Overunity.com Archives

We will see where this leads, they have made big announcements in the past

Their track record is poor.  It is not made better by the fact that they talk about power when they should be talking about energy delivered at some reliably measurable power level. 

Stirling has a new interview with Randell Mills:
"Dr. Mills, Founder and principal stockholder of BlackLight Power, Inc., has served as Chairman of the Board, President and CEO since the company's inception."
http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blacklight-power-demo/

I have to say - I'm really impressed with it:

- He gives full technical disclosure of the principles involved
- He explains how it works in the practical device.
- He has written a huge book on physics, and is generally a very accomplished chap.
- The whole thing is done in a professional & scientific way.
- It has been independently verified, apparently.

The process itself is described in detail in his book. Fantastic. It sounds like he wants people to build them themselves - so I'll read it and see if it's something I could attempt...

BTW - Here's a link to his book:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/

Update. The introduction is really intriguing:

"The observations of the acceleration of the cosmic expansion and the absence of time dilation in redshifted quasars confirm the absolute nature of spacetime."

"The correct basis of the spacetime relationships of special relativity and general relativity are inherent in the classical laws that further predict all natural phenomena on all scales from quarks to the cosmos."

The book is *pretty heavy going* for the layman... Lots of terminology and equations.

The validation-reports contain better practical info of the device though...
http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

I've just been reading this review from Jan 2012. Basically a glowing report - recommending more funding for another 24 months...:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport.pdf

And this one. In one cell (Mo electrodes) - Average energy gain was over 242000%
i.e. 2,420 x more energy out than in!
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/F500Study.pdf

It looks very much like the real deal...

So... They started out with a fuel-cell type device. A lot like an HHO fuel cell, called: CIHT

They fed humidified argon gas into the test cells - and occasional electric charge - and got electricity out.

Now, they have this new device, which is quite different - and clearly has an incredible power density. SF-CIHT

It seems they're zapping a tiny quantity of water with a big pulse of current - and that has the same effect - only better than the fuel cell arrangement.

The released energy of the hydrino transformation is taken up by the plasma, and it shoots out of the combustion chamber into a superconducting magnetic charge-separator - giving a huge pulse of DC.

I want one. Imagine having a MW of free electricity... I could heat my garden in winter. :)

A common problem with many OU type claims is that they are made based on measurements where the error bars are large compared to the measurement.  Ignoring their past, I am concerned that the announcement talks about huge power levels, but does not talk about energy.  This implies that they may be applying very fast signals. Measuring very fast impulses requires very special care.

Here's the patent application for the SF-CIHT device. It is over 300 pages long!  :o

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf

I'm just working on understanding how it's all put together...

These guys aren't making measurement errors. I'm sure of that...

I ran across them in 2010 when the Intel atom processor came out; they were on like page 50 of a search...  looked more like they were doing an andrea rossi sort of device to start; argon must have been a very long time ago...like using nickel and a taint..err something... of smoething else, only instead of allowing the collpased hydrogen proton to fuse with the nickel and become copper over time, they were stopping just short of that...

It looks pretty simple. Here's a promo vid of the machine:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/10-mw-generator/

Here's a synopsis of the process:
- Fuel (i.e. water + catalysts) is conveyed to a small electrolysis cell
- Large current is dumped through the fuel
- Fuel turns into plasma & heat - hydrinos are formed - extra energy is given off
- the plasma exits the cell into the MHD chamber (magnetohydrodynamic) where:
   It passes through a superconducting magnet, which deflects the charges, and the current is collected by electrodes at the top & bottom of the MHD chamber.

Possible problems:
- Getting effective charge separation by the MHD process. Plasma is highly conductive...
- Electrode lifespan

This is basically 'exploding water' - like all the youtube vids - but done big...

This is a good one! Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DuDQG0Xg1s

It's also similar to: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chukanov_Quantum_Energy_LLC

Imagine having a MW of free electricity.... for a microsecond.

Then imagine having to pump up your capacitor bank..... yet again...... over many seconds, using more "free electricity" _energy_ than you get from the other end in that microsecond.

Then figure in the energy cost to keep your MHD magnet superconducting.


Power is not energy. Energy is conserved, even in the latest "world changer" from BLP.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 10:30:37 AM
Imagine having a MW of free electricity.... for a microsecond.

According to the patent, it's a continuous process, and while it does take a big whack of amps to 'ignite the fuel', it's supposed to return much more...

