BLP news

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:42 pm

They were shown to the public. They were offered freely for anyone who wanted to do their own research. The system was not commercial because in order to be run continuously, the ability to constantly move the supposed catalyst in and out of the reactor needed to be developed and this is what the power company in Europe intended to do when they paid for a non-exclusive license. In the absence of information I can only suppose they are still working on this as it's only been a couple years and mechanical systems like this often take far longer to develop.

Like I said, these sorts of objections just make me want to laugh. Anyone reading back in this thread has answers to them.

It makes perfect sense to me that BLP would step past developing the thermal reactor in favor of developing the CIHT as the later is the more rewarding technology, given it needs no heat cycle.

But you knew that when you asked the question. . .

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:47 pm

They were shown to the public. They were offered freely for anyone who wanted to do their own research.

Cool where can I order one? And where were they publicly shown?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:59 pm

You let us know when you find out. Personally seems to me you're 5 years too late and entirely disingenuous in your stated interest, but I guess we'll find out when you report back your progress with BLP.

As I haven't ever tried to contact anyone there I can't help you.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:33 am

You let us know when you find out. Personally seems to me you're 5 years too late and entirely disingenuous in your stated interest, but I guess we'll find out when you report back your progress with BLP.

As I haven't ever tried to contact anyone there I can't help you.

They were shown to the public. They were offered freely for anyone who wanted to do their own research.

So what is it now?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:46 am

I don't understand your question. If you want to do testing on one of the thermal reactors you need to contact BLP or perhaps Rowan and see what they can do for you. You're about 5 years late though.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:47 am

Faith can move wallets.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:48 am

You're about 5 years late though.

Because they are never going to build another one?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:40 am

I think it's entirely likely BLP will never build another thermal reactor. What is so hard to understand about the business model where you sell the rights to develop a technology and then move on? This is a common practice. You need to try to remember there are only about a dozen people at BLP. With so small a staff it's a wonder they can publish >5X/year and accomplish what they do in the lab.

Given that the power company in Europe does indeed develop the thermal reactor tech into a commercial system, BLP will be in a position to sell these by the boatload since they should be capable of generating power much more cheaply than any current or past power source. There is no reason for BLP to spend any further time on that technology when in fact, there are other applications that ought to generate even greater rewards--given they work at all.

It sounds to me from the first of the validation studies, that method of scaling up the power density is well understood, but complex engineering since it deals with things like the geometry and surface area of the catalyst. That calls for high tech materials nano-engineering and that will not be cheap nor easy. The fact several investigators think BLP can keep the 2 year to pre-commercial time-table is pretty surprising and says to me they already have a plan for a pre-prototype in mind. If it delivers the power densities they're after and otherwise meets expectations, that technology will ultimately be worth far more than the thermal reactor tech. So why plan to build another thermal reactor?

The 2 year to commercial power density goal is key for investors because they would then have a 5 year exit strategy and very few investors are willing to settle for something longer than that.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:31 am

GIThruster wrote:
It makes perfect sense to me that BLP would step past developing the thermal reactor in favor of developing the CIHT as the later is the more rewarding technology, given it needs no heat cycle.

But you knew that when you asked the question. . .

The CIHT performs less well than a much cheaper and simpler battery. If BLP commercial hopes are pinned on this they will not make much money. But then i guess all they need is continued investment.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:15 am

Tom, if you read the first of the validation reports, the one written by professor Weinberg found here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technolo ... n-reports/

You'll find this on the third of three pages:

"A combination of increasing the surface area of the supported catalyst and improving/optimizing the supported catalyst could increase the power output of a single CIHT cell by many orders of magnitude. In the former case, using the power density of about 3 mW/cm2 of the Mo-anode cell and a thickness of each cell of a stack of 30 microns, the projected power density is 1 kW/l. Furthermore, the 3 mW/cm2 based on the geometrical surface area of the Mo electrode can be increased by large factors by using textured materials with much larger surface areas than the geometrical surface areas. Moreover, an improvement of five orders of magnitude, which is not unprecedented in the heterogeneous catalysis literature between the first “hit” and the optimized catalyst, would result in a 3.6 mW test cell becoming a 360 W cell, and a mere ten of these cells stacked together would produce 3.6 kW. Further “numbering up” of these cells would produce even greater power, as needed. The R&D challenges to achieve this goal appears to be straight forward, but nontrivial. I recommend adding an experienced catalytic scientist to the team as well as an experienced electrical engineer for the stacked cell product."

