BLP update

Quote from seven_of_twenty

An inherent problem in making something explode and measuring the energy is that one has to account for the energy required to make that fuel to start with.

Silver + add water drop + add hydrogen = fuel.

The energy to make the fuel does not match 495EV per hydrogen molecule

https://brilliantlightpower.co…r%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

Quote from seven_of_twenty

An inherent problem in making something explode and measuring the energy is that one has to account for the energy required to make that fuel to start with. That was also the problem I saw years ago with the work done at Rowan University. They extracted energy by doing something to a fuel (I forgot how) but they never revealed what the fuel was or how much energy was needed to make it.

The Raney nickel experiments are a different matter. No explosions, just (specially doped) Raney nickel heating up, anomalously. If you followed the story you would know that the Rowan researchers could not detect the difference between the fresh fuel and and used fuel. This is very different than, say, using reduced iron powder as fuel. In that scenario, the difference between reduced iron and oxidized iron is obvious, and it is clear that energy must be expended to create the original fuel. (See https://phys.org/news/2018-09-…native-fuel-industry.html) In that kind of situation your argument would make sense.

With the Raney nickel, Mills for the first time achieved high power density. Problem was, it was very short lived. Mills claimed that he had a way to efficiently regenerate the used fuel, but it was never revealed. Although this was perhaps the most publicized of Mills' various hydrino apparatuses through the years, it was my least favourite for the very reason that I saw no reasonable way it could be done easily. But I digress.

Regarding the exploding hydrated silver pellets: Chemically, the conversion of water plus silver to, say, H2 and silver oxide is not net exothermic. Also, there would not have been enough oxygen gas in the container to oxidize the silver in the pellet to produce the energy observed. Not even close. It should leave any reasonable scientist scratching his head. And this is saying nothing about the anomalous spectra of hydrino formation, and the anomalous signatures of the hydrino itself.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

So where are the power generators Mills claimed as far back as twenty years were a year or two away?

If Mills can be accused of anything it is being overly optimistic. Achievers are generally optimists and optimists can be prone to overlook or minimize problems and overestimate chances of success. Still, I would rather see a Mills full of a can-do attitude than one without, despite the disappointments.

There is a mix of doubt and confusion about Mills - his goals, his true status, his motivations - that is not worth debating.

This is like social media and even a foolish momentary thought is debated as if it is a real considered opinion when it is not.

One thing that many - probably all (?) - of the people on this board don't have is world class training in experimental physics.

It is a highly developed branch of science - most of the progress of this century comes from this space - it is why we continue to make

amazing progress - and have amazing technology - despite theoretical models that are broken. The semiconductor industry alone is an example.

And they still don't even know what an electron really is.

When Dr. Mills encounters these people they are agnostic to his theoretical ideas - if not highly skeptical -

but when they do their tests and see results - they are stunned. You cant fool an experimental chemist or physicist.

To suggest you have new hydrogen chemistry immediately is one of the great discoveries in history.

There are many experimental results, some of which you go back and see national labs that did the work. Some of it is published in technical reports, but again if you yourself are not

highly trained in the art, you will be lost. Nobody is going to train you to the professor level of an experimental physicist on a message board.

What I am saying is that when you multiple highly world class experimental physicists validate new hydrogen chemisty - perhaps

you should take their word for it. When they validated input / output perhaps take their word for it. When they suggest no alternative conventional chemistry in the known state of the art ---

perhaps take their word for it. And if you don't then contribute your own theoretical or experimental explanations other than "fraud/experimental error" (I will take a 1 page sheet - I know an Exon Mobil analytical chemist who can review your ideas), Many people who live in doubt - actually lack understanding and the way that comes out is making kind of vague negative statements.

Here is just one example of a chemist who cannot be fooled - he is IIT trained and world expert chemist in metals and oxides - if someone on this board wants to write up a challenge to his technical report I will pass it along to him - he has said he has never received a single email in years challenging his work and it has been published for a long time now - he has said his friends are intrigued.

Dr Chary Hydrino NMR and Metal Oxide Catalytic Chemistry Validation

Quote from Mark U

If Mills can be accused of anything it is being overly optimistic. Achievers are generally optimists and optimists can be prone to overlook or minimize problems and overestimate chances of success. Still, I would rather see a Mills full of a can-do attitude than one without, despite the disappointments.

Being overly optimistic is characteristic of achievers and no-hopers who never give up on failed causes.

I judge Mills on evidence. He has had three systems:

• large canister
• electrolytic cell
• suncell

Over 20 years. Each claims clearly extraordinary new science enthalpy. None has been independently and credibly measured.

But what makes me pessimistic is that the complexity of the calorimetry in each case has got more obscure.

• The cannister was straightforward. but enthalpy (before it stopped working) wa relatively low and a flaky calculation that it could not come from the reactants was not convincing. nevertheless this was a simple measurement and with larger results, or better validated analysis of possible in-cannister reactions - could be convincing.
• The electrolytic cell had high ac power (in/out discharge cycles) on which a small excess power is supposed to be imposed. There were many possibilities for inaccuracy in the in/out waveform measurement that could simulate a constant excess - any such constant excess over a long time equates to anomalous enthalpy. Still, really careful study of the instrumentation and its errors would make this method Ok.
• The bomb calorimetry is inherently difficult, not just because of the heat collection (easily done in a bomb calorimeter, though they have not I think produced that yet?), but because measurement of the electrical input power is highly subject to error when it is a high frequency spark type arc at very high currents. When you integrate V*I it is difficult to calculate total enthalpy because V & I measurement can be contaminated by induced emf from the high dI/dt currents.

come back, and I'll be highly interested, when:

(1) output enthalpy is measured by bomb calorimeter with total heat collection (for example heating up a large block of copper in thermal contact with the equipment and no assumptions or calibration needed). You get get 90% absolute efficiency fairly easily with decent insulation and a heatsink 20X the mass of the apparatus itself, so that heatsink heat capacity alone can be used to estimate enthalphy.

