New Developments at Brilliant Light Power (Video)

Quote from Longview

Apparently quoting Mills:

Similarly, but less dramatic than my previous example, a 20 volt charge discharged in a few microseconds can yield millions of watts peak power. Further, any welding operation at whatever voltage, produces lots of UV, including some XUV and soft X-rays. My understanding is that this is due to the Boltzmann distribution of thermal photons from a 6000 K arc in air, in metallic ions, in inert gases used to shield, in welding flux constituents. More speculatively, electrons and possible protons conducted through the arc may participate for all I know, along with atomic hydrogen and other hydrogen species, in other transient reactions producing an array of photonic and potentially nucleonic products, if the circumstances allow and if measurements were readily refined to properly look.

Another mundane example: Fluorescent lamps, especially longer ones are known to produce soft x-rays near the ends, where accelerated electrons can impact the tungsten filament for example. That is say a 60 watt 120 vac fluorescent bulb of two meters length. Electrons having thermal energy spectrum are also free to drift in the AC potential field of the tube, depending on the density of gases therein, reaching some fraction of the local charge differentials they may pass through. Dozens of electron volts may be seen statistically. Giving yet another source for soft bremstrahlung at the filaments, reaching a wavelength as short as 10 nm (124 eV).

Display More

But here again, high energy photon production should be driven by the electric arc and terminate when the arc terminates. There is a energy production and/or storage mechanism at work in the plasma discharge where high energy EMF is produced while the plasma state is in place.

Quote from axil

But here again, high energy photon production should be driven by the electric arc and terminate when the arc terminates. There is a energy production and/or storage mechanism at work in the plasma discharge where high energy EMF is produced while the plasma state is in place.

It depends on what one means by "terminates". Even simple thermal excitation decays over time, depending on the paths for escape of the energy and cooling of the emitting substrate. Other, perhaps related excited states can persist, whether photonic or chemical. Remember "glow in the dark" toys and watch faces etc.

Certainly, nucleonic excited states can persist. I won't argue that radioactivity is an "excited state"..... but in my own view it often or perhaps always is.

I don´t think the total electrical input energy is hard to measure. None of the claimed 5 involved third party analysis would have measured the energy between the capacitors and the electrodes where all the high transients are taking place. Not if you can measure the charge flowing into the capacitors which greatly increases the time constants of the system. This measurement should be pretty easy and I can´t understand why Thomas C. and others constantly say that this is hard. If you want to pull of a scam that is one great possibility to fake the measurments, but if you intend to make it right it is pretty simple. You just need to know where they measured and what equippment they used. Looking forward to the demonstration and hope Mills presents some technical details of measurments and calorimetrie.

Quote from Longview

It depends on what one means by "terminates". Even simple thermal excitation decays over time, depending on the paths for escape of the energy and cooling of the emitting substrate. Other, perhaps related excited states can persist, whether photonic or chemical. Remember "glow in the dark" toys and watch faces etc.

I would recommend to read one of Mill's most recent papers:

High-power-density catalyst induced hydrinotransition (CIHT) electrochemical cell

published in the international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) p. 14512 to 14530

Contrary to most other LENR science academics he publishes in upperlevel peer reviewed journals. The paper contains some interresteing stuff far to much to mention it here.

Of course I too miss some in-depth explanation of alternative causes for the 10 um XUV spectrum. Mills completely forgets that any high current induces a large B-field which supports the light arc for a certain time.
On the other side if XUV persists for more than 1ms, it is highly reasonable that the source produces it continuously. In a light arc the thermic excitation causes a very fast expansion of the ionized gas, which removes the source of the radiation...May be somebody should study his high-speed recordings of the arc. I never did so far.

Quote from quizzical

Jack,
These are a lot of negative statements for someone who has no actual information. Also, Brian has made a number of absurd comments in the recent past, which were clearly wrong.

However, regarding the question of input power in BLP's experiments, as well as your comment about the input power in Godes' machines, I think that these are certainly good points to raise - although it doesn't make them correct.

In fact, regarding Godes' experiments I raised it with McKubre several years ago (since SRI has been participating in the testing of Brillouin Energy's device). However, he assured me that measuring the input power accurately was not a problem. I might add that Claytor has used Godes' "prescription" and produced tritium, which is a clear sign of LENR.

