• But isn't the inescapable conclusion that the Suncell generates too much power (I remember Mills quoting 400 MW in one lecture) to be accounted for by a simple chemical reaction? Maybe he was exaggerating somewhat, but in the light of Holmlid;s/Norront Fusion's new work don't you think the most likely explanation is NUCLEAR ENERGY.

  • It's not chemical. It's a nuclear reaction as we have found.


    Wait, tell me more. The energy that comes from hydrogen to dense hydrogen catalyzed reactions is nuclear? I've gathered that it increases the potential of lower energy atomic reactions happening due to decreasing the distance and lowering the walls so to speak, but currently wondering about the repeated presumptions that what happens in the suncell is purely atomic full stop. Have a restful weekend!

  • It's not chemical. It's a nuclear reaction as we have found.


    There is a litany of chemical papers from Mills and collaborators about stable hydrino hydrides. So we have new chemistry.


    So are you agreeing with

    1. hydrino chemistry is real and stable
    2. energy is coming from electron movement (chemical energy),
    3. the energy is predicted by an exact formula, the catalysts you would predict to work, work. The hydrino levels you'd expect for a given catalyst produce the hydrino you would expect 1/2 hydrino is not the same as 1/4 (different catalysts)

    But also saying, something nuclear is going on too? Or sometimes? And if sometimes, when?


    I don't usually press people to look at the evidence because they experience extreme cognitive dissonance and run away. However, you are saying that you do understand Mills and so I'm looking for a resolution.


    See attached paper first page and comments from the paper


    The hydrides form with hydrino catalysts

    - "Each of K+/K+, Rb+, and Cs, but not Na+, was

    predicted to catalyze hydrogen to form hydride ion H-

    (1/2) with a binding energy of 3.05 eV corresponding to

    a 407 nm emission


    [LESSON: Ionization of Rb+ to Rb2+, Cs to Cs2+, electron transfer between two K+ ions

    each give an an energy hole of 27.2eV; but Na+ is not a catalyst for H[1/2]]


    - The predicted H-(1/2) hydride peak at 407.0 nm was observed by high

    resolution visible spectroscopy in all of the electrolytes

    except Na2CO3. [confirmation that hydrino catalysis occurs based on a proper catalyst]


    This occurs in a test tube or beaker!

    - It was remarkable that the hydride ion

    formed in aqueous solution which is indicative of its

    stability and potential novel chemistry.

  • But also saying, something nuclear is going on too? Or sometimes? And if sometimes, when?


    H*-H* (Dihydrino) still looks like a molecule as the nuclear bond just is responsible for the deeper orbit. (See Assisi poster)


    H*-H* is the basis for Rydberg matter. Clusters of H*-H* can show all possible resonances as there is a lot of flexible energy e.g. the electron spin pairing inside H*-H*. In H*-H* the Coulomb potential undergoes a change and is weaker (+9eV) than in H-H something that has been measured in Rydberg spectra up to very high temperatures.


    Conclusion: Optical measurements are never a proof for a discovery. In chemistry you have to measure the energy of combustion together with the mass of produced elements. For that purpose you must be able to first isolate the claimed molecule. That is knowing the art!


    But there are of course plenty of possibilities for other solutions. The only one that physically does not work is Mills hydrino model, as he gives no explanation/mechanism how the added charge should be produced. The SO(4) nuclear model opens the door as it shows how the coulomb field is related to mass and may be we find a nuclear wave configuration that works about the same way Mills did guess and increases the charge...

  • H*-H* (Dihydrino) still looks like a molecule as the nuclear bond just is responsible for the deeper orbit. (See Assisi poster)


    H*-H* is the basis for Rydberg matter. Clusters of H*-H* can show all possible resonances as there is a lot of flexible energy e.g. the electron spin pairing inside H*-H*. In H*-H* the Coulomb potential undergoes a change and is weaker (+9eV) than in H-H something that has been measured in Rydberg spectra up to very high temperatures.


    Conclusion: Optical measurements are never a proof for a discovery. In chemistry you have to measure the energy of combustion together with the mass of produced elements. For that purpose you must be able to first isolate the claimed molecule. That is knowing the art!


    Spectroscopy doesn't PROVE hydrino but if a H[1/4] hydrino can give off up to 122.4ev = 10.1nm light and you see a cutoff at 10.1nm that is a pretty good match. There is no hydrogen reaction known (save Mills) that gives off EUV light.


