• Patent application update... perhaps old stuff 02.01.2020


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…O&_cid=P21-K5J0F2-23703-1


    A solid or liquid fuel to plasma to electricity power source that provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising

    (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos,

    (ii) a chemical fuel mixture comprising at least two components chosen from

    : a source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst;

    a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen;

    and a material to cause the fuel to be highly conductive,

    (iii) a fuel injection system such as a railgun shot injector,

    (iv) at least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and an electrical power source that provides repetitive short bursts of low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to forming hydrinos to form a brilliant-light emitting plasma,

    (v) a product recovery system such as at least one of an augmented plasma railgun recovery system and a gravity recovery system,

    (vi) a fuel pelletizer or shot maker comprising a smelter, a source or hydrogen and a source of H2O, a dripper and a water bath to form fuel pellets or shot, and an agitator to feed shot into the injector,

    (vii) a power converter capable of converting the high-power light output of the cell into electricity such as a concentrated solar power device comprising a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photoelectric cells or a plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window.

  • ......Poor old patent examiner having to wade through this lot, I wonder how much of it is actually relevant? ....and the mechanics of the energy generator is just so complex it's hard to imagine it working reliably without self destructing and throwing liquid metal over innocent bystanders. But we'll all buy one if these teething problems are ironed out (sometime within the next 30 years?) Good luck with it RM.:)

  • Here is table summary the three runs reported.


    Duration (s)

    Input energy (kJ)

    Output energy (kJ)

    Input power (kW)

    Output energy (kJ)

    Power Gain

    Net Excess Power (kW)

    5.055

    554.7

    1535.3

    109.7

    303.7

    2.77

    194.0

    2.917

    422.1

    1058.1

    144.7

    362.8

    2.50

    218.1

    2.115

    192.95

    818.38

    91.23

    386.94

    4.24

    295.71

  • I agree with Wyttenbach, I think we all expected more from the master of hydrinos!

    I wanna see Mills interpretation of Dr Dofours work in his model, how a system bonding metal pico-hydrides and also producing hydrinos would work. Maybe that's why they power limited their test reactor! The hydrogen was psuedo-transmuting and melting the metal walls with H* bonds? The same thing was happening to the Silver and they weren't ready for it? I feel almost saddened by how hard to please you all are. This is solid proof of energy densities higher than combustion without copious dangerous particles. All because the person who produced the goods doesn't hold to your pet theories and worldview? I may be reading to far into these responses but I for one am feeling quite good from this news!

  • A lot of us are planning for the energy of stars literally, and end up blowing up on the launch pad, when we could fly above the clouds. While soaring above all previous energy sources, to the stratosphere and the Moon. This is possible when putting a different angle on the approach. Shoot for where the apparatuses produce power!

  • We have the Booker report and the performance is Mizuno like. Still can they get the same return when running it for 5h, that is unclear. Anyhow

    Interesting and probably enough to get funding flowing. ANd most of all it seams to be reproducable. If only it could be repeated by other research teams.

    Then science can be set in stone and the human bandwagon can spend time to optimse the COP.

  • Then science can be set in stone and the human bandwagon can spend time to optimse the COP.


    If they can get a COP value between 15-20 with a live time of the cell of at least 1 month would be an engineering break-through. But still there is one open question:


    What happens with the H*-H* they produce?? It could easily decompose the containment. Still to many open points.

  • If they can get a COP value between 15-20 with a live time of the cell of at least 1 month would be an engineering break-through. But still there is one open question:


    What happens with the H*-H* they produce?? It could easily decompose the containment. Still to many open points.

    H*-H* is something that could be collected and used for idk, mega-refrigeration if reversable, room temperature superconductors, while atom sized dipoles made of metal pico-hydrides could be useful in super-capacitors and superconductors as well. Don't forget nanotechnology. It isn't anymore toxic waste than what we already produce. It's a goldmine if properties and proper engineering follow through.


    Imagination time... I was wondering if H*-H* in enough quantities would cause a resurgence of lighter than air in hybrid craft assuming it can be contained in a low mass envelope. It would be about the same mass as hydrogen but way less reactive. If it leaks a little the machine powering the propulsion could direct heated exhaust continually into the buoyant envelope. Probably include a high temperature heat exchanger where a hot air/hydrino exhaust mix enters some lifting body blimp envelope after running a turbine. Would potencially perform better than a hot air balloon or helium blimp. At least in my head lol.

  • One thing I noticed is that the reactors in the report were only turned on for a few seconds. The report does not cover the five hour test. I really wish that BLP would post a paper. I'm sick and tired of all of these parties making claims but not posting data.

  • The calculations look OK

    There is a typo...

    2454 kJ/(kg*degree C)

    I would trust the water+gallium calorimetry result with O/I =4.24 more than the gallium only calorimetry.


    I haven't carefully looked at the gallium calorimetry, but the water calorimetry is likely to be off, and a significant overestimation.

    First, it involved a water temperature change of only one third of a degree C, in a container that is about 1 cubic metre. Temperature measurements are almost certain not to be uniform, and thus error prone.

    Second, the calculations are assuming all the water mass loss is from a water change of state, from liquid to vapour. But surely this in untenable because the temperature of the water was only about 33C, and bubbles from the very hot SunCell surface in the bottom of the water tank would carry liquid water up and away from the tank. So clearly not all water loss is from change of state, perhaps not even close. This is made even more critical seeing that most of the excess energy calculation comes from change of state.


    I say this as a long term Mill's fan: It's a letdown to see both a low COP and questionable water calorimetry.