• Seriously? I don't know what his "light water cell" is but I doubt that NASA replicated any of Mills' claims.


    You said that to make me look it up for you, didn't you? Well, I did:


    In 1996, NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported, which, whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.[21]

    Around 2002, the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineer at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use hydrinos.[22]

  • Thanks for looking up. Pretty weak endorsement, don't you think? And nothing more from them since 199-f'n-six? I find that not very encouraging. Sounds like it was a dud and someone at NASA screwed the pooch in making sure the calorimetry was valid. As usual.


    Any idea if Marchese is still working on it, more than 20 years later? If he's still working for NASA? And if not, it must be the same huge conspiracy that is hiding NASA's alien autopsy and rectal probe investigation.

  • >> which become more and more improbable with each iteration. It makes no sense at all. None of it. It's very Steornish and Rossiesque.


    I tend to think that his switch or branch to focus on producing a heater is countering what you said this does mean you can live with lower temperatures and

    hence an easier design. Many people express that the solar cell approach is doomed, I'm not an expert regarding this but I totally understand the heater

    approach and it's benefits from a simplified product actually countering what you said.


    Also the mechanical versions of the suncell looked much more complicated and unpractical to get working than the current approach.

  • Thanks for looking up. Pretty weak endorsement, don't you think? And nothing more from them since 199-f'n-six? I find that not very encouraging. Sounds like it was a dud and someone at NASA screwed the pooch in making sure the calorimetry was valid. As usual.


    Sounds like a very prudent way for NASA to report their Mills replication. You may have forgotten, but NASA had (sort of) replicated FPs only months after the 1989 announcement. Fralick, the key author on that report, is also one of the inventors on the very recent NASA patent application. In between then (1989), and now, NASA has been fairly active in LENR, not only with Mills in 1996, but much more.


    So no, there was no "dud". NASA replicated Mills, was interested in LENR with real results both before that, and afterwards...that simple.

  • BLP, Inc. (Brilliant Light Power, Inc.) has invented a new nonpolluting and economical primary energy source based on novel hydrogen chemistry. This energy source is based on a new chemical process that releases the latent energy of the hydrogen atom resulting in the formation of a previously undiscovered more stable form of hydrogen called hydrino, identified as the dark matter of the universe.


    Dark Matter: marked as SOLVED

    What's next on the agenda? Dark Energy? Easy! :-) Rossi? Axil?

  • Quote

    So no, there was no "dud". NASA replicated Mills, was interested in LENR with real results both before that, and afterwards...that simple.


    It's not simple at all. Do you know what it was that NASA actually tested? How they tested it? What the result was exactly? Was it published and if so where? And tell me again what NASA has done with respect to Mills in the 21 years since 2017? 21 years! Do we really neglect world-saving technology for 21 long years?


    Shane, you do not seem to have a skeptical bone in your body! Did you learn nothing from Rossi (and Steorn and Defkalion and etc. etc.)? The part you don't know or don't get is the part that gets you!

  • JonesBeene
    4:04 PM (4 minutes ago)cleardot.gif cleardot.gifcleardot.gif
    to vortex-l cleardot.gif

    Whoever provided the subject heading for this thread must have learned to spell from Dan Quayle (former VP)… big grin.

    One a slightly more serious not - interesting News from BLP turned up on another forum…

    https://jobs.physicstoday.org/…/lead-mechanical-engineer

    This is a job offering for Lead Mechanical Engineer at BLP.

    The implication is that the present Lead Mechanical Engineer either quit or was fired.

    Given the salary is good, the only reason one quits this kind of company at such a critical time is when they see the hopelessness of the technology.

    If the present Lead Mechanical Engineer was fired this could mean that he is being held responsible for the current lack of progress in bringing anything to market or even to bring some tiny bit of credibility to the company - since they have almost no credibility in Academia or the Energy sector.

    It would be interesting if that person who is being replaced were to surface and provide some info on what is really going on at BLP - but chances are that his/her silence has been bought with a generous golden parachute.

  • You may have forgotten, but NASA had (sort of) replicated FPs only months after the 1989 announcement. Fralick, the key author on that report . . .


    So no, there was no "dud". NASA replicated Mills

    They did replicate F&P with a gas loading experiment. That is with a hydrogen filter, similar to the BARC experiment. I do not think they replicated Mills. See p. 17 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcpa.pdf

  • There is no implication that there was a pre-existing "lead engineer" that left, that is rank speculation. Any company will have different 'leads' for different teams and efforts, 'lead' is a term for hands-on mid-level management at the team level.


    If the opening was for a CTO, now that would be different story, but this job posting only says they are hiring..

  • They did replicate F&P with a gas loading experiment. That is with a hydrogen filter, similar to the BARC experiment. I do not think they replicated Mills. See p. 17 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcpa.pdf


    Jed,


    Thx. I got the earlier quote from the BLP wikipedia. The NASA report you link appears to contradict that:


    BLP Results:

    • Apparent current-dependent excess heat exhibited when tested in all
    modes
    • Excess heat consistent as heat from hydrogen-oxygen recombination
    catalyzed by the Pt and Ni electrodes within the cell
    • Did not reproduce the large excess heat reported in literature
    Gain Factors of <1.7 @ GRC vs. >10 in literature


  • The implication is that the present Lead Mechanical Engineer either quit or was fired.


    That statement is ridiculous. I could bring up 10 reasons for this job offer that have not this maliscious subtext in a minute.


    About the Nasa paper:

    Mills postet the NASA paper on his forum some time ago. I think I downloaded it - I am looking for it when I am back home. If memory serves me the overall tone was: test not conclusive, one major other source of the observed excess heat was not ruled out. No more funds to do further tests.

  • >> The implication is that the present Lead Mechanical Engineer either quit or was fired.


    With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.

  • With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.


    I have already given you concrete reasons why one might distrust BrLP which are entirely apart from anything Axil has said. Even if your conclusion is true in a limited sense, you will only have shown it to apply to one person (Axil). You must show why the reasons I give put me in the category of believers in hoaxes. You will not be able to do this.

  • With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.


    We all should thank Stefan that he still is willing to discuss about serious math with people arguing on kitchen-woman level.


    During the last halve year I worked through GUT-CP, in special through the particle physics part.


    There was never ever any doubt that using Mills math, delivers far more superior results that any known QM/QED approach. Just look at the helium model the cornerstone where QM badly fails. (The explanation of the QM failure is more easy than understanding Mills math...)


    A more serious discussion is needed to understand Mills particle modelling. I extend Mills math to general 4 (6)-(time-less) dimensions, what is needed to understand the basic properties even of a simple particle like the proton.


    As a summary I can tell you: Mills delivers the best that is possible with the classic 3D+T approach. To get better result we need an other math, that has not been used in physics so far. This new math delivers the correct nuclear orbit numbers and also allows to calculate/explain the nuclear spectra.

    Under this new viewpoint Mills misses some crucial points:

    - Charge behaves different that known- certainly not the way he assumes in hydrino theory.

    - 4D energies explain the neutron mass and halve live and also define a 4D radius, which currently is discussed as magnetic radius for proton experiments.

    - The SUN-CELL produces the first real hydrogen only fusion. The only question is what are the products - certainly not long time stable hydrinos.

    - If Mills ignores this fact, then his company will fail.


    Conclusion:

    Just forget that standard physics ever will explain anything below Bohr level. Start to study Mills GUT-CP and wait for a consent about new and better models.