BlackLight Power (BLP) Inc. today announced its second commercial license agreement with Farmers’ Electric Cooperative, Inc. of New Mexico, (Farmers’ Electric). In a non-exclusive agreement, BLP has licensed Farmers’ Electric to use the BlackLight Process and certain BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power. Farmers’ Electric may produce gross thermal power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 250 MW or convert this thermal power to corresponding electricity.
About Farmers’ Electric Cooperative, Inc. of New Mexico
Formed in 1937, Farmers’ Electric serves rural consumers surrounding Texico, Clovis, and Tucumcari; and the communities of Melrose, Fort Sumner, Santa Rosa, Conchas Dam, House, Grady, San Jon and Logan with over 4,200 miles of energized lines.
Blacklight Power critics charge that the company and its staff are scammers and frauds and their science is bogus.
“I would say without reservation that if Mills were proved right, it would revolutionize physics and solve the world’s energy problems overnight, and he would easily win a Nobel Prize and become a multibillionaire,” says John Connett, a mathematician at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, who’s tracked Mills’s ideas for several years. “But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and at this point it appears to me that the proof side of the equation is very sadly lacking.”
Mills says BlackLight has operated the reactor continuously for two hours and that it’s investigating a new type of fuel that yields 10 times as much energy per weight as the sodium hydroxide–doped Raney nickel. He insists the company has disclosed the experiment in detail in a paper available on its Web site, only retaining “some know-how in order to maintain our technical lead.” He says BlackLight is “open to host validators” and is “willing to supply the fuel under an academic license or commercial license.” Eventually, he contends, others will be able to make the fuel themselves.
Pilot plants projected for mid- to late 2009.
Mills/Blacklight Power frauds or multi-billionaire nobel prize winning world energy solvers ? 2009 and 2010 will tell the tale. 2011 should have a compelling movie based on either outcome.
This site notes that they have $50 million or more in private money backing them. 2009 seems to be when they will be proving that they can generate power on a commerical basis at a revolutionary cost with revolutionary technology. If this is not proved to be true and the critics are correct then only the private money funders will be losing their money and any potential new funders.
Previous Deal and Information
BlackLight Power (BLP) Inc. today announced its first commercial license agreement with Estacado Energy Services, Inc. in New Mexico, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, (Estacado). In a non-exclusive agreement, BLP has licensed Estacado to use the BlackLight Process and certain BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power. Estacado may produce gross thermal power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 250 MW or convert this thermal power to corresponding electricity.
Potential Applications for Blacklight Power Technology
– H2(1/p) Enables laser at wavelengths from visible to soft X-ray
– VUV photolithography (Enables next generation chip)
– Blue Lasers
– Line-of-sight telecom and medical devices
– High voltage metal hydride batteries
– Synthetic thin-film and single crystal diamonds
– Metal hydrides as anticorrosive coatings
Estacado is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, (RCEC) in New Mexico. With over 2,757 miles of energized lines in east central New Mexico, RCEC serves Dora, Elida, Floyd, Arch, Rogers, Milnesand, Causey and Portales.
Details of Blacklight Powers patent dispute in the UK.
In upholding both of the examiner’s objections, the Hearing Officer identified the question which he had to address to be whether the underlying theory of GUTCQM was true. In doing so, he identified three criteria which he had to consider in determining whether a scientific theory was true, namely whether:
the explanation of the theory is consistent with existing generally accepted theories. If it is not, it should provide a better explanation of physical phenomena then current theories and should be consistent with any accepted theories that it does not displace;
-the theory makes testable predictions, and the experimental evidence shows rival theories to be false and matches the predictions of the new theory, and whether
-the theory is accepted as a valid explanation of physical phenomena by the community of scientists who work in the relevant discipline.
Critically, the hearing officer went on to determine that he must satisfy himself that it was more probable than not that the theory was true. On this basis, the Hearing Officer found that he was not satisfied that the theory was true and therefore the claims in the applications which relied upon the theory were not patentable.
The appeal focused on whether the Hearing Officer had been right in considering the appropriate test to be whether the theory was true on the balance of probabilities. Blacklight contended that the test that should be applied is whether the theory is clearly contrary to well established physical laws. In considering this, the examiner should assess whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of showing that his theory is a valid one should the patent be litigated in court. In making these arguments, Blacklight accepted that on the material before the Hearing Officer the theory was probably incorrect.