• there are a few prior iterations

    Yes, RLM became part of the early 1990s rush which seemed to follow on from the initial publicity surrounding CF.


    Unfortunately, they mostly relied on the cognitive fallacy that says: "Look, someone else's demonstration shows that there are some things that conventional science cannot explain. Therefore my unconventional theory must be correct".


    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • Note: We have known that water-arc discharges are peculiar, since (at the very least) the work of Peter & Neal Graneau in the mid 1980s.


    We have also known that hydrogen-arc discharges are peculiar, since the work of Irving Langmuir in the early 1900s.


    Each of the above developed their own ways to "explain" the peculiarities, which generated little fuss at the time. Whether the expanations are "correct" is probably still open to debate, in some quarters.


    If the BLP device is a hybrid of the two types of arc, then it may well exhibit some peculiar results. Personally, I would say that the relationship of any anomalous behaviour from such a device to any proposed theory is moot.


    The most important thing to know is whether it actually produces any excess energy, or not. So what evidence do we have of this?

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

  • BLP has claimed Excess energy since they had one cell called CHTH (or something like that, is hard to know as they have changed their webpage multiple times since I follow them) and have produced some reports allegedly independent that have verified some degree of excess energy. This has been enough to keep mildly interested for all these years, but I am certain that the investors may not be happy after so many iterations.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I can't see if this article from 2020 has been linked to before. It seems quite a rational piece. E.g.:


    Quote

    The specific excess heat generated is not documented uniformly within a single reference system. As I searched to compile these results, I found various expressions of “gain” cited in PowerPoint slides reporting outcomes from a range of experiments, as follows:

    • “energy gain of 200-500x”
    • “Optical energy output of 30x input”
    • In a table identifying specific experiments showing a gain column, with 3 cases with highest values showing 399x, 279x & 213x
    • “peak power 20MW, time-avg power 4.6MW, optical emission energy 250x applied energy”
    • “input power 6.68 kW, output 1,260 kW” 1260/6.68 = 188x
    • in terms of power density, as “20MW in microliters”, and elsewhere “billions of watts per liter”
    • the 2020 validation studies report finding that hydrino plasma produced excess power of 275kW, 340kW, 200kW & 300kW respectively.
    • 2019 report power levels of 1000kW & 100kW.
    • 2016 studies report 514kW of optical power & 1.3MW peak power; 689kW with 28x gain; thermal power levels of 440kW; & 1.5MW continuous power from 8.6kW input (1500/8.6 = 174x)

    It would benefit the company to clarify and reconcile these value, especially when differing by orders of magnitude, ie., in ranges of 10x vs 100x.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • I can't see if this article from 2020 has been linked to before. It seems quite a rational piece. E.g.:

    I agree the figures are all over the place. The independent validations were much more modest. These reports are from Rowan University in 2009, and the excess heat reported ranges from 1.5 to up to 6.5. The third report is the one concerned with excess energy.


    https://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • These reports are from Rowan University in 2009

    Thanks Curbina - I guess you have seen this piece by Derek Lowe on the Science website, from 2008, about the Rowan work. (and the follow-up.)


    From what I can see, they were tests on specially prepared chemical powders, that seemed to produce a one-off surge of heat energy after being given an initial short jolt. What connection they had with the actual BLP reactors seems unclear.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • Mark Pinnell


    I can see it in your shot above of course. I just posted a comment on this BLP video. No problem.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    hmmmm I don't see your comment either... maybe BLP have disabled comments for this video.... =(

  • Comments are not disabled but they are invisible to others, this has been so since long in BLPs Youtube channel. I can also see mine.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Comments are not disabled but they are invisible to others, this has been so since long in BLPs Youtube channel. I can also see mine.

    I guess they find that cheaper than paying their lawyers to track down critics and send legal threats.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • There is this NASA test report from the Thermacore days, published in 1996.


    Of course this was for the original wet nickel electrolytic cell - which Thermacore claimed had a 1000% energy gain.


    You can see the claim in the famous "Too Close To The Sun" BBC Horizon documentary, from 1994. (The Thermacore part is 20 minutes in).


    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • Thanks Curbina - I guess you have seen this piece by Derek Lowe on the Science website, from 2008, about the Rowan work. (and the follow-up.)


    From what I can see, they were tests on specially prepared chemical powders, that seemed to produce a one-off surge of heat energy after being given an initial short jolt. What connection they had with the actual BLP reactors seems unclear.

