Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 77355 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Blacklight Power
« on: 04/04/2009 06:46 PM »
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2009 06:51 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2009 07:21 PM »
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2009 07:34 PM »
Yes well, I'm familiar with the controversy and I'm not proposing Mills' physics.  I would however point out several interesting issues here:

a) BLP's board is not composed of quacks.  There are several top CEO's and 4 ex-senior officers from CIA there.

b) The reactors are working.

c)  The calorimetry studies at Rowan are open for anyone to observe and contribute to how they can be bettered.  This is open university science and honestly, I would not want to be the one to hold someone like Dr. Peter Jansson to task.  The guy is a brilliant MIT grad and Cambridge Ph.D. with lots of contract work for places like NIAC under his belt.

Sooooo. . .what does that all mean?  I dunno!
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 07:27 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #3 on: 04/05/2009 12:02 AM »
I want to link up this forum I've found recently, as it appears to be specific to nuclear propulsion as we are specific to spaceflight:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/

I've seen similar proposals. Is it really all that? I seem to recall that there are obstacles to using thorium effectively.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #4 on: 04/05/2009 12:06 AM »
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.

Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #5 on: 04/05/2009 12:53 AM »
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.)  Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.

Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.

Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

I am perfectly aware of how electron transitions work. What the blacklight people are claiming is that they can take hydrogen with its electron in its normal, stable, first orbit, known as "1s", and somehow get it to drop to a lower orbit that has never been observed, and somehow extract energy when the electron snaps back to its normal higher orbit. This is pure snake oil and is not supported by real physics.

VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #6 on: 04/05/2009 01:19 AM »
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory.  I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed.  That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now.  There have been many thousands of observations.  There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals.  There are the NIAC studies done years ago.  There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.

Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours.  I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong.  If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades.  And truly, this is how science works.  All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance.  If it did not, the scientific process would not work.

But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan.  I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!"  That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task.  And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing.  At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #7 on: 04/05/2009 01:33 AM »
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory.  I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed.  That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now.  There have been many thousands of observations.  There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals.  There are the NIAC studies done years ago.  There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.

Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours.  I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong.  If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades.  And truly, this is how science works.  All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance.  If it did not, the scientific process would not work.

But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan.  I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!"  That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task.  And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing.  At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.

If they are getting net power, I would venture to say that it is far more likely that the hydrogen, being in a magnetic field, is seeing its electron jumping back and forth between its p and s orbits, which in hydrogen are at the same quantum energy EXCEPT when in a magnetic field.

I dont see any references to Mills or his work in wikipedia articles on hydrogen and electron configuration.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #8 on: 04/05/2009 01:48 AM »
This is not the thread to argue about the merits of Blacklight power...take it somewhere else and return this thread to the given subject.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #9 on: 04/05/2009 01:54 AM »
Vanilla, I agree.

mLorrey, you can venture to say where the energy is coming from.  I can't.  I'm not a scientist or an engineer.  However, my experience with these things is that they're not so simple as one would at first imagine.  Now if you think you have a viable theory as to where the energy is coming from, I suggest you take just a few minutes and drop Dr. Jansson a note.  He's a very amiable guy, completely likeable and he's not tied to Mills theory in any way.  He has no opinion of it.  He's just doing the engineering to show there's heat.  Now there has already been a few attempts to hunt down possible sources and they seem to indicate no answer.  So, if you have an answer, write Dr. Jansson.  I'm sure he'd be thrilled to hear from you.

jansson@rowan.edu

Now, back to our regularly scheduled show. . .  :-)

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #10 on: 04/05/2009 08:15 AM »
I'm not even remotely qualified in quantum physics, but in instances like this I think the better approach is to simply see if the energy produced is real and not experimental artefact. Who cares where the energy is coming from, if it can be reliably used then it can be used. Just like solar neutrinos didn't care about theory, if it's there we can't ignore it. Certainly I can grok that there can't be a 0th energy level, the equations simply don't allow that. And if there is some reason why, well, that'll really require a PhD in quantum physics to really grasp it. Unless there's something wrong with the Standard Model.

At the very least, these hydrino molecules seem to be quite interesting. Perhaps as a new form of rocket propellant even if the energy extraction side is bogus. The other app I can see is high-density radiation shielding. The stuff would be perfect for a storm shelter (if it can be reasonably stable). Not to mention all the other chemical weirdness they're talking about. I don't think that the reactor per se would really be able to function as a substitute NERVA for earth lift-off owing to power densities (hydrogen being the working medium).
« Last Edit: 04/05/2009 08:30 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #11 on: 04/05/2009 04:43 PM »
Well, one thing is for sure: if Mills is right, the standard model is in huge error.  This is the reason for the contention over the years.  Mills is saying that basically, all of QM is wrong.  He started saying this back in the '80's before he had any evidence in hand which instantly made him an outcast and maverick.  I'm not saying this could be different in any way.  Even had he waited until he had lots of physical evidence to make his outrageous claims, he would still necessarily have the antagonistic response he's had for more than 2 decades.  You just can't tell people they're wrong about everything, from the structure of an electron, to the structure of an atom, to all the interpretations of QM phenomena over the last century, and not steam some people.

