• Just can't believe the figures without parallel control runs using a Cu pellet which is claimed not to work. Needs some kind of blank control data to firm up the results. Over a thousand J out (not including EMP radiation or shock-wave energy) for 100 J input seems rather over - optimistic. Still, looking forward to BLP marketing their gear soon and much larger hydrino bomb craters in the near future.

  • Quote

    Still, looking forward to BLP marketing their gear soon and much larger hydrino bomb craters in the near future.

    BLP has not marketed anything or provided anything of substance for credible replication or verification independently in thirty plus years and what now? 100 million dollars or more? And someone expects them to start now? Hilarious.

  • Jed - its north of $125M.


    That's astounding. Imagine if that much money had been devoted to the rest of cold fusion.


    I do not understand their recent claims, but they do not seem impressive. Jones Beene feels the 1994 BLP - Thermacore results were more impressive. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf


    I do not understand why they keep changing their methods and starting over from scratch. I do not understand why the investors keep putting so much money into the company. Either the investors they have become true believers in a cult, or they know something I don't know. Since I know very little, that would not be surprising. Still, $125 million!

  • Quote

    I do not understand why they keep changing their methods and starting over from scratch.

    I don't know either but it's either consistent mismeasurements or a classic hallmark of high tech frauds. That and a lack of credible independent testing.

    Note the similarity to what a good sleight of hand artist does-- they avoid performing the same trick twice to the same audience.

    Quote

    I do not understand why the investors keep putting so much money into the company.

    For the same reason investors put money in any very high risk, highly speculative investment. As often as not, it's because they are gullible, overly desirous, insufficiently educated about high tech frauds and maybe they have never read about such things as Theranos, a major example, or Rossi, a very minor one.

  • insufficiently educated about high tech frauds and maybe they have never read about such things as Theranos, a major example,

    I think you make a valid point. However, Theranos was not just a major example, it was practically the only example. There have been very few large fraudulent companies in modern history. There was a hard disk company in the 1980s that resorted to shipping boxes of bricks instead of hard disks, but I cannot think of another example offhand. See:


    https://www.gillware.com/data-…irst-hard-drive-to-brick/


    Fraud is rare, but stupidity is common. Bad marketing and ideas that should never have been funded are common. Juicero is a good example:


    https://www.theguardian.com/te…icon-valley-shutting-down


    It is much more difficult to discern a bad idea than a fraudulent one.


    Cold fusion is even more difficult, because it is impossible even in principle to know which method might be promising. The only way to find out is to do experiments, and that costs money, time and effort. The best experts in the world cannot predict how experiments will turn out. If they could, there would be no need to do the experiments in the first place. We would go right to production.

  • I think that Mills may be in a season of dealing with reality. He seems to be hiring the right folks and, subject to change, has his building up for sale in case the $$ run out. He's dropping back to focus on some core progress after the replications didn't work out as planned and is moving like he knows that the clock is ticking. He's a very smart man - let him work and see what they come up with. Metal energy research is not easy and can be a money fire if you're not careful. His next updates will be interesting and telling as to which way this is going to go for BLP.

  • RM is indeed a very smart man - within the field of theoretical physics having re-written at least one of its textbooks - but when it comes down to practicalities, maybe not so clever judging by recent work. Still, nice hydrino bomb craters (don't you Americans understand sarcasm?)

  • Quote

    However, making machines that you sincerely hope will work as new technology, but mostly failing to accomplish your goals, is not a crime.

    Of course not! Who said it was? That's just another Rothwell Straw Man. But claiming you accomplished your goals to get money from investors when you know your device doesn't work is a crime: fraud. Says Captain Obvious, Rothwell's nemesis.

  • Quote

    He [Mills] ... has his building up for sale in case the $$ run out.

    Selling your work site is a sure indicator of flaming success... oh wait...


    Quote

    RM is indeed a very smart man - within the field of theoretical physics having re-written at least one of its textbooks

    According to Mills and a few others. Many main line scientists think it's hogwash and parts of it are plagiarized to boot. And there is basically nothing to show for >$100M and 25+years other than an arc welder dumping power into a small piece of silver which does make a bright bang -- surprise! ...not

  • Selling your work site is a sure indicator of flaming success... oh wait...


    According to Mills and a few others. Many main line scientists think it's hogwash and parts of it are plagiarized to boot. And there is basically nothing to show for >$100M and 25+years other than an arc welder dumping power into a small piece of silver which does make a bright bang -- surprise! ...not


    With these comments main line scientists just showed their bias. These "loud scientists" are related to science as "mainstream journalists" to journalism these days. The critizism found on wikipedia is rediculous. They talked about Mills work as if he does not understand basic things like plus and minus. Mills has developed the only working theory that is able to calculate the ionization energies and the structural properties of hundreds of molecules to great accuracy with analytical equations from basic phyiscal constants. Show me another model that is able to do this and I admit that he "plagiarized to boot".


    If you define "there is basically nothing to show" as "you cannot buy it in walmart" than you are perfectly right. In my eyes he has very much to show, like a multitude of measurements of properties of dark matter for example. There are many really expensive experiments out there that cost more than $100M and showed no sign of dark matter. He is able to produce it and trap it for analysis. But yeah...nothing to show...right

  • The one indisputable fact that I believe about BLP is that they have determined that hydrogen can be transformed in an exothermic reaction to something else when exposed to certain catalytic elements. I don't know how the hydrogen is transformed or what it turns into, but I think the evidence is abundant that something other than ordinary hydrogen is created. If this is true, sooner or later they should be able to come up with a product. I think what is probably helping them now is that they discovered that a negative resistance massively accelerates the formation of these products rather than hindering them. According to RM, the problem they had for a long time was that the hydrino formation process was self limiting. Now they no longer have this problem and it seems like the biggest engineering issue is controlling the reaction rather than producing enough energy to be practical.

  • All they need to do is keep a runaway from using up fuel dust thats fed to the reaction area to make something useful. A week magnetic ball to hold the dust in place as it's used. ect. magnesium instead of a spark through a wet feed. lotta ideas not enough tinkering or of course a pulsed microwave channel to dry heat and ignite ~

  • The one indisputable fact that I believe about BLP is that they have determined that hydrogen can be transformed in an exothermic reaction to something else when exposed to certain catalytic elements.


    It is disputed (by me and many others) unless you are referring to the many well known chemical reactions which hydrogen participates in...