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

NO, the validation reports are half on the CIHT cells and half on the new "bomb" stuff. They used to have reports on the chemical excess heat cannister.

Quote

Doesn't make sense that they had all this proof of concept, went to the trouble of commissioning these individuals, and firms to test their cell, yet decided afterwards to strike out in another direction.

Lots of things don't make sense according to a positive interpretation of the meta-data - but if you realise (as Mary will tell you in very great detail, with facts aplenty) that BLP is a highly successful con job that has never had and will never had a product it makes perfect sense. And as to whether Mills etc believe what they claim I remain neutral - people can delude themselves easily enough.

I know CIHT cells seem to have disappeared. Read the validation reports. They seem better than diamonds! Even wondered why they have disappeared?

But seem is the word. we do not get full testing info in the validation reports and just as the Swedish profs make mistakes crowing over Rossi's stuff so these guys (just as unqualified for the matter at hand, which is calorimetry of a complex and possibly spoofed system) make mistakes.

Quote from Shane D.

How could it change he said, from a basic reactor looking device, to a fuel cell look alike...I have to admit, he had a good point as he often does.

Does your shoebox look like your shoes?

No, BLP has not been refuted. At least not in a scientifically meaningful and intellectually honest way. I've been observing BLP for over 15 years. I have a physics background. I've read all the refutations I can find and none really address the issues raised. Most merely state that hydrino's are inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics and leave it at that. Well, of course that's true. But they tend to ignore the possibility that QM is flawed because it was not constructed with the complete data. They view QM as so fundamental, so complete such that it is scientific heresy to question it.

Saying Hydrinos are inconsistent with QM in my mind is not a death sentence for their existence. Let's face it, QM is a 100 year old theory and it should not be so surprising if it needs a facelift.

Quote from Mary Yugo

<a href="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/441-axil/">@axil</a>

The First Amendment doesn't extend to fraud and scams. Those are illegal and punishable by law and by civil suits.

<a href="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/753-Shane-D/">@Shane D.</a>

BLP or whatever they are now, have been lying through their teeth for more than 25 years in order to bamboozle…

Display More

The quotes above are not lies. They have to be examined very very closely though. The 50KW prototype did produce a 50KW burst of heat as tested by scientists at Rowan University. But it was not in itself a commercial reactor but the process could be engineered into one. The second quote refers to a license agreement. Sure, they made that agreement but it's merely an agreement to let the customer use BLP technology when it exists.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

NO, the validation reports are half on the CIHT cells and half on the new &quot;bomb&quot; stuff. They used to have reports on the chemical excess heat cannister.

Quote: “Doesn't make sense that they had all this proof of concept, went to the trouble of…

Mills latest incarnation increased the reaction power by many orders of magnitude over the CIHT cells getting something like a net 500J pulse in a half millisecond or less from something like 30ul of fuel which gives a millioñ watts of power for that short period of time vs about ten watts for the CIHT cell. Now, the big Issue is scaling it up to a continuous process. That engineering takes time.

Quote from Shane D.

Thomas,

OK then, some were also about the &quot;bomb&quot; stuff. Sorry. Nonetheless, I can't make heads nor tails of them. Unlike Rossi, they are very secretive.

Another interesting factoid; BLP originally had, before CIHT, a reactor looking like a carbon copy…

Regarding the process of engineering the science into a working product, yes, that has been frustratingly slow. I agree that Mills hurt himself by always being over optimistic. Yet, there is some rational behind the long slow slog. Looking at the various incarnations of the process, it has gone from liquid electrochemical cells in the 90's to plasma gas cells in the 00's back to another form of solid state chemistry in the 10's and finally to a very high energetic form now. All previous results worked albeit at low power densities and commercialization prospects were dubious.

Quote from Shane D.

Contrarian,

Like Rossi, as long as the investors, insiders, employees seem to be happy...I'm happy. <img src="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />

I mean it's not like Mills has horded his discovery and kept it from others. He has put it out for evaluation a number of times, in all it's various…

Oh, I need to clarify, previous attempts by BLP to commercialize were dubious because the power density was so low, not because I think the reaction itself doesn't exit.

Quote

Mills latest incarnation increased the reaction power by many orders of magnitude over the CIHT cells getting something like a net 500J pulse in a half millisecond or less from something like 30ul of fuel which gives a millioñ watts of power for that short period of time vs about ten watts for the CIHT cell. Now, the big Issue is scaling it up to a continuous process. That engineering takes time.

Let me put it this way. The original cannister produced heat that was easily and robustly measurable, claimed to be significantly larger than possible chemical heat (as would be the case given Mills' hypothesises and in my view fictitious mechanism, or given the probably preferred here "LENR by another name" non-mechanism).

