BlackLight Power, Inc. has Changed its Name to Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (Becktemba)

Tom,

Mills results are extraordinary because they come from a reaction most people do not realize actually exists. They energy comes from hydrogen which comes from water. Data corroborates that. You can
simply dismiss Mills and team as incompetent if that makes you happy but it doesn't change the facts.

Numerous experiments show this is real but virtually no one seems interested. Perhaps because it doesn't fit in their neat little box. Oh how arrogant for some upstart to come along and question the 100 year old solution to the simplest atom! That upsets folks.

Someday this will all be widely held common knowledge and maybe it will have to be rediscovered by someone long after Mills is dead and that would be sad indeed.

Quote

Yes the energy density is high. It equates to approximately two orders of magnitude greater than typical chemical fuels such as gasoline. Obviously not nearly as high as nuclear fuels though. On a log scale, generally about halfway between chemical and nuclear. However one could say a gallon of seawater has a reasonable equivalence since the fusion fuel is not concentrated.

Contrarian, when you make such comments it would be courteous for you to give figures: for example what is this energy density you think is claimed?

So for ballpark figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

• Chemical (gasolene), 44 MJ/kg
  
• Nuclear (fission, Uranium), 80,000,000 MJ/kg
• On a log scale halfway would be 40,000 MJ/kg

Now let us look at BLP claims (and BTW for the reasons documented above I do not accept these - they have not begun to justify their assumptions about electrical input power, which could in their system easily be 10X what they claim , nor the Al, which clearly would vapourise and react at the claimed temperatures).

My data comes from the paper you posted: http://www.blacklightpower.com…s/papers/SunCellPaper.pdf

Claims: 760J from 110mg reactants or 7000kJ/kg (7MJ/kg). That BTW is the highest claimed gain from any of the figures shown.

That is 1/5 that of gasolene, and some 5000X less than the "half-way mark" that you claim.

Clearly within the range of chemical - in fact much less good than the gasolene you put in your automobile. (I've gone US here).

I have found that before making wild claims about such matters it is worth going beyond the spin and "brilliant white light" generated by an explosion, and looking at the documented data.

Quote from Shane D.

I think it important to remember that BLP is not just Mills anymore. From their website:

<b>Currently, the Company has twenty employees and fourteen consultants. The majority of employees are scientists and engineers, including six Ph.D.s.
</b>
Not that BLP is…

It is not like these guys are loners working in their garages as Thomas and Joshua would have us believe. Attack one, and you really are attacking many others.

Shane, I'm not indulging in personal attack. I'm doing these guys the courtesy of looking at their published claims, something others here seem unwilling to do. You would be more informed if you did the same. In this case you don't even need High School Physics to do this, just Wikipedia and a calculator.

Quote

Numerous experiments show this is real but virtually no one seems interested.

The experiment you (or someone else?) posted on this thread as "best evidence" does not show this, as anyone reading the results can see. I'm not surprised that no-one pays attention when BLP's own headline claims - from a flakey experiment - are so unextraordinary.

What seems to be happening is that some people are taken in by the spin and Mills' incomprehensible talk of Hydrinos - ignore the actual experimental results - and accept Mills' wild and unfounded extrapolations.

Quote

Claims: 760J from 110mg reactants or 7000kJ/kg (7MJ/kg). That BTW is the highest claimed gain from any of the figures shown.

That is 1/5 that of gasolene, and some 5000X less than the "half-way mark" that you claim.

Clearly within the range of chemical - in fact much less good than the gasolene you put in your automobile. (I've gone US here).

Tom,

First, thanks for the response! I appreciate the dialog.

The 110mg reactants includes energy wasted on melting the DSC pan. They have made the reaction go with about 5J without the pan but we can ignore that here. Of the 110mg, 30mg is the water and the rest is recycled unchanged so I will use 30mg. That gives 760J/30mg or about 25,333 J/g or 25.3 MJ/kg. But what you are missing from this is that these are unoptimized results and are far from the theoretical maximum of the process yet they prove a new source of energy. Quibble with the details of the paper if you like but you are missing the forest for the trees.The efficiency of the reaction,or yield was about 0.2%,that is the fraction of hydrogen converted to hydrino in the blast. Even for an unoptimized reaction, since the unreacted water is still there, by recycling the fuel and water we ultimately get out all the energy from that volume of fuel and we are concerned here with the total energy content of the fuel and not the efficiency of one test. Mills has subsequently increased the yield to around 20%.

The theoretical maximum of the reaction that nets H2 to H2(1/4) is 50MJ/mole of H2O, not Kg. That's about 2800MJ/KG. That amounts to over 60Xtimes that of gasoline. I admit that's not quite halfway on the log scale but that is my loose estimate and not Mills' and I will lower it. If however, we only use the hydrogen from say a kg of liquid H2 it is 9X higher still which is up to 25,000MJ/KG.

@Contrarian,

You don't dispute the experimental figures? The theory is Mills' theory and only applies if he is correct. Experiment trumps theory, a LENR advocates often tell me, and I always agree with them.

