Energy from hydrinos--someone's betting 60 million on it

[pscot]

Here's the latest from Blacklight, the company that claims to have found a way generate heat by lowering the energy level of hydrogen atoms. The scientific consensus is that this is impossible, but Blacklight says they'll have a demonstration project up and running in a year or so. They also claim to have a generator capable of producing 50 kilowatts. This either works or it doesn't. Since they're going public with it, we should know either way, within a couple of years.


http://venturebeat.com/2008/12/11/blacklight-power-lands-first-license-agreement-for-electricity-from-water/

BlackLight Power, one of the more outlandish cleantech companies VentureBeat has covered, claims to have developed a way to generate 200 times more energy than coal using only water. To do so, it says it lowers the energy level of hydrogen atoms below ground state — something most scientists have deemed impossible. For this reason, many have speculated that BLP’s process is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. But today’s announcement of an inaugural licensing agreement with Estacado Energy Services to generate power in New Mexico could change their minds.

Estacado, a subsidiary of the Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, struck the non-exclusive deal for BLP to produce both electric and thermal energy to help keep the lights on for eight cities spread over the east central part of the state. This licensing agreement is the first of what New Jersey-based BLP hopes will be many to come, according to its product roadmap.

Does this prove definitively that BLP is the genuine article? It sounds pessimistic to say it remains to be seen, but the process is still highly controversial. On one hand, the company has a team of qualified physicists of its own that say it works beyond a doubt — not to mention $60 million in venture backing and some outside endorsements. On the other, it has been widely neglected by the scientific mainstream since its inception in 1991, which seems fishy considering it could represent the biggest energy breakthrough in recent history.

Last time we covered BLP, it had just received outside verification from a team of engineers at Rowan University. Well, make that tenuous verification (more)

[screembloodymurder]

1. They said the same thing five years ago.

Insiders opinion is ... pure bullshit from the get go. They never had reproducible results.

[kristopher]

2. That isn't true according to Rowan University.

The link to their tests is in the story. They aren't able to explain the results, but they are reporting that they are getting out more energy than is input. No university is infallible, but I'd say they've (Blacklight) survived a pretty significant first cut.

[screembloodymurder]

3. Can't say any more, but read my post.

Gotta leave it at that.

[kristopher]

4. Anonymity has its drawbacks.

And lack of credibility when someone says "take my word for it" with no explanation and in opposition to a published study by a university team might be one of those drawbacks.

BLP claims are extraordinary, but their path to obtaining extraordinary proof seems proper. We will know eventually one way or another.

[screembloodymurder]

6. Rowan U (Glassboro) that bastion of research facilities.

You don't have to believe me, but confidentiality clauses prevent me from making further statements. I can tell you this. Mills is an interesting guy, a genius and he's from my hometown, but his physics is flawed. You don't have to take my word for it ... read what the experts have to say about his theory. It's mathematical gibberish.

[kristopher]

7. If it is false it will be shown to be false.

However, your unsubstantiated word on an internet forum is hardly a testament one way or another. The testing by Rowan adds a degree of validity that your sneering persistence totally fails to erase.

The principle researcher: Peter Mark Jansson joined the College of Engineering at Rowan University in January 2001. Prior to joining the faculty at Rowan, Dr. Jansson was an Instructor, Project Manager and research student in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England . He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree with focus in environmental and systems engineering in 1978 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Jansson then worked in the electric power industry for Atlantic City Electric for nearly 20 years, received his MScEng degree in 1997 from Rowan and his Ph.D. in May 2003 on the topic of innovation in electricity from the University of Cambridge.

Not the world's top authority, but not a nimrod either. Certainly he is more credible than you and your whispers. I also doubt a utility would chuck $60 million at something without having a pretty good grasp of its viability. It isn't like they don't have some pretty damned good geeks in New Mexico.

[NNadir]

8. You are hardly a person to rule on credibility.

In fact, you are a technological rube - although I don't wish to demean rubes, some of whom turn out to be interesting, even if you're not.

You will, I think, believe almost anything, except, of course, the truth.

Randall Mills whizzing around these parts all the time with his Porsche with the "Blacklight" vanity plate.

I believe he fuels it in a gas station.