QuoteThen figure in the energy cost to keep your MHD magnet superconducting.

True, they use some power, but it's all relative...

QuotePower is not energy. Energy is conserved, even in the latest "world changer" from BLP.

Sure, but this is like a 'state-change' - from hydrogen to hydrino. Energy is released from one form into another... He's not claiming energy from 'the vacuum' or anything like that. He seems to have accounted for every bit of energy in the system - in some seriously tedious detail... ;)

A good page on water explosions:
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/water_explosion.html

"At MIT (6,7). It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼" thick aluminium plate."

"While not in all, but in many discharges under differing experimental conditions of varying capacitance, initial voltage and water volume, the kinetic energy of the water jet was larger than the electrical energy that had been stored in the capacitor bank."

"... A 2 mf capacitor was charged to voltages in the 1-10 kV range and discharged into a water column through a 38 mH inductor. At voltages up to about 6 kV, the water acted as a relatively high resistance and the circuit decayed as an overdamped RLC circuit.

Resistance decreased with time. When the resistance dropped below about 10 W (Ohms?), the water would explode if the capacitor still had sufficient energy."

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 10:30:37 AM
Imagine having a MW of free electricity.... for a microsecond.

Then imagine having to pump up your capacitor bank..... yet again...... over many seconds, using more "free electricity" _energy_ than you get from the other end in that microsecond.

Then figure in the energy cost to keep your MHD magnet superconducting.


Power is not energy. Energy is conserved, even in the latest "world changer" from BLP.

Nope ... not buying that anymore.   Energy is NOT conserved.    From physics Professor Pappas: 
http://www.papimi.gr/another.htm
http://www.papimi.gr/cases/
Search the pages for "energy is not conserved" once on those pages.   He makes some compelling cases with a lot to back it up.   You just need to realize he's Greek and his typing and spelling in English isn't the best but it's understandable.   Judging from the sheer quantity of info on that web site I can imagine him pounding away at a keyboard fast and furious all day without ever using backspace to correct anything.
At least that's my view for today after pouring over his web site most of yesterday.   ;)
I've followed Blacklight for many years and think they have the brains but I'm not sure what's holding things back from getting a product to market.  Hopefully this will really be the 'game changer'.   

Quote from: e2matrix on January 21, 2014, 01:27:58 PM
I've followed Blacklight for many years and think they have the brains but I'm not sure what's holding things back from getting a product to market.  Hopefully this will really be the 'game changer'.

Brains for sure...

I think it's technically really difficult, and that's holding things back...

They were aiming for a solid state fuel cell, but I guess they had problems scaling up, and this new arrangement kinda has the opposite problem - of being difficult to scale down...

'Sod's Law' is one of the laws of physics after all, eh...

The patent goes on about various ways of managing the ongoing destruction of the electrodes - due to the KiloAmp currents... There are other challenges there too - like fuel supply, and energy harvesting... None of it's easy.

Quote from: tim123 on January 21, 2014, 12:39:42 PM
A good page on water explosions:
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/water_explosion.html (http://tesla3.com/free_websites/water_explosion.html)

"At MIT (6,7). It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼" thick aluminium plate."

"While not in all, but in many discharges under differing experimental conditions of varying capacitance, initial voltage and water volume, the kinetic energy of the water jet was larger than the electrical energy that had been stored in the capacitor bank."

"... A 2 mf capacitor was charged to voltages in the 1-10 kV range and discharged into a water column through a 38 mH inductor. At voltages up to about 6 kV, the water acted as a relatively high resistance and the circuit decayed as an overdamped RLC circuit.

Resistance decreased with time. When the resistance dropped below about 10 W (Ohms?), the water would explode if the capacitor still had sufficient energy."

Unfortunately there are many problems with the claims of Graneau and also of Hull. For example, the MIT experiment that punched a hole in the aluminum plate was not conducted in the way you might imagine from the description. In fact, the aluminum plate was in direct contact with the water, and there was a punch-die clamping down on the upper surface of the plate. The water arc explosion did not punch a hole at a distance with a "jet" of "fast fog", but rather it was a contact shot and shock waves in the water caused the overpressures needed to die-punch the hole in the covering plate. There is nothing unusual about this; metal-forming technology using the same basic method has existed for many years.

