Electricity generated from water: BlackLight Power announces validation of its scientific breakthrou

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Actually no, I am one of the last people to believe this sort of thing at first glance. What I do tend believe however, is the multiple scientists and other professionals who are verifying and backing this work, especially when a respectable source does a high quality report on it. I have never seen anything that looked so promising out of the near hundreds of threads like this.

You sure about that?

I remember a thread we were both contributing to about 6 months ago where a guy at home was shoving tin-foil, copper and some other garbage into an oven and swearing he could create nuclear fussion right there in his home.

You beleived that was possible.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by boncho

Do you have a link to the patent? I'm assuming there is one, and if so, it will contain a complete description of the process.

TheRedneck

Which one, they have hundreds they have filed?

Edit:

This poster has the most relevent one.

IlumInati x bull# = water vapour x [x]-[y]
[x] = nuclear power
[y] = fossil fuels

X-y we still need fossil fuels to dig the uranium, with which to power the energy to boil the water to create the vapour.
Or in Aus, we simply burn the coal to vaporize the water. Check it out.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


You have a point, however, also consider that if some of these alternate energy sources are legit, they may not want to disclose all of the details...as they are trade secrets and still in development. They may give a run-down based on some sort of known method or system that in itself won't work without the confidential added apparatus. Just throwing that out there.

reply to post by butcherguy

That is exactly what I was looking for. It'll take me some time to work through it. Thanks!


reply to post by boncho

The one concerning electrical production using the BlackLight CIHT process. That is what we are discussing, it is not?

TheRedneck

reply to post by empireoflizards

Yeh cool man.
Also consider the historical evidence of governments, powers that be, iluminati etc. burying the truth.
You only have to look at Tesla to see what was discovered and created vs what we have now. Simply put, stone age by comparison. Who do I believe?
My intuition.

Keep up the good fight man, never give up, every point, comment and argument counts.

Originally posted by zimbakin
IlumInati x bull# = water vapour x [x]-[y]
[x] = nuclear power
[y] = fossil fuels

X-y we still need fossil fuels to dig the uranium, with which to power the energy to boil the water to create the vapour.
Or in Aus, we simply burn the coal to vaporize the water. Check it out.

Take the paranoid conspiracy out of the equation and replace with "military" and the equation is correct.

Nuclear power needed as a cover for nukes. Nuclear fusion research incuded which is why after 50 years we have still not got one watt of power onto the grid from fusion.

ironically enough if you replace "nuclear fusion" with any alternate energy theory and the story is identical. Lots of research, it does work, we have a pilot which works, we need more money for a full production run..........yawn yawn BS.

reply to post by R_Clark


This needs to be on front page i think. S&F OP but as it has already been stated an will be numerous times. The fear of the dark shelf in a dark cold closet could become the place of this breakthrough. My feeling as they drag there heels an stall breakthroughs as this when the time comes an we see things like this implemented in real homes it maybe to late for the planet.

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Nuclear power needed as a cover for nukes. Nuclear fusion research incuded which is why after 50 years we have still not got one watt of power onto the grid from fusion.

ironically enough if you replace "nuclear fusion" with any alternate energy theory and the story is identical. Lots of research, it does work, we have a pilot which works, we need more money for a full production run..........yawn yawn BS.

Are you not familiar with ITER?

The ITER fusion reactor itself has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power for 50 megawatts of input power, or ten times the amount of energy put in.[5] The machine is expected to demonstrate the principle of getting more energy out of the fusion process than is used to initiate it, something that has not been achieved with previous fusion reactors. Construction of the facility began in 2007, and the first plasma is expected in 2019.

The program is anticipated to last for 30 years – 10 for construction, and 20 of operation. ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €5billion, but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design have seen that amount more than triple to €16billion.[10] The reactor is expected to take 10 years to build with completion scheduled for 2019.[11

If it were that easy to throw together a fusion reaction I assume we would have one by now.

People do dedicate their lives to these things...

reply to post by TheRedneck


I look forward to your appraisal. I read through several pages of it but I am not up in that sort of science.

