Blacklight Power Publishes New Validation Report Confirming Excess Energy Production (Updated: 2nd Report published)


Thanks to ECW reader Teepee for the following information:

A new document has been published on the Blacklight Power web site authored by W. Henry Weinberg, a former Caltech chemistry and physics professor, who visited BLP last month to observe experiments and perform calorimetry measurements.

In the document Weinberg explains that the experiments consisted of a spot welder igniting a closed cup containing a mixture of copper (Cu), copper(II) oxide (CuO) and water, which caused an explosion. Weinberg and his team carried out a variety of calorimetry measurements which are described in the document.

In conclusion, Weinberg writes:

“To summarize, in all cases excess energy was produced, ranging from 49% to 216%. I recommend that additional work be done to tighten this range, but most of all I recommend that a prototype device be constructed to prove that power can be extracted from this new solid fuel and that this prototype be a reliable and scalable means of electricity generation. Remember that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

The full document can be read at this link:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf

UPDATE: A second document has been posted (thanks again, Teepee) — this time a validation report by Nick Glumac, PhD who visited Blacklight Power on January 17, 2014 reports carrying out multiple tests on a H2O fuel pellet and writes in the introduction to his report:

During the visit to Blacklight Power, experiments were conducted in four general classes: high-current initiation of H2O-based fuel pellets, similar initiation within a calorimeter under a helium atmosphere, high voltage discharges in water in side a bomb calorimeter, and DSC testing of a solid fuel. Multiple tests were performed for each class, including controls. Sample preparation and processing were observed fornearly all tests. All tests provided evidence for phenomena that are not readily explained with conventional thermochemistry. No experimental flaws could be identified which would lead to simple, alternative explanations.

The full report can be read at: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf



  • optiongeek

    If Mills were merely repeating an unexplained but previously documented reaction then, yes, his work becomes far less interesting. However, he asserts that his mechanism is predicted by his theory. For instance, he has used his theory to determine that the only materials that can catalyze the reaction must be acceptors of 27.2eV. Did the Graneau experiment make such a prediction? In addition, he backs up his assertion with spectrographic evidence in the form of EUV continuum radiation that exactly matches his theory (lower cutoffs at 10.1nm and 22.8nm). His theory also vastly outperforms standard QM in terms of predicting physical properties at the nano-level (binding energies, bonding angle, etc.). I’m not familiar with Graneau’s work – did they make any progress on the theoretical side?

  • Obvious

    If no significant error in measurement can be identified, this is the most repeatable LENR-type demonstration ever performed for a public audience. At least 5(?) positive reactions, not including the open air tests.
    And it looks like it could be done at home by the mechanically inclined.

  • Obvious

    Hmmm. There are several sentences that are the same, word for word, in the last two reports. See page 5 on the Ramanujachary report (link immediately above), and page 4 (un-numbered) of the Glumac report (last link in main article above).

    Best to save those ASAP before they get altered, IMO.

    • jousterusa

      I notice that where errors are concernede, Mills is very slow to correct anything from typos to duplication. He appears to be virtually obsessive about perfection, which in his genre is not unwise.

  • Obvious

    A Parr 6775 calorimeter thermometer normally requires manual plotting of temperature readings. It has no external output leads except to the Parr display. So either the temperature probe model quoted is incorrect, or a different thermometer was used, the thermometer was modified from standard, or the smooth temperature curves were fudged in from manually collected points.

    The Parr literature suggests that with homogenous materials that 0.3% standard deviation measurement variation is typical.

    0.3% of 22 C is 0.066 degrees.

    • Obvious

      Update from the manufacturer…

      Thank you for your email.

      The resolution of the 6775 is 0.001 C. The absolute accuracy
      is limited by the probe interchangeability which is 0.1 C. The differential
      accuracy is better than 0.02 C over any 15 C span and repeatability is better
      than 0.001 C.

      Note that we use the same type of thermistor on our other
      calorimeters where we read to 0.0001 C.

      Please let me know if you have any questions or need any more
      information.

  • NCkhawk

    Seems like a pretty low energy release with lots of room for error. Its going to take a much higher COP to overcome the doubt.