I personally don't have an opinion about BLP's physics.  It appears to meet the criteria of both quackery and revolutionary science.  I can't say one way or the other what it is.  I can say they appear to be producing power, lots of power; and that the circumstantial evidence, like who's on the board, who's given financial support, etc. is a bit overwhelming.

I've even heard that one of the current NASA center chief's is in for big pesos himself.  I'd never say who that is but I believe what I've been told here and upper tier NASA leaders are not just average engineers or researchers.  I've talked with this guy and he is just as sharp as tacks.  So I'm just saying, the jury is still out on BLP as far as I'm concerned.

Offline drbuzz0

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
    • Depleted Cranium
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #12 on: 04/24/2009 05:52 AM »
The more I read of this the more certain I am that it is snake oil.   They don't even seem to have a consistant story of what this thing is.  On one page it says it is a fully closed system (implying overunity) and on another it says that the only waste product is this hydrogen at a lower-than-grounded state.   On one other page it says this process can be used as a hyper-effecient light source.

It is possible that some of those involved in the testing are honest, credible scientists and academics.   Being a good scientist does not mean you're not gullible.   Many very intelligent people have been fooled by some smoke and mirrors to make something seem to be doing something that is not so.   (They don't consider someone rigged the calorimeter ahead of time or something).

The whole concept behind this thing looks, at best, extremely suspicious.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #13 on: 04/24/2009 07:21 AM »
If NASA people are involved (and I have to say, I've never even heard of the Rowan University that allegedly verified this system, they are apparently a young university founded as a teachers college. if BLP is in Princeton, NJ, why didn't they go to Princeton's physics dept?), then the first thing they should be doing with this theory is producing hydrino fuel for the space shuttle that is significantly denser than hydrogen fuel. Liquid hydrino fuel should be significantly denser than liquid hydrogen and provide more energetic reactions, so should have higher Isp than LOX/LH2. This is obviously rather groundbreaking for NASA and they should be all over experimenting with this stuff if it is real. So where are the NASA studies?

Here is an in depth analysis and criticism of Mills' theory:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/7/1/127/njp5_1_127.html
« Last Edit: 04/24/2009 07:27 AM by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #14 on: 04/24/2009 04:15 PM »
Rowan University was renamed for Mr. Rowan when he gave $100 million to improve the NJ state university.  It used to be called "Glassboro" college and was a bit of an embarrassment to the state system, the place you'd go with mommy and daddy's money to get a degree in recreation and leisure, etc.

The stated goal of Mr. Rowan is to turn the university into a world-class engineering institute that can rival places like MIT.  I can tell you, they're well on their way.  They've been building like mad for years now and hiring the best PhD's they can find.  I live about 25 minutes from the campus and drive through regularly on the way to visit friends and family.  The new engineering buildings are impressive by any standard.

I doubt it's true BLP went to Rowan to get a replication.  It's probably Anthony Marchese originally took an interest and filed for a NIAC grant.  There's a completed paper of that work back in 2002-3 but I can't seem to find it.  I did find this:

http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html

Note that Peter Jansson was also a part of that project so it seems to me a natural extension of the previous work to do the calorimetery engineering to test the BLP reactors.  Note that Rowan and Jansson are not involved in the disputes about Mills' science.  They're just doing the testing and making their test process available to the public for review.  This is good science.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 02:14 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #15 on: 04/24/2009 04:23 PM »
Here's the final report of the thruster study:

http://niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf

Mills' response to the Rathke:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf

I should also mention that I did read somewhere that the phase II follow-on asked for at the end of the thruster paper was never granted by NIAC, but it was granted by DARPA.  I've never seen a copy of such a report and never asked Peter Jansson whether they did the follow on because I suspect if they did, and it's not posted on the web, this is because it's classified.  In such an instance Peter could tell me about it, but then he'd have to kill me.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 02:33 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9559
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 450
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #16 on: 04/25/2009 02:09 AM »
This is cold fusion all over again. On the other hand, if we are lucky, one of these "snake oil" approaches to energy production may work, so all we can do is wait and see what happens and hope for the best.

Offline jak42

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #17 on: 04/25/2009 02:36 AM »
If Blacklight is showing some kind of excess heat, it may, in fact, be due to The Physical Effect Formerly Known as Cold Fusion (now known as "low energy nuclear reactions" aka LENR). Blacklight's explanation - a quantum state below the lowest orbital in the hydrogen atom (aka hydrino) seems quite unlikely.

LENR seems to involve a combination of electroweak and strong nuclear force: a proton and an electron combine to form a very slow, "cold" neutron with a very large cross section and a neutrino. The neutrino escapes undetected while the neutron, being large and slow, almost immediately combines with another nucleus on the metal to form  isotopes. Chemical analysis afterwards detects the isotopes. This is the Windom-Larsen theory, and it can also be used to explain data in other cases: flux tubes on the sun and exploding wires. It has, however, nothing to do with fusion. The Coulomb force is simply too large for fusion to be occuring.

For more information, see the following link:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #18 on: 04/25/2009 03:28 AM »
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy.  It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.

Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #19 on: 04/25/2009 08:41 PM »
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy.  It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.

Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .

Can you point to any studies by particle physicists in a reputable lab observing hydrogen becoming hydrinos?
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Tags: