Pardon if this has already been posted ---
Brilliant Light Power’s December 16th, 2016 London, UK Roadshow
Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow
-
Pardon if this has already been posted ---
Brilliant Light Power’s December 16th, 2016 London, UK Roadshow
The video is here
-
Axil, you may be mistaking the old (U.S.) very similar roadshow for this one in London.
This one was just published (Dec 23) on the Brilliant Light Power website.
It's a new video. The URL I posted contains the new video plus some more documents.The title of the video that I referenced is as follows:
"Brilliant Light Power's December 16th, 2016 London, UK Roadshow"
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Mills like so many edistonian trial and error inventors will eventually come up with a working system over many years and invent a theory to explain how that system works. Joe Papp was another such guy who did the same thing. Over the last 100 years, there has been multiple dozens of such inventors and their systems and their associated theories, When Rossi comes out in public he will be the next one to invent a theory that goes along with his invention.
-
Same slides, very similar content. The only new info, IMHO, was the following:
- Two control elements have been designed and are working "on the bench", a regulator to control the levels in the dual molten silver reservoirs and sensor to maintain temperature. Once the controls are added they will be able to operate the unit with the seal in place, which has not happened yet. Only after the seal will they be able to get the unit to near operating temperature, i.e. 3000C - 3500C.
- The device is being designed to operate in "self-sustain" mode with the electrical current only needed for ignition during start-up. The current and electro-magnetic pumps will be turned off most of the time with just the vaporized silver providing the conductive matrix, and hydrogen being diffused in through the dome to sustain the reaction.
- Prototypes labeled A & B are under development, with C through E being developed starting Feb/March. A & B are intended to prove in "closed" operation while C through E will have CPV assemblies.
- Mills is currently generating about 200 eV from the reaction (i.e. 200x as powerful as burning). However, when he closes the unit he hopes the trapped H[1/4] product from the reaction will further react to form H[1/17] with a predicted energy of 2000eV.
However, the continued talk about self-sustain mode got me thinking a bit about the basic reaction, especially why the arc current was needed in the first place. It finally makes sense to me why the arc current is so important. An arc current plasma will provide negative differential resistance. That means, for the region of operation, any increase in current will actually lower the potential in the plasma instead of raising it. Up until the breakthrough of using an arc plasma, the hydrino reaction was rate-limiting. Every time hydrino formation caused the catalyst to be ionized, current was created and potential was raised. This made the next hydrino reaction more difficult. However, with negative resistance, any increase in current now lowers the plasma's potential and therefore makes the subsequent hydrino reaction more likely. An arc plasma provides positive feedback with extreme kinetics and the extremely high power density. It makes more sense to me now why Mills couldn't get a working commercializable device until the discovery of the arc current plasma impact on the reaction rate. It also tells me why the catalytic ionization is an important part of the process. Only an ionizing reaction would experience a positive feedback loop when negative resistance is applied. Seems like good evidence to me that the reaction is not nuclear in nature.
-
How does this "ash" look like?
The ash is hydrino, a form of hydrogen "below" ground state that QM postulates can't exist but which common sense tells us must be the identity of dark matter. Hydrinos form di-hydrino gas which is super-stable, lighter than air and very difficult to contain. It escapes harmlessly into space.
-
200 eV for a 1MW plant? This would lead to the production of 4.5 kgs of hydrinos per day for a volume in the 100,000 liters range. How does this "ash" look like?
This is the point that aggravates me and turns Mills in my mind into a flim flam man. Mills proclaims that these burnt up hydrogen atoms become Dark Matter and escape the reactor like the ghost particles that he states that hydrinos are.
Many of this believers demand to see hydrino gas but Mills can't produce any. Science has been looking for non reactive particles for decades now and found none. They have looked for heavy particles and lite particles but there are none to be found. Science has been looking in particle accelerators and also have not found the hydrino. When Mills can capture some of these 100,000 liters that he is producing, then hydrinos will become a real thing. Until that day, Hydrinos are a flim flam.
Mills states that you can image electrons and atoms with today's technology, but then why can't hydrinos be imaged using these same tools. After all, the hydriino is an atom. The reason why we can't image them, they don't exist.
Both Dark Matter particles and hydrinos just don't exist.
