Brian Wang at the site Nextbigfuture spotted a new pdf file on the BlackLight Power site that has a wealth of information with a significant notation about the company’s progress on validation called “Updated Technical Presentation –  4/21/10.”

The notation from the third page in the pdf is, “Validations and Technical Due Diligence – underway with National Labs, defense contractors, electronics manufacturers, large conglomerates, multi-national energy companies and others.”

That’s not much.  It does follow another low-key announcement on March 23rd 2010 of an agreement with Geoenergie SpA, Energy Subsidiary of Geogreen for a non-exclusive license to produce up to 750 MW of continuous power. This is a significant amount of power.

BlackLight Process Illustrated. Click image for a larger view.

These things are adding up to some questions.  First what comes to mind is the disclosure agreements.  BlackLight issues brief press releases but the companies, validators, labs and diligence firms are not.  This writer has called a few, the first was surprised there was any one noticing with no details to release or discuss and others who are larger have no one available to talk.  Its not suspicious, it is annoying, and understandable.  Cross company press releases would help with the overall credibility though.

The next question is about the validating process such as who exactly and the matters they raise as they try to get working models going.  Progress by validators, who have a wealth of information available, formed at an arm’s length distance, would be of significant value to distributing information.  One does understand that media, press and bloggers are pretty far down, if on any list at all.  But that cuts the connection to everyone – and the gems BlackLight might need in the future are going to be in the dark and start from suspicious point of view.  On the other hand “we” would be a significant burden and expense, plus offer lots of opportunity for detractors.  Maybe the situation is the best strategy.  But having built a track record in the open might be very useful soon.

The third question is about what has been sent to validate.  The material used, the apparatus, both?  Anything else?  Lets assume that some kind of kit is provided, everyone gets it working.  BlackLight makes history.  I for one would like to preplan for that for a multitude of reasons.  Again, circumspection on BlackLight’s part is the certain low risk path.  People, businesses and governments making decisions with impressions from BlackLight and the others could be a legal hellhole whether wondrous history or a disaster takes place.

With these thoughts a longer look at the pdf might be worthwhile.  But I forewarn, you’re going to need to up on your math and physics to make sense of it.  With that said those not trying to grasp the high technical aspects can understand this – BlackLight is pretty open with the fundamentals.  The materials used, how it works and the results are pretty much in the open.  Its clear BlackLight expects without any doubt that the materials molecular structure, which is reformed as it’s used, can be infinitely recycled back to the desired structure at low energy compared to output. See page 19 in the pdf.

The apparatus is still, understandably, pretty much under wraps.  Getting the materials to do the hydrino production and energy release reaction is the technological breakthrough after all.

The pdf also uses several pages to discuss the BlackLight subsidiary Milliscan that is endeavoring to make use of the hydrinos made as the energy is extracted.  Where this goes over time has no limitation on the potential.

That’s a really short synopsis.  It’s a long pdf at 169 pages and the talk that the pdf must have supported is absent.

Which leads to a suggestion for Dr. Mills and BlackLight.  Lets get some audio for the pdf on the BlackLight site as well.

All the party types noted in the pdf doing validation and due diligence are stated in the plural suggesting at least two of each making at least 10 or 12 reviews underway.  What is to be said and when is eagerly anticipated.

This is progress.


9 Comments so far

  1. Jim Takchess on April 30, 2010 2:48 AM

    I doubt any agreements to purchase that are referenced had any money put down. You would need to provide much more than press releases and independent testing by Rowan University(?) to make me think this is more than snake oil.

    Let the buyer (investor) beware.

  2. Foundation Construction Assembly on April 30, 2010 3:59 AM

    […] BlackLight Makes Major Progress | New Energy and Fuel […]

  3. Mark Goldes on April 30, 2010 4:50 PM

    I do not believe that BLP has adequately proven their case.

    However, our own research into fractional Hydrogen indicates it is real. That said, I do not expect anybody with science training to accept that as fact, until it has been validated independently.

    Frank Roarty posted the following elsewhere. I would agree:

    “Blacklight Power claims to have a revolutionary and highly controversial energy generation process that is about one hundred times more powerful than chemical processes.

    …This would suggest that they have widely distributed something for those organizations and institutes to test and validate. It is probably the powders which are supposed to generate more heat than normal chemical processes. Those powders were validated by researchers at Rowan University. … Also, it should not take more than a few weeks to perform the actual tests and no more than months to verify. It would be highly suspect if none of these validations were published by the end of 2010.”

    Our own work takes off from successful engine research that began 30 years ago, when fractional Hydrogen was unknown. The modified engine exceeded 70% efficiency! We believe f/H, which we call ECHO – Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits, was probably the reason.

  4. Matt Musson on May 1, 2010 7:40 AM

    As long as Blacklight does not ask me for money, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt!

    And, I look forward to seeing a working prototype.

  5. physical therapist on May 3, 2010 7:34 PM

    Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!

  6. Venessa Listen on May 18, 2011 11:59 PM

    I’ve been checking your blog for a while now, seems like everyday I learn something new 🙂 Thanks

  7. Felipa Giessinger on September 1, 2011 7:23 PM

    This post makes a lot of sense !

  8. Alejandro Booe on September 16, 2011 9:54 AM

    I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a minute bit to find your site…but I bookmarked it. Would you mind if I posted a link back to your post?

  9. cheap jordans shipping on November 27, 2013 10:36 PM

    The NSC also included social sciences and psychology because those two disciplines fall under the National Science Foundation is classification of science

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind