert L. Park, of the
American Physical Society ..." (subscription required)
US 6024935 "Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures"
US 6024935, 6,024,935, Lower-energy hydrogen methods and
structures, February 15, 2000. Retrieved February 11, 2011
Rimmer, Matthew (2011). "Patenting free energy: the BlackLight
litigation and the hydrogen economy". Journal of Intellectual
Property Law & Practice. 6 (6): 374.
doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpr010
Patent nonsense: court denies BlackLight Power appeal, What's
New, Robert Park, September 6, 2002
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
"Blacklight Power, Inc. v. James E. Rogan".
Brendan Coffey (May 15, 2000). "Follow-Through. Weird Science".
Forbes.
UK-IPO decisions "O/114/08". and "O/076/08".
Blacklight Power Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008]
EWHC 2763 (Patents) (18 November 2008)
Gale R Peterson; Derrick A Pizarro; Practising Law Institute
(2003). 2003 Federal Circuit Yearbook: Patent Law Developments
in the Federal Circuit. Practising Law Institute. p. 1. ISBN
978-0-87224-443-6.
"UK-IPO decision O/170/09".
"What's New by Bob Park - Friday, January 8, 1999".
"What's New by Bob Park - Friday, May 9, 1997".
Park, Bob (October 27, 2000). "Blackout: Where do ideas like
these come from?". University of Maryland. Retrieved 2009-03-02.
https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article/126/3/173/1582354/Blacklight-Power-Inc-v-Comptroller-General-of
Blacklight
Power Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents
RPC (2009) 126 (3): 173-184.
https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/rcn035
Published: 08 January 2009
This was an appeal from the decision of the hearing officer
acting on behalf of the Comptroller-General refusing two patent
applications in the name of the appellant. The first application
GB 0521120.6 related to a plasma reactor which generated power
and novel hydrogen species. The second application GB0608130.1
related to a laser which operated using the same hydrogen
species.
The sole inventor of each of the applications was Dr. Randell L.
Mills who was the author of a large number of publications
describing what he called his “Grand Unifying Theory of
Classical Quantum Mechanics” (GUTCQM). The hydrogen species
which was used in both applications was supposed to exist in a
lower energy state than the lowest possible energy state
recognised by standard physical laws. For that purpose the
electron would have to orbit at a radius smaller than any ever
observed for hydrogen. The existence of this hydrogen species,
referred to by Dr Mills as “the hydrino” was said by both
applications to have been disclosed in Dr. Mills’ publications
listed in the applications.
The applications were refused on the ground that the hydrino
proposed by the appellant was contrary to generally accepted
physical laws and was, in consequence, not capable of industrial
application and on the ground that as the claimed inventions
relied for their performance on the existence of the hydrino,
the specifications did not comply with the requirement for
sufficiency set out in s.14(3) of the Patents Act 1977.
The hearing officer held that where an applicant proposed a new
theory and claimed an invention dependent on it, it was
appropriate to demand a real but moderate level of confidence in
the truth of the theory and he made his assessment on the basis
that it should be more probable than not that the theory was
true if he were to allow the applications to proceed.
The hearing officer found that the new theory was not consistent
with existing generally accepted theories and, indeed, the whole
point of Dr Mills’ theory was that it was a new theory of
matter. He felt unable to assess whether GUTCQM provided a
better explanation of physical phenomena than existing theories
and whether it was consistent with any remaining theory that it
did not displace but considered that it was more important to
see how the theory was viewed by the scientific community
generally. He then found that on the evidence there was
substantially no acceptance of the theory by the scientific
community and that GUTCQM did not meet the threshold test,
namely that it should be more likely than not that it provided a
valid description of atomic systems.
The appellant appealed to the Patents Court. It argued that the
hearing officer had misdirected himself as to the appropriate
test for claims which relied on a new theory and it submitted
that the correct test was whether the theory was clearly
contrary to well established physical laws. It said the test
should be whether an applicant had a reasonable prospect of
showing that his theory was the correct one. It also submitted
that, had the hearing officer applied the correct test, he would
have allowed the application to proceed to grant...
http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2014/01/14/the-latest-update-in-the-hydrino-saga/
The
Latest Update in the Hydrino Saga
by MarkCC
Lots of people have been emailing me to say that there's a new
article out about Blacklight, the company started by Randall
Mills to promote his Hydrino stuff, which claims to have an
independent validation of his stuff, and announcing the
any-day-now unveiling of the latest version of his hydrino-based
generator.
First of all, folks, this isn't an article, it's a press release
from Blacklight. The Financial Post just printed it in their
online press-release section. It's an un-edited release written
by Blacklight.
There's nothing new here. I continue to think that this is a
scam. But what kind of scam?
To find out, let's look at a couple of select quotes from this
press release.
"Using a proprietary water-based solid fuel confined by two
electrodes of a SF-CIHT cell, and applying a current of 12,000
amps through the fuel, water ignites into an extraordinary flash
of power. The fuel can be continuously fed into the electrodes
to continuously output power. BlackLight has produced millions
of watts of power in a volume that is one ten thousandths of a
liter corresponding to a power density of over an astonishing 10
billion watts per liter. As a comparison, a liter of BlackLight
power source can output as much power as a central power
generation plant exceeding the entire power of the four former
reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the site of one
of the worst nuclear disasters in history."
One ten-thousandth of a liter of water produces millions of
watts of power.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Oh, but wait... how do we measure
energy density of a substance? Joules per liter, or something
equivalent - that is, energy per volume. But Blacklight is
quoting energy density as watts per liter.
