• 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.

  • 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 find the above a bit ... strange. What would be in a 1:1 ratio is the electron : proton ratio. Today it is thought that the proton : neutron ratio is about 7 : 1 . Really has nothing to do with hydrino as dark matter, or confirming the Standard Model.

  • I find the above a bit ... strange. What would be in a 1:1 ratio is the electron : proton ratio. Today it is thought that the proton : neutron ratio is about 7 : 1 . Really has nothing to do with hydrino as dark matter, or confirming the Standard Model.

    Today yes. In the beginning of the nucleosynthesis no.

  • 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),

    Be aware that the so called standard model, in best case, can be named educated nonsense. All theories totally fail in calculating anything useful for dense mass. They work a bit for scattering that's all.


    The neutron in fact is a resonant structure of dense mass and only pops up in asymmetric nuclei with incomplete e-p bonds. 4-He contains no neutrons contrary to classic claims. Also experiments never could show them inside 4-He below fragmentation limits.

  • a) pico-chemistry through hydrino compounds. The hydrogen bonds inside the metal/conductive atom creating a psuedo transmuted atom sized compound. These bonds produce keV scale of energy but less than nuclear transmutation and without nuclear fragments.


    b) That isn't the reaction that is desired many of us want the endproduct to be dense hydride compounds. They have features that are desirable and rare. Fusion isn't needed to get the job done intensly and safely even though trace events probably do occur. Electron mediated reactions that keep stable nuclei intact are prefered, think of these new compounds as a long term tight marraige and family. Venting energy through stablising decay and deep pico-compounds is more desirable than fusion/fission in a home. He wants a modern fire replacement that is reminicent of a portable supernova instead of genuinely one😂. Stay from the dead center of the garden!


    Gallium-H* and oxygen compounds? I wouldnt take your conclusions because the universe's beginning is likely missunderstood by scientists and you haven't looked at the H2* math/fact sheet yet. As an ID creationist I find things like intentional panspermia and literal 6 day terraforming projects completely sain and reasonable 😉🙏🏽, you be the judge. Do I think this can be approached better, yes. Is he wrong on the general results, I highly doubt it. Praying for clarity.

  • Hard to understand, but must be good. Can't tell if this something new, or a rehash of Dr. Hagen's earlier report. Rumor was that this was going into a major journal, but I see nothing about that. Anyone have more info?

    My same thoughts, perhaps it’s in preparation for that, hard to know.

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

  • Looks like they may be trying to use zero point energy to explain electron accelerated decay and gamma emission. MeV energies can come from release of nuclei instabilities within known physics. This isn't what Mills etc. are claiming, though it's related by proximity. I pray we see the simplicity of the <100keV (0.5keV if were talking just hydrogen) limit to collective EM reactions, unless mediating nuclear stabalisation.