• 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.



    Something often forgotten on this site.


    Companies that believe they have a commercialisable over-unity reaction on the basis of a specific experiment will properly try to replicate it in some other form. If they discover this does not work, and continues not to worth after some effort) then the correct (most likely) conclusion is that there were errors in the original experiment.


    In any area other than LENR such null replications would be admitted, and the original hypothesis (some unknown LENR process) discarded in favour of the more likely (some unknown experimental error). No doubt with effort such errors can be found.


    IH is to be commended in having gone through this process and come out the other end with integrity intact and optimism undiminished.


    BLP, it seems, goes through this process every few years but does not admit that the original experiments were flawed. My guess is that Mills, like many here, is convinced of his weird theory and so knows it must be possible to make it work even when all of his positive results turn out to be unreplicable.


    I'd have more respect for him if he disclosed the failures to replicate: but then perhaps in that case he would find it more difficult to raise money.


    THH

  • In any area other than LENR such null replications would be admitted, and the original hypothesis (some unknown LENR process) discarded in favour of the more likely (some unknown experimental error). No doubt with effort such errors can be found.


    IH is to be commended in having gone through this process and come out the other end with integrity intact and optimism undiminished.


    BLP, it seems, goes through this process every few years but does not admit that the original experiments were flawed. My guess is that Mills, like many here, is convinced of his weird theory and so knows it must be possible to make it work even when all of his positive results turn out to be unreplicable.


    I was told his early work was abandoned due to low power density, and the CIHT had corrosion problems. That trial and error process led him to the Suncell. I suspect it will be his last line, and the one he hopefully brings to market. If it fails, so will BLP IMO.

  • Maybe RM has been too conservative in only using gram quantities of aqua-Ag - I know he doesn't agree with a possible fusion - basis for his work but wouldn't a steady kA stimulation of a Kg mass be more power-effective? I don't understand why such limited experiments using off-shelf welding equipment are being conducted by such an advanced sophisticated C21 company. Has all the funding been dissipated on CEO salaries rather than research - (not unlike our NHS CEO's devising grand plans to propagate their own salaries whilst the nurses and doctors they rely on are leaving the UK in droves)

  • BLP, it seems, goes through this process every few years but does not admit that the original experiments were flawed.


    As noted, they don't think the experiments were flawed. Not in the sense there was an error and the experiments did not work. They think the experiments do not produce high enough power density. Or they think they are on to something even better. This is what I call the Duke Nukem development cycle, for a game software project that went on for 15 years with ever-changing goals.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ent_of_Duke_Nukem_Forever


    Perhaps the experiments were flawed and actually did not work. But that is not what BLP says.


    What I find suspicious is that the first experiments seemed to work better than the present ones. See:


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

  • Perhaps the experiments were flawed and actually did not work. But that is not what BLP says.


    The problem with Mills is that his SUN-CELL COP/Power fantasy is based on a uniform space angle of radiation. This is not the case in his machine as the energy production structure - a rotating collapsing mass - does not allow the propagation in direction of the flow. So he can only count in the longer - secondary - frequencies as uniform but not the more energetic shorter UV radiation.

    It's difficult to estimate the error he makes. But it could easily be that the effective COP is just 1/3 of what he claims.


    The bomb shell tests deliver much lower COP's because you never are in a regime of self sustain

  • Quote

    What I find suspicious is that the first experiments seemed to work better than the present ones.

    Right. Decreasing performance with time is a hallmark of high tech scams. That does not prove BLP is a scam but only that it bears that hallmark (and some others as well).


  • His previous versions of hydrino systems were not flawed. They worked. The problem was that he could not get the energy output he wanted due to the fact that the hydrino formation process was self limiting. Now he knows that the negative resistance zone of an arc discharge produces a positive feed back that allows for extremely rapid hydrino production. The problem now is building a controllable system.

  • Everyone can say anything. I say: there is lack of evidence that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time! Have a nice day!


    Based on the latest QM theories anf experiments, the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time. A wave is an extended object. Two observers can look at different parts of the wave function and see a different situation. Like two people looking at a long train. One can see a coal car and another can see a box car.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/…earch-study-a8833341.html

  • Everyone can say anything. I say: there is lack of evidence that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time! Have a nice day!


    There are good experiments studying quantum coherence - the state in which two systems "cat" and "owner" can be correlated coherently in quantum state such that the probabilities of the cat being in state A ("dead") or state B ("alive") are each 50%.


    In this case the "owner" system similarly divides into two parts "owner seeing cat alive" and "owner seeing cat dead".


    What is amazing, if that there is also good experimental evidence that "owner" and "cat" systems can be recombined to get back a system as it was before the "is the cat dead or alive" observation in which the cat is again neither dead nor alive.


    Many people like epimetheus find it difficult to believe this - but it happens to be well attested from experimental results, and also clear from QM.


    It is also so improbable as to be impossible that anything as big as a cat can be treated like this: the correlations amongst the enormous number of degrees of freedom available for a macroscopic object at normal temperatures make reconstituting a neither dead nor alive cat in this case impossible.


    Reversing quantum decoherence is a big deal: necessary in quantum computers:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1303


    Finally: quantum weirdness is validated by many experiments, and now our understanding of it has progressed to a point where we can be pretty sure that time, and causality, is an illusion: in certain specific cases neither makes sense:


    https://www.quantamagazine.org…antum-mysteries-20160119/

  • Quote

    It is also so improbable as to be impossible that anything as big as a cat can be treated like this: the correlations amongst the enormous number of degrees of freedom available for a macroscopic object at normal temperatures make reconstituting a neither dead nor alive cat in this case impossible

    Of course. It may make for funny illustrations but it's silly to apply principles which work on extremely small objects to macro objects. If we learned anything from modern quantum theory and astrophysics it is that different "laws" provide best solutions for corresponding size regimes. A cat can't be both dead and alive. By definition. But subatomic particles can and do demonstrate paradoxical behavior when viewed from a perspective used to study macro objects. So what?

  • STDM?


    Quote

    Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.[1]


    However, since Schrödinger's time, other interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real.[8][5] Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment remains a defining touchstone for modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. Physicists often use the way each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat as a way of illustrating and comparing the particular features, strengths, and weaknesses of each interpretation.


    (From Wikipedia)


    It's a thought experiment. A cat simultaneously dead and alive is nonsense in the real world of macro objects. In the real world of macro objects, self contradictions don't exist. If they did, the world would work in a wildly different manner than what we observe.

  • They don't have anything new about the calormetry of the actual suncell in a water bath. I wonder why. Anyway they may had good performance in the earlier tests but as they develop they may loose the advantage. I can see two things that possibly may deteriorate the performance. 1. moving from silver to gallium. 2. reducing the active gas so that it does not overheat but at the same time use the same amount of input power for the ignition. Anyway I may be totally off, but we, looking from far we, and don't get a verification of the COP, just expensive technology development is seen, and then after a lot of time goes and uncertainty spreads. Anyway I would expect the BrLP devteam to do some sanity checks from time to time that we don't see so my worry is probably just an empty one.