    Ar is a hydrino catalyst. Xe is not a hydrino catalyst. When you run one Ar gas with hydrogen you get 30eV hydrogen. When you run Xe gas with hydrogen you get 3ev hydrogen. That looks like the catalyst concept is correct - and both are noble gases.


    This is based on a physical model, fully calculable. So if it says you'll get 54.4ev energy and you see a cutoff at 22.8nm that works and it is a match.


    It is hard to prove a theory but this is so specific that if it isnt' right, we need some big explanations not hand-waving ones. The evidence is overwhelming (from many different angles). I'm not sure if the argument is that a resonant transfer reaction is not happening? Or if an alternate mechanism is being proposed.

  • Ar is a hydrino catalyst. Xe is not a hydrino catalyst. When you run one Ar gas with hydrogen you get 30eV hydrogen. When you run Xe gas with hydrogen you get 3ev hydrogen. That looks like the catalyst concept is correct - and both are noble gases.


    Argon only combines with H3+ and forms ArH3+ .

    pectroscopy doesn't PROVE hydrino but if a H[1/4] hydrino can give off up to 122.4ev = 10.1nm light and you see a cutoff at 10.1nm that is a pretty good match


    Unluckily 122.4 eV does not reflect the lost binding energy of the ArH3+ molecule . H3+ has a total potential of 126 eV what is well in the range of the combined potentials. Just looking at a spectrum and hoping what you see is what you want to have (free singlet hydrino .. ) without giving any deeper reason is not a sign of competent science.


    If you are interested in chemistry and physics then read Electron Ion Recombination in Low Temperature Plasma something Mills should do too...

  • But these chemical reactions are only in the 100 eV range which would never be sufficient to yield the 20-40 MW power range claimed by Mills. By comparison two proton fragmentation to kaons yields around 300 MeV, and any subsequent muon catalysed fusion reactions (from P-u-P/P-u-D/D-u-D etc) or transmutations of larger nuclei would be in the 10-100 MeV range. So if the Suncell is indeed producing Mega Watts of power and energy gains of 200-500, it must be nuclear in origin.

  • Argon only combines with H3+ and forms ArH3+ .


    Argon is a catalyst. It is not a product or consumed or bound up in hydrino catalysis. I'm not sure what you are proposing.


    Quote

    Unluckily 122.4 eV does not reflect the lost binding energy of the ArH3+ molecule . H3+ has a total potential of 126 eV what is well in the range of the combined potentials.


    Are you proposing that ArH3+ is responsible for the high energy light in the plasma?


    Are you saying recombination is responsible for the radiation?

  • But these chemical reactions are only in the 100 eV range which would never be sufficient to yield the 20-40 MW power range claimed by Mills. By comparison two proton fragmentation to kaons yields around 300 MeV, and any subsequent muon catalysed fusion reactions (from P-u-P/P-u-D/D-u-D etc) or transmutations of larger nuclei would be in the 10-100 MeV range. So if the Suncell is indeed producing Mega Watts of power and energy gains of 200-500, it must be nuclear in origin.

    Recent estimates are 100kw of power which could be chemical. The thing is some here think it has to be either a regular chemical reaction or nuclear it could also be something in between. If the hydrino is real what Navid is saying is what would make sense.

  • But these chemical reactions are only in the 100 eV range which would never be sufficient to yield the 20-40 MW power range claimed by Mills. By comparison two proton fragmentation to kaons yields around 300 MeV, and any subsequent muon catalysed fusion reactions (from P-u-P/P-u-D/D-u-D etc) or transmutations of larger nuclei would be in the 10-100 MeV range. So if the Suncell is indeed producing Mega Watts of power and energy gains of 200-500, it must be nuclear in origin.


    Addition: You do know that power density of the sun is 6.9 W/m3 -- a car engine is worst case 33,000W/m3. Conventional hot fusion is a big ball of slow nothingness. Most people are surprised by this.


    Some very confused things here. First, Mills is saying extremely high power density (MW/L) since the volume of the reaction is small. High rate kinetics this is what is achieved - the sun doesn't have great power density.