-
Science has been looking in particle accelerators and also have not found the hydrino.
axil: Sometimes I doubt your basic knowledge. In an accelarator you add energy to produce new particles. To get a hydrino you must "decelerate" the particle and harvest the delerating (work in proton potential) energy.
Thus only a fool would look for a hydrino in a CERN like machine...
A third party test for the dihydrino molecule would be wellcomed. This test would be an "easy" one, as we simply would have to measure the known (see GUTCP) spinflip spliting frequencies of the deeper H-orbits. But I guess Mills wont find any hydrinos outside the cell. Helium is much more likely.
-
Many of this believers demand to see hydrino gas but Mills can't produce any. Science has been looking for non reactive particles for decades now and found none. They have looked for heavy particles and lite particles but there are none to be found. Science has been looking in particle accelerators and also have not found the hydrino. When Mills can capture some of these 100,000 liters that he is producing, then hydrinos will become a real thing. Until that day, Hydrinos are a flim flam.
Since Axil refuses to actually check any of the source material, I've lifted a passage from Holverstott's book where he discusses *some* of the independent validation work that has been done over the years to confirm the presence of hydrinos. The game is always the same. Claim that proof is so simple that withholding it is proof of fraud, but studiously ignore the previous evidence of proof.
-
Since Axil refuses to actually check any of the source material, I've lifted a passage from Holverstott's book where he discusses *some* of the independent validation work that has been done over the years to confirm the presence of hydrinos.
optiongeek: I know, we all somehow "hate" the ignorants, but they represent a minority of the forum readers!
It is much better to inform/educate the rest of "the world" by presenting exact and open accessible litterature pointers!
Here one of Mills H1/4 verification papers.
Summary:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ems_as_a_New_Power_Sourcecomplete: (74p.)
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-conten…11/05/EngPower050410S.pdfFor the interrested ones: Most of the cutting edege hydrogen theory not only Mills! is presented in the journal: "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy".
More than 30 Mills paper can be found there over the past twenty years: And yes that's a peer reviewed journal!
-
Since Axil refuses to actually check any of the source material, I've lifted a passage from Holverstott's book where he discusses *some* of the independent validation work that has been done over the years to confirm the presence of hydrinos. The game is always the same. Claim that proof is so simple that withholding it is proof of fraud, but studiously ignore the previous evidence of proof.
Any argument that claims to have detected the hydrino is counterfactual to the proposition that the hydrino is dark matter and cannot be detected, stored, or contained inside the SunCell. This violation of logic is the equivalent to religious doctrine in which faith in a contradiction or miracle is required to maintain belief in the illogical doctrinaire presented to the believer.
-
Thus only a fool would look for a hydrino in a CERN like machine...https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter
One a the main functions at CERN is the detection and identification of Dark Matter. This job is one of the reasons way CERN was built. Now Mills claims that the hydrino is Dark Matter. That claim flies in the face of what the inherent function of CERN is. Your rejection of this Job that CERN is doing is based on the illogic of the hydrino posit itself. As a logical thinking being, take stock in the malarkey that Mills is spinning and reject it as an insult to your intelligence.
-
Any argument that claims to have detected the hydrino is counterfactual to the proposition that the hydrino is dark matter and cannot be detected, stored, or contained inside the SunCell.
axil: Sorry, Axil, its time to go back to school!
Dark matter got his name because it is not radiating in the visible electromagnetic spectrum! It is well known, that it (some dark matter) can been seen at other ('strange') frequencies like the spin-flip ones I mentioned above.
Of course did Mill's detect Hydrinos in the outgas of older experiments. Why should he repeat this measurements again and again? (I would do it to get a mass equivalent..). Just, make an exception and carefully read some of his papers before writing "strange" comments.
Dihydrino gas, depending on the "ionization" level, is very tiny and can potentially walk through any lattice. I personally suspect that it gets enriched in the Cell's structure because of it's enhanced magnetic coupling.
-
Any argument that claims to have detected the hydrino is counterfactual to the proposition that the hydrino is dark matter and cannot be detected, stored, or contained inside the SunCell. This violation of logic is the equivalent to religious doctrine in which faith in a contradiction or miracle is required to maintain belief in the illogical doctrinaire presented to the believer.
I try to believe in two impossible and mutually contradictory things before breakfast every day. It is a big help when researching into LENR.
