Akridge Energy may use the technology to produce electric power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 400 megawatts (MW). To date, BLP has licensed the rights to produce approximately 8,000 megawatts of electrical power to five utilities, two of which are publicly traded companies, and one independent power producer.
There has been no further independent confirmation of energy generation or the release of a Blacklight Power generator for public testing.
Blacklight Power claims that they are developing an extraordinary new form of energy generation. They also claim extraordinary and controversial science.
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.