Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now online. I wish it was better organized.
The most hyped up doc is here : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration-Abbreviated.pdf I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with any confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. These could be inaccurate. 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell conversion 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst rejuvenation and loses 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he has a better one under wraps) 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is a great fuel. 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which is still under wraps, or else I missed it. 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain. Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military uses) To be explained. 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much more. 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no doubt it is oxidized in the 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not impressed with the level of openness here. 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months. 2005: Only months away from commercialization. 2008: 50000 W, within 12 to 18 months. 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 2014: 100000 W in 16 to 18 weeks. If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony show put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how contrived the whole thing is. However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will carry the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology is most likely not ready for prime time in the commercial arena, and there could be allegations of actual fraud this time around, if Mills does not have a commercial device in 2015. If his ace-in-the-hole is the Pentagon, then he will dodge a bullet by that tactic. IMO - there is no chance of a commercial device in 2015 for the general public or for Grid usage, if nano-titanium is required. This is not what we have been looking for as an affordable alternative to fossil fuel. Yet in the end - power could cost 10 times more than fossil fuel - and yet it would be great for weaponry. Admitting that from the start, however, does not bring enough investors to the table.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
