Letter from the Editor

An American invention which might end the world’s dependency on oil

01.11.2008

This summer FACTS & ARTS published an article by Michael Johnson about BlackLight Power, an American company claiming to have invented a completely new energy source.

BlackLight Power was founded by Dr. Mills some 20 years ago. Dr Mills studied medicine at Harvard University and continued with post graduate studies in physics at MIT.

At MIT Dr Mills came across quantum mechanics, which he found to be as fundamentally flawed and set about devising a radically different theory of the sub-atomic system based on classical physics.

Robert Mathews wrote about BlackLight Power and Dr Mills in Financial Times, on March 10, 2006:

"In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric charge.

According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously insoluble problems emerge - such as the predictions of the properties of molecules.

But most excitement - and controversy - surrounds Dr Mills' prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone"

The energy released is considerably more than what is required to extract the needed amount of hydrogen from water. Thus the Black LightPower process could give access to a limitless energy source in the form of water.

BlackLight Power's claim has been highly controversial in the academic world, but on May 28, this year BlackLight Power announced that they have been successful in building a pilot plant power generator based on the new theory.

On October 20, BlackLight Power announced that engineers at Rowan University (New Jersey, USA), led by Dr Peter Jansson, have been able to independently replicate the BlackLight Power Process. BlackLight Power quotes Dr Jansson in its press release:

"The ability to generate such tremendous power in this controlled process demonstrates that the claim by BlackLight Power that it is able to demonstrate repeatable heat experiments based on their technology can be replicated by independent scientists."

Should the claim of BlackLight Power, and now of Rowan University, prove to be true, it will have the most profound implications for the world in terms of economics, politics and environment.

BlackLight Power has received some 60 million dollars of private funding. The company plans to license their technology to power companies.

Olli Raade,

Editor



Please watch the video below about the Rowan University's validation of the BlackLight Power process.




Below a short description of the BlackLight Power Process by Dr. Mills.




Please comment below this potentially revolutionary power source and its possible implications:

Share with:

| More

Comments (17)

Comment

by Chris
Too good to be true....
Report offensive post

If true

by M.Hat
It's exactly what is needed for the world to get past this present energy/environmental crisis. It looks like it's been properly validated. I just hope it works out.
Report offensive post

water is the future

by levi
iv'e always known that water is the future for a long time now.It is about time.
Report offensive post

More than energy will change...

by Adam
Mills's Classic Quantum Mechanics will upend the whole theoretical superstructure of modern physics - if true. Gone will be the fashionable nonsense that the Universe exponentially branches into Parallel Worlds everytime a particle dithers over a quantum of energy.

Maybe. Mills and colleagues have a very long way to go before their version of physics is taught widely.
Report offensive post

Too good to be true

by Jeff
This looks and smells like a scam. Obviously a much better financed scam than the usual shoe string budget but still a scam.
Report offensive post

Doesn't look like a scam to me.

by Thomas Wamm
Contemporary quantum mechanics looks more like a scam to me than Blacklight Power hydrino theory. I studied physics in university, but diverted into electrical engineering after realizing I could not stand quantum mechanics.
Report offensive post

Laws of Thermodynamics

by Gary Ward
This violates the laws of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Period!
Report offensive post

Pathological science

by David
"... the chemistry of water has attracted more than its share of pathological investigations: the stories of cold fusion, polywater, and infinite dilution, all involving propoerties of water, provide shining (or perhaps glaring) exampels of how implausible ideas can run amok. (...) water seems to bring out the unskeptical enthusiast in some researchers." Read more at www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html. Let's just say will wait a little on this one.
Report offensive post

Patriarchal Scientists

by Elizabeth Jane
I saw a lot of vitriol and hate mail from physicists on another site along the lines of "This violates the laws of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Period!" ... but including mathematics to support their claims.

This is top-down reasoning, arguing from law to experience. This is how the world is run. Perhaps this is more than a revolution in Physics and energy and of social structures built on oil .. but also a wind a of change breathing life into a world based on top-down law and principle. Laws and governments claim the right to rule even over our minds and our metabolisms, creating norms of unreality and enforcing them. That is patriarchy! The reverse is reality, experience infusing logic, human freedom, matriarchy. Freedom comes from below, not from above! BlackLight Power!!!

matriarchyVnow
http://pressroom.prlog.org/eLiza1/
Report offensive post

Ask the energy......

by sajid
Ask the energy it will answer you the truth. By saying this I mean to say that what about the well known principle of energy that one can never get even a bit extra output energy than the amount of input energy. My studies of petrolium technology compele me to beleive that water can't be the replacement of petroliums. Ya I do agree that Ethanol can some how replace petrolium as our power resources
Report offensive post

Check your assumptions

by blindsangamon
To those who reflexively deny the possibility of this phenomenon based on energy conservation, I ask simply: How can you obtain more energy from a nuclear reaction than you put into it? There is evidently a new principle at work here that Mills has discovered.
Report offensive post

CO2 problem solved, but management...