You agree his demo, that is supposed after 15 years of work to be justifying this, shows only the type of energy easily obtainable from chemical reactions.

Do you have any extraordinary data from BLP to back their extraordinary claims?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

<a href="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1263-Contrarian/">@Contrarian</a>,

You don't dispute the <b>experimental </b>figures? The theory is Mills' theory and only applies if he is correct. Experiment trumps theory, a LENR advocates often tell me, and I always agree with them.

You agree his demo, that is supposed after…

Tom, I just responded before I saw this.

Let me add that the data we are discussing is interesting to me because it tells of a new power source and new physics. The point is not that this particular piece of data with a net 760Joules of energy is or is not way beyond the realm of all possible energetics for any chemical reaction ever. That misses the larger point. If you summarily reject the hydrino hypothesis then what can we discuss.

If you saw a piece of data that convinced you that even one hydrogen atom converted to H(1/4) and released over 100ev would you think that was important? What convinces me are the things like vibrational spectra that match the predicted levels of hydrino molecules.

Again, it's not the the level of energy in this particular piece of data but the source.. But still,the level of energy released in these data is beyond what should be released in known reaction pathways for these reactants.

And again, we need to compare the theoretical energy densities.

Also, getting 760J from 30mg of water I say is extraordinary under any circumstances.

And you seem to want to criticize Mills for not doing better in 15 years but if he is right about hydrino's, what he has accomplished is extraordinary indeed whether recognized or not. Yet he has improved the reaction kinetics by about a million fold.

The 760J of energy comes from an unknown quantity of Al + other stuff. It is only Mills who thinks it is from 30mg water. And the potential for large error in the calorimetry here is strong, so that is weak evidence even for this chemical range excess heat. What we can discuss is whether the evidence here indicates and extraordinary new power source.

Otherwise: I agree with all that you say above except the issue of the hydrino hypothesis.

That is certainly extraordinary. No harm in that. My problem is that I see no evidence in its favour: let alone enough to start entertaining an extraordinary hypothesis as plausible. It is not for me to reject it, it is for Mills to advance evidence in its favour.

Again, were Mills correct, it would be surprising if so energy-dense a reaction did not after 15 years have just one demo that is absolutely extraordinary, and overturns physics as we know it. Such a demo would send BLP share-price into the stratosphere and therefore it is surely strongly in their interests to make one if they can.

What I see is claims in this latest demo weaker than they had from the original cannister.

Quote

What seems to be happening is that some people are taken in by the spin and Mills' incomprehensible talk of Hydrinos - ignore the actual experimental results - and accept Mills' wild and unfounded extrapolations.

I have not been 'taken in'. Why shouldn't I think Mills intense and committed work in the field is worth more than the casual dismissal of his critics? Why should I accept Bob Parks lampooning comments about Mills? What calculations has he done? Why should I accept the quotes collected by the obviously biased Wikipedia editors who refuse even to allow anything in Mills favor on the Wiki page?

Why should I be ashamed when the editors of the European Physical Journal D published Mills' paper. They highlighted Mills paper understanding that it might be important even if controversial.

[quote][Editorial by the Editors-in-Chief regarding the highlighted paper
“Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu
The Editors-in-Chief of the EPJ D wish to clarify that the publication of the highlighted paper “Time- resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu [Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 65–72 (2011)] is in no way an endorsement of the authors’ “hydrino” hypothesis by the Editors of this journal.
We, the Editors-in-Chief of the EPJ D, wish to publish an editorial statement preceding the highlighted paper “Time- resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu. These authors describe the results of emission spectroscopic studies of a low-energy, high-current pinch discharge in pure hydrogen as well as in other gases. They observe continuous emission bands from respectively 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm towards longer wavelengths only when hydrogen is used as the operating gas. The authors interpret these observations as a manifestation of the “hydrino” hypothesis, which they have been promoting for some time. The “hydrino” hypothesis refers to a theory of atomic hydrogen that postulates the existence of energy levels below the known n = 1 ground level of atomic hydrogen with fractional quantum numbers. Because of the profound consequences of the existence of such levels in conjunction with statistical mechanics for various areas of physics and chemistry, this hypothesis is controversial and has opponents as well as proponents in the scientific community. Despite the reservations about the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is admittedly a controversial postulate.
We would therefore like to invite the scientific community, opponents and proponents of the “hydrino” hypothesis alike, to send us their comments and views. All comments received that are suitable for publication will undergo the standard review process for comments prior to publication.
Kurt H. Becker, Nigel. J. Mason, and Claude Fabre/quote]

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The 760J of energy comes from an unknown quantity of Al + other stuff. It is only Mills who thinks it is from 30mg water. And the potential for large error in the calorimetry here is strong, so that is weak evidence even for this chemical range excess…

No, it's not from Aluminum. That's really just a big assumption on your part. And why do you assume that the 760J is the maximum? I told you that you have to consider the yield of the hydrino reaction. You really think Mills and his entire staff are that stupid? BTW, I've never heard of a former Mills employee of scientific credentials that has criticized Mills, rather the opposite. And his biggest booster is the former head of Chemistry at his alma mater. What does that say?