    RE: These reactions and data. There is nothing marginal here. It is like a Dinosaur knocking at your front door and you saying "Dinosaur's can't exist". Either Dinosaur exists. Or massive fraud.


    I think the community really hasn't looked at the work, that's the only conclusion. I think this because you are all scratching around the surface with "can'ts" and "couldn't be's"


    This is the gold standard paper. Have you read it? Has anyone in the history of LENR produced a result like this? I'm listening...


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


    I am beginning to conclude that

    a) Many people who understand the results (who may not get the theory) are silent and doing replications - we know who some of them are.

    b) Many people who don't know what to think are looking around for validation and not finding it - because group a) is not talking

  • Here is a list of some of the credentialed scientists, and businessmen who within the past few years expressed their support of Mills, endorsed the theory, or performed successful validations. From my understanding, no one has examined the evidence, or technology and walked away a skeptic.


    · Dr. Reinhart Engelmann, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology

    · Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy

    · Dr Günther Landvogt, retired scientist, Philips Research Lab

    · Dr. John J. Farrell, Franklin & Marshall College

    · W. Henry Weinberg - A professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology for eighteen years, a professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Materials Science at University of California, Santa Barbara for six years, and co-founder and CTO of Symyx Technologies for 13 years

    · Dr. Nick Glumac - Mechanical Science and Engineering Department, University of Illinois

    · Dr. Gil Crouse - Professor at Auburn University

    · Dr. Terry Copeland - former manager of product development for several electrochemical and energy companies including DuPont Company and Duracell

    · Dr. James K. Pugh & Dr Ethirajulu of Enser Corporation

    · Dr. Johannes Conrads - former director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics at Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany

    · Prof. Richard Maas UNC Chapel Hill full professor in the Department of Environmental Studies in 1998.

    · Dr. Mark Nansteel – PhD in mechanical engineering from UC Berkley.
    · Dr. K. V. Ramanujachary - Professor Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Rowan University.

    · Dr. Peter Jansson - Associate Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Bucknell University.

    · Prof. Randy Booker - Professor of Physics, University North Carolina Ashville..

    · Joe Renick – Engineer at Applied Research Associates, a firm that performs weapons testing for the U.S.

    · Dr. Jonathan Phillips – PhD in materials science, currently teaching at the Naval Postgraduate School.

    · Scott Doyle - a senior partner at Greenberg Traurig (previously at Fried Frank) and one of the nation’s top patent attorneys.

  • Quote

    · Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy


    Also a Dr. Since he has a Ph.D. from MIT in Nuclear Engineering and was a CEO of ABB one of the top nuclear power companies in the world.


    Here is a list of some of the credentialed sci

    · W. Henry Weinberg - A professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology for eighteen years, a professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Materials Science at University of California, Santa Barbara for six years, and co-founder and CTO of Symyx Technologies for 13 years


    A professor at Caltech is probably also a Dr.


    Quote

    · Joe Renick – Engineer at Applied Research Associates, a firm that performs weapons testing for the U.S.


    Also a Ph.D. and was Chief Scientist at $200mi Defense Contractor ARA.



    Quote

    · Scott Doyle - a senior partner at Greenberg Traurig (previously at Fried Frank) and one of the nation’s top patent attorneys.


    Sadly, Scott is the bottom of the academic totepole in this list, with "only" a Masters in Electrical Engineering.


    You missed Dr. Jannsson at Bucknell who has validated the SunCell in 2016.



    My point of view: this isn't a court trial with a bunch of character witnesses - this is a reason to look at the @#@#! physics - I have a project to do just that for those who are interested - pm me!

  • Argon is a catalyst. It is not a product or consumed or bound up in hydrino catalysis. I'm not sure what you are proposing.


    May be you should first read before you write. There are only a few people that know that rare gases undergo chemical reactions. In Mills case as in most glow discharge reactions H3+ is responsible for the back-current.


    As said week's ago. May be Mills should start to understand the swirl flow before he tries an other wired approach. He can also ask the Russians (Klimov).