[kristopher]

9. So sayeth the Sacred Eternal Fount of the Logical Fallacy....

Or is it the Dreary Duke of Dumb Assed Insults?

It is just so confusing.


It could be a scam. But the process being followed is the proper one to determine whether or not that is true, so why do you think I should "rule" on its credibility at this point.

Oh right, that was a stupid question. That's what you would do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. It doesn't seem to be a scam - looks more like straight forward chemistry . . .

as reported by heavily documented test data.

[screembloodymurder]

10. He's a Civil Engineer. He should be testing welds on bridges.

For God's sake, read what the physics people are saying.

[kristopher]

11. Post a link to someone that has attempted to replicate the experiment

And I'd be very interested in seeing the outcome. But listening to your "I'm inside but sworn to secrecy" shit? Nah.

In fact, the more you post, the more you come across as a dirt-bag. Trying to discredit the researcher by labeling him a "civil engineer" is pathetic.

[screembloodymurder]

12. Discredit him? I'm a Civil Engineer.

What part of what you posted don't you understand?

Jansson received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering with a focus in environmental and systems engineering in 1978 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That makes him a Civil Engineer. Unless MIT has a completely different curriculum than the school I attended, I doubt Jansson has the background or the expertise to independently verify the validity of Mills' technology. But the proof is in the pudding and Mills has been making the same claims for years. His working model was supposed to be out years ago. I don't work for the company, but I have followed the company from its creation and I know people who were there from day one and have since left because their own tests didn't support the claims being made.

[kristopher]

13. Are you deliberately obtuse or just thick?

If his education stopped at the undergrad level you might have a point. It didn't, you don't - then or now.

If you have evidence that this is a hoax, then you should present that evidence to the team at Rowan or one of the people who are reviewing their work. That would be easy enough to do; instead, you are here - making anonymous posts on a little read discussion board - trying to get some attention with your "inside knowledge".

Wow. I'm impressed.

[screembloodymurder]

17. Have it your way.

Maybe they'll allow individuals to invest and you can get rich. Or, you could send me your address and if I'm wrong, I'll send you $20 and apologize for questioning Rowan's research team.

[kristopher]

20. Investing isn't my concern.

I'm interested in energy technologies that have the potential replace fossil fuels. I'm skeptical of this technology but that doesn't equate to automatic rejection. The technology has been submitted to a reputable institution for testing and has withstood the first round. The specifics are publicly available for others to attempt to duplicate the results that Rowan observed. That is how the technology will be verified or falsified.

That's the way the process works and answers are found - not by specious claims (either pro or con) of some anonymous numb-nuts on a internet forum.

[screembloodymurder]

22. Yo, anonymonut, where's your name and address?

I remain very skeptical, but I'm willing to wait for the working model. Hell, if it works I may buy one.

[kristopher]

27. I'm not claiming "inside information" and trying to smear someone.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. Yeah, the same type "experts" Einstein proved were full of shit. Guess he was a rube too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Just read the 60+ peer-reviewed journal articles on the website. The proof is all there.

[screembloodymurder]

19. Here's what the established physicists are saying.

"The physics that he uses is utter nonsense," Robert Park said, a University of Maryland professor. He is the spokesman for the American Physical Society which represents more than 40,000 physicists and their collective opinion has been enough to cast doubt on Dr. Mills' claims.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Not true, Parks has not commented on Blacklight as a spokesman for the APS. . .

In fact, in his What's New column, Parks has hedged his bets, admitting that the Blacklight process may, in fact, produce excess power, even though, supposedly, Quantum Theory says it can't. It looks like Quantum Theory will need to be re-written for the upteenth time - perhaps they can add a 12th dimension of reality to explain the lower energy states of hydrogen. Personally, I'll take reality over theory every time.