Were it real a robust measurement of it by independent parties would make BLP the biggest thing since computers were invented: because such a novel energy source would surely have applications, and further development would be likely, as well as the fact that it would be a big deal for physics.

The electrolytic cells were a step down. Here we have something that, like Rossi's stuff needs heat in to give heat out. Worse than Rossi's stuff it operates and charge/discharge cycles that make precise measurement much more difficult, and the excess claimed power over the in/out power is small, making errors very likley. (The trick is that you cancel larger in and out powers to make the claimed overall in power small, but this cancelled power calculation is than subject to a much larger experimental error than would be expected if it was continuous one-way power).

The current "bomb" experiment is a step down yet again. they push large amounts of electrical energy into a system and it explodes (a common occurrence) with a high transient power out. They claim the energy out in this transient is more than could be expected from mundane mechanisms. This is very tricky to prove because transient powers are tricky to analyse and the mundane mechanisms here are also complex.

So, they have gone from:
Demo 1 - low experimental errors
Demo 2 - high and uncertain experimental errors
Demo 3 - even higher and more uncertain experimental errors

Best wishes, Tom

PS - I'm leaving out the various other considerations that would make BLP look flakey, because I don't think they'd be appreciated much here.

[quote='The current "bomb" experiment is a step down yet again. they push large amounts of electrical energy into a system and it explodes (a common occurrence) with a high transient power out. They claim the energy out in this transient is more than could be expected from mundane mechanisms. This is very tricky to prove because transient powers are tricky to analyse and the mundane mechanisms here are also complex.[/quote]

Tom,

Its been looked at by at by other people now, academics and other scientists, and the results stand up. I'd have to believe everyone involved is completely incompetent to buy your argument. It's been tested with precise calorimetry. Reaction products have all been tested and all conceivable mechanisms accounted for. If there is a 'mundane' explanation involved, then still it amounts to a new source of power because the catalysts have not been used up or converted.

Quote

'Actually, Mills, like Rossi and all the other pretenders to weird forms of energy, has NEVER allowed an independent test to be properly performed by people who know how. The professors at Rowan University did some sort of test, wrote a completely incomprehensible paper, and stopped there, all the time being funded by Mills. They are simply another bunch of blind mice, little known and from a little known university. Shane, you seem to delight in being fooled by people who are incompetent and claimants who are either self deluded or obvious scammers, or both.

Mary,

Mills does what any responsible scientists does. He publishes his work in professional journals. Anyone can review his papers and run the same tests he reports and get the same results. That is how science works. If you read the validation reports you will see where some have set up their own experiments from scratch and get the same results. Others have overseen BLP experiments at the BLP site.

Mills reports numerous experiments and procedures that anyone competent in the field can do if they so choose to. It's not quite Mills fault that people choose not to replicate his work at major institutions because their own biases tell them Mills ' thesis is 'impossible'.

Quote

Commercial ready or not, all I care about is overunity. Once, or IF...for our skeps, that is established, the revolution follows.

Shane,

I really hate that term 'overunity'. There really is no such thing as every process is a conversion of one form of energy to another. At a reaction level, numerous careful experiments show net energy output, a lot of net energy output. That means the energy came from some process which in this case Mills believes is a physical conversion of the hydrogen atom ground state to a more tightly bound state which releases energy. There is now ample experimental data to make his case. That should bring about the first of two revolutions, a revolution in our scientific understanding. But there is huge resistance to even the idea of that revolution.

The second revolution is the transformation of energy the successful engineering of this process will bring. But success in the first is no guarantee of success in the second. Witness the delay in engineering hot fusion, a process not in any scientific doubt. I have little doubt that the hydrino process is engineerable much more that hot fusion but it still is a daunting task made more difficult by lack of general acceptance of the basic underlying theory.

Quote

Were it real a robust measurement of it by independent parties would make BLP the biggest thing since computers were invented: because such a novel energy source would surely have applications, and further development would be likely, as well as the fact that it would be a big deal for physics.

Tom,

Yes, indeed it will and would have earlier if not for the fact that when Mills first announced it, it was summarily ridiculed, mocked and lumped in with the so called 'Cold Fusion' controversy going on at the time. That was unfortunate because it poisoned the well so to speak and made it virtually impossible for researchers who might take it seriously to do work in the field.

In effect the work was 'blacklisted' much as certain entertainers and writers were blacklisted in the 1950's. Mills is the Trumbo of the scientific world. As with Dalton Trumbo, the world will eventually reverse the bad call made and recognize Mills and his work.

Please see the link below.

http://www.vox.com/science-and…ntists-hold-back-progress