The famous "supersonic" fog jet in Hull's photographs was _assumed_ to be supersonic because of its imaged shape. No actual velocity measurements were performed by those people. However, when Peter Graneau was sponsored by Hathaway Consulting Services in Toronto, for several years, "fog" jet velocities _were_ actually measured.... and were never supersonic. Furthermore, George Hathaway, who appeared as co-author on several of Graneau's papers, withdrew his support and conclusions, once the proper analysis of the water-arc system was undertaken. This analysis demonstrated unequivocally what the practical research in Hathaway's laboratory had been showing for years: there is in fact no excess energy produced, over the energy used to charge up the capacitor bank to make the arc.

Hi TK, do you have any references for that? It must be a challenge to measure things like this right...

I've been thinking about the practical problems involved in getting current through water...

As with any dielectric - it breaks down in a thin channel between the conductors. This presumably flash-boils / electrolyses / burns just that very thin channel of water - causing the explosion effect. So only a teeny bit of water is 'converted' (to steam / HHO whatever). This is why there's so much spray in the youtube experiments...

So the main problem is how to isolate & 'ignite' the 'fuel' effectively...

I kinda like the hydrino theory - and there seems to be a decent amount of supporting evidence for it... I *really* like the idea that he has developed a GUT from classical principles. That's cool. Of course I'm far too slow to know if it's right, but it looks feasible...

If this is for real, based on cost per KWH to manufacture equipment and
then based on per KWH cost for production then I would say that all other
form of energy production would be SOL!!!!!

Quote from: tim123 on January 21, 2014, 04:41:51 PM
Hi TK, do you have any references for that? It must be a challenge to measure things like this right...

It is indeed challenging. When Graneau himself was directing the research at Hathaway's lab in Toronto, chaos reigned. The man was so very sure his hypothesis was correct, that they simply bypassed scientific testing altogether and put major effort forth to capture and convert the excess momentum in the fog that Graneau was sure had to be there. Turbines, Pelton wheels, secondary projectiles, MHD (but not superconducting!), underwater rockets, you name it, all were tried. When none were successful it became apparent that there was something wrong... with Graneau's model, which relied on conservation of momentum and a circular set of assumptions. When science regained control of the project, a new model was developed with outside help, that described events at the arc and in the surrounding water with shock-wave mathematics. This allowed a proper accounting without circular assumptions and showed that there wasn't any excess energy liberated after all. In order to make the necessary measurements and to image the shock waves in the water, special ultrahighspeed, high contrast Schlieren video photographic techniques had to be developed, a transparent but incredibly strong arc chamber constructed, etc etc. Along the way, delving into the past research of Graneau and his early colleagues like Richard Hull, discrepancies were found like those I mentioned in the previous post, and more. All of this caused Hathaway ultimately to withdraw his name as co-author on some of their publications. You can find a lot of this information by googling keywords Graneau Hathaway water arc. I'll admit to having some "insider knowledge" that you might not be able to find on the public internet. Regardless, the Graneau story is a fascinating one, and Peter Graneau has some very interesting ideas. His book "Newton vs. Einstein" written with his son Neal is an important book, even if half of it is .... er..... rather speculative.

Quote

I've been thinking about the practical problems involved in getting current through water...

As with any dielectric - it breaks down in a thin channel between the conductors.

That's right. In the case of the Graneau work, a very thin channel indeed is actually involved in the water arc, when it works right. There is a phase called "electrolytic conduction" though. That is, you have your water sitting in your arc chamber and it has electrodes immersed or contacting the water. When the triggered air gap (TAG) is fired to close the circuit to the capacitor bank, if there is too much inductance or if the water isn't pure, or other factors, you can get conduction thru the bulk water that delays or prevents the sharp arc explosion from happening. There is usually a little bit of electrolytic conduction at the start of every arc, which can be seen on the oscillograms of the process.

QuoteThis presumably flash-boils / electrolyses / burns just that very thin channel of water - causing the explosion effect. So only a teeny bit of water is 'converted' (to steam / HHO whatever). This is why there's so much spray in the youtube experiments...

Yes, that is basically right, except that the water may actually be effectively "torn apart" at the hydrogen bonds by the very high currents (several kiloAmperes) that develop in the arc. This is part of Graneau's hypothesis that might be correct, and it revolves around the phenomenon of Ampere tension. It's not quite boiling or flashing into steam; Graneau believed that the "fog" was actually cold and that the energy went into accelerating it rather than heating it. Graneau saw lots of spray and assumed that all of it was being produced at the arc, which is the fundamental error that led to his overestimation of the energy released in the arc process. In fact most of the spray is "entrained" or splashed water caused by the very small mass of water that is actually vaporised (whether by flashing to steam or by Ampere tension) in the tiny arc channel itself. This was revealed by the Schlieren shockwave imagery.