[screembloodymurder]

25. From Park's blog dated 12/12/08:

Yesterday, in the middle of the afternoon, I turned on CNN to see if there was any news. Two heads were talking about BlackLight Power, which had found "a way to extract all the energy we need from water." There was a picture of Randy Mills in the background holding something technical. The "she" head said "it sounds like a great idea." The "he" head agreed. (So do I, if you can make it work.) He said big companies have invested $60 million, so it must work. I tried to find yesterday's exchange on Google just now. No luck, but I found other CNN reports from last summer that sounded just like it. CNN should talk to Steven Chu; In 2000, Chu, along with other Nobel Prize winning physicists, was asked by a reporter about people investing in BlackLight. Chu's response was not as colorful as some. "I feel sorry for them," he said softly.
http://bobpark.org/

Yup, he sounds like a convert and who's this Steven Chu guy? What's he know about energy?
:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

26. All this hyperbole is just that...

All it takes is for someone to independently test the observations of Rowan and not be able to reproduce the results. It's simple really.

I can't begin to understand a rational reason why you'd have your panties in such a bunch about this. Do you know of someone who has experimentally falsified the claims or not? If not, then you are talking out your ass.

Also, I'd be very interested in seeing any evidence at all of the company soliciting funds from individual investors. As far as I understand it, they only recently announced funding and that was from a utility, which can be assumed to have the resources to do their due diligence.

If you want to discredit them, falsify their claims. It's a simple goalpost.

[screembloodymurder]

28. Blacklight has been investor funded for years.

There's a difference between "testing" and scientific validation. Rowan performed tests, but can't explain the process and did not have control of substances used in the process. They can't validate anything but their results. That said, if it produces electricity for less than my electric company, I'll buy it.

[jberryhill]

40. And speaking of investors...

Note the Rowan researcher was Jansson:

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/21/blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-claims-new-renewable-energy-source


It should be noted that Jansson has been aware of Blacklight for years, and even acted as an advisor for an energy company that ultimately made a strategic investment, but it appears to have no unethical ties, just an ongoing interest.


"Aware of" is something of an understatement. Jansson's association with Mills started back when Jansson was working on his master's degree.

[kristopher]

47. So...

In your world, if someone becomes aware of an important developing technology while working on their master's thesis or doctoral dissertation, they are automatically not to be considered a legitimate authority on the technology.

That's a strange perspective. I always thought that is exactly what made someone an authority. As the article states "...appears to have no unethical ties, just an ongoing interest."

[jberryhill]

49. That's ridiculous

No, in my world, if you want to demonstrate independent confirmation of a technology, then you get someone independent.

Janssons master's thesis dealt with analysis of Mills' claimed "unique compounds", and had nothing to do with energy generation.

There are scads of laboratories well-equipped to independently test Mills' claims. The choice of someone with an "ongoing interest" in BPL is striking. BPL has received tens of millions of dollars in funding. They are absolutely capable of having an independent confirmation done.

[kristopher]

51. No, what is ridiculous is your obsessive behavior

You'll twist anything beyond recognizable shape to support your predetermined conclusion.

If they are perpetrating a hoax, it will come out. If they have something real, that also will emerge.

[jberryhill]

53. "If they have something real, that also will emerge."

Yep. That'll be good for another decade of nothing from BPL.

[jberryhill]

29. A question for you....

"I also doubt a utility would chuck $60 million at something without having a pretty good grasp of its viability."

What utility put up $60M?

You might consider re-reading the article again carefully.

Dr. Mills is very good at raising money from private investors, and his first foray into the energy field was cold fusion. Thus far, after having spent years raising millions of dollars in venture capital, his ability to produce electricity on a commercial basis remains at 0 Watts.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. It's Quantum Theory, and its 11 dimensions of reality, that are gibberish. Blacklight is the future ...

And the scientific community is slowly, but surely, recognizing this incredible new power source.

[screembloodymurder]

18. And your background is ...

If you read Mills' paper, and understood it, you must have a Doctorate in theoretical physics. I'd suggest you go somewhere other than BlackLight's own web page before pronouncing Mills as the next Einstein.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. I've never stated that Dr. Mills of Blacklight is the next Einstein, but others have . . .

See, for example, Tom Stolper's book "Genius Inventor" about Dr. Mills who makes a very credible case on that subject. The point I was making is that Einstein, whom you rightfully hold in such high esteem, was one of the biggest detractors of many aspects of quantum theory and for good reason. All I'm saying is that Einstein was right all along and should be recognized for his foresight.

[jberryhill]

30. How much money did Einstein raise from investors?

I'm having trouble recalling the exact figure.

