If the term refers to a bunch of disparate phenomena united only by the fact that they relate to nuclear phenomena at low energy, then all of these questions are meaningless in the aggregate and one should only ask questions about specific manifestations (e.g. the Fleischmann-Pons experiment).
Not at all. No other branch of science demands 'one should only ask questions about specific manifestations'. That is merely pedantry. For example, Heliophysics is about more than one star.
So FP replications are evidence that the Suncell works because they are both LENR?
Who said anything about proof? Making wine does not prove you can use yeast to make bread. But they are both fermentation processes.
Who said anything about proof?
Don’t know. I didn’t.
evidence that the Suncell works because they are both LENR?
Mills would probably disagree..
Mills thinks that the Suncell calorimetry is based on hydrino reactions..not LENR,
however some of his shrunken hydrogen novel chemistry could be involved in some LENR.
however it is only 500 eV max per D-D, or H-H compared to 22,000,000 eV of D-D fusion
Don’t know. I didn’t.
Similar underlying process, I think the logical guess should be there is a common gate towards high energy reactions initiated by low energy inputs. I would believe an extremely high energy chemical reaction that also brings nuclear events to higher frequency of occurrence is sort of a bridge between chemical and nuclear reactions. Have a blessed weekend!
So FP replications are evidence that the Suncell works because they are both LENR?
They might be. There are some resemblances. Assuming they are both real. That remains to be seen when a theory emerges (if ever).
Mills himself has waffled on this, saying he does not think cold fusion is real. Of course, what he says is not necessarily a sure guide to what is true. The person who discovers a phenomenon does not get to decide how it works or what is true about it. Fleischmann said that cold fusion is a bulk phenomenon but many others disagreed.
Dr. Mills was labelled a cold-fusionist, for stepping in and saying he'd discovered a chemical reaction in the same time frame of the big scandal. After that he was branded like cattle - you know with a hot iron on cold skin. "COLD FUSIONIST" I wouldnt touch the space either.
Fleischmann and Pons were not theoretical physicists, they were tinkering electrochemists. But when Melvin Miles brought up that maybe Mills was brilliant and maybe onto something, Fleischmann just shrugged.
As I have done innovation at the highest levels in technology, I observe that basic science researchers have a egotistical "not invented here" approach, coupled with poorer communication and human skills that in the aggregate makes science move in decades timeframes in what could possibly take years (at least 5x longer than it otherwise might).
A business person would immediately use his insights into people to say "there is very little chance Dr. Mills is not honest in his approach with the immense output (experimental and theoretical), and even more important the people around him. For example, an ex-Director of the CIA on the board does his homework before joining the board.
On the other hand physicists we reach out to in the mainstream, put zero weight on things like that. They put zero weight in world class physicist like Dr Johannes Conrads publishing hydrino energy papers. Because they don't think in these "human" terms, they think that counts for nothing at all. Lots to learn here, but it requires looking in the mirror and few humans do that very well.
"As I have done innovation at the highest levels in technology, I observe that basic science researchers have a egotistical "not invented here" approach, coupled with poorer communication and human skills that in the aggregate makes science move in decades timeframes in what could possibly take years (at least 5x longer than it otherwise might)."
True that. Mills one time said he was 'the only game in town'
If the term refers to a bunch of disparate phenomena united only by the fact that they relate to nuclear phenomena at low energy, then all of these questions are meaningless in the aggregate and one should only ask questions about specific manifestations
Sorry IO but No. These questions are meaningful from a practical engineering perspective. Because if there exists a class of nuclear reactions at low energy, regardless of specific manifestation, they offer a more realistic chance of using nuclear for safe and inexpensive power generation. Discovering any one of them is replicable would open the door to research of others.
Dr. Mills was labelled a cold-fusionist, for stepping in and saying he'd discovered a chemical reaction in the same time frame of the big scandal.
He originally claimed he was doing cold fusion, especially at the MIT presentation. I am sure his experiments back then were cold fusion. I have no idea what to make of the present experiments.