  • Obvious

    I worked that out myself, so I deleted the comment.
    A long time ago I used to read the stock chat BS boards. Fairly frequently some poster would be turn out to be two (or even more) aliases. The difference there was that the multiple aliases would attack en masse some other poster. So I was at first suspicious. After a quick look on this board, I decided that was not the case, so I pulled my first comment, as it was irrelevant. But here it is spread all over anyways…

  • Bob

    These reports probably will make even less impact than the “Levi Report” on Rossi’s Ecat. In that case, at least the validators ran the tests themselves using their own test equipment and for several days. It was somewhat internally “peer reviewed” as about 7 professors were involved. Each reviewing the report from their perspective.

    These two BLP reports seem to be very slim on any real substance. It appears the tests were conducted by BLP with only others observing and for seemingly very short periods at that.

    I hope BLP the best, but am more than a little confused. This type of report does little to support and could even possibly damage Mill’s march to have his theory widely accepted. I am unsure what his thinking is, unless he is simply attempting to bring something to the news front to show he is still a player.

    • E_man

      To differ from Rossi, Defkalion, Brill. can everybody try it. For instance HV test I can try in my kitchen. May be soon or latter I shall really try it !

    • invient

      BLP is starting to feel more and more like Rohners nobel gas engine… lots of promises, long development times, few results, and few outside observers… it all just seems shady to me, red flags abound. Possibility, sure, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

  • Fortyniner

    Perhaps a closed cylinder resembling a muzzle-loading cannon with a small connecting chamber at the ‘breech’ end containing the injector and catalyst loaded metal gauzes or similar to provide the reaction surface?

  • Fortyniner

    The time component is implicit, even if not expressed too clearly: “The energy we must apply…. to process 120 lbs. of water per hour is 7.46 Kw” , i.e., injecting 120 lbs of water over 1 hour consumes 7.46 kW/H electricity. If I am reading the various texts correctly, the output appears to be calculated on the basis of the energy required to convert 2 lbs of water to superheated steam at the recorded temp/pressure (575F @ 1340 psi) through conventional means (boiling). The use of pounds, deg F, BTU, psi etc. seems a little antiquated.

  • HiggsField

    I’m some what confused by this letter. Could somebody please explain where are the hydrinos?

  • Omega Z

    BLP has a Bang.
    In continuous operation, My neighbors may not be happy with this.
    Going to need quite the muffler for this device.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Fy8Iv5qMM

    • artefact

      Mills wants it to work in a vacuum. Then there will be no sound.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yes, it would sound a rather natural assumption. E.g. heat of formation of CuH2O2 seems to be 7.0 kJ per gram of copper. To explain 1253-674=579 J would need 0.08 g of Cu, equivalent to for example 1 um thickness layer times 10×10 cm surface area. Just an example.

    • Ged

      I just discovered the “notification” system for this new comments section.

      Thanks for the reply, Pekka! That definitely puts the energy from metal oxidation well within the proper range of output seen here, so that it could be a possible explanation that has to be rigorously ruled out.

  • Obvious

    I censored myself (above). Not important.

  • French guy

    His B.S. was in 1966. It is on the BLP website.

  • Allan Shura

    “Remember that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Presumably that would be a working device possible in
    weeks according to the mid-January prognosis of Blacklight.

  • Obvious

    I would have been happier if a plain water “standard” was included in the calorimeter bomb test, to see the difference between catalyst(?) and non-catalyst output. There seems to have been a such a test (Test 2, section IIa) in the first open air batch of tests, but other than a sound and flash, nothing is reported for it.

    • Obvious

      Also, why a nickel sheet for a control? If the catalyst is copper, a copper sheet would be ideal for comparison.

  • Daniel Maris

    One visit on one day? We’re supposed to count that as validation? I don’t think so.

  • bachcole

    I just got an email from the man of the day, if not the entire month, perhaps even the months of January and February, Henry Weinberg.

    “””””””””””””

    Dear Roger,

    I
    was an observer for several calorimetry experiments carried out by BLP
    staff, all of which suggested excess heat. Independent confirmation is
    desirable. Thank you for your interest.

    Best,

    Henry

    On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Roger B wrote:

    Dear Dr. Weinberg,

    Did you confirm excess heat coming from a device designed and built by BlackLight Power?

    I just want to confirm that BlackLight Power’s announcement is true.

    Sincerely,

    Roger Bird
    Colorado Springs


    Henry Weinberg

    • Obvious

      Interesting.
      I also note that there seems to have been another reaction, where RB -> Guest = b + RB

  • Teepee
  • mecatfish

    Not sure if copper is going to be a cheap fuel to use.

    • artefact

      It is just a catalyst to get the hydrogen become a hydrino.

      • Daniel Maris

        …to which the reaction should be – great go ahead and make a working engine, since you’ve already had 20 years at this game.