Getting back to the input power issue, I certainly don't know if either BLP or Brillouin Energy have been measuring it correctly (and/or using "wall-plug power" to make sure) but I would guess that since (a) BLP claims multiple different confirmations and/or evaluations (and also since they are claiming energy gains of 1000 which seems unlikely to be due entirely to measurement error) and (b) since SRI has worked with Brillouin and tested their devices for several years with top scientists and engineers, then there is a reasonable possibility that their results are not entirely due to errors in measuring the input power. However - unlike many on this forum - and Brian Ahern - I retain an open mind, and am waiting to hear more evidence either way.

Display More

I don't think I express that many negative statements. I express doubt. The evidence must force the opinion of LENR after every other reasonable explanation is ruled out. McKubre's saying that Godes did it right is anecdotal and doesn't relate to Godes' gas loading system. Godes past electrolysis experiments utilized a joule heating control vs. an electrolysis control. He needed to do electrolysis vs. electrolysis with an inactive cathode. I could believe the results better if he did that. His input power system is quite complex as I studied it extensively. You might need to be an EE or at least very competent with electronics to replicate his setup.¹ I'm not saying Ahern is correct, but that I think he will probably end up being correct. BLP is barely worth talking about.

I really want to be wrong about this. Until there is a verifiably repeatable experiment, the doubt will and should continue.

¹Note: the system requires ~200V high frequency AC with ~2A, pulse widths of ~60 to 100ns, simultaneously running standard electrolysis with the afformentioned pulses going laterally across the cathode to the center tap of a transformer. I never tried a complete replication because of the expenses involved in the power supply system. I did try high current lower voltage laterally across the cathode while simultaneously running electrolisys with null results (11V, ~90khz, AC square waves).

Quote from Jack Cole

I did try high current lower voltage laterally across the cathode while simultaneously running electrolisys with null results (11V, ~90khz, AC square waves).

This is interesting. Did you look for any neutrons or monitor with a GM counter? What was the cathode material in this case? Were the square waves bi-polar, by any chance?

Much higher lateral voltages at suitably low currents might be of interest here, isolated from the high current circuits of course. Many possibilities to look at in such efforts.

Jack Cole wrote:

Quote

I did try high current lower voltage laterally across the cathode while simultaneously running electrolisys with null results (11V, ~90khz, AC square waves).

What makes this method LENR active is the use of water vapor or steam. A dusty plasma is formed where the dust is the seat of the LENR reaction.

Here is an example of a high voltage experiment using steam that produces LENR activity as follows:

http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

Quote from Jack Cole

I don't think I express that many negative statements. I express doubt. The evidence must force the opinion of LENR after every other reasonable explanation is ruled out. McKubre's saying that Godes did it right is anecdotal and doesn't relate to Godes' gas loading system. Godes past electrolysis experiments utilized a joule heating control vs. an electrolysis control. He needed to do electrolysis vs. electrolysis with an inactive cathode. I could believe the results better if he did that. His input power system is quite complex as I studied it extensively. …

Jack,
I detected a negative bias in your statements, especially since you again state that "probably" Brian is right. That's fine, but I didn't see any specific reason - other than your somewhat unfounded "doubts" about their ability to measure input power - for this bias. I don't know if you looked at the article in JCMNS Vol. 13 (2014) published by Godes, George, Tanzella, and McKubre in which they mention that they ran 150 experiments with two different cell/calorimeter designs and always saw excess heat, typically 100% or more. In section 2.2 they discuss how they conservatively measured both the input power and the output power and included inductive and logic circuit losses. The fact that they saw more excess heat in a higher-temperature "boiler cell" than at "room temperature" suggests to me that this may not be an artefact.

Since you have now brought up the issue of comparing electrolysis results with a control (which from my point-of-view is at least partially related to output power rather than input power) I agree that a comparison with respect to electrolysis with an inactive cathode would make the results more definitive. However, I also believe that McKubre is probably one of the world's experts in calorimetry. So, if you are challenging their results for the output power, then I would argue that you are challenging McKubre's ability to do calorimetry. If that is the case, then I have to assume that you also question all of his earlier electrolysis (P&F) results as well as those of P&F. Is that the case?

P.S. You haven't said anything about Claytor's tritium results (using the Godes' protocol). Is that just "chopped liver"?

P.P.S. While I still have some doubts, based on these considerations (and also what is perhaps an overestimate of the capabilities of SRI) my bias is more positive than yours.