by Robert Stahl
CO2 problem solved, but management on a global scale must become REAL to recieve the benefits. The issue is that, geologically, the global warming problem has entered into a positive feedback loop of former times, as substantiated by the 'father' of ecology James Lovelock. Included in this outlook is that industrially created effects in the atmosphere, particles produced by industry, reduce the temperature of the planet by 2-3 degrees centigrade, thus a sudden downturn in the 'wastes of industry' could lock the planet into a kind of total kidney failure. More has to be known about this, but it is not good to ignore it outright. In the meantime, since reducing the CO2 alone would not save humanity from an imminent extinction involving 80% of land based creatures, planetary dynamics needs to be employed in concordance with CO2 reduction. What Lovelock proposes is that many large tubes be placed in the oceans to propel colder water from below, driven by waves, thus growing large quantities of algae used to cool the planet down as when the 'kidneys' are working OK, and normally. Thus, BLP is only part of a managed solution that, ultimately, points to a complete paradigm shift for western civilization on the verge of an Atlantis, plowing its seed in the middle of our universe but, if not, also on the verge of anihilation or from any real form of intelligence... or successor
Report offensive post

hydrino - blacklight power

by Eric
This isn't a perpetual motion scheme nor is it energy from nothing. The fuel is the water and you just don't have to expend more power breaking water down to hydrogen which is the flaw to other uses of water as energy (takes more power to break down then you get out of it). They break down the water to H and then use a chemical reaction with some catalyst which releases energy. He does have theories about how this happens that make all the physicists angry since it dares to question their all knowing all powerfull Quantum Physics mumbo jumbo and in doing so probably hurt his chances to get this to market before now.
FYI - Aug 2009 news releases confirm that Rowan university duplicated entire experiment including making the catlyst, verified the hydrino state with light signatures fully documented and full details for other labs to follow suite. Looking forward to interesting 2009/2010 on this topic
Report offensive post

Thermodynamics

by MickeyG
"This violates the laws of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Period!"

Really? What about nuclear fission? What about burning gas? It doesn't take much effort to strike a match. Nature holds plenty of unleashed energy. I don't know if Mills is right or not, but it disgusts me that many just write it off as impossible. Quantum physics is a very messy science with randomness thrown in as a stop gap.
Report offensive post

Water is the answer

by FredB
It is sure worth looking into. The nonconforming propertys of the water molecule have not been properly explained or completely explioted. There are too many examples of hydrogen being seperated with super efficency. I beleive a fellow named Stan Meyers was able to manipulate the water molecule in such a manner .And ,yes I to am digusted with the so called experts that dismiss theories because they dont conform to "Known Laws".
Report offensive post

Sigh, when will scientist learn?

by Fred
It never ceases to amaze me just how much ego is involved. From a historical perspective, when will scienctist themselves learn? Our understanding of how science "works" is already causing us to rewrite physics text books today, theorise or hypothesize away I say. Its always the mavericks who make history anyway. Once jeered forever cheered seems to be the norm. Maybe we should back off and allow the man oppuurtunity to pursue his research. Having worked in research myself I'd be more concerned with the integrity of the data being collected, those in r&d have a saying: Garbage in = Garbage out. On a side note, just for once I'd like to see scientist themselves admit their limitations or at the very least stop chastising individuals for making scientific observations. I admit to being skeptical as well, thats healthy only to a certain point. That said, I'll wait, either its junk science or its a revolutionary observation, only time will tell. Meanwhile I think I speak for a fair amount of people today when I say, "My fellow scientist, for once admit it, your jealous. Someone other than you may get there first."
Report offensive post

Energy Conversion 101

by Engineer
"Really? What about nuclear fission? What about burning gas? It doesn't take much effort to strike a match. Nature holds plenty of unleashed energy. "

There's a fundamental difference between using natually occurring substances as fuel and what BLP claims it can do. Hydrocarbons and uranium occur in nature. They must be modified, to some exent, to permit them to be used in such a way as to release their stored energy in a controlled manner, but that's all. BLP's basic fuel is hydrogen, which does not occur (as a free gas) in nature. It must be produced from water or other hydrogen-containing substances, either via electrolysis or chemical means. The analog to this, if you think about it, would be taking carbon dioxide out of the air, and processing it (adding energy) to turn it into carbon and oxygen, then burning the carbon to turn it back into CO2. You can't get more energy from the combustion reaction than you put in to separate the C and O2.

As noted, the laws of physics and thermodynamics say that the energy that can be recouped when the hydrogen gas is burned can't be more than the energy used to produce it in the first place--and in fact, it has to be less. Mills claims that he can make the hydrogen release more energy (by making the electron transition to an energy level "below the ground state") than is needed to make it in the first place. It is this claim that most scientists consider to be bogus--and which violates the laws of physics as generally accepted.

If Mills is right and everyone else is wrong, he probably deserves a Nobel prize and all the money he can make by selling his technology around the world. But if Mills is running a scam....well, you figure out an appropriate punishment. (I have my own ideas.)
Report offensive post

Comment this letter

Fill in all fields