Quote

So the main problem is how to isolate & 'ignite' the 'fuel' effectively...

From the descriptions of the apparatus at BLP, it seems that he's using some kind of meshing gears to make arc chambers "on the fly", metering and refreshing the water in the pockets as the gears turn. This is just a guess on my part based on the descriptions I've read. I'd like to see the real apparatus; the published drawings aren't very detailed. These water-arc explosions create incredibly high pressures from the shock wave in the incompressible water. If a completely sealed and filled chamber is used, steel walls rip, bolts and welds break, all kinds of havoc results, like punching holes in thick aluminum plates. It is tough on apparatus, believe me.

Quote

I kinda like the hydrino theory - and there seems to be a decent amount of supporting evidence for it... I *really* like the idea that he has developed a GUT from classical principles. That's cool. Of course I'm far too slow to know if it's right, but it looks feasible...

Now we are above my pay grade. I'm no theoretician, but somehow I doubt that the hydrino theory is correct; smarter people than I have examined it and found it wanting in real evidence, mathematical coherence and predicted consequences. If his experiments and apparatus work as he claims, that's one thing. Making up an entire new physics to explain it.... that's harder for me to swallow. You have to ask... why isn't all the free hydrogen in the world in this lowest-energy hydrino form, if it exists?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 02:55:05 AM
You can find a lot of this information by googling keywords Graneau Hathaway water arc. I'll admit to having some "insider knowledge"...

Thanks for elaborating. It's fascinating stuff. And thanks for confirming my hypotheses. :)

QuoteFrom the descriptions of the apparatus at BLP, it seems that he's using some kind of meshing gears to make arc chambers "on the fly"...

Yes, it's ingenious, I think the patent covers all the details - but at 300 pages - I'm not sure I'll read it all at once... ;)

QuoteThese water-arc explosions create incredibly high pressures from the shock wave in the incompressible water. If a completely sealed and filled chamber is used, steel walls rip, bolts and welds break, all kinds of havoc results, like punching holes in thick aluminum plates. It is tough on apparatus, believe me.

I believe you.

QuoteNow we are above my pay grade. I'm no theoretician... Making up an entire new physics to explain it.... that's harder for me to swallow. You have to ask... why isn't all the free hydrogen in the world in this lowest-energy hydrino form, if it exists?

I must admit it's a bit over my head. He says, though, that what he's done is the opposite of making up a new physics - rather he's just dumped QM and extended Maxwell etc...

Now I know a bit more about it, I can see that what they're proposing - with the SF-CIHT device - while simple in principle, is quite a technical challenge to pull off. Assuming the principle is correct, and I think it's plausible... I look forward to reports of their upcoming demo...

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 02:55:05 AM

You have to ask... why isn't all the free hydrogen in the world in this lowest-energy hydrino form, if it exists?

Because the lowest energy state is not the most stable.
An ice cube is a lower energy state, but strives to go to higher energy states if available.


Equilibrium isn't nessecarily the lowest.


The fuel is renewable something like "by releasing the hydrino into the ambient it absorbs radiant heat and returns to a 1/1 instead of 1/137'th energy form"

There's a good comment on:
http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blacklight-power-demo/

QuoteThe 1MW of heat dissipation divided between 6 faces mean that 166.67KW/ft^2 must be dissipated by his 10MW in 1ft^3 device. ??

The best numbers I can find for transfer to water is copper at 455W/(m^2*K) K=C-273.17. That places the Delta temperature at 3670C. The only problem with that is that copper boils at 3200C and water goes super critical at 322C.

Ok, lets ignore the boiling copper and go to steam. Steam to copper is only 455W/(m^2*K) which means that temperature of the outside of the device must now be at over 100,000C or near the temperature of hot fusion. ;~( Things go down hill from here, but I look forward to seeing what he has. :~)

Technical challenges indeed. Stirling says he reckons it'll be 1-3 years minimum...

Quote from: tim123 on January 21, 2014, 12:39:42 PM
A good page on water explosions:
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/water_explosion.html

"At MIT (6,7). It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼" thick aluminium plate."