The really early experiments were extremely low energy overall even if some data showed much higher energy release as a percentage. You can still see some fairly recent data from his CIHT cells done around 2010 with massive gains but at such a low energy level as to be not so useful. The new reaction is a million times more energetic and now may have yields around 20% but remember that yield only matters for efficient machine design! not overall energy content of fuels such unreacted fuel can be recycled.

Mills has not published yet data with the 20% yield but has told us about it. I think he's given up trying to convince the scientific world by publishing and is pursuing his SunCell instead. I think he should fight on two fronts myself. I think he's tired after twenty plus years.

Quote

Otherwise: I agree with all that you say above except the issue of the hydrino hypothesis.

That is certainly extraordinary. No harm in that. My problem is that I see no evidence in its favour: let alone enough to start entertaining an extraordinary hypothesis as plausible. It is not for me to reject it, it is for Mills to advance evidence in its favour.

Your really not looking then with unbiased eyes in my opinion. And contrary to what you said, many luminaries have gone out of their way to publicly reject it. They make no pretense of being open minded or fair. And it has hurt Mills a lot be use it drives away researchers who otherwise might be interested. The well has been sufficiently poisoned In my opinion that it will take years longer to make the case no matter the data.

Quote

No, it's not from Aluminum. That's really just a big assumption on your part.

Forgive me, I was unclear. It could be from many things, including the Al. I'm not making assumptions, just pointing out that there is no mystery to explain about this data, because there is more than one perfectly plausible mundane explanation. Therefore it does not add support to any unusual theory.

Quote

And why do you assume that the 760J is the maximum?

Because, for the data there, it is.

To suppose that in come different circumstances it would be much larger, as you do above - now that is an assumption!

Quote

I have not been 'taken in'. Why shouldn't I think Mills intense and committed work in the field is worth more than the casual dismissal of his critics?

Personally, your feelings and thoughts are your own and there is no reason for you not to do anything (as long as it is legal).

However, as a matter of what is a reasonable informed view to take, I have found it works best to form judgements based on the facts presented rather than like or dislike of the participants.

You may disagree.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “No, it's not from Aluminum. That's really just a big assumption on your part. ”

Forgive me, I was unclear. It could be from many things, including the Al. I'm not making assumptions, just pointing out that there is no mystery to explain…

Quote

The possibility that H2O may react exothermically with the Al of the DSC pan must be considered in cases where it was used to seal the solid fuel mixture. Consider the solid fuel Cu + H2O (DSC pan). As shown in Table 2, the reaction of Cu with water is highly endothermic. Specifically, the reaction Cu + H2O to CuO + H2 has a positive enthalpy of +130 kJ/mole. Then, the only theoretical energy for conventional chemistry is the reaction of Al with water to form Al2O3. This reaction is known to have very slow kinetics. Production of H2 gas from the Al- water reaction is difficult kinetically; consequently, other approaches such as H2O plasma are utilized to increase the rate. Even during the detonation of an explosive containing Al, the H2O oxidation of Al is a slow reaction [33]. Since the ignition of the H2O-based solid fuel has a duration of less than 1 ms for an inherently slow rate, very little Al2O3 would be expected to be formed. This is confirmed by XRD. The compositional analysis results of the XRD of the solid fuel product of a sample of 100 mg Cu mixed with 30 mg of deionized water sealed in a 75 mg Al DSC pan tested in an Ar atmosphere is shown in Table 3. No aluminum oxidation products were observed, thereby demonstrating that none of the output energy recorded by calorimetry is due to Al oxidation. Similarly, XRD on the product of solid fuel Ti + H2O showed no oxidation of Ti. Thus, the energy released for Cu and Ti, H2O-based solid fuels was assigned to forming hydrinos. The identification of the hydrino product by multiple methods is given in Sec. IIIC.

So then, what else could it be?

Quote

I have not been 'taken in'. Why shouldn't I think Mills intense and committed work in the field is worth more than the casual dismissal of his critics?

Personally, your feelings and thoughts are your own and there is no reason for you not to do anything (as long as it is legal).

However, as a matter of what is a reasonable informed view to take, I have found it works best to form judgements based on the facts presented rather than like or dislike of the participants.

You may disagree.

Display More

I don't disagree but I apply the principle of Occam's Razor. Looking at all the evidence and experiments over the years, I conclude the simplest explanation is the best, hydrino's exist.

Electrons orbiting inside a nano-cavity is functionally equivalent to a hydrino and will provide fractional obits that are not permitted when electrons obit a nucleus.

Quote from axil

Electrons orbiting inside a nano-cavity is functionally equivalent to a hydrino and will provide fractional obits that are not permitted when electrons obit a nucleus.

I'm not sure what relevance that has to the natural existence of hydrino states? Perhaps the nano-cavity acts like the catalyst during the reaction to form the hydrino.

Tom,

Do you have any explanation for the EUV and soft X-rays observed in the Blacklight process?