[kristopher]

32. I don't see Blacklight trolling for investors.

Most outfits like this can be bought on an exchange, Blacklight can't.

Take a look at their Board of Directors.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/management.shtml

[jberryhill]

33. Then you should have been present for Mills' presentation

At the Emerald Investment annual Groundhog Day Forum in Philadelphia, where I met him.

Emerald Investments has an annual beauty pageant of companies seeking private investment prior to public offering plans.

http://www.teamemerald.com/about/biographies.php?show=executive

Mr. Besecker is Chairman, President and CEO of Emerald Asset Management, Inc., parent company to Emerald Advisers, Inc., and manager of the Forward Emerald Opportunities Fund. Mr. Besecker founded Emerald in 1991. He has over twenty years experience in the money management business, starting his career as an investment professional with Merrill Lynch and E. F. Hutton. Mr. Besecker has been a key investor and provided expertise to a number of early-stage venture capital projects. He was an initial investor and provided advisory support to BlackLight Power, Inc.


What's fascinating about Mills is that he uses an investment pitch as a technical citation:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/REFERENCES%20042006.pdf

R. Mills, “BlackLight Power Technology-A New Clean Energy Source with the
Potential for Direct Conversion to Electricity,” The 8 th Annual Emerald Groundhog Day
Investment Forum, February 5, 2002,Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, Philadelphia, PA,
Organized by Emerald Asset Management, Lancaster, PA.

Had he not been there shilling for investment in his company, I'd have never heard of him.

[kristopher]

34. I stand corrected. Thanks. nt

[jberryhill]

35. From a non-anonymous person...

BTW, my background is a doctorate in electrical engineering and I'm a patent attorney. One of the clients I worked for years ago was a tech startup investment company in the Philadelphia area that sent me to these kinds of things to evaluate scientific and engineering claims. Blacklight was a regular topic.

[kristopher]

36. I think they re pretty close to the shit-or-get-off-the-pot stage.

We'll see.

I note we are neighbors. I went to Christiana 'til 74.

[jberryhill]

37. Dickinson '81

Just after grad school, I subbed at Christiana while job hunting.

You know David Plouffe went to St. Marks.

[kristopher]

42. Didn't know about Plouff.

What I don't get about BLP is the Board membership. For example: Albert F. Kirby

"Albert F. KirbyAlbert F. Kirby is Senior Vice President, Generation, for Conectiv Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc., that operates in the deregulated energy industry. Conectiv safely and responsibly manages power plant assets and buys and sells fuel and energy in the wholesale marketplace.

Mr. Kirby is responsible for Conectiv's Generation fleet. In that capacity, he directs operations, engineering, construction, environmental, and technology services for the Energy business unit. This includes new plant development and construction, as well as major plant retrofitting and oversight of the company's joint-owned units.

Mr. Kirby joined Delmarva Power, another subsidiary of PHI, in June 1968. He has held a number of management positions including general manager of engineering, manager of production, and plant superintendent.

Mr. Kirby earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Delaware. He also holds an MBA from Wilmington College.

Mr. Kirby is a licensed Professional Engineer in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and is also a U.S. Army veteran. He is a board member of Blacklight Power, Inc. and serves on the Christiana Hospital Building Committee."

Folks like this don't tend to support scams.

And if the investors they have been funded by are of this ilk, that isn't a negative IMO, it contradicts the idea of a scam....

[jberryhill]

43. "Folks like this don't tend to support scams."

You'd be surprised.

Corporate board membership is an easy gig for older professionals with impressive curricula vitae.

They're not involved in management of the company or its technology. They get paid a fee to vote on two or three corporate governance resolutions a year and sit on at least one conference call which constitutes the annual meeting.

As far as taking in "impressive" investors goes, it's a lot like the old Willie Sutton adage - "that's where the money is".

How does a scammer do this:

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


The program remained small until 1993, when the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences asked for a quarter-million dollar match. After successfully completing that match, many major organizations such as the Philadelphia public library and the University of Pennsylvania joined, along with churches and other Christian organizations. Like most modern pyramid or Ponzi schemes, Bennett's was an 'affinity' scheme, in which he defrauded people of common interest: in this case, local non-profit organizations and Christian charities. Using the swelling funds from these churches, Bennett expanded further, establishing offices in Radnor, Pennsylvania. He had glossy brochures and a staff to process all the money coming in.

The Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences and UPenn don't consist of a bunch of rubes either. Nonetheless, they went along for the ride.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2008-12-14-madoff-ponzi-downfall_n.htm

NEW YORK — The financial world begins this week still in a daze over the spectacular collapse of an alleged Ponzi scheme by onetime Wall Street legend Bernard Madoff — possibly the biggest swindle ever committed by a single person.


Stanford University was fooled by Uri Geller. Sophisticated people are taken in by things all of the time.

BPL puts on a very impressive presentation for investors. What they don't do is generate a nickel's worth of energy sold to anyone. This thing has been rolling along for over a decade now.

If you look under the hood of the "independent" test by Jansson, you'll notice that he relied on material that was supplied by BPL. Hence, Jansson had no independent way of knowing how that material had been treated or what its initial hydrogen content was. (Specifically the Raney Nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel)

Now notice what they say:

http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/21/blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-claims-of-a-new-renewable-energy-source/

There’s one odd factor in Jansson’s tests, which is that Blacklight supplies the Raney nickel, which it in turn obtains from an industrial supplier. When I asked, Jansson wasn’t sure what, if anything, Blacklight did to prepare the material, but Mills was happy to tell me in a separate interview that it’s doped with a very small amount of another common material, sodium hydroxide, in a process that others could replicate.

Jansson, for his part, said that the chemists on his team who analyzed the material couldn’t see any clear way that Blacklight might have rigged the tests by somehow storing energy in the Raney nickel. “It would be rather difficult to do this quantity of heat storage chemically in this material,” said Jansson. “We would have seen significant changes.”

...

According to Mills, it’s likely that a totally independent researcher will verify the whole process within a year. Meanwhile, the company will start licensing out its energy process, and do work with hydrinos in various chemical applications.


Now, you are calling this an "independent" verification, when the entire thing relied on a material provided by Blacklight for which Jansson had no access to the preparation. Jansson says "It would be rather difficult to do this quantity of heat storage chemically in this material".

Well, I'll tell you something. I have a Ph.d. in a technical field. A few years ago, I watched a man on a stage in Las Vegas turn a pretty little girl into a live tiger just by putting her in a box and then opening it again - and I have no idea how he did it. But there is a humungous difference between saying "I can't think of how he did that" and "I have verified it can be done."

Even Mills is not calling Jansson's results "totally independent", so you might consider not getting ahead of BPL's own claims.

You get a complicated enough electrochemical reaction going on - and Raney Nickel is an interesting material - and there could be all sorts of things you "can't figure out" when you are relying on an unknown process to give you your source material for the experiment.

Okay?

Now couple that with the fact that Jansson relied on BPL for the source material used in his master's thesis, and then advised another company on making an investment in BPL, and you have to ask yourself - How many chemists, physicists, and energy experts are there in the world, or even in New Jersey, who would be perfectly capable of providing an independent test; but for some reason the independent test is done by someone with more than a decade's worth of history relating to this company?

Does that make your wheels turn a bit?

[kristopher]

44. I read all of the venturebeat link.

So the only new information is the part about Jansson's master's thesis. Maybe I'm naive but I'm not convince yet either way.
The university's chem dept had full access to the material before and after testing and they found nothing to account for the energy released. I agree it would have been a more open and convincing process if they had prepared the material. However, just as nefarious scenarios can be spun around Jansson's persistent relationship with the company, an equally convincing benign explanation can be envisioned; such as the desire to maintain the secrecy of proprietary information related to but not included in the tests. I agreee it may not be the best approach, but considering the value of ownership of any component of this process it doesn't seem incredible to me that they would care less about convincing their detractors and more about building a solid portfolio that covers as many aspects of the process and production as possible.

The remark about the lack of relevance of the board members is weak. I'm aware of the way the position works, but it was reported that Conectiv and a west coast generating company have provided $10 million in support. I've sat in on meetings with high level decision makers at Pepco and Conectiv as they considered new technologies and I simply don't believe they are putting that kind of money into, and one of their top people on the board of, a company that is a scam.