"While not in all, but in many discharges under differing experimental conditions of varying capacitance, initial voltage and water volume, the kinetic energy of the water jet was larger than the electrical energy that had been stored in the capacitor bank."

"... A 2 mf capacitor was charged to voltages in the 1-10 kV range and discharged into a water column through a 38 mH inductor. At voltages up to about 6 kV, the water acted as a relatively high resistance and the circuit decayed as an overdamped RLC circuit.

Resistance decreased with time. When the resistance dropped below about 10 W (Ohms?), the water would explode if the capacitor still had sufficient energy."

http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.ch/

Quote from: wings on January 22, 2014, 10:06:47 AM
http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.ch/ (http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.ch/)

QuoteBy making some assumptions about the fog jet's mass and velocity distributions, we can use (1), (2), and (4) to solve for m1, μ01, and μ02  and then calculate the fog explosion's kinetic energy.

The researcher is to be congratulated for reproducing Graneau's work so closely, even to the point of making the same false and circular set of assumptions, as well as using the incorrect Conservation of Momentum argument to account for the momentum transfer to secondary projectiles.

He cites the early papers co-authored by Peter Graneau and George Hathaway, but no reference is found to the later, more definitive work of Hathaway and Graneau that took place after 2002, and that involved literally thousands of "shots", lots of high-speed film and video photography, velocity measurements, and of course the shock-wave imaging using the high-speed Schlieren photography. This later work eventually caused Hathaway to reverse his opinion and endorsement of Graneau's reported findings.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77959.html (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77959.html)

Quoting Hathaway:

QuoteI published a rebuttal of the Graneau excess-energy claims a letter to the editor of Infinite Energy Magazine V12 #71 2007 (pg 4). In it, I claim that the conclusions which I published together with the Graneaus in Jnl. of Plasma Physics were not logically able to be derived from the experiments we performed together. In other words, while there may be some gain mechanism in water subject to electric arc discharges, it has not been proven by experiment.

The paper in JPlasPhys referred to is the second of the "works cited" in Tucker Leavitt's report.

Thanks for the link TK :)

Jerry Decker at Keelynet says this:

QuoteHow many years have we heard about Blacklight, yep since 1991 and still no product on the market, just like Searls' free energy/flying saucer, Newmans' gyro electron power spike free energy, Lees' thermal free energy power and Moellers' flying car, Negres' compressed air car, ad nauseum, we NEVER SEE THEIR PRODUCTS FOR SALE...every so often when they need money or attention, they post another sensational demonstration or claim that never results in working devices we can buy and use. So take this latest announcement with a huge block of salt like all the other announcements they've made over the last 23 or so years. Put up or shut up. - JWD

http://www.keelynet.com/

Oh dear. :(

Well then it has to be true.... if Jerry Decker say's it...on keelynet...

You must have a brain the size of a peanut.  :)

I see nothing in the quote from Decker that is untrue. Do you?

no, i do not.
everything that Jerry Decker sais is true and especially on keelynet.
why experiment at all? just read what others say...
on keelynet.
don't forget to post a link.
to keelynet.

Stefan you can close this website now.
it seems we don't need it anymore.
we just go and see what others say and post a link so others can see what others say and then nobody has to do anything exept posting a link and say what others say.

Quote from: Turbo on January 23, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
Stefan you can close this website now.

Lol, that's funny... I was thinking the other day just the same thing... "Stefan - we've got OU, you can close the forum now, thanks"

Of course we don't have OU yet. Do we 'Turbo', if that *is* your real name?  :o

lol again.

A report on the Blacklight demo - which took place yesterday, or the day before:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/report-from-the-blacklight-power-demonstration/

QuoteRandy stated that the SF-CIHT results have been validated by four outside groups, but only one spoke at the meeting. That validator was from Rowan University so I am sure that many of the critics will dismiss his comments out of hand. Whatever. I tend to believe people who actually view the experiments and study the results rather than simply post negative comments on the Internet. The validator unequivocally confirmed the reported results from the newly developed SF-CIHT cell and stated it was a "game changer". I thought one interesting moment was when the validator was asked whether he believed in hydrinos. His answer was something to the effect that this wasn't a matter of belief, but about experimental results and that he was confident in the results.

