Brillliant Light Power Posts Demo Video

    Quote from Jack Cole

    From watching this show from Mills and his group before, I made a prediction: the results from bomb calorimetry would be underwhelming. I watched all this before and they claimed extreme gains using other methods but only a gain of 2 with the bomb calorimeter.


    As it turns out, the present demo yields an energy gain of 3X (140J input and 440J output) using the bomb calorimeter. Using their spectroscopy data, they purport to show extreme gains (>100X).


    That all can see what Cole is discussing:


    Here I link the actual (20/7/2016) video of Mills brlp.. http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/


    It is as I said long time ago. WITH a COP >100 you are able to melt down anything and that is what Mill's is doing now... He definitly needs a catch 22.


    There is also a link to a lengthy paper which sums up all his trials and parts of his theory - just for the hardcore readers...


    IMHO, Mill can solve his electrode erosion problem by using a silver vapor heat pipe. Such a pipe will remove a huge amount of reaction heat from his electrodes. If that technology fails. Mills can use liquid silver electrodes with the silver stream covering the tungsten heat pipe core. The liquid silver will cool the tungsten core. This tech is used in the first walls of fusion reactors where the tungsten is covered with tungsten wire fur, where Lithium is the coolant.


    See


    http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…029-5515/53/11/113030/pdf


    and


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…g_material#cite_note-:4-8

    Quote from stefan

    The 3X includes energy needed to penetrate a sample, they can estimate the energy needed to do this and the remaining indicate a much higher COP.


    Are you saying they use calculation based on theory to subtract part of the input power to boost the COP number? If so, you must understand that this is not proper.

    Jack Cole


    Well it does take energy to burn through a Capsule. So the COP _is_ better than 3. They could use a theoretical value but that is weak proof as you say.
    Now they do know the amount of fuel used and they can relate to what it takes to burn it in the open setup. I don't think that you can say that COP is 3
    and that's the conclusion. We know that that COP is not what the actual product will feature - there the open test is more close.

    Quote from Jack <br>Cole

    Are
    you saying they use calculation based on theory to subtract part of the
    input power to boost the COP number? If so, you must understand that
    this is not proper.


    I checked the old Bomb calorimetry paper


    http://www.blacklightpower.com…s/papers/SunCellPaper.pdf


    where he comes to the following conclusion: The detonations of solid fuel 80 mg Ti + 30 mg H2O produced .. best output 866 (760) Watt; input 245(127) W; COP 4.5(7)


    But he recently improved the input (ignition) energy which now is 60 Watt only and leads him to the conclusion (unveryfied by a bomb measurement, but
    veryfied by optical output measurements..)


    So he claims COP 14 in the actual paper... with a repeating frequency of 1 Hz!


    We should ask him, if he, every second, inserts one new fuel 80 mg Ti + 30 mg H2O pellet, or if after ignition hydrogen is enough... I guess he simply burns Ti,W... and produces a lot of hot material...
    Burning Ti is not that cheap...


    There is one other thing I like to remark. Mills states the following (page 20): The optical energy density obtained by integrating the energy density
    spectrum measured with the Ocean Optic spectrometer was 5.86 J/m2, recorded at a distance of 353.6 cm.


    This would give 918 W in total.


    But then he assumes the measurement area to be just the window of the spectrometer. Either the unit he uses is wrong or his calculation...


    The resulting measured optical power is 21 MW/m2 but at 8.57 cm... what is simply wrong it should be roughly 9.6kW/m2

    /* The optical energy density obtained by integrating the energy density spectrum measured with the Ocean Optic spectrometer was 5.86 J/m2, recorded at a distance of 353.6 cm. */


    The integration of energy density spectrum may not be so simple at the case of spectrum consisting of many narrow lines - a large space for integration errors remains here. IMO it's always more reliable to measure the resulting radiation flux with bolometer.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Mills just discharges the supercap through massive silver shortcut - what else we should expect,


    I've never paid much attention to the MIlls' work, only a bit to the rhetoric and "theory", which is somewhat "extraordinary" to me, particularly in view of the never brought to market aspect. How is the new Mills COP measured ? Is anyone integrating the total energy output over the total energy input ? Or is it all power out over power in ? If it is the latter, then it is inherently and necessarily of dubious merit. One can easily use a 1.5 volt "D cell" to repeatedly produce a gigawatt of peak power over ~10 nanoseconds, e.g. in a Blumlein discharge apparatus.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.