From https://brilliantlightpower.com/ciht-cell/: ”Our new results add to the long-standing discredit of cold fusion, this mechanism is disproved by the lack of any evidence of a nuclear reaction. ” This is an interesting statement, indicating that Mills has abandoned his earlier theories. It is startling, by two reasons:
a) as most of us here know, there is a number of published scientific reports showing both 'cold' transmutations of elements, and energetic photons (even though their energy usually is much lower than in high-energy transmutations). Are they all wrong? Dissmissing all that work so easily might be understandable from a business perspective, but perhaps not so from the perspective of the hard working LENR scientists.
b) ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH), or hydrinos, as Mills call them, have very short proton-proton distances and the high electrostatic shielding effect by the low-orbital electrons strongly increases the likelihood for nuclei reactions. So why dismiss that option even though Mills does not seem to have succeeded to show that in his own work?
The BLP business presentation, https://brilliantlightpower.co…Overview_Presentation.pdf, is not easily understandable for an investor. It does not give the sharp professional and pedagocical appearance that might be expected for something supposed to help raise millions of dollars (I assume it is). My impression is that BLP throws a lot of seed around in the hope that some will start to grow (or raise money). It is an indication that they do NOT have a killer application in the pipe. The big problem is, as I see it, that at this stage, this is technology suited for the research labs, not the industry. It's premature to commercialize it and that's a problem for BLP, but it might explain their approach.
I believe I am not the only one that got the first impression that the nanofibers shown in the image actually was an UDH-composed material (yes I know, GaO is written in the image - but not in the text, where it is called a 'hydrino compound'). UDH might be regarded as a trace substance. I didn't find any data about it.
This document: https://brilliantlightpower.co…alytical_Presentation.pdf is more interesting since it contains more information. Some of the results indicating (not proving) the existence of UDH are quite interesting. Not least the negative peaks in GC (TCD) that are both extraordinary and easily interpreted. Gas chromatography is relatively inexpensive. If they can be repeated by critical independent labs, they could pave the way for a broader acceptance of the existence of UDH.
The idea that dark matter actually is UDH, proposed both by both Holmlid and Mills, is contradicted by the neutron-proton ration of 1:1, just in the beginning of the creation of Universe (according to the Standard Model), and the measured and calculated abundance of H and He in space. These abundances confirm the Standard Model, leaving no room for about 7 times more hydrogen-based dark matter than ordinary hydrogen. Where would all those extra protons for UDH come from? The initial neutron-proton ratio then should be 1:7 instead of 1:1. Quite a big difference. I don't know if there exists any astronomers proposing UDH as a dark matter candidate.
The validation reports have found excess heat in the range 2 – 4, measured in one-shot, water-bath cooled, experiments. We know how difficult it can be to measure energy from dynamic currents. Most of the validations have been made in BLP's facilities. From the 100-hour runs, that should be the most interesting stuff from an energy investors perspective, no data are published in the reports, as far as I have seen. Omitting high excess heat results is unlikely, since such data is what talks to the heart (or brain) of the investor. Therefore, my conclusion is that the longer (continuous) runs have not produced any impressive excess heat – if any.