  • Tom H

    A measured temperature rise of “0.105C”

    Wouldn’t even an extremely small error in measuring temperature (during an exteremely brief ‘explosion’) wipeout any calculated net gain?

  • jousterusa

    No, Mills is light years aherad of Rossi because he’s got a fully elaborated theory and technical validation. Rossi is still working on those things. But neither has a practical application as yet.

    • BroKeeper

      Isn’t Rossi following the Edison get-down-and-get-dirty process verses Mills following the Einstein process with no direct consumer product?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Einstein invented a refrigerator, which was patented in 1930. It has never been built.

        • BroKeeper

          That’s interesting. I quess he was too busy thinking if its relative use. :)

      • jousterusa

        That does seem to be the case, but Mills has also promised commercial products of his research. He has gone to extreme lengths, including an entire new unified theory of quantum and classical mechanics, to support those products. It seems a long way to go to provide support, but other physicists have in essence demanded it because his theory of a particle below the ground state of hydrogen requires a comprehensive explanation. But I do believe he is stuck when it comes to providing a prototype for his commercial products. I am not sure he’s made an attempt to create the things he says, based on his theory, he ought to be able to create. Whether that is because he is inept or because he wants a licensee to spend the money to do it, I do not know. Rossi has not done the theoretical work but has charged ahead with the commercial product on the principle of, “If it works, sell it.” Good question!

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I am not very impressed by these figures. They are in the same range as what the Nanor output, but the Nanor seems much simpler to me. Clearly, the process is completely different. The Nanor producs in a continuous process considerably more excess joules, whereas Mills’ process producs in few micro seconds a kilojoule and has to be reloaded again.
    I wonder what the thunderfusion process of professor Santilli does. It seems a continuous process, but also with high currents, similar to Mills’.
    Positive is that overunity is found, but still far away from a COP of 10, needed for conversion to electricity. Whether it is chemistry or nuclear? Time will tell.
    I still bet on Rossi’s process first; second Brillouin and third Defkalion to bring an ‘overunity device’ on the market.

    • BroKeeper

      IMO the feed mechanism is the weakest link of the SF CIHT unit. I would think a nano catalytic glue-gun like stick constantly fed when needed would provide greater proficiency with less parts, maintenance and cost.

      • GreenWin

        Indeed. The entire effect would benefit greatly using vapor injection similar to a combustion engine. Difference being there is no piston and the MHD converter is incorporated in the reactor cylinder.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The report speaks about excess energy, but says nothing about if any attempt was made to rule out a chemical explanation. At 100-1000 J scale it wouldn’t be easy: a fraction of a gram of some reactive substance might produce the observed excess.

    • artefact

      The report says: “Here the theoretical energy for the most favorable chemical reactions is -62.6 J/g, whereas the measured energy output was -197.6 J/g. In this case measured/theoretical = 3.16. ”
      I don’t know if that is what you are looking for.

      • E_man

        Do not forget this is the first test for next Physic Book like Volt with a frog.
        By some discusions Mills can initate reaction with 5J only and COP 200 !!!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Typical chemical reactions produce kilojoules per gram. For example when TNT explodes it’s 4 kJ/g. When hydrogen and oxygen burn, it’s 16 kJ/g. This 62.6 J/g is more than one order of magnitude less than typical. Probably such reactions can exist. But it’s hard to rule out the possibility that such small amount of excess heat might come from some side chemical reaction.

        In any case, the report doesn’t claim or conclude that the process would be nuclear. Lacking that, everything else which is said there is kind of irrelevant. Calling the report “validation” is only playing with words, since the interesting question is not if the process produces excess heat, but if it produces excess heat beyond the chemical limit (much more than 16 kJ/gram or so).

        • artefact

          Thanks for the explanation.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Excess energy below the known „chemical” levels must not necessarily be a problem, as long as there is excess energy at all. But, as Ged says, they would have to prove thoroughly that there are no products of potential exothermic reactions. I suppose that this is possible, but perhaps somewhat difficult with the complex reactor setup.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            An alternative option would be a long-term test where no other substance than water is added to the reactor. At some point (perhaps after weeks or months) the total of excess energy should be greater than the energy that could be released by any chemical reaction of the ingredients.

  • bachcole

    From BusinessWeek, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=240198&privcapId=26790729&previousCapId=23769987&previousTitle=Jazz%20Technologies,%20Inc.