The overriding feeling I got was that they were covering as many bases as possible - almost that they were trying to cover everything that anyone else may come up with considering the huge range of materials they were quoting and the terminology was too full of 'preferably' 'predicted' 'possible' and other vague phrases and references for my liking, but maybe that is the way these things are done.

By the way this is a patent application and refers to other patent applications. Have any of them been granted?

reply to post by R_Clark

Remember hearing about this a year or two ago. And back then I was remembering hearing about it back in 2008 or so. So really this is not surprising, just another claim that's unfounded.

Blacklight spelled backwards is thgilkcalb. That's how much sense Blacklight makes.

There's no a single solid example of fusion or anything like it being at break even or better. We're just not there yet, not even close. It's expensive and incredibly complicated at present to do.

If we were smart we would stop burning coal and spend more for cleaner energy. Coal by far is the biggest killer per watt. What's surprising is so few people understand this. It's a huge win for coal.

But whatever, lets just keep killing some 200,000 people per decade in the US. And millions worldwide. I mean, we're on a roll. We got an addiction to this stuff and there's no reason to stop.

As someone who has been following this Blacklight story I would like to try to help people shorten the time it takes to come to the same conclusion I have...

Let me just give you a hypothetical to help out... Let's pretend the government had many technologies that the world would love and would make free energy for everyone.. but most of these technologies were too powerful or disruptive to society to let into the mainstream without major upheaval and worries.

Then let's pretend that someone.. someone like say ohhhh.. Pons and Fleischman accidentally discovered one of these incredibly dangerous power sources in cold fusion.

What would you do if you were the government? Maybe they would have one of their guys come out and promote a slight variation on cold fusion that was less potent that would lead people away from the more dangerous technology to a tech that took more time to develop and kept people from putting resources in the really dangerous version. You could have your government controlled power companies putting all the money into funding Mills to draw attention to him and when it does go mainstream these government controlled companies profit from it.

Did you know that Bob Lazar and Randell Mills came a long right around the time Pons and Fleishman came forward?

The process Lazar described for the alien craft is incredibly similar to the process Andrea Rossi described in a patent for cold fusion only replace the impossible to get element 115 with the ubiquitous nickel. Also note that Blacklight power had ex-milatary on their board early on. They also have scientists with ties to MIT, MIT was claimed to smear Pons and Fleischman when cold fusion went public.

reply to post by 8311-XHT

While there's no evidence whatsoever that Blacklight is legitimate or that your statements are based on reality, I do accept your hypothetical scenario as possible. The reason atomic weapons are dangerous isn't because of the radiation, so to speak. It's because of their immense ability to kill lots of people over a large area and to make that area virtually unlivable for a lengthy time. In principle, it's the POWER of nuclear energy that's so dangerous, not its name or its radiation. So any energy technology that's appreciably concentrated (and explosive) will have national security implications. Even coal can "explode", you know? But pound per pound, coal is insignificant compared to nuclear materials with respect to its energy production potentials. Remember, a bomb has to be able to be carried by an airplane or in a suitcase. Coal or gas or most any other energy fuel is not comparable. Even a nuclear reactor used for energy production is just a controlled explosion. Ironically, the more it explodes the more efficient it becomes, but it becomes virtually uncontrollable at some point and that's why we call it a reactor and not a bomb. Reactors control it so it's usable as energy.

So our society is limited to weak(er) energy technologies because of national security.

That's the hypothetical and I mostly accept the rationale.

We've already made practical fusion bombs. We just haven't made practical fusion reactors. In other words, we're unable to contain the explosions so we can extract useful things.

How do we make bombs? Well, with centrifuges/reactors.

Anything that substantially reduces the complications makes creating bombs easier.

This is what the Orion Program (in the 1950's/60's) was based on - fission/fusion bombs. Todays space program is centered on using fission/fusion reactors to produce propulsion, not bombs.

See, it's the very thing that can give us cheap energy that can also destroy us so easily. They have to regulate and control its use so that it's not used for weapons purposes. Hard to do.