Quote from quizzical

I detected a negative bias in your statements, especially since you again state that "probably" Brian is right. That's fine, but I didn't see any specific reason - other than your somewhat unfounded "doubts" about their ability to measure input power - for this bias. I don't know if you looked at the article in JCMNS Vol. 13 (2014) published by Godes, George, Tanzella, and McKubre in which they mention that they ran 150 experiments with two different cell/calorimeter designs and always saw excess heat, typically 100% or more. In section 2.2 they discuss how they conservatively measured both the input power and the output power and included inductive and logic circuit losses. The fact that they saw more excess heat in a higher-temperature "boiler cell" than at "room temperature" suggests to me that this may not be an artefact.

Since you have now brought up the issue of comparing electrolysis results with a control (which from my point-of-view is at least partially related to output power rather than input power) I agree that a comparison with respect to electrolysis with an inactive cathode would make the results more definitive. However, I also believe that McKubre is probably one of the world's experts in calorimetry. So, if you are challenging their results for the output power, then I would argue that you are challenging McKubre's ability to do calorimetry. If that is the case, then I have to assume that you also question all of his earlier electrolysis (P&F) results as well as those of P&F. Is that the case?

P.S. You haven't said anything about Claytor's tritium results (using the Godes' protocol). Is that just "chopped liver"?

P.P.S. While I still have some doubts, based on these considerations (and also what is perhaps an overestimate of the capabilities of SRI) my bias is more positive than yours.

Display More

I do naturally have a bit more negative than positive outlook, which I think is healthy in considering these experiments. I can be swayed by positive results, but I first try to think of any possible way it can be wrong. I stick by saying that probably Brian is right (he was right about Rossi before most others IMHO). There is still a possibility that Godes is correct. I have not seen any evidence that SRI has conducted an independent evaluation of Godes' devices.

It is not clear to me that McKubre actually participated in the experimental runs that Godes executed. Do you know if he did or if he just was involved in part of the write-up and included as a co-author? Given the complexity of Godes input power system, I don't trust a comparison with an ohmic control even in 150 experiments. The number of experiments would not remove a systematic bias. In my experiments, electrolysis produced more heat than ohmic controls almost every time. But this is due to systematic differences (e.g., you dissipate more power in the connective leads with the ohmic control because the heating coil has a lower resistance than the electrolysis condition).

I have not read the third-party reviewed report regarding the claimed 4x gain with the gas system. Perhaps that would change my mind. There is more evidence so far in favor of Godes work being accurate than Rossi's.

Regarding the Claytor tritium work, Claytor says the following in an interview with infinite energy.

Quote

What is the level? “The biggest sample had 31 dpm. The next biggest one had 22 dpm and then one other was 14 dpm and the rest were at the 1 sigma level but they were positives above zero but not to the 2 sigma level. There were a couple that were null that he sent later. So I can’t say he wasn’t seeing something in his electrolytic system or wasn’t doing anything. I’m not interested in writing up a paper with him because I don’t know what the preparation was, what the metal is, how long he ran them. I don’t know anything about the system he used, so in my viewpoint it is not possible for someone to replicate what he did without all those other details. I basically was doing a blind analysis of unknown samples.”

It is pretty weak evidence to say, "I can't say he wasn't seeing something..."

Mills is using a hiding tactic. But at some point one need to come out in the light. Will this new demonstration show new strong evidences of
validations of a COP ~ 100? Not sure. But one fact is true. If he is right and want to prove to the world that the technique is promising there
nothing stopping him proving it to us. Actually anything muddy would be an indication of the critiques being right. Mills surely talks up this demo
indicating that they will present well validated results of COP 100. My expectations is low and the hope is high: it is too good to be true but
we need to compete out the carbon fuels just to be careful: Today we are playing russian roulette with our future.

Quote from Longview

This is interesting. Did you look for any neutrons or monitor with a GM counter? What was the cathode material in this case? Were the square waves bi-polar, by any chance?

Much higher lateral voltages at suitably low currents might be of interest here, isolated from the high current circuits of course. Many possibilities to look at in such efforts.

I tried nickel wire, constantan, nitinol, and thoriated tungsten as cathode material. I didn't look for neutrons or radiation. I was looking for heat only. I developed a lot of automated methods for running the experiments and determing excess heating. For example, Godes could demonstrate excess heating in his system using some of the methods that I used.

Here is an example: run the lateral power only for a specified amount of time, run the electrolysis only for a specific amount of time, and third, alternate between the two on a specific duty cycle. The cell temp will reach a predicted value in between the two curves in the first two conditions. You can generate the predicted curve based on the two observed curves. If excess heating is present, it will be higher than the predicted curve. See slide 36 in this post for the best example. I think the presentation is also useful to see the process of working through eliminating artifacts and systematic error. I did probably another 75 experiments, but stopped writing each one up.