This seems to be the plan. These numbers are far in excess of what would be needed to drive a very high performance auto, truck, train, plane or even an interplanetary robotic spacecraft like what JIMO was intended to be, but at a tiny fraction of the mass and expense.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:37 am

GIThruster wrote:Tom, if you read the first of the validation reports, the one written by professor Weinberg found here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technolo ... n-reports/

You'll find this on the third of three pages:

"A combination of increasing the surface area of the supported catalyst and improving/optimizing the supported catalyst could increase the power output of a single CIHT cell by many orders of magnitude. In the former case, using the power density of about 3 mW/cm2 of the Mo-anode cell and a thickness of each cell of a stack of 30 microns, the projected power density is 1 kW/l. Furthermore, the 3 mW/cm2 based on the geometrical surface area of the Mo electrode can be increased by large factors by using textured materials with much larger surface areas than the geometrical surface areas. Moreover, an improvement of five orders of magnitude, which is not unprecedented in the heterogeneous catalysis literature between the first “hit” and the optimized catalyst, would result in a 3.6 mW test cell becoming a 360 W cell, and a mere ten of these cells stacked together would produce 3.6 kW. Further “numbering up” of these cells would produce even greater power, as needed. The R&D challenges to achieve this goal appears to be straight forward, but nontrivial. I recommend adding an experienced catalytic scientist to the team as well as an experienced electrical engineer for the stacked cell product."

This seems to be the plan. These numbers are far in excess of what would be needed to drive a very high performance auto, truck, train, plane or even an interplanetary robotic spacecraft like what JIMO was intended to be, but at a tiny fraction of the mass and expense.

Does it ever seem to you incongruous that LENR/hydrinos promise very high power density and energy density, yet the experiments never throw up more than experimental error?

Perhaps BLP will make this change, do the experiment again, and have something that is actually convincing with energy out more than a similar NiMH battery and power out large enough to knock other effects (thermoelectric, H2 + O2 in water, etc) on the head.

Till then any such plans remain speculation on top of far-fetched hypothesis.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:26 am

Tom that just doesn't sound reasonable to me. You're saying that each of these six groups that did these investigations either missed or ignored that the experiment was in the noise floor, but somehow from reading their reports you noticed. I'm sorry but that's just extremely difficult to believe.

I think the more likely scenario is that you've simply run out of viable complaints so now we're into ridiculous ones. First it was "this is no better than a battery" and now it's "experimental error".

Somehow, I just can't believe all these people are as stupid as you're making them out to be.

And Tom, I will grant that this is a small amount of power in this experiment, but when you write "the experiments never throw up more than experimental error" you are completely mischaracterizing the situation. You are acting as if 50 kW was a trivial amount of power and it's plainly not.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:23 pm

Code: Select all

I don't understand your question. If you want to do testing on one of the thermal reactors you need to contact BLP or perhaps Rowan and see what they can do for you.

I am sure you do understand my question. You stated that they were publicly shown and offered freely to the public. When asked where they were shown and how I can get one, you evaded the answer.
Either way, if their business model is so great, why do they need more funding from investors now?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:07 pm

Cue Rossi-like "SNAKES!!!"

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:08 pm

GIThruster wrote:Tom that just doesn't sound reasonable to me. You're saying that each of these six groups that did these investigations either missed or ignored that the experiment was in the noise floor, but somehow from reading their reports you noticed. I'm sorry but that's just extremely difficult to believe.

I think the more likely scenario is that you've simply run out of viable complaints so now we're into ridiculous ones. First it was "this is no better than a battery" and now it's "experimental error".

Somehow, I just can't believe all these people are as stupid as you're making them out to be.

And Tom, I will grant that this is a small amount of power in this experiment, but when you write "the experiments never throw up more than experimental error" you are completely mischaracterizing the situation. You are acting as if 50 kW was a trivial amount of power and it's plainly not.

50kW is a trivial amount of power in the context of fast chemical reactions. 50kW continuous over long time is nontrivial - they don't have that. But my comments related mainly to the CIHT, since it seems to be what everyone is excited about now. We could look in more detail at the otehr stuff.

As with Rossi, you will always get some scientists who want to believe this sort of stuff and are convinced. Usually they are not experts on the type of experiment (e.g. calorimetry etc). Unfortunately scientists are only human, and humans are easily persuaded by promise of gold (whether real or scientific). BLP is on the edge of being a scam (some think that it is, but I personally think Mills is just highly self-deluded). They could stop such criticism at any time with a working reactor.