• I dont get all these "...after all the time and money spent on this..." comments. How in gods name do you know how long it should take to control this reaction?? You are like my boss: Everything should be done in about a month - hard tasks can take two months. I still dont know why he thinks that two months are enough without knowing the requirements and the necessary tasks involved to complete it.

    • I build two LEGO toys with my boy. One took 10 minutes to complete and one a few days. Seems when we needed a few days we had a "shit and bust" kind of approach. Couldnt have anything to do with the one having a ten page manual and the other 550 pages.
    • Building notre dame took 200 years. What took them so long? Its just putting stone and wood together and smear some paint on the walls...
    • Where is our fusion reactor?? They showed a proof of concept (called Ivy Mike) in 1952. That is freaking 70 years with billions (or trillions by now?) of funding and still no net energy!!!! Seems like they have a "shit and bust" kind of approach.

    Of course there are also cases of mismanagement (see the airport we are building in berlin) and it takes way longer than necessary. But Mills has an intrinsic motivation to get this thing flying. He is hoping for the breakthrough much more than all of us combined. No one on earth has a clue what is needed to build a high power long duration hydrino reactor. No one on earth has a clue what is needed to build a high power long duration LENR reactor. So how do you know that it should be done by now???

  • As you say maybe this is the only approach likely to work - we all want Mills to reach success as with any other alternative fusion project - its just difficult to determine what progress is being made when the experiments make little sense to external observers. We remain patiently optimistic (a bit like Boris about Brexit), but will it be another decade or two before our fusion reactor/Suncell comes up for sale on Amazon?

  • As you say maybe this is the only approach likely to work - we all want Mills to reach success as with any other alternative fusion project - its just difficult to determine what progress is being made when the experiments make little sense to external observers.


    There is no chance for success unless R.Mills starts to understand the self-sustain mode that produced LENR. H*-H* only reactions are insane as the energy gain is low and the risk is high. There is only one well defined state at -496eV about 35 times the potential of a single hydrogen but you use 2 of them...


    May be Mills is bedazzled by his old claim that hydrinos can assume all possible levels. Instead of upholding old, wrong claims he should be happy he can control the production of H*-H*. Thus back to LENR!

  • There is no chance for success unless R.Mills starts to understand the self-sustain mode that produced LENR. H*-H* only reactions are insane as the energy gain is low and the risk is high. There is only one well defined state at -496eV about 35 times the potential of a single hydrogen but you use 2 of them...


    May be Mills is bedazzled by his old claim that hydrinos can assume all possible levels. Instead of upholding old, wrong claims he should be happy he can control the production of H*-H*. Thus back to LENR!

    So my question is H*-H* reactions energy gains are low compared to what? Compared to O-H2 combustion the energy gain/density is quite high. Are we having the most open minded and practical perspective? What if the transmutation and other nuclear effects aren't desirable or for all civilian applications? H*-H* may be what we are looking for in it's ability to not change it's container and conforms with E=mc^2. 200 times regular chemical energy density is good enough. IDK apply your points further.

  • So my question is H*-H* reactions energy gains are low compared to what? Compared to O-H2 combustion the energy gain/density is quite high.


    D*-D* fusion gains 23'846'533.87 eV fo 4 protons. With 4 protons you gain about 1keV...


    H*-H* may be what we are looking for in it's ability to not change it's container and conforms with E=mc^2. 200 times regular chemical energy density is good enough. IDK apply your points further.


    How do you calculate the factor 200?? Just guessing? Show it for 2H2+O2 -->2H20! should be less than 100.

  • How do you calculate the factor 200?? Just guessing? Show it for 2H2+O2 -->2H20! should be less than 100.


    Hydrogen combustion is around 1.48eV


    endofpetroleum.com/energy-density


    Hydrino Catalysis is 204eV


    Hydrino Energy Calculation Summary - For Scientists

    H2O molar mass is 18g/mol

    1 litre of water = 1000g/18g/mol=55.6 moles

    # of molecules = Avagadro's number * 55.6 = 3.345*10^25 molecules of water

    # of H atoms = 2 * # of molecules = 6.69 * 10^25 H atoms in 1 litre

    204ev is released from single H to H[1/4] transition = 3.27*10^-17 J per atom

    3.27*10^-17 J/atom * 6.69*10^25 atoms/L = 2186973909J or 2187MJ/Litre (or Kg)

  • D*-D* fusion gains 23'846'533.87 eV fo 4 protons. With 4 protons you gain about 1keV...



    How do you calculate the factor 200?? Just guessing? Show it for 2H2+O2 -->2H20! should be less than 100.

    Appolagies, I was blindly qoeting some figure based on theoretical estimates of BLP. What I'm saying is the hydrogen to dense hydrogen reaction is good enough to be a game changing energy source along with LENR maybe even more practical for wide application. How energy dense is it from your knowledge compared to regular chemical stuff? Keep going!