Technology cannot save us from ourselves. We're the limiting factor.

Turning earth's most abundant resource as a fuel. this can have two implications.

1. Free energy and prosperity for all.

2. a Major flame war of which a a car runs better on...Oil or water

Now I see why Water Meters are going to be compulsory here in the UK...

reply to post by PuterMan

It appears to be an application. That doesn't mean much, though, since the application date was 2008. It's probably just still in process. Patent applications take a decent amount of time.

So far, everything I am seeing indicates it may be possible to do what BlackLight is claiming, although the only real supporting evidence is from BlackLight themselves.

They are using potassium as one possible catalyst, because the reduction energy of K+ -> K closely equals the orbital energy difference between predicted orbits. By forcing the reduction of the K+ electrochemically in the presence of elemental hydrogen, the hydrogen supplies that needed energy by dropping the orbital energy of its electron. This introduces energy into the potassium, which is then used to heat water in a conventional steam pressure turbine configuration. At least, that's the theory.

I also did some more research into metallic hydrogen; the metallic properties are obtained by reducing the distance between atoms, leaving the electrons free to float around the resulting lattice structure. This process also reduces the Bohr Radius distance, but by reducing the distance to the electron. Metallic hydrogen has this rather unique property of being superconducting at room temperatures, so there's another interesting aspect to this technology. It is completely possible that this could produce metallic hydrogen as a byproduct.

I tell you, I have seen a lot of ideas come and go, both here on ATS and in the years before I joined. This is one of the more promising ones in my opinion.

All that is assuming, of course, that the theory is accurate; only time will tell on that issue.

TheRedneck

Randell L. Mills has some interesting looking books out there that he has written. I wouldn't mind reading some of them, but I am not ready to drop $25 to $100 bucks for one yet.
Amazon

reply to post by 8311-XHT

The process Lazar described for the alien craft is incredibly similar to the process Andrea Rossi described in a patent for cold fusion only replace the impossible to get element 115 with the ubiquitous nickel. Also note that Blacklight power had ex-milatary on their board early on. They also have scientists with ties to MIT, MIT was claimed to smear Pons and Fleischman when cold fusion went publi

Lazaar's claimed process is nothing even close to what Pons and Fleischman or Mills are up to. Lazaar claimed that protons were shot against a heavy element and it therein caused the simultaneous creation and destruction of anti-matter and creation of energy. Pons/Fleiscman et all, are loading metal catalysts with hydrogen and doing electrolysis which has shown in thousands upon thousands of studies to produce "anomalous heat" but without being reproducible at all (or in most cases) and with limited understanding to what's going on.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Great post. I have been following Mills for a long time and have seen many subtle indications they are a government front. Bob Lazar and Mills also have something else in common.. they are verified yet debunked.

The perfect balance of credibility and skepticism so no one takes them seriously yet they get their disinfo out to those receptive to it.

Mills had a military lab analyze his substances and they said they had seen nothing like them. Bob Lazar has ties Los Alamos and is said to be working back with the government again. And yet both have been debunked as well and their credibility attacked repeatedly.

The reason why cold fusion is so dangerous is because it produces antimatter to generate energy. If you can produce antimatter on demand you can produce an antimatter bomb... Bob Lazar pointed out the danger of antimatter in a video he made...An antimatter bomb makes a nuke look like a firecracker. Not to mention all the finacial destabilization that would take place. Our way of life would change completely.

This is how they think not me though. I would gladly risk all those things gain the valuable info all this would lead to.. such as how our universe works and the possibility to explore it.

reply to post by boncho


In Andrea Rossi's cold fusion takes on a proton I believe? So it transmutes to copper but is unstable and releases antimatter which instantly annihilates which produces heat..

Lazar's alien tech just happened to do the exact thing Rossi claimed.. except it was element 115 being transmuted and becoming unstable releasing antimatter then instantly annihilating to produce much much more heat..

I know this isn't what Mills is doing.. that's the point. I Mills is using different black world tech to take us off the trail of cold fusion.