  • I am not doubting the results of Mills' experiments are real - go bang some molten Ag mixed with H2O with thousands of amps and I'm sure anybody would record similar data - its the interpretation of the results discounting any possible LENR being involved I don't understand How can it be ruled out, when neutrons are known to be released from nuclear reactions induced by lightning strikes. eg

    Gamma rays can be produced by lightning strikes when relativistic electrons, accelerated by strong electric fields, lose energy in collisions with air molecules. Dubbed gamma-ray flashes, these events are usually directed up towards outer space. Indeed, the first detections of gamma rays from lightning were made by satellites. However, scientists have recently discovered that, on rare occasions, the gamma rays can instead shoot down at Earth. Several research groups have detected neutrons or positrons in the atmosphere in the aftermath of lightning strikes. Theoretical models have associated these with the gamma ray-induced production and subsequent decay of radioactive nuclei such as nitrogen-13 and oxygen-15. However, no conclusive evidence had previously been found to confirm this.


    -and Mills himself writes:

    Hydrated silver shots comprising only 65 moles H2O
    produced a shockwave that was equivalent to about 10 times more moles of gunpowder (0.6 millimoles). Water
    and silver have no known chemistry and the ignition voltage did not exceed 20 V; yet the ignition of the
    hydrated shots produced an extremely powerful detonation wave further validating the hydrino reaction as a
    new energetic power source. Since there are no gaseous products, a likely mechanism is coupling of the
    massive amounts to EUV radiation to air to cause superheating akin to the mechanism of nuclear detonation
    where X-rays serve the role of the EUV radiation of comparable peak power density (e.g. 20 WM/7.6 X 10-6
    liter = 2.6 X 1012 W/liter in the presented hydrino reaction case). Similarly, the hydrino reaction may be the
    source of the shockwave of lightning discharges in atmospheric water vapor.


    More likely, surely, nuclear reactions are induced in both lightning strikes and in Mills' experiments - yes we need hydrinos/ultra-dense hydrogen to start the LENR's and transmutations but that's only the beginning of the story. Read Holmlid's papers in conjunction with Mills' papers to make sense on this.

  • 2017 Nature paper abstract:

    Lightning and thunderclouds are natural particle accelerators1. Avalanches of relativistic runaway electrons, which develop in electric fields within thunderclouds2,3, emit bremsstrahlung γ-rays. These γ-rays have been detected by ground-based observatories4,5,6,7,8,9, by airborne detectors10 and as terrestrial γ-ray flashes from space10,11,12,13,14. The energy of the γ-rays is sufficiently high that they can trigger atmospheric photonuclear reactions10,15,16,17,18,19 that produce neutrons and eventually positrons via β+ decay of the unstable radioactive isotopes, most notably 13N, which is generated via 14N + γ → 13N + n, where γ denotes a photon and n a neutron. However, this reaction has hitherto not been observed conclusively, despite increasing observational evidence of neutrons7,20,21 and positrons10,22 that are presumably derived from such reactions. Here we report ground-based observations of neutron and positron signals after lightning. During a thunderstorm on 6 February 2017 in Japan, a γ-ray flash with a duration of less than one millisecond was detected at our monitoring sites 0.5–1.7 kilometres away from the lightning. The subsequent γ-ray afterglow subsided quickly, with an exponential decay constant of 40–60 milliseconds, and was followed by prolonged line emission at about 0.511 megaelectronvolts, which lasted for a minute. The observed decay timescale and spectral cutoff at about 10 megaelectronvolts of the γ-ray afterglow are well explained by de-excitation γ-rays from nuclei excited by neutron capture. The centre energy of the prolonged line emission corresponds to electron–positron annihilation, providing conclusive evidence of positrons being produced after the lightning.


    Surely the Suncell electrical discharge would have similar properties? ie an artificial particle accelerator!

  • May be you should first read before you write. There are only a few people that know that rare gases undergo chemical reactions. In Mills case as in most glow discharge reactions H3+ is responsible for the back-current.


    I am open to understanding the chemistry of how you get this high energy light. Ar+ in Mills reaction only serves the purpose of energy acceptor from atomic hydrogen via resonant transfer of energy.



    Quote

    As said week's ago. May be Mills should start to understand the swirl flow before he tries an other wired approach. He can also ask the Russians (Klimov).


    I didn't ask for reactor design. Thought there may be something to consider there - this is a good poster summary.


    I asked for the supposedly known chemistry of LENR. So I took your advice and looked at Inflow Klimov's company. I got deja vu. Hmm.


    https://endofpetroleum.com/wp-…019/10/newflowhydrino.jpgnewflowhydrino.jpg