So while there is justified reason to question the validity of their claimed innovation, most of that is based on lack of transparency. The counter to that is that our system not only encourages, but actually requires just that type of secrecy regarding breakthrough intellectual properties.

In the end I'm just where I started, willing to wait and see.

[jberryhill]

45. "considering the value of ownership of any component of this process"

No, there is no justification for claiming "independent" verification, and then doing the material prep in a manner unknown to the investigator. None. Zilch. Zip. That's not "independent" anything.

If you are saying it is some sort of "secret preparation", then the entire "confirmation" boils down to their ability to prepare the material in such a manner as to get it past some chemists at Glassboro State, oh, excuse me, Rowan University.

If you want ownership of a chemical process, then you take out a patent on the process.

What is the point of having someone say "it produces excess energy" if the investigator did not have control of the materials that went into the process?

Seriously, explain this to me. If it wasn't intended as a stunt, then why run part of the process through a black box?


The university's chem dept had full access to the material before and after testing and they found nothing to account for the energy released. I agree it would have been a more open and convincing process if they had prepared the material.


And every magician has someone come on stage and inspect the saw before and after he saws a lady in half with it. Big deal.

So the process is "too valuable" to let your independent investigator know what you are doing? And they are going to license this technology somehow? Just how is that going to work, if the process it "too valuable" to let anyone see what it is?

There is absolutely no point in having someone confirm "excess energy" if they are not going to be in control of the components that go into the system. None.

But again, your rationalization diverges from Mills' own statements. He said that BPL did nothing exceptional with the material, which begs the question of why they would ruin the point of having an "independent" investigation. You rationalize this by saying that they added "special sauce" in a process "too valuable" to let the investigator know.

Who should I believe, Mills or you?

[kristopher]

46. You are edging into extremism...

What I wrote was that revealing proprietary components to the process might be a larger consideration for them than is impressing internet bloggers. Since neither you nor I know what is actually involved neither of us (with the emphasis here on you) knows what might be at risk in "prematurely" (from their POV) making public certain areas of their research. YOU don't know, you only presume.

You may not trust them and you have presented some legitimate arguments that support your perspective. However, your cavalier dismissal of the testing and the interests of players like Conectiv is more of an insight into your ability to be objective than it is any sort of rational remark on the legitimacy of BLP.

The difference between us is that I acknowledge there is insufficient information to mke a conclusion and state "I don't know" whereas you point with vigor to the lack of information and assert that you are able to fill in the blanks. You have probabilities on your side, but you don't have any particular insight that supports your certitude.

[jberryhill]

48. That makes about zero sense

Okay, perhaps you can explain to me what Jansson's "independent confirmation" proved?


Since neither you nor I know what is actually involved neither of us (with the emphasis here on you) knows what might be at risk in "prematurely" (from their POV) making public certain areas of their research.


What I have, and you don't, is over a decade and a half of relevant experience in the development of proprietary technology.

"Impressing" the uninformed is indeed the entire point of pimping press releases about Jansson's NON-independent "confirmation", as well as the "commercial license" having no dollar figure associated with it, while recycling a figure about prior investments, to convey the impression that they have entered into an agreement with a value north of doodly squat, after more than a decade of hype and not a single commercial watt generated.


your cavalier dismissal of the testing


The testing demonstrated that an investigator with longstanding ties to the company was unable to determine how excess heat was generated from a sample of material over which he had no control of its prior treatment. Wow.


there is insufficient information to mke a conclusion


No, you were upset that the "independence" of the testing was challenged, and your hypothesis for the reason why contradicts Mills' own statement on that lack of independence.

Mills says that nothing exceptional was done to the nickel. Your hypothesis is that they don't want to reveal a trade secret.

You are calling Mills a liar - don't you get that?

You are welcome to any hypothesis you want. You don't seem to understand that your hypothesis is not consistent with what Mills himself says about the testing.

So, either you are right, or Mills is lying. Which is it?


revealing proprietary components to the process might be a larger consideration for them than is impressing internet bloggers


One does not pay for commercial press releases for nothing. You tell me. Who were they trying to impress with them?

Let's be clear: "Mills was happy to tell me in a separate interview that it’s doped with a very small amount of another common material, sodium hydroxide, in a process that others could replicate."