    Dr. W. Henry Weinberg, Ph.D., serves as the Chief Technical Officer of
    Draths Corporation. Prior to joining Draths, Dr. Weinberg was Chief
    Technology Officer at Symyx Technologies since its founding in 1996 and
    was responsible for the technological and scientific direction of Symyx
    Technologies. He serves as Member of the Scientific Advisory Board at
    Intermolecular, Inc. Before 1996, Dr. Weinberg was in academia at
    University of California, Santa Barbara as Professor
    of Chemical Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Chemistry from 1989
    through 1996 and at California Institute of Technology as Professor of
    Chemical Engineering and Chemical Physics from 1972 through 1989. He is
    also a member of the National Academy of Engineering since 1995. He
    serves as a Member of the Scientific advisory board of Intermolecular
    Inc. Dr. Weinberg has presented over 400 invited lectures or seminars at
    various academic, industrial, and governmental organizations around the
    world during the past 30 years. He has authored or co-authored over 550
    scientific papers that have appeared in refereed journals. He served as
    a Director of Intermolecular Inc. He is the General Editor of the
    review journal Surface Science Reports. Dr. Weinberg obtained his B.S.
    in Chemical Engineering from the University of South Carolina, and his
    Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of California,
    Berkeley.

    Me: This dude is definitely a heavy hitter. This makes me feel better about Blacklight, bordering on enthusiastic.

  • Sandy

    It looks to me like Mills is using electricity to break water molecules, which is what MIST Energy Systems is doing with kinetic energy.

    “MIST, which is an acronym for Molecular Impact Steam Technology, has patented a new system for creating energy. The energy is derived from exploding molecules of water impacting at hypersonic speed in a confined chamber. Our test have proven that the energy created from high impact “dry” steam exceeds by multiples, the man-made energy required to run the system. The key word here is “man-made”. We are not trying to say we are creating energy out of nothing. What we are doing is capturing the release of the energy holding the molecules of water together.” http://mistenergysystems.com/19059/dsp_agent_page.php/195884/The_Engine/The_Engine

    • Fortyniner

      Intriguing link, thanks. MUCH more interesting than people making small explosions with spot welders! They have a working demo machine, which IMO puts them far ahead of people with elegant theories and not much else.

      “The energy we must apply in order for our 10 HP pump to produce the
      required pressure to process 120 lbs. of water per hour is 7.46 Kw
      which is 124.3 watts per minute to pump 2 lbs. of water at 30,000 psi
      and a velocity of 3,000 m/s. This gives us an output of 1139 watts
      using only 124.3 watts of energy. The rest of the energy comes from the
      energy contained within the bonding of the molecules of water.”

      I.e, in the terms we are used to chucking about, a COP of over 9. As input can be rotary motion rather than electricity, it would seem to have immediate development potential as a vehicle power system, with the injector pump mechanically driven from the crankshaft of a steam engine, after a battery powered electric start.

      This system appears to output energy in exponential proportion to input, limited only by erosion of the impact area and capability of the injection pumps. It’s interesting that they avoid any ‘over unity’ claims in either the site or the patent application but instead claim the energy gain comes from binding energies in water – without going into discussion of possible mechanisms for this. I suspect that this in fact is another ‘plasma egine’ related to Brown’s gas/HHO.

  • jousterusa

    Where would Edison be if he hadn’t produced a light bulb? Mills and Rossi are still in the stage where a practical result has yet to emerge from their work.

    • bachcole

      And we are bright (deliberate, flagrant, and unrepentent pun) enough to realize what is going to happen even before they produce a practical result. But it will happen, as certainly as the Sun rises in the east in the morning.

  • jousterusa

    I’m delighted to see someone of stature light a fire under Dr. Mills. The competition is growing very stiff among those who can competently claim to be producing excess heat and energy, So far, none of those people have taken the critical step of turning their devices into something ordinary people can use – in a huge variety of ways. I am hoping that the demonstrated product will be an automobile engine that, as Dr. Mills promises, gets 1,500 miles on a single liter of water. What a gify it would be to return to Americans their freedom to travel, a freedom that has been slowly restricted to an eever greater degree by the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuels. I’d really like to know why neither Rossi nor Mills have done this earlier?

    • Job001

      More likely PDC Plasmadynamic Converters will be used due to weight, cost, state of development and reliability, IMO. PDC’s don’t have electrodes(maintenance issue) and voltage can be directly transformed to the voltage desired. Easier, quicker, cheaper, more efficient usually wins the race but I could be wrong.