-
A few posts up, there has been presented as proof of hydrino theory that a hydrino molecule of up to 25 hydrogen atoms can form a hydrino What a Witchy. How can such a large blob fit through the lattice of a thick high density tungsten containment structure of the SunCell?
-
Funnily enough and speaking again of similarities, there is a similar suggestion (but no theoretical proof) in one of the Holmlid papers published in 2016:
It is entirely possible that Mills and his validators have seen metalized hydrogen in their experiments, a configuration of matter that is accepted and peer reviewed by science and a cornerstone of high pressure physics. Mill might have thought that such misinterpretation of experimental observation served his interests more than using the standard interpretation of the experimental results that he and his validators were seeing.
-
It is not so much blind faith or religion that has a few of us accepting Hydrino theory, but rather a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Mills has gone to entreme lengths to back up his claims for the existence of hydrinos as dark matter in the universe. It is technical and complex with multiple forms of measurement and spectroscopy, but it still is a situation where you have to ask yourself, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it? People have been found guilty and not guilty in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence alone. Sometimes it is all we have.
So people can decide to accept the Hydrino without physically seeing one based on the work that Mills has done. Mills has said repeatedly that it would take a tremendous effort to directly capture and view hydrinos. Of course it will be done at some point, but for the time being he is going to put his engineering focus and resources into getting a working SunCell. He is convinced of the existence of hydrinos based on the circumstantial evidence he has provided, as are his investors. As a private company that is all that matters right now.
-
Mills has said repeatedly that it would take a tremendous effort to directly capture and view hydrinos.
It has taken a tremendous effort to detect the neutrino and determine its type. New ultra detectors are being build to detect the decay of the proton and the neutral neutrino.
QuoteThe Hyper-Kamiokande detector consists of a megaton scale water tank and ultra high sensitivity photosensors. The Hyper-Kamiokande detector is both a “microscope,” used to observe elementary particles, and also a “telescope” for observing the Sun and supernovas, using neutrinos.
The Hyper-Kamiokande project has an extremely rich physics portfolio that spans from the study of the CP violation in the leptonic sector and neutrino mixing parameters to proton decay, atmospheric neutrinos and neutrinos from astronomical origin. It is supported by both the HEP and Cosmic Ray communities.
The Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration is currently composed of members from institutes coming from 13 countries in 3 different continents.
Mills should define what the hydrino detection criterion would look like in the Hyper-Kamiokande. Since all the heat produced by the sun is produced by hydrinos, 6 times all the visible matter in the universe is the dark matter hydrino, it is reasonable to expect that at least one hydrino will be detected by the Hyper-Kamiokande neutrino detector.
If the Hyper-Kamiokande neutrino detector can detect solar neutrinos, It should be sensitive enough to detect hydrinos. If not, why not? -
I'm with AxillAxill in this matter. In dense aether model the vacuum is sorta like the vibrating water surface. The droplets jumping on it can also form analogy of quantized orbitals, being driven with underlying wake "pilot" waves. But the same model also implies, there can be no suborbital paths in similar way, like no resonator can oscillate at the subwavelengh resonance mode. I'm also aware of Mills argument, that perfectly spherical orbital represent non-radiating condition for Maxwell waves, which would stabilize these subquantum orbitals IMO this is a reason, why Mills is pushing this orbital model everywhere even under situation when the much richer geometries of classical orbital models apparently give better predictions.
But this stabilizing condition still doesn't make the hydrino formation an exothermic process, i.e. energy generating by itself. The only exception which I invented is the option, if the hydrino state would get trapped between another heavy atom nuclei, which would provide the cluster stabilizing subquantum states with Cassimir field, which is shielding the vacuum fluctuations by nearby matter. In similar way, the hydrino states could be stabilized with narrow cracks and pores of metal cavities - but I still think, these mechanisms aren't sufficient for exothermic hydrino formation.
What I know, Mills anounced the preparation of many alleged hydrino compounds, but these compounds were never independently characterized, despite they would provide the best evidence of hydrino existence. With Mills now strangely silent on hydrino compounds, it makes me think those fancy pictures of dust by descriptions of the fabled compounds were not fabled compounds... now they state the 'hydrinos' just float to space, as if a giant redaction in a way of what could be seen as egregious misleading.
