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.
"1000 times more energy than any known chemical reaction"
LOL!
Make sure you repost my refutation of your silly claim.
You’re welcome to log onto those science threads. Notably, you anti-science Luddites have been absent on such threads.
Think about this: Suppose LENR breaks out this year. Everyone praises this triumph. Later on, they wonder why there was such opposition. What was it that motivated such meanspirited bandwagon jumpers? They will have your posts as an example of some incredible idiot who thought that HBombs were an example of CHF. Thanks.
LOL indeed. The real figure is that the INDEPENDENTLY tested energy density is 10k times that of gasoline. Thank you SO MUCH for displaying your incredible ignorance.
Please review my posts. Let me know which one claimed "HBombs were an example of CHF". LOL!
Best of luck trying to refute it. For POSTERITY.
To which of Rossi's tests are you referring?
Please review
***Please answer my questions — HONESTLY. You won’t, so why should I go fetch like you ask?
The latest INDEPENDENTLY verified tests in which 7 INDEPENDENT scientists did the measurements.
Gee, you really are pretty stupid. No doubt your stupidity is representative of LENR Skeptopaths, and relatively easily refuted and ridiculed. Posterity thanks you.
You're lying about my posts, on this very thread.
You can't fetch, because I never said what you claimed.
Sounds like suddenly you’re worried about just how stupid your claims actually have been. Oh well, too late for you. Best of luck with posterity, bandwagon joiner.
Posterity will be the judge of who was lying and who was jumping on the AdamHenry*BandWagon. I think posterity will enjoy referring to you as “Toddiot”. Yup, that’s fitting.
You’re lying about my posts, on this very thread.
***I am ridiculing your posts, just like you AdamHenries have been doing for the last 5 years. getting a taste of your own medicine... Sucks, don’t it?
Maybe after this, at least ONE skeptotard will own up and start being honest, being REAL about the scientific evidence. Naaaahhhhh, ain’t gonna happen.
Yes, I’m worried how my simple heat of reaction calculations will look to posterity.
So says Kevmoron.
You're lying about my posts.
Sucks, don’t it?
Yes, your lies suck.
Tell me again about Rossi and his "1000 times more energy than any known chemical reaction"
Yeah, right /s. Feel free to post such calculations.
The vehemence of your posts simply do not match up to the facts; they do not match up to any (previously unposted) Heat of Reaction calculations; they are not proportional to the 14000 replications of LENR; they are not proportional to the fraud evident in the hundreds of $billions spent on CHF with absolutely NOTHING to show for it ; they are not propotional to the evidence posted by Pons, Fleishmann, Scientific Instruments, Toyota, Mitsubishi, SPAWAR, nor dozens of groups. The fact is: you’re a perfect pasquinade and posterity will see to that.
It is 10 THOUSAND times more energy density than gasoline.
Sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Posterity can smell your desparation.
Ouch. Name calling. Supposedly, I’m the one who engages in that. The skeptopaths perfected Name-calling-in-a-verb long before I did. Now we see their true colors.
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.