  • But aren't we equating hydrinos with a form of Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen? In which case there would be spontaneous meson release from hydrinos, possibly stimulated further by electrical stimulation - releasing a lot of energy as well as subsequent -muon induced fusions! Very complex to analyse/predict how much energy would be released by such a chain of nuclear reactions.

  • It's all rather 'shit and bust' kind of approach to experiments though.

    If it works in the end I am all for it.

    But aren't we equating hydrinos with a form of Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen? In which case there would be spontaneous meson release from hydrinos, possibly stimulated further by electrical stimulation - releasing a lot of energy as well as subsequent -muon induced fusions! Very complex to analyse/predict how much energy would be released by such a chain of nuclear reactions.

    Good point. The reason I said dense hydrogen is because hydrino seems like it's Mills' thing, a guess as to what mainstream science will call it. Of course this is all assuming total reality of a mostly analogous phenomina. The estimate in Navid 's link is conservatively 100x hydrogen gas combustion.

  • [Hydrogen combustion is around 1.48eV]


    The problem is that burning carbon gives double this rate and burning alumina would give almost a 7-fold rate.


    Carbon has lots of electron bonds. Diamonds have the most bonds between atoms of any molecule. Burning a diamond produces 4 eV per atom. I believe that is the highest number per atom. However, burning hydrogen produces the most energy per gram of any substance, which is why hydrogen is used as rocket fuel.

  • OK - so the initial energy gain on switching on the power to a Suncell would be of the order of 200 during the formation of hydrinos which, if they have similar properties to ultra dense hydrogen start fragmenting, protons to kaons releasing the order of 300 MeV, Maybe the electrical impulse low V high I is not so efficient as a Nd-YAG laser photon pulse in stimulating this reaction, but maybe sufficient mesons are released to form negative pions then muons which can in turn catalyse fusion in p-u-p molecules, drawing inter-proton distances to less than 0.5 pm as Holmlid proposes. Adding deuterium to this system should give a massive boost in energy release, simply because catalysis of p-u-D, D-u-D is more efficient per muon before inactivation by sticking to alphas kicks in. Even more power released if tritium is formed and free to react. Which is why the Suncells always seem to self destruct because even without deuterium the nuclear reactions release massive energy levels. So I think a SAFIRE type reactor might be a more stable plasma based system to study this in.

  • 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.


    Perhaps... because when done properly they do not work?


    The simple explanation is usually the correct one.

  • Perhaps... because when done properly they do not work?


    The simple explanation is usually the correct one.

    Theorists that aren't dynamic and accepting of external input limit the experiments by one preconceived framework. May not even consider testing potential pathways that may seem intuitive to others with a more result based mindset that are flexible and amicable to free flowing discourse.

  • Why not design a Suncell - SAFIRE hybrid reactor? Maybe too many patents and vested interests in the way though?

    I agree, the two most public and professional attempts that have been put on the table for a real audience. Both plasma based too! I also thought why not put a magnetic cusp or a pinch confinement from fusion experiments with suncell water/liquid electrode injection. The power output could use some magnetic confinement to protect the walls. The solutions are in the hot fusion research equipment, we just need way lower energies/shielding and apply to what was learned with Suncell and Safire.

  • Perhaps... because when done properly they do not work?


    The simple explanation is usually the correct one.


    I already told you two times I guess but you seem to ignore the facts: Mills early plasma reactors were replicated by Prof. Conrads and Prof. Kroesen. In the case of Prof. Conrads they made experiments for about a year. Conrads had 40 years + experience with plasma science and build and led the plasma experiement TEXTOR for 20 years.He and his Phd student found unusual plasma behaviour and a "novel chemical power source".


    I am not sure if you understand the implications of what they found:

    "The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges" and "

    The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed" and "

    The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen."

    Prof. Kroesen also found these properties.


    So I would advise you to stop spreading false claims about the replication of Mills work in most of your BLP comments. That you wish that your statements are right doesnt make them right. The next time you repeat these statements I am going to call you a liar. Repeating false claims after being corrected shows that you have unfair intentions. I know that you think you are right because if these findings where true the whole scientific world must have replicated it and found this "new chemical energy source". That you think this way is a consequence on your false assumption that science is neutral and just. But I think over the years this forum showed thousands of examples that science is more politics than the pure and sacred art you have in mind. Fun fact: Although Conrads was one of the most respected plasma scientist in the world and had the Bundesverdienstkreuz he was not allowed to conduct a replication of Mills work at his university in Greifswald and also not in his former university in Jülich. The plasma physics department at Bochum allowed him to conduct this replication. History shows that science and experimental findings that lie outside the established theories dont get a fair treatment. Conrads was emiritus by the time he did this replication so he had nothing to lose. It is obvious that you dont do a replication if you are young and want to pursue a carreer in academics.

  • This Conrad replication is really interesting - the presence of K and Titanium oxide on the heating filament was probably sufficient for Rydberg Matter formation, then subsequent condensing to hydrino/ultra dense hydrogen state (note the low pressure used). They probably kicked off a LENR judging by the 'afterglow' effect after cutting the input power.


    A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hα and Hβ transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source.