Posted on 01/23/2014 12:42:27 PM PST by Kevmo
Validation of Electrical Power Generation by Second - Generation CIHT Technology
Valuator:
K.V. Ramanujachary
Professor
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, 08096
Submitted to the BlackLight Power Corporation
Evaluators Signature:
Date : _ N ovember, 2011 __
2 BLACKLIGHT POWER ( BLP )
CIHT CELL VALIDATION (November 2011)
The present report deals with the studies aimed at validating several second generation CIHT (Catalyst - Induced - Hydrino - Transition) cells that were assembled at the BLP facility. In contrast to th e first generation cells, BLP has identified a novel proprietary electrolyte consisting of earth - abundant and eco - friendly chemicals.
All t ests were performed at BlackLight Power, Inc. at their Cranbury, NJ laboratories . The primary focus of the vali dation is to analyze the net electrical production from proprietary CIHT cells using the hydrogen fuel from water and supply it to the electrochemical reaction .
The electrical output was corrected for highest energy possible for any known conventional e lectrochemical reactions based on the initial and final analysis of the cell contents. The electrical energy balances were performed with multiple state - of - the - art battery testing systems (Arbin BT 2000) that were calibrated to high accuracy (<0.1% error) at the factory and confirmed using a digital oscilloscope at BLP. The net electrical energy gain determined in this manner for many different systems, configurations, and modes of operation were 162%, 340%, 385%, 167%, 195%, 456%, 735%, 182%, 151%, 425% and 186%.
Typically, steady electrical power was continuously measured from the cell for more than a week and up to more than 30 days before the cell was stopped and the cell contents were analyzed by a cascade of characterization tools . These tests wer e necessary for an accurate determination of potential chemical change s . Controls were processed under the same protocol and analyzed using the same analytical instruments in triplicate. Measurements included weight change of the active electrode (anode) and any compositional change of the electrolyte by compositional analysis using ICP, XRF and XRD.
Special systems were run with controlled mass flow to rule out the possibility of hypothetical conventional energy contributions . ‘
“Hydrino” pro duct was identified by the presence of an up field - shifted NMR peak characteristic of reduced - radius (lower - energy) hydrogen. Each CIHT cell comprised a set of metal electrodes and an ionically conductive electrolyte. W ater supplied as vapor to the cell or extracted from air , from which hydrogen was generated by electrolysis , appears to be the source of electric energy output . Due to the electrochemistry occurring in the cell, an electric current flowed through a load of the electrical testing inst rument with an internal ion flow of the electrolyte completing the electric circuit. The mechanism of operation appears to involve specific chemicals of the electrolyte that formed the catalyst and atomic hydrogen during electron and ion flow needed for t he production of electricity. The excess electricity observed was consistent with the electrochemical production of low - energy form of hydrogen providing the energy source.
Indeed, the electrical energy out surpassed by multiples the electricity required to generate the hydrogen fuel from water .
The cell was continuously regenerative and operated at constant power output for extended periods . The mass and energy balance s were performed on each cell. The electrode at which the electrical power was devel oped (anode) was weighed to rule out the possibility of any reaction that could give rise to excess electrical energy observed in the present CIHT cells. The electrolyte was also carefully analyzed by elemental analysis. Controls comprised the same start ing compositions and treatments as the electrical - power - producing anodes and electrolytes.
The cell used nontoxic , earth - abundant commodity chemicals, and the system operating conditions were similar to those of exi s ting technologies such as batte ries and fuel cells . However , the stand - alone generation of electricity from water reported here is truly exceptional . The confirmatory electrical and analytical data and analysis is available upon request.
Right, because no one has ever seen useful amounts of energy produced by fusion.
***We’re talking CONTROLLED-Hot-Fusion here, sparky. Not the HBomb stuff, of which the usefulness amounts to killing millions of people. No one has generated useful amounts of CHF even though hundreds of $billions have been poured into it. Geeshh, it’s like arguing with 2 year olds.
Again, geesh, it’s like arguing with 2 year olds.
It's like arguing with a deaf 2 year old.
By ALL FREEPING MEANS, post where ANY amount of Useful Energy has been produced by CHF. H-Bombs are not an example of CHF. But if you want to argue from that premise, it will be useful for the asked & answered offsite knowlege storage & reference.
That is a demonstration of supposedly Controlled Hot Fusion? Where does ‘fusion’ occur within those solar cells? It doesn’t. Everyone knows that except you. Your CHF fraud boys produced Zip, as usual.
Deaf and blind.
There is nothing controlled nor useful about an H-Bomb. It is UNcontrolled. It’s the difference between 13th century Chinese gunpowder bombs and 21st century Internal Combustion Engines. 700 years difference, control vs. uncontrolled. But someone as ignorant as you is calling an Hbomb “useful” amounts of energy produced. Go ahead and stand next to one and let it go off to prove to us how useful it is to you.
There is nothing controlled nor useful about an H-Bomb. It is UNcontrolled.
I've never heard of an H-bomb going off accidentally. Have you?
I'm pretty sure most H-bomb tests were successful.
Seems controlled to me.
But someone as ignorant as you is calling an Hbomb “useful” amounts of energy produced.
Can you read? Right, because no one has ever seen useful amounts of energy produced by fusion.
Are you under the impression that the only fusion we've seen was in an H-bomb?
Damn, you’re denser than osmium.
