New Blacklight Power Validation Reports

A few more were recently released:

Dr. Nick Glumac, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Dr. Gilbert L. Crouse, Jr., Auburn University

Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University

Dr. W. Henry Weinberg, California Institute of Technology

Dr. Terry M. Copeland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

ENSER Corporation, Pinellas Park FL (Defense company with 25 research electrochemists that manufactures missile batteries for the defense departments)

Short demonstration video:  (Click here for a full length calorimetry and spectroscopy demonstration video.)

  • moto perpetuo

    How’s that Brazilian free energy company doing, Michael? They ‘went to market’ with a generator that could power two houses. How did that work out?

    Meanwhile, these ‘new’ power ‘validation’ reports from Blacklight are anything but new – they’ve been doing the rounds for two years now. And all the old concerns remain. Why has a generator they promised would be on the market by 1999, then 2002, then 2009 still not appeared? Why do they insist on giving their ‘demonstrations’ in situ, in highly controlled conditions? Why have they not permitted anybody to replicate their trials independently, without a member of the Blacklight team in charge? I can suggest one very simple answer to all these queries, and it isn’t ‘unexpected technical difficulties’ or ‘industrial secrets’.

    • The Glumac and Crouse reports came out in the past few months. Blacklight just posted them a few days ago. There were no Blacklight employees in charge of the experimental replications.

      PESN says one of their people went down and took a look at the Brazilian system back in January and found their claims to be credible.

      I haven’t heard any word on when they are going to open up online sales yet.

      • moto perpetuo

        “There were no Blacklight employees in charge of the experimental replications. ”

        Not true. Read the reports. These were highly artificial circumstances and do not qualify as replication; no respectable peer-reviewed publication would allow such a claim relating to these ‘tests’. That is one reason that these devices are regarded with huge scepticism by most of the scientific world. The other is that the ‘hydrino’ hypothesis (it’s not even a theory) is deeply implausible and unsupported by any evidence, whatever Blacklight might claim.

        • I did read them. It looks like you didn’t bother to though. Quote me where it says BLP was in charge.

          From the very first line of the first report, “Three samples of Cu(OH)2 and FeBr2 mixtures, and two samples of FeOOH were tested using DSC here at UIUC [University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign]. Samples were measured and mixed here on-site and tested in the university DSC lab.”

          • Shane 2

            Poor ol Moto got taken down by Michael