Your point is that statement is a lie.


You have probabilities on your side, but you don't have any particular insight that supports your certitude.


I am certain that there has been no independent confirmation of doodly-squat relative to the claimed energy generation technology.

Your position is that they have not yet reached your personal "shit or get off the pot" point. Okay fine. At want point are you prepared to throw in the towel?

The bottom line is that Mills himself says "others could replicate" the treatment of the material, and he admits the test was not "totally indpendent". Do you have a hypothesis for his refusal to have an independent test done, which does not contradict another statement by Mills. If not, then I'll have to conclude you believe he is not telling the truth.

Your call.

[kristopher]

50. The primary thing I'm questioning

Is your rationality. Or should I say lack of...

All you have provided are unsubstantiated accusations of Jansson and the other researchers not only in the engineering department but also the chemistry department at Rowan, Conectiv and a senior VP of Conectiv, and a host of other respected people and business entities acting for over a decade to perpetrate a fraud.

You have provided no evidence except the fact that they haven't shown you all their cards and they haven't commercialized their innovation.

Initially your claims were somewhat credible but the more you persist in trying to twist the words I say to make a point of little consequence, the more I see that your grip on reality is perhaps not as secure as it might be. If you want to disprove their claims then take the Rowan work to a couple of universities and share your indignation with them and convince them to debunk the work. From what I've read, both Black Light and Jansson seem to be extremely cooperative. One has to believe that if the material provided is somehow doctored, that a decent university level chemistry department would be able to provide an analysis that would reveal such tampering.

You seem pretty obsessed with their perceived dishonesty so I'd suggest you start on this project immediately to keep yourself from going over the edge you are so precariously tetering on. UD has a great materials department; start there. I'm sure some grad student would be tickled to have a paper to publish.

[jberryhill]

52. You do not understand the difference between an accusation and an observation

No independent test has been done of BPL technology. What has been done is an uncontrolled stunt for the purpose of generating a press release.



One has to believe that if the material provided is somehow doctored, that a decent university level chemistry department would be able to provide an analysis that would reveal such tampering.


Why design a test protocol where that is even a question. Is a "decent university level chemistry department" not able to do that?

And, I guess you've changed your mind again. First, you said it was an "independent" confirmation. Then, you said that the material had to be handled by BPL to protect "valuable" proprietary information. Now, you are saying there was nothing done to the material.

And that is precisely the point.

What I'm telling you is that the test at Rowan has no value. You are attempting to spin it as some sort of significant result.

Yes, there are fine material science facilities at UD, that's where I did my doctorate work. They are designed to do research, not to untangle a mystery in a test protocol open to manipulation.

So, one last time, how many years of non-results and black-box testing will go on before we hit your threshold of "shit or get off the pot"? When Mills retires?

[TheWraith]

5. Sounds like money laundering, to me. nt

[phantom power]

31. A bunch of people bet $55 trillion on financial derivatives.

Since they bet so much, there must be something to it.

Right?

[Citizen Number 9]

38. Can we buy stock

yet?

:spank:

[jberryhill]

39. Blacklight Power has been doing that prodigiously for years

In fact, the "independent" researcher who "confirmed" the energy production results said he was investing in Blacklight back in 1997 - the last time he "confirmed" their results.

In 2000, they were talking about a $1B public offering that didn't materialize.

[Citizen Number 9]

41. My point

exactly. ;-)

I don't think we were the only ones who called it "Mr. Fusion".

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Question for anyone who's tried to understand what Mills is claiming:

He seems to say, in his Grand Unified Theory, that these 'hydrinos' are what make up dark matter. So, since they're 'dark', that presumably means they don't interact with electromagnetic forces, after their 'creation' from normal hydrogen.

So does that mean that he claims his generator makes dark matter? If so, does that mean the dark matter stops interacting with photons, and just drifts away through gravity (in a highly elliptical orbit around the centre of the earth, with apogee at the earth's surface, I suppose)? And, if so, is there a net loss of mass for the system - and you have to keep supplying new hydrogen to it?

I was trying to explain this to someone last night (over a drink, so I wasn't doing terribly well), and this was their first question about what the hell the guy claims is going on.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. I think everyone here could use a drink and just chillax.