Quote from Jack Cole

It is pretty weak evidence to say, "I can't say he wasn't seeing something..."

When I asked Claytor about this study, he made noncommittal remarks similar to what he told Marianne. He did not dismiss the work, but he did not endorse it either.

Quote from Jack Cole

Here is an example: run the lateral power only for a specified amount of time, run the electrolysis only for a specific amount of time, and third, alternate between the two on a specific duty cycle.

One more Mill's paper with a bunch of electrolysis experiments: "Solid fuels that form HOH catalyst"

Also published in : international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) p 11930 to 11944

Mill's home page: http://brilliantlightpower.com…ads/papers/DSC_051914.pdf

It is not that simple to provide evidence. At least Mills tries hard!

Quote from Jack Cole

I tried nickel wire, constantan, nitinol, and thoriated tungsten as cathode material.

I had not seen these slides. Some questions:

• I was quite excited when I read that you had run experiments with thoriated tungsten. But then I read that these rods were placed next to cell (Experiment 21), presumably in contrast to within the cell, with electricity running through them. Have I misunderstood? Did you try any experiments in which you ran significant electricity through the thoriated tungsten rods?
• I see that you were using currents between 0.4 and 0.8 amps. Do you have an estimate of the current density?
• Your claim for experiment 25 was quite strong: "Experiment 25 puts to rest the notion of AHE [anomalous heat effect] with alternating between DC and AC ... It will be fruitless to pursue the method further." What convinced you that your difficulty in getting anything working with this setup was the basis for a general conclusion about all such setups?
• Why should we assume, apart from claims going back to Godes about specific Q pulse waveforms that he's been using, that AC should be more effective than DC in triggering the AHE? Also, can one draw a conclusion about all AC stimulation from the effects of specific AC stimulation (i.e., whatever it was that you were doing)?

Eric,

First, I'm amazed that you actually red all that!

Quote from Eric Walker

I was quite excited when I read that you had run experiments with thoriated tungsten. But then I read that these rods were placed next to cell (Experiment 21), presumably in contrast to within the cell, with electricity running through them. Have I misunderstood? Did you try any experiments in which you ran significant electricity through the thoriated tungsten rods?

Yes, I did many experiments with the TT rod serving as the cathode. Actually, many experiments involved a TT rod going through a stack of standard 5 cent nickels as the cathode.

Quote from Eric Walker

I see that you were using currents between 0.4 and 0.8 amps. Do you have an estimate of the current density?

I don't have an estimate of current density. With the lateral AC current (not sure it is described in those experiments), I had 2-10 amps (high frequency square waves). There were experiments that I ran close to 5 amps on the DC electrolysis side.

Quote from Eric Walker

Your claim for experiment 25 was quite strong: "Experiment 25 puts to rest the notion of AHE [anomalous heat effect] with alternating between DC and AC ... It will be fruitless to pursue the method further." What convinced you that your difficulty in getting anything working with this setup was the basis for a general conclusion about all such setups?

I think I meant conventional AC levels and / or the low voltage AC that I had used. I continued to try to develop something that would be closer to what Godes was using. I got close, but ended up giving up on it to pursue gas loaded experiments (my initial ones were using nickel, KOH, and aluminum). This was pre-Lugano.

Quote from Eric Walker

Why should we assume, apart from claims going back to Godes about specific Q pulse waveforms that he's been using, that AC should be more effective than DC in triggering the AHE? Also, can one draw a conclusion about all AC stimulation from the effects of specific AC stimulation (i.e., whatever it was that you were doing)?

Apart from Godes, I would consider the disequilibrium notion with LENR. Some stimulation or change seemed to be necessary in past electrolysis experiments (laser, ultrasound, power level, pulsing, heat changes, etc...)

All good questions.

Eric,

I looked at my spreadsheet. I never posted the updated one with 62 experiments and 217 slides (yes I was really obsessed with trying to make something work). It really shows how the process can go on for a long time with thinking there is excess heat only to painstakingly discover another explanation. I can post the full thing if there is interest.

Jack

Quote from Jack Cole

Eric,

I looked at my spreadsheet. I never posted the updated one with 62 experiments and 217 slides (yes I was really obsessed with trying to make something work). It really shows how the process can go on for a long time with thinking there is excess…

Here is the updated spreadsheet. There are a couple slides missing.
https://drive.google.com/file/…wYlhGVE0/view?usp=sharing