    All what Mills was worried about back then was gathering evidence for his hydrino theory. This work led to the “SF-CIHT” reactor (Catalist something). This concept was later abandoned for the “Suncell”.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Indeed, Mills started doing experiments indistinguishable from all the Nickel Hydrogen crowd in the 1990s, he also published a lot in Fusion Technology. He came up with the hydrino theory around that time.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • As that 2020 article you posted above says; for 30 + years Mills has not shied away from having his different prototypes vigorously tested by the best...NASA being just one. That is why I have not written them off as have many others. He has checked all the blocks required by mainstream science for such an "extraordinary claim" to be taken seriously, yet he is still largely ignored.


    There was also at least one other US government (military) entity who signed off on his later tech. Too lazy to dig it up, but there was a video of it along with a validation report. Why then the US never partnered up with him, or even commandeered the tech for national security reasons is a mystery. A world changing tech they see for themselves works, and they walk away from It? Doesn't make sense, but that is what appears to be what happened.


    About 4 years ago BLP had, I believe, their last contact with the US government, when some military representatives visited the BLP lab in New Jersey to explore the energetics capabilities of the tech. Apparently nothing ever came of that either.

  • Probably Mills exists because he is implanted in New jersey, a place where is too much money for too many projets. Always the gravity center from where US leaders are living.

    As that 2020 article you posted above says; for 30 + years Mills has not shied away from having his different prototypes vigorously tested by the best...NASA being just one. That is why I have not written them off as have many others. He has checked all the blocks required by mainstream science for such an "extraordinary claim" to be taken seriously, yet he is still largely ignored.


    There was also at least one other US government (military) entity who signed off on his later tech. Too lazy to dig it up, but there was a video of it along with a validation report. Why then the US never partnered up with him, or even commandeered the tech for national security reasons is a mystery. A world changing tech they see for themselves works, and they walk away from It? Doesn't make sense, but that is what appears to be what happened.


    About 4 years ago BLP had, I believe, their last contact with the US government, when some military representatives visited the BLP lab in New Jersey to explore the energetics capabilities of the tech. Apparently nothing ever came of that either.

  • I don't think mills cares one way or the other on commercialization of the suncell. His main goal is the the acceptance of his general theory. Commercialization is secondary to the science. Ego can be detrimental

    And nobody has a bigger one than Randy

  • I don't think mills cares one way or the other on commercialization of the suncell. His main goal is the the acceptance of his general theory. Commercialization is secondary to the science. Ego can be detrimental

    And nobody has a bigger one than Randy

    I am afraid you are right.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Remember the George Box aphorism: “All models are wrong, but some are useful”?


    In this context, a theoretical model is useful if it can help you to successfully predict the outcome of changes to your hardware. If it can do that, then you can use the model to improve, and even optimise, your designs in relatively few steps – without having to rely solely on a long succession of hardware tests, following random changes.


    e.g. The caloric theory of heat was wrong, but the empirical mathematical models associated with it were useful enough to allow engineers to design steam engines that could work quite well, straight off the drawing board.


    The Thermacore & later BLP “cells” do tend to look like “me too” imitations of existing technologies, rather than being anything unique that might have arisen from a new theoretical model. The variable results also suggest that the companies have only ever been “Easter Egging”, and not designing devices according to any published or independently researched laws or guiding principles. Unfortunately, this can probably be said for many organisations that have been working in the field.


    I do think the disparity between the "1000%" claimed by Thermacore (by which they actually meant 10:1 output power to input power), and the 1.06-1.68:1 of the NASA tests, should have prompted some closer scrutiny. If the Thermacore cells seemed to be performing so much better than the NASA cell, then they were either doing something drastically different to the cells, or taking their measurements in oddly different ways, or one of them managed to get their sums wrong.


    It is interesting to note that, even now, the claimed over-unity for Brillouin Energy’s wet nickel electrolytic cells is still only marginally higher than the best result measured by NASA, in 1996, on the Thermacore cell. One would have thought that the intervening quarter-century should have allowed for a greater amount of refinement, and increase in performance, for that technology.



    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • It is interesting to note that, even now, the claimed over-unity for Brillouin Energy’s wet nickel electrolytic cells is still only marginally higher

    Brillouin publishes 2 different COP values. The total process COP is around 3 now. But the usefull = to use energy COP is between 1.2..1.5. The pulse generator uses a lot of current and this "heat" needs special care if you want to recover it.

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.