See:
At least Mills is doing some research and experiments. This area of research doesn't favor theorists - only experimentalists can get finally success here. Mills is about to realize it too I guess. BTW Mills reported a COP over 37 in his nickel - aqueous potassium carbonate solutions in cheap and simple arrangement in similar way, like Notoya, Niedra, Patterson and many others.
Why no one (including Mills himself) is trying to replicate these seminal experiments goes over my head. Such a disgust for replications is simply unexplainable.
New BLP USPTO Patent --
USPTO Patent Number 10,443,139 ---- October 15, 2019
Electrical power generation systems and methods regarding same
Abstract
A solid or liquid fuel to plasma to electricity power source that provides at leas; 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 feel 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; one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a material to cause the feel to be highly conductive, (iii) a fuel injection system such as a railgun shot injector, (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 torn! a brilliant-light emitting plasma, (v) a product recovery system such as at least one of an augmented plasma railgun recovery system and a gravity recovery system (vi) a fuel pelletizer or shot maker comprising a s me Her. a source or hydrogen and a source of H2O, a dripper and a water bath to form fuel pellets or shot, and an agitator to teed shot into the injector, and (vii) a power converter capable of converting the high-power light output of the cell into electricity such as a concentrated solar power device comprising a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photoelectric cells or a plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window.
So what's new about this? Hasn't it all been patented before?
Display MoreNew BLP USPTO Patent --
USPTO Patent Number 10,443,139 ---- October 15, 2019
Electrical power generation systems and methods regarding same
Abstract
A solid or liquid fuel to plasma to electricity power source that provides at leas; 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 feel 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; one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a material to cause the feel to be highly conductive, (iii) a fuel injection system such as a railgun shot injector, (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 torn! a brilliant-light emitting plasma, (v) a product recovery system such as at least one of an augmented plasma railgun recovery system and a gravity recovery system (vi) a fuel pelletizer or shot maker comprising a s me Her. a source or hydrogen and a source of H2O, a dripper and a water bath to form fuel pellets or shot, and an agitator to teed shot into the injector, and (vii) a power converter capable of converting the high-power light output of the cell into electricity such as a concentrated solar power device comprising a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) photoelectric cells or a plurality of photoelectric cells, and a UV window.
I'm confused on the date of this patent - it looks like a new timestamp on an old patent...how does that work?
Patents can be amended I believe.
From back in the day when it was called SF CIHT cell, before it was called SunCell. The term SF CIHT is used over 100 times. SunCell is used just four. Perhaps one of the amendments was putting in the SunCell term. Anyway I notice this is an international patent, indicated by the WO. A United Nations thing. I also notice that the Chinese version of this patent application has actually been granted, and within the last month.
As a routine matter, we can demonstrate over 100 kW of excess power with high gain from the hydrino reaction with no-hydrogen-addition runs showing energy balance (zero excess power).
What does this statement above mean...when there is no hydrogen flow then there is no energy production?
What does this statement above mean...when there is no hydrogen flow then there is no energy production?
Here is the full statement:
This real-time video of a 15s startup test of the SunCell® before performing water bath calorimetry demonstrates how incredibility fast the SunCell® responds to hydrogen addition wherein the cell wall, cooled by an internally circulated molten gallium bath heat-sink, turns to white within 7 seconds post addition. As a routine matter, we can demonstrate over 100 kW of excess power with high gain from the hydrino reaction with no-hydrogen-addition runs showing energy balance (zero excess power).
Sounds to me like they ran the "startup test" with hydrogen added, and it almost melted through the cell wall, after first overwhelming the gallium bath. All in 7 seconds after the H introduction. *Then* they ran another test with "no-hydrogen-addition", and it showed zero excess power.
Sounds to me like they ran the "startup test" with hydrogen added, and it almost melted through the cell wall, after first overwhelming the gallium bath. All in 7 seconds after the H introduction. *Then* they ran another test with "no-hydrogen-addition", and it showed zero excess power.
This interpretation make makes sense, thanks.
