• Based on the video I can't have much confidence in the claimed COP. A substantial amount of water can be seen splashing out of the tub during the vigorous boiling, and that is not mentioned in the enthalpy calculation. This is the kind of error that is often overlooked in such casual demonstrations and is sure to be used by skeptics.

  • If that were the case, they probably would notice all the water on the floor and if it is captured on the weighing scale in a shallow walled trough/pan then that water never is mistakenly considered as leaving as vapor. They have been doing this for years, so it is not casual. I watched the water splashing out in their latest video but I'm assuming they minimized that splashing during the actual COP experiments or it was captured in the surrounding weight scale pan. Also, it is very plausible that they intentionally tried to show excessive boiling during the posted video as a way of indicating power.

    youtube video is from dec 12 and titled:

    VALIDATION AND PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS

    link:

    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.

  • With thick electric cables like this the boiling presented is still pretty modest. I hate to say this, but BLP videos prove absolute nothing about BLP overunity claims.

    Of course you can't rely on a mere video, that's why the validation report is included where things are carefully quantified.


    The imo egregious sin of the experimental setup in this Nansteel validation paper is that it is (again!) using the (unspoken!) assumption that all the water lost originally experienced a high energy-of-formation change of state and escaped as pure vapour. From videos it is obvious that wet steam (a mixture of visible liquid water droplets and invisible gaseous water vapour) is leaving the water surface, not an invisible gas that only later condenses to steam. The word 'steam' does not appear even once in the paper, only 'vapor'. Please BLP, avoid theses change of state experiments to calculate excess energy!


    Interestingly the Nansteel paper does not comment on the somewhat contrary result of why, in the two Nov 10th runs, the run that had lower applied input power and a cooler cell nonetheless significantly bested the hotter cell in apparent energy gain: 2.0 to 1.6.

  • The vapor is invisible, anything visible is steam (microscopic droplets) that originally was vapor that has condensed and given up its latent heat of vaporization to the air (or radiative cooling to the room). The temperature of the steam and the vapor match the temperature of the boiling water so there is no transfer of heat from the vapor back to the boiling water. Boiling water does not create microscopic droplets (steam). Boiling water creates invisible vapor that then condenses into visible micro droplets (steam). Twentyfive years ago I did an experiment that verified this in a big test tube. I was trying to refute criticism of vapor/steam/droplets controversy with P&F. The energy/power in the lost water vapor matched the resistive heater power.

  • Still not bad with a commercial load, and able to run continuously within the limits of their cooling system. They say they are working on a better control system to produce the full 250kW (COP10). If true, and I believe it is, they are light years ahead of what anyone else in the field has ever accomplished.

    Dear like-minded person! You wrote - "... they are light years ahead of what anyone else in the field has ever accomplished." I am upset ... You missed the main thing that I post on this forum ... and this is sad ... And the main thing is that all the technologies you are discussing - almost everything - if I am wrong, then correct me, or otherwise they use heat transfer "through the wall" - heat transfer through the wall ... And Dr. Randall Mills has the same technology ... I do not agree with you, they are brilliantlightpower, they are not leaders already by the fact that it was applied back in 2003-2006 hydrowave technology, in which there is no heat transfer through the wall ... At the same time, you will nod towards cavitation technologies and you will be partly right - there is also no heat transfer through the wall, in the hydrowave technology a qualitative step forward was made in relation to cavitation technologies and for this reason COP ~ 100 is possible there. I ask you to be correct in your statements ... This is my personal opinion - the hydrowave technology has stepped forward 100 years ...

  • The temperature of the steam and the vapor match the temperature of the boiling water so there is no transfer of heat from the vapor back to the boiling water.

    There is a transfer of energy from vapour to water even though both are at 100C, since water vapour has much more energy than water liquid at the same temperature, correct?


    Boiling water does not create microscopic droplets (steam).

    You seem confident of this, but I would think that even non boiling water which is agitated (extreme example : ultrasonic humidifier) creates vapour and microscopic droplets that break through the surface tension of water.


    Twentyfive years ago I did an experiment that verified this in a big test tube. I was trying to refute criticism of vapor/steam/droplets controversy with P&F. The energy/power in the lost water vapor matched the resistive heater power.

    I would have liked if BLP, for a true control, had similarly used a (massive) resistive heater to replace the Suncell and plunked it in the same tank to see if the energy to the heater element (after accounting for tank water temperature increase) matched the lost water mass as pure 'vapour'. I truly doubt that would be the case. As it is, we just don't know.


    Which brings me to another matter, the odd use of the word 'control' in the paper. It was not used in the conventional sense, rather it was used to describe a method to subtract the energy used to bring the SunCell up to what was called "power phase".


    Boy am I turning into a nitpicker or what!

  • New BLP USPTO patent application --


    United States Patent Application 20200403555 December 24, 2020


    THERMOPHOTOVOLTAIC ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATOR


    Abstract

    A molten metal 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; and a molten metal to cause the fuel to be highly conductive, (iii) a fuel injection system comprising an electromagnetic pump, (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 electrode electromagnetic pump recovery system and a gravity recovery system, (vi) a source of H2O vapor supplied to the plasma and (vii) a power converter capable of converting the high-power light output of the cell into electricity such as a concentrated solar power thermophotovoltaic device and a visible and infrared transparent window or a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photovoltaic cells or a plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0403555&RS=DN/20200403555

  • I thought they moved on from that technology .... plasma inside a black-body sphere surrounded by an array of solar cells?

    I know. This seems routine with BLP, to submit applications for ideas years old that were tried but did not come to fruition. It seems like a lot of work, so one would think there is a good reason for it.

  • It's 'patent assertion' - a variant of which is being employed by IH. Having invented something (or perhaps not invented anything really useful yet), the inventor's company seeks to patent every possible application and route to development of their device.

  • There is a new business update and as I understand it Mills is preparing a paper in nature that might be something else. He is cooperating with people well versed in Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) and the results is speculated to increase eyebrows producing results that was predicted long time ago by Mills. One result that is expected is the measurement of the g-factor that is different for hydrino's. You may find these discussions at Redit

  • There is a new business update and as I understand it Mills is preparing a paper in nature that might be something else. He is cooperating with people well versed in Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) and the results is speculated to increase eyebrows producing results that was predicted long time ago by Mills. One result that is expected is the measurement of the g-factor that is different for hydrino's. You may find these discussions at Redit

    In Nature? That’s something I would have to see to believe.

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

  • I'm embarrassed to say I don't recall he even had a blog!

    It was almost 30 years ago - April 25 1991 - when he held his first press conference about hydrino.

    "Mills first announced his hydrino state hypothesis on April 25, 1991, in a press conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as an explanation for the cold fusion phenomena that had been reported in 1989."