BlackLight Power?
 

Discuss:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

Wow. I just ran though his overview presentation, and as best as I can tell, this guy is completely legit and the process is for real. I'm wondering how this guy flew under the radar for so long. He's got peer reviewed papers going back three or four years reporting his results. Anyhow, if the energy required to run the hydrolysis machine and the plasma generator are well below the energy released by the hydrogen atom going into a more tightly bound state, then this has some real potential. This has some huge ramifications. First, R.L. Mills is going to become richer than Bill Gates. (not really joking). Second, this could really solve our energy problems.

:eek: This looks amazing! :eek: :) :)

Turbonator/Vortexvalve?
 

I'm not a particle physicist and I'm not going to pretend to understand this technology, but to me it seems like snake oil. I'm a cynical b***ard, I admit it.

The thing that bothers me is: They are trying to SELL this "technology" while they can't even prove to the physics community that it works in theory let alone practice. IF they have made a discovery, it's far too early in the research to be trying to make money out of it.

Their glossy website contains a lot of flashy marketing and somewhat fantastic claims. It reads like the polished words of a salesman. Not entirely unlike the websites of companies that make bogus performance parts for your car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino

For 15 years, Dr Mills has been marketing his impending "new energy source" and has raised over $50 MILLION in venture capital. All the while, respected scientists have been pointing out huge flaws in his theory - although some say that his results merit further experimentation.

Don't get me wrong. I've always thought that quantum theory doesn't make sense. I'd love to see somebody prove that the classical laws of physics do in fact still apply at the quantum level. I just don't think that Blacklight have acheived what they claim.

I'm glad you came in and struck the bell before I got here. I hate always being the bad guy crashing the party.

This "is" snake oil. 1 thin dime, 1 tenth of a dollah!! Be the envy of all your friends by defying all physical laws!

Think guys... If his theories were mathematically correct, the universe wouldn't even be here. :( We've all been through chemistry, and we all have had some form of physics shoved down our throats. There is no zero sum here, and we must zero out or things end up in mushroom clouds naturally without our coaxing.

Wish it "was" true. Wait... no I don't. I wouldn't be here to say it. :eek:

Clarify.... on our planet. Universe goes boom all the time with their own coaxing. It's still zero sum for energy.

Blacklight Power does not advertise power from nothing. They postulate (and according to their research have observed) the presence of electron energy levels in the hydrogen atom that are more tightly bound than what is considered to be the ground state orbital according to conventional quantum mechanics.

Using what they call a "catalyst", they induce the electron in the hydrogen atom to move to one of these more tightly bound orbitals, and in doing so, the electron emits energy in the 20 nm to 200 nm wavelength range (UV or EUV range). The energy is in the range of 30-100 eV, and if the reaction rate is high enough, then this could be a viable energy source. They call the more tightly bound hydrogen atom a "hydrino".

Some things I'm not clear on are the stability of this hydrino atom. Their description of it implies that its stable, but I have not seen any explicit statement of such. I also still don't have a grasp on the nature of the catalyst that they use to induce the electrons to move into a more tightly bound orbital.

While Mills has been expounding the presence of this energy source for many many years, in the last few months they claimed to have arrived at close form mathematical solutions for the electron configuration in many low Z atoms and molecules. If true, this is an amazing result in itself that is worth of the Nobel prize.

So it seems to me that in the next year or so, either these guys will become famous or infamous.

It could possibly be a breakthrough, but the breakthrough is going to be re-writing a whole bunch of textbooks.

I've always been under the classical perception that moving an electron to an orbital closer to the nucleus is storing a potential. It cannot release energy until it jumps to the next orbital out, and that is an astronomically "sudden" release of stored energy. But it has to equal the amount of energy used to cause the electron to jump to the tighter orbital in the first place. My brain just won't go to that place where a catalyst is used as a substitute, unless that catalyst is a form of energy in itself. But if that's the case, then it will be consumed, and can no longer considered a catalyst. It would have been a reactant from the get go. :confused:

I need to read it all a little closer for I also missed how he planned on harnessing this release when he pulls off a reaction.

Its the opposite. Electrons give off energy when they move to a more tightly bound orbital. That part of their theory is purely conventional and is fully accepted by everyone. The controversy has to do with whether or not these more tightly bound electron states exist. The classical boundary conditions that have been used to solve quantum mechanics problems do not predict the presence of these more tightly bound states. OTOH, BLP makes it sound as if it is a simple matter to induce an electron to move to one of these more tightly bound states. But if that's the case, why aren't these hydrino atoms readily found in nature.

oops.. Yeah, it is the opposite. Been a while.... no excuse. Pure logic dictates it's opposite.

I'd like to thank society at this time that you are the scientist and not me. :D

Check eBay.

not to mention that any expierements that have been done are ina lab setting. lab setings can be misleading. like those guys form germany that created "fusion" in their lab, but were unable to reproduce the outcome infront of a panel. im gonna have to follow my better judgement and say its false, until i hear about it in an major physics journal.

I've always been under the classical perception that moving an electron to an orbital closer to the nucleus is storing a potential. It cannot release energy until it jumps to the next orbital out, and that is an astronomically "sudden" release of stored energy.

Yes..... and our crack(ed) team of mad scientists here at Ripimoff Industries spent tireless hours trying to get electrons to jump ship from one orbit to another which ultimately blew our lab into the adjacent zip code. This, indeed resulted in a "sudden" release of energy, but will unfortunately delay shipment of all Ripimoff products indefinately. Our apologies.

Besides, Beav, what does all this think-tank stuff have to do with Hooters anyway?

Ron. (off-handedly releasing stored energy).

Well, Ron, if you get one orbiting this-a-way and the other orbiting that-a-way there's bound to be a sudden release of energy. Yeah... that's it. Energy. Yeah, energy....

Now most of y'all know I'm no rocket scientist - damn, I almost hurt myself just spelling it. To me this all sounds like so much hoity-toity nonsense. In my personal experience the only thing that happens when an orbit is tightened up is the particles eventually disappear, like when you flush a toilet.

Off-handedly or ... uh, we'll let the judges decide.

In my personal experience the only thing that happens when an orbit is tightened up is the particles eventually disappear, like when you flush a toilet.


Conversely, when the commode is flushed in the southern hemisphere, i.e. down under, the uh...particles are dispersed outwardly proving the "big bang" theory is spot on. Or is it that the black hole theory is spot on?! Which reminds me - I need a new Johnny-mop.

Ron (feelin' quarky)