(2) input enthalpy is measured by total power in a long way from the experiment - e.g. mains input to a PSU - with some protection to make sure that the input measurement cannot be affected by EMI. That is easy to do if input-side measurement is done.

Otherwise it is notable that the demos all come from systems with obvious "difficult to rule out" errors and that each system makes those errors more complex and difficult to analyse than the previous. That is what makes me profoundly skeptical - and I've watched this from the original "cannister" demo onwards. I've read the pseudo-independent reports.

THH

PS - I do read the tech reports (not the ppt or video PRs) from Mills experiments. They fascinate me. So if there is a recent one claiming anomalous high enthalpy please let me know (better link it here) and we can discuss it. Is anyone convinced by what they have thus far provided on Suncell?

Let me just reiterate. How, safely, do you measure the enthalpy input to a pulsed high di/dt 20,000A current running between two electrodes?

Other than input-side of an efficient switching PSU measurement. But then you need high enough excess power ratio, or a very efficient welding rig!

Any attempt to estimate the actual power delivered between the electrodes will have difficulty.

And my point is that Mills claiming excess enthalpy from this inherently difficult-to-measure system is par for the course.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Let me just reiterate. How, safely, do you measure the enthalpy input to a pulsed high di/dt 20,000A current running between two electrodes?

I hope that you at least are able to teach your student how much energy a 1 farad condenser can hold at e.g 15V ...

Or simply: The upper bound is given by the total capacity of the condensers!

Navid wrote:

Quote

One thing that many - probably all (?) - of the people on this board don't have is world class training in experimental physics.

Neither does Dr. Mills. His doctorate is in medicine.

Quote

Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Following a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mills began his research in the field of energy technology.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/management/

See any physics, nuclear physics, nuclear engineering? Nope. None. Nada. Not world class. Not pissant class.

Also what THHuxleynew wrote.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Let me just reiterate. How, safely, do you measure the enthalpy input to a pulsed high di/dt 20,000A current running between two electrodes?

Best just stick to measuring the energy. Measuring the 'enthalpy' might sound 'cool' to the highfalutin', but above, the context is wrong.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I hope that you at least are able to teach your student how much energy a 1 farad condenser can hold at e.g 15V ...

Or simply: The upper bound is given by the total capacity of the condensers!

That is absolutely fine, if the input power all comes from a capacitor bank charged a known number of times, and there is no derating for efficiency (which is difficult reliably to estimate).

The only paper I can find is:

https://brilliantlightpower.co…st-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

The applied 60 Hz AC voltage was
less than 15 V and the peak current was about 23,000-25,000 A. The high current caused the sample to ignite as
brilliant light-emitting expanding plasma of near atmospheric pressure.

No capacitors here - a constant voltage source at 60Hz with a varying current and very high peak.

Quote from Zeus46

Best just stick to measuring the energy. Measuring the 'enthalpy' might sound 'cool' to the highfalutin', but above, the context is wrong.

Words don't matter - equations do.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I judge Mills on evidence. He has had three systems:

Quote

• large canister
• electrolytic cell
• suncell

Over 20 years. Each claims clearly extraordinary new science enthalpy. None has been independently and credibly measured.

Huh? You're missing a lot. Mills started with the electrolytic cell in the early 1990s. There were various iterations of this, ultimately leading to Thermacore experimenting with huge lengths of heated nickel tubing containing H2 gas, all submerged in water. Lots of external validation. But power density was too low. Then (as I recall) Mills went gas phase. At that time he had obtained a *huge* pressure vessel, something that wouldn't fit in the average kitchen. It held rarified hydrogen and argon, deeper levels of hydrino were formed, and the stainless steel of this vessel got very not (not red hot though). Took time however. And it had to be run in batches. Too bulky, not enough power density, not marketable. Then came the rarified plasma cell which also got hot and what's more had anomalous 'blacklight' spectra and fast hydrogen. Lots of validation was done and setups were explored at a couple of universities in Europe and also at Rowan where it was funded by NASA for rocket applications for ion thrust. But again, power density was too low. Then came the nickel powder iteration, where much of the work was performed and validated at Rowan University. It would generate a short duration, anomalous high heat pulse, which did not appear to have any attributable chemical origin. This I suppose is the "canister" you were referring to. Problem was that the used powder could not be recycled easily enough to create a continuous output. Then came the CIHT cell, which you failed to mention. This was a large fuel cell, utilizing molten salts. (This is the timeframe where Mills discovered that nascent water qualified as a hydrino formation catalyst.) Excess energy was observed for months in these cells. It produced electricity directly. Validations performed. See https://brilliantlightpower.com/ciht-cell/ to see the lab prototypes. Major problem was that with increased voltage, to further increase power output, there were oxidation issues. This iteration of hydrino energy producing method was the best attained yet in Blacklight's history up to 2013. Then of course came the SunCell type of reaction in early 2014involving passing high current, low voltage pulses through various media. Lots of iterations, lots of external validation. Pardon me if I trust the dozens of validations over twenty years performed by qualified scientists, ahead of arm chair skeptics.

Lately there has been a dearth of validations, but when Mills is ready he'll have them performed, probably (I figure) on long running SunCells powered by capacitors (off grid). Who knows, that might be enough even for you, and even before the SunCell goes commercial!