***which would make you as stupid as a bag of rocks.
I’ve never heard of an H-bomb going off accidentally. Have you?
***Case in point, right here. Just look how incredibly stupid your argument is. Your argument is that because you can decide WHEN it’s going to blow up, that is an example of CHF. So, after hundreds of $billions trying to control this reaction, the best we have is an on switch, no off switch, and entire populations vaporized. That is YOUR example of controlled hot fusion, a hot fusion car, a hot fusion water heater, a hot fusion jet pack. I’d be more than happy to stand for an hour next to a Cold Fusion reaction; and it would make me happy to see you stand for just a few seconds next to your shining example of Controlled Hot Fusion while it’s turned on, as long as I’m a continent away.
I’m pretty sure most H-bomb tests were successful.
***And we’ve spent hundreds of $billions trying to control that reaction so we can use it. By your own admission, the only “control” we have over the reaction is when to turn it on. In the meantime, guys like Hagelstein are running Cold Fusion cells for MONTHS. My goodness, it just boggles the imagination to see someone so stupid as to promote an atom bomb as an example of a controlled, useful reaction. You can’t be that stupid. But when we look over your posts, yup, you are that stupid.
Seems controlled to me.
***Yup. You ARE that stupid.
Kevmo: But someone as ignorant as you is calling an Hbomb “useful” amounts of energy produced.
Toddiot: Can you read? Right, because no one has ever seen useful amounts of energy produced by fusion.
***So, it’s so useful to you? Hundreds of $billions have been spent trying to control the power of the hbomb, and what do we have to show for it? The fact you can SEE it from afar? That’s USEFUL? Keep in mind this is money spent well after the HBomb was produced. Its aim was directly to turn it into a useful and controlled energy source. The best we have is that we can stand 100 miles away and SEE an HBomb go off. And that’s supposedly hundreds of $millions well spent. Only a stupid person could hold such a position. And you DO hold such a position.
Are you under the impression that the only fusion we’ve seen was in an H-bomb?
***No, we’ve seen fusion in that star that hangs in the sky. So, now your position is that we’ve spent hundreds of $billions trying to control this HBomb reaction and the best we have to show for controlled hot fusion is that you can go outside and look at the sun? WTF? What was that money fraudulently spent on? We could go and look at the sun long before that money was spent, and if only 2% of it were spent on Cold Fusion instead of CHF, we’d have LENR cars by now.
Your argument is that because you can decide WHEN it’s going to blow up, that is an example of CHF.
Nope. Not even close. Just refuting your silly claim.
Can you read? Right, because no one has ever seen useful amounts of energy produced by fusion.
So, it’s so useful to you?
You've never seen useful energy produced by fusion? I'd like to alter my previous claim, you're denser than neutronium.
No, we’ve seen fusion in that star that hangs in the sky.
Finally! Now go back to my original statement, "Right, because no one has ever seen useful amounts of energy produced by fusion".
Now you see how stupid your subsequent hissy fit was?
We could go and look at the sun long before that money was spent,
Yes, and the sun is proof that fusion can produce useful amounts of energy.
What is the proof for "cold-fusion"? Rossi's (H2O2) reactor? LOL!
Kevmo: We could go and look at the sun long before that money was spent,
Toddiot: Yes, and the sun is proof that fusion can produce useful amounts of energy.
***Yup, if you’re 93 million miles away. And the fact that we spent hundreds of $billions and all we have to show for it is the ability to look at the sun and bask in it, WTF was that money spent on? We KNOW that CHF funds were NOT spent on solar power cells. We are no closer to controlling Hot Fusion than we are to time travel, but we’ve got a multihundred $Billion bill to pay. We paid for absolutely NOTHING. It was a fraud.
What is the proof for “cold-fusion”? Rossi’s (H2O2) reactor? LOL!
***All Rossi, all the time. The proof for cold fusion is in the 14000 replications. And other strong evidence,
Well, you did say his reactor produced 100 times more energy than any possible chemical reaction. That is, unless he used dilute H2O2.
Feel free to prove that. Notably, you have not. You won’t log onto such a thread because your position is utter bullshit. If it was H2O2 all along, someone would have smelled it. In a way, this is just yet another extension of your incredibly inane ignorance.
How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real (or Fake)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2730401/posts
Sun 05 Jun 2011 07:52:15 PM PDT · by Kevmo · 55 replies
LENR.QUMBO.com ^ | April 6, 2011 | Alan Fletcher
Rossi’s reactor IP is selling for $20M. What is the CHF IP selling for? Nothing. After hundreds of $billions spent trying to control the HBomb reaction, we got absolutely NOTHING.
But we can all console ourselves by going out and looking at the sun as if it were evidence that we spent money worthwhile. What a bunch of bowlsheet.
You’ve never seen useful energy produced by fusion? I’d like to alter my previous claim, you’re denser than neutronium.
***No useful energy produced by the CHF fraudboys that we spent hundreds of $billions. By your own admission, all we have from that effort is the ability to go outside and look at the sun, as if we couldn’t do that before those hundreds of $billions were fraudulently spent.
I already proved that your 100 times claim was ridiculous.
Oh, right, it was 1000 times. Still funny!
When you find the post where I said we got our moneys worth on fusion research, be sure to post the link.
You have not proved Jack Shiite.
You can play games all you like. Your stupidity has outshined others skeptopaths by a considerable margin, and it will be reposted for the benefit of others for a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.