The joule is a unit of energy. A joule is a shorthand for
\(frac{text{kilogram}*text{meter}^2}{text{second}^2}\). Watts
are a different unit, a measure of power, which is a shorthand
for \(frac{text{kilogram}*text{meter}^2}{text{second}^3}\). A
watt is, therefore, one joule/second.
They're quoting a rather peculiar unit there. I wonder why?
"Our safe, non-polluting power-producing system catalytically
converts the hydrogen of the H2O-based solid fuel into a
non-polluting product, lower-energy state hydrogen called
“Hydrino”, by allowing the electrons to fall to smaller radii
around the nucleus. The energy release of H2O fuel, freely
available in the humidity in the air, is one hundred times that
of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline. The power is in
the form of plasma, a supersonic expanding gaseous ionized
physical state of the fuel comprising essentially positive ions
and free electrons that can be converted directly to electricity
using highly efficient magnetohydrodynamic converters. Simply
replacing the consumed H2O regenerates the fuel. Using
readily-available components, BlackLight has developed a system
engineering design of an electric generator that is closed
except for the addition of H2O fuel and generates ten million
watts of electricity, enough to power ten thousand homes.
Remarkably, the device is less than a cubic foot in volume. To
protect its innovations and inventions, multiple worldwide
patent applications have been filed on BlackLight’s proprietary
technology".
Water, in the alleged hydrino reaction, produces 100 times the
energy of high-octane gasoline.
Gasoline contains, on average, about 11.8 kWh/kg. A milliliter
of gasoline weighs about 7/10ths of a gram, compared to the 1
gram weight of a milliter of water; therefore, a kilogram of
gasoline should contain around 1400 milliliters. So, let's take
11.8kWh/kg, and convert that to an equivalent measure of energy
per milliter: about 8 1/2 kWh/milliliter. How does that compare
to hydrinos? Oh, wait... we can't convert those, now can we?
Because they're using power density. And the power density of a
substance depends not just on how much power you can extract,
but how long it takes to extract it. Explosives have fantastic
power density! Gasoline - particularly high octane gasoline - is
formulated to try to burn as slowly as possible, because
internal combustion engines are more efficient on a slower burn.
To bring just a bit of numbers into it, TNT has a much higher
power density than gasoline. You can easily knock down buildings
with TNT, because of the way that it emits all of its energy in
one super short burst. But it's energy density is just 1/4th the
energy density of gasoline.
Hmm. I wonder why Mills is using the power density?
Here's my guess. Mills has some bullshit process where he spikes
his generator with 12000 amps, and gets a microsecond burst of
energy out. If you can produce 100 joules from one milliliter in
1/1000th of a second, that's a power density of 100,000 joules
per milliliter.
Suddenly, the amount of power that's being generated isn't so
huge - and there, I would guess, is the key to Mills latest
scam. If you're hitting your generating apparatus with 12,000
amperes of electric current, and you're producing microsecond
burst of energy, it's going to be very easy to produce that
energy by consuming something in the apparatus, without that
consumption being obvious to an observer who isn't allowed to
independently examine the apparatus in detail.
Now, what about the "independent verification"? Again, let's
look at the press release.
“We at The ENSER Corporation have performed about thirty tests
at our premises using BLP’s CIHT electrochemical cells of the
type that were tested and reported by BLP in the Spring of 2012,
and achieved the three specified goals,” said Dr. Ethirajulu
Dayalan, Engineering Fellow, of The ENSER Corporation. “We
independently validated BlackLight’s results offsite by an
unrelated highly qualified third party. We confirmed that
hydrino was the product of any excess electricity observed by
three analytical tests on the cell products, and determined that
BlackLight Power had achieved fifty times higher power density
with stabilization of the electrodes from corrosion.” Dr. Terry
Copeland, who managed product development for several
electrochemical and energy companies including DuPont Company
and Duracell added, “Dr. James Pugh (then Director of Technology
at ENSER) and Dr. Ethirajulu Dayalan participated with me in the
independent tests of CIHT cells at The ENSER Corporation’s
Pinellas Park facility in Florida starting on November 28, 2012.
We fabricated and tested CIHT cells capable of continuously
producing net electrical output that confirmed the fifty-fold
stable power density increase and hydrino as the product.”
Who is the ENSER corporation? They're an engineering
consulting/staffing firm that's located in the same town as
Blacklight's offices. So, pretty much, what we're seeing is that
Mills hired his next door neighbor to provide a data-free
testimonial promising that the hydrino generator really did
work.
Real scientists, doing real work, don't pull nonsense like this.
Mills has been promising a commercial product within a year for
almost 25 years. In that time, he's filed multiple patents, some
of which have already expired! And yet, he's never actually
allowed an independent team to do a public, open test of his
system. He's never provided any actual data about the system!
He and his team have claimed things like "We can't let people
see it, it's secret". But they're filing patents. You don't get
to keep a patent secret. A patent application, under US law,
must contain: "a description of how to make and use the
invention that must provide sufficient detail for a person
skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to
make and use the invention.". In other words, if the patents
that Mills and friends filed are legally valid, they must
contain enough information for an interested independent party
to build a hydrino generator. But Mills won't let anyone examine
his supposedly working generators. Why? It's not to keep a
secret!
Finally, the question that a couple of people, including one
reporter for WiredUK asked: If it's all a scam, why would Mills
and company keep on making claims?
The answer is the oldest in the book: money...