The demonstrations were instantaneous bursts with input and output measured by established commercial devices including waterbath calorimetry. Continuous operation was not demonstrated so skeptics will likely be dismissive of the results. Randy spent some time explaining plans for achieving continuous operation. While there are some engineering issues ahead, the energy outputs are so astounding that there should be multiple ways to make useful devices.

IMHO - it's the real deal... :)

Sure. Just like a firecracker is the real deal. You input a tiny energy and it releases a big flash.

Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo.

Problems only arise when the cost of storing the energy in the firecracker has to be accounted for.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 30, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
..Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo...

Hi TK,
  Can you please elaborate?

I read the report as saying there was a confirmed gain - that the output clearly exceeded the input... Did it not say that, or are they mistaken?

A little while ago - someone said that if a genuine OU device was waved under your nose, you wouldn't see it... Could that be the case here? ;)

Regards, Tim

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 30, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
Sure. Just like a firecracker is the real deal. You input a tiny energy and it releases a big flash.

Oh, wait... there was stored energy in the firecracker waiting to be released. Just like BLP's demo.

Problems only arise when the cost of storing the energy in the firecracker has to be accounted for.

right; it's in the form of 1/1 hydrogen, releasing contained energy to 1/137 hydrogen; which gets re-stored with energy from ambient... yes it's a finite amount because a finite amount was converted...


probably if they were captured, and applied as a constant sink  they'd make a pretty good cold spot too... and the other side is electrical; and not a hot spot... hmm

Video of Jan 28th 2014 demo / presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Fy8Iv5qMM

1) The fuel is in the form of a metal hydrate - something like 'epsom salts' - magnesium sulfate (heptahydrate)

2) Output was 1000 Joules per detonation, but I didn't hear what the input was.

3) The sound quality of the vid is so bad - I gave up after 25mins. I couldn't hear 50% of what he was saying... :(

Quote from: tim123 on January 30, 2014, 11:52:21 AM
Hi TK,
  Can you please elaborate?

I read the report as saying there was a confirmed gain - that the output clearly exceeded the input... Did it not say that, or are they mistaken?

A little while ago - someone said that if a genuine OU device was waved under your nose, you wouldn't see it... Could that be the case here? ;)

Regards, Tim

They have not proven, or even properly demonstrated, their contentions.

Water arc research has a long history of making "overunity" claims that are not substantiated with further, proper research. I myself have performed literally thousands of high-energy capacitor discharges into water chambers of all kinds, and I can show you results that indicate overunity ratios of 7 or 10 to one. Unfortunately the analyses that so indicate.... are wrong, and further, more careful research showed our group, which included Peter Graneau himself, that the early analyses were wrong due to circular arguments, unwarranted assumptions and use of the wrong mathematical model (based on momentum conservation). When the correct math model was used and better experiments performed, it became clear that no OU performance was actually happening.

BLP's present course... even including the MHD output stage... seems like a repeat of the work Graneau and his son Neal Graneau were doing ten years ago.  So I'm afraid I'll need more solid evidence than BLP has so far provided. Kiloamperes of current, peak power levels in the megaWatt range.... all of this is no big deal for a big cap discharge into water, and it doesn't indicate any OU. My position is that BLP hasn't proven their claims.... EVER.... in their long history of burning other people's cash, and I don't see any reason to revise my position at this time.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 04, 2014, 08:20:38 AM
They have not proven, or even properly demonstrated, their contentions...

Thanks for the reply. I hear what you're saying. What I saw of the demo didn't leave me convinced.

The first 25 mins of the vid shows a few demonstrations - of something - but it wasn't clear exactly what - mainly because of the poor sound quality...

I would have expected to see some clear input / output measurements, but i didn't, then i gave up... I might try to watch it again... Can anyone else be bothered to watch the whole thing & see if there's anything clear in there?

Blacklight may have world-changing technology, but they're apparently mystified by microphones... Sigh... :(

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/njcom/20140403006389/en

Quote from: d3x0r on January 30, 2014, 12:37:21 PM
right; it's in the form of 1/1 hydrogen, releasing contained energy to 1/137 hydrogen; which gets re-stored with energy from ambient... yes it's a finite amount because a finite amount was converted...


probably if they were captured, and applied as a constant sink  they'd make a pretty good cold spot too... and the other side is electrical; and not a hot spot... hmm

Ask BLP to sell you a gram of this 1/137 hydrogen.  Major universities have.  BLP has never delivered.