BLP update
-
-
In his latest report Mills returns 400kW power output for several kW input. This has to be nuclear, probably scaling up LENR 3kW output for 300 W input reported by Mizuno and also Takahashi's group recent results. But why has he not completed the finished reactor or had his data replicated by other qualified engineers?
-
Quote
we don't know input and we don't know output
That has been the case essentially for decades. Any wild guess about why it is?
QuoteIn his latest report Mills returns 400kW power output for several kW input.
It's a claim. And a defective one at that. In this case, one problem is that some of Mills' devices run very briefly or in a pulse mode. The issue then, is not about power ratios, it's about energy in and out. And somehow Mills always leaves out the information necessary to determine that. Any wild guess about why that is?
QuoteThis has to be nuclear
Not it doesn't. Absent the usual proper measurements and verification, it could be anything, including deception and gross errors.
QuoteBut why has he not completed the finished reactor or had his data replicated by other qualified engineers?
Take a wild guess, why don't you?
-
In his latest report Mills returns 400kW power output for several kW input. This has to be nuclear, probably scaling up LENR 3kW output for 300 W input reported by Mizuno and also Takahashi's group recent results. But why has he not completed the finished reactor or had his data replicated by other qualified engineers?
It would not have to be nuclear if he was converting a continual input of hydrogen into hydrinos. However, I suspect that nuclear reactions are taking place in his system. What I'm not sure about is the ratio between hydrino reactions (in my opinion these are possibly not shrunken hydrogen atoms but other rearrangements of ions and electrons), zero point tapping, and nuclear reactions.
-
Display More
That has been the case essentially for decades. Any wild guess about why it is?
It's a claim. And a defective one at that. In this case, one problem is that some of Mills' devices run very briefly or in a pulse mode. The issue then, is not about power ratios, it's about energy in and out. And somehow Mills always leaves out the information necessary to determine that. Any wild guess about why that is?
Not it doesn't. Absent the usual proper measurements and verification, it could be anything, including deception and gross errors.
Take a wild guess, why don't you?
I think the answer now is that he doesn't want to convince too many people that his technology is real.
-
I really wish that BLP would test a system that didn't use liquid metal conducts and instead was simply an electrical discharge utilizing the negative resistance regime within a gaseous environment of hydrogen, perhaps deuterium, argon and/or other heavier noble gases, and a small number of nano-particles from the erosion of the electrodes. I think such a system would be superior to what they have now.
-
Negative resistance could be coming from the onset of superconductivity and coherence.
Some people have a short time memory..: If the back current is stronger than the discharge current this looks like negative resistance. The so called swirl-flow Klimov/Mills is caused by the intersection of discharge flux and back flux. That's the point where the physics (LENR) (may) happens.
-
Quote
I think the answer now is that he doesn't want to convince too many people that his technology is real.
Of course! After dozens of millions of dollars of investor money spent and almost thirty years of work, not to mention books and technical papers and lots of hype in press releases and Youtube videos, now Mills doesn't want publicity, more investment, tons of personal wealth and he would probably decline a Nobel Prize too. Makes perfect sense!
-
Of course! After dozens of millions of dollars of investor money spent and almost thirty years of work
At least he did try it: what did you do so far????
Cry it ?
Have a whiskey and good time with a good book!
-
It's a claim. And a defective one at that. In this case, one problem is that some of Mills' devices run very briefly or in a pulse mode. The issue then, is not about power ratios, it's about energy in and out. And somehow Mills always leaves out the information necessary to determine that. Any wild guess about why that is?
How can you say that Mills 'always' leaves out energy in and out, when he has done validated bomb calorimetry on exploding pellets for that very purpose? There may be complications with the energy inventory, such as accounting for energy lost in moving bus bars, but don't lie and say he leaves it out. Thank you.
-
In his latest report Mills returns 400kW power output for several kW input. This has to be nuclear, probably scaling up LENR 3kW output for 300 W input reported by Mizuno and also Takahashi's group recent results. But why has he not completed the finished reactor or had his data replicated by other qualified engineers?
Mills' latest results are based on an explosion and therefore this comparison of power is bogus and irrelevant to whether there is any contrary to normal physics energy excess.
He has not got 200X thermal output for total input. Nor even 10X output from input. His recent attempt to make a definite over-energy device independently testable failed (not sure what was the excuse?).
There are however a decent number of people willing to be convinced by a very long bad physics report - claims of binding energy predictions that are trivial (essentially linear combinations of hardwired bases) and of no value - and 3 generations over 20 years of demos each, if as claimed, capable of true black box indendent testing, which has never been done.
I'm not interested in whether Mills knows his stuff is flaky. Scientifically it is a very long-running vaporware show running on human capacity to be tricked by a very focussed and passionate individual.
-
He has not got 200X thermal output for total input. Nor even 10X output from input. His recent attempt to make a definite over-energy device independently testable failed (not sure what was the excuse?).
How do you know he hasn't? In fact, he has validated reports of excess energy well in excess of 10X for over twenty years. The problem in the past was that the power density was too low, the overhead too large to be marketable. That problem has now been solved with the SunCell method of utilizing high current which removed factors inhibiting the energy producing reaction.
Where do you get the idea that Mills 'attempted' to make a recent device 'independently testable'? He will invite validators for his longer running SunCells when he wants to.
-
Mills' latest results are based on an explosion and therefore this comparison of power is bogus
Detonation calorimetry underestimates the enthalpy change.. perhaps due to incomplete reaction..
-
Its interesting that Mills shows that cryogenic gas producers
already make the socalled molecular hydrino
Maybe Mills should call the "HydrinoH2(1/4) the Millsino?
Has he considered sending a cease and desist missive to BOC?
I prefer the name shrunken hydrogen.
-
Display More
Its interesting that Mills shows that cryogenic gas producers
already make the socalled molecular hydrino
Maybe Mills should call it the Millsino?
Has he considered sending a cease and desist missive to BOC?
I prefer the name shrunken hydrogen.
Well, he calls it dihydrino. 'Shrunken' can have negative connotation. Bank account, clothes, and well, you know.
-
'Shrunken' can have negative connotation. Bank account, clothes, and well, you know.
Shrunken bambinos? dibambinos? 1989 was a prophetic year.
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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. -
Well, he calls it dihydrino. 'Shrunken' can have negative connotation. Bank account, clothes, and well, you know.
I do not know. I do NOT KNOW! How dare you accuse me of knowing!
-
Quote
At least he did try it: what did you do so far????
Cry it ? Have a whiskey and good time with a good book!
Those are really dumb things to say. How would you know what I have or have not done? You carry my CV around with you do you?
-
Quote
How can you say that Mills 'always' leaves out energy in and out, when he has done validated bomb calorimetry on exploding pellets for that very purpose? There may be complications with the energy inventory, such as accounting for energy lost in moving bus bars, but don't lie and say he leaves it out. Thank you.
An inherent problem in making something explode and measuring the energy is that one has to account for the energy required to make that fuel to start with. That was also the problem I saw years ago with the work done at Rowan University. They extracted energy by doing something to a fuel (I forgot how) but they never revealed what the fuel was or how much energy was needed to make it.
-
Quote
How do you know he hasn't? In fact, he has validated reports of excess energy well in excess of 10X for over twenty years. The problem in the past was that the power density was too low, the overhead too large to be marketable. That problem has now been solved with the SunCell method of utilizing high current which removed factors inhibiting the energy producing reaction
So where are the power generators Mills claimed as far back as twenty years were a year or two away?
