• 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!


    You'd have to link the publications from the earlier stuff showing anomalous excess energy. They were before my time.


    Any one of these devices, if real and replicable, would give Mills Nobel etc... if it worked.


    It is your prerogative whom you trust, but were I you I'd trust neither skeptics nor vapourware mercahnts with dubious (paid - low credibility) scientific replication reports no-one belives and multiple iterations none of which are recognised generally as convincingly anomalous.


    Trusting wonder-machine claims is generally a bad idea, since they are enticing, especially when they have continued without external validation for 20 years.

  • 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.



    As a competent guy in circuit design: How can you do this without very large capacitors ?? 23-25k amps for 2 ms... Just plug to the wall....

  • As a competent guy in circuit design: How can you do this without very large capacitors ?? 23-25k amps for 2 ms... Just plug to the wall....


    Sigh. The point is that we do not here have an amount of energy determined just by that held in a capacitor. From a 3 phase supply (one phase) You can get (easily) get transient 300kW, or 20kA at 15V. And higher transient powers are entirely possible, depending on wiring. Maybe the BLP circuit uses a smaller power supply and a very high ripple current very large capacitor bank. But the paper I linked does not say that.

  • Sigh. The point is that we do not here have an amount of energy determined just by that held in a capacitor. From a 3 phase supply (one phase) You can get (easily) get transient 300kW, or 20kA at 15V. And higher transient powers are entirely possible, depending on wiring. Maybe the BLP circuit uses a smaller power supply and a very high ripple current very large capacitor bank. But the paper I linked does not say that.


    I guess you just missed it. There are many papers with details. As I remember peak load voltage is in the range 12..15V output current about 20k amps for 2ms 10 shots/s. so its easy to calc, max power in. With an average voltage of 10V you get about 4kW not accounting for the cooling etc..


    Mills problem is not the COP which certainly can go up to 50. The problem is the waste H*-H* that can be very dangerous if there is no follow up LENR reaction!

  • Words don't matter - equations do.


    Indeed... So perhaps you could explain which parts of the enthalpy equation; internal energy, pressure, or volume - apply to your electrical power measurement.


    I mean, I would normally let it slide: it's a common failing to use big words in an attempt to burnish our credentials, but if you're going to besmirch the qualifications of scientists, it would help your case to have a good understanding of basic scientific definitions...

  • Indeed... So perhaps you could explain which parts of the enthalpy equation; internal energy, pressure, or volume - apply to your electrical power measurement.


    I mean, I would normally let it slide: it's a common failing to use big words in an attempt to burnish our credentials, but if you're going to besmirch the qualifications of scientists, it would help your case to have a good understanding of basic scientific definitions...


    yes, but:


    (1) I claim no relevant credentials (except a PhD, very general without a relevant topic, and uni level Maths, hardly unusual). Nothing to burnish.

    (2) I was (loosely, and I agree wrongly) re-using the word enthalpy in what I was replying to instead of energy. And, indeed, it is more specific and therefore although easily understandable in context quite incorrect. You know well from my many other posts that I know the meaning of both words, which means you know I was careless, a sin I've always admitted here.

    (3) I have never besmirched the qualifications of scientists. Which qualifications have I undervalued (from Mills, Holmlid, or Schaefer)? Holmlid: I've said he is interesting, maverick, not IMHO outstanding. That puts him way above most scientists with similar credentials. No besmirching. Mills: what credentials? I'm not questioning his medical expertise! Schaefer: again, what credentials are being besmirched?


    Back at you: if you use grand words like besmirch and credentials to question the integrity of other posters, maybe you should use them accurately?


    :)


    THH

  • Holmlid: I've said he is interesting, maverick, not IMHO outstanding.


    I guess as we live in a free and sometimes democratic world we must respect the freedom of thought & speech especially in UK (hide park corner!)


    People should learn that an opinion is just an opinion that cannot be countered or refuted by an other opinion.


    If the facts Holmlid presents can be widely replicated and the explanation holds, then his work was pretty outstanding - far above what CERN ever did.

  • Holmlid's work is the most interesting but so far nobody really has any understanding of how or why mesons can be released from UDD or UDH in response to low power laser pulses. Other physicists just seem to ignore this remarkable discovery - if I had the facilities and was working in any field of nuclear physics I would want to test out these claims straight away given their obvious implications for fusion energy. Mills seems to be claiming something similar with his hydrinos which if the electron orbital shells approach too closely to the nuclei from the traditionally accepted 1S level ground state - what is there to prevent electron capture and ending up with free neutrons or (in the case of deuterium) di -neutron pairs? Which following Widom-Larsen ideas could cause fusion reactions, transmutations etc without any meson (-muon) involvement. Which might account for his explosions and melting reactors, which as Simon Brink is replicating down under - are fun but have not yet led to any useful controllable fusion energy.

  • Which following Widom-Larsen ideas could cause fusion reactions, transmutations etc without any meson (-muon) involvement.


    There is no indication for W-L theory to work (except in rare cases..) as always two neutron (H*-H*!) are involved or more complex D*-D*. Did W-L ever explain how they get the neutrons.............................?


    Holmlid's work is the most interesting but so far nobody really has any understanding of how or why mesons can be released from UDD or UDH in response to low power laser pulses.


    In SO(4) physics orbits are in sync (force balanced) when the magnetic mass flux is equal. If you add mass to the dense proton clusters SO(4) orbits (2x2 coupled) and reach the level of a core wave then the proton is in meta stable state and may break in other meta stable substructures.

    It looks like the photon orbit in dense matter is the 1FC SO(4) SC-like orbit that can directly attach to a polarized photon wave. But from a model point of view there is no need to load 53MeV in such an orbit. Stoping one proton internal rotation gives a net energy of about 103MeV. This would be enough to trigger 2 decays. Why and how this works needs some more thoughts & modeling.

  • There probably are no easy theoretical answers since Holmlid's work is right at the cutting edge of known nuclear theory - maybe other theoretical physicists simply don't believe the data or if they do cannot interpret it in any meaningful way so just carry on ignoring it (hoping it might go away!). Anomalous anomalies confuse everyone! Wonder why Svenn of Norront Fusion didn't make it to ICCF-22?

  • Mark U

    Quote

    Pardon me if I trust the dozens of validations over twenty years performed by qualified scientists, ahead of arm chair skeptics.

    Can you provide a link to a single, peer reviewed, main line journal article reporting that anything from Mills has made substantial excess energy? Such a report must include the energy required to provide the fuel (some of Mills' old Rowan U experiments used fuels). It must also include detailed calorimetry information and can not have been funded or participated in by Mills. I don't care one way or another about hydrinos. Show me energy. Show me independent proof unrelated to something Mills funded or helped with. And a reputable source please. I agree about arm chair skeptics. But the skeptics here do not purport to be original sources. Not that I've seen anyway. Thanks.

  • There probably are no easy theoretical answers since Holmlid's work is right at the cutting edge of known nuclear theory - maybe other theoretical physicists simply don't believe the data or if they do cannot interpret it in any meaningful way so just carry on ignoring it (hoping it might go away!). Anomalous anomalies confuse everyone! Wonder why Svenn of Norront Fusion didn't make it to ICCF-22?

    Amen, I was looking to see a presentation by Norront's people as well. Right now I hope all these angles don't go away from our eyes but produce more irrefutable products. Whether experimental results or new devices are it, hope is in my heart!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.