How could this avenue account for accelerated decay of unstable elements or relate to the fissioning/fusing/nuclei shuffling of stable elements without excess energy claimed by some? If we could clean up fission waste as produced, freeing fission from being used sparingly with some technics, while having a new versatile chemical energy source with others, that would be awesome.

Quote from Shane D.

Seems we missed this new video put out 3 days ago.

We just missed a piss! Lets do it again.

it is on 'international skeptics' say no more.

Quote from Curbina

I haven’t seen this in ECW as of last night AFAIK, btw, so I wouldn’t worry too much. Also, “hydrinos are not LENR” so why worry at all????

(just kidding Shane D. 🤪😂🤣)

In reality Hydrino/H* reactions are a source of energy that can be mistaken for LENR and is quite similar in it's potential effect on society. Different notes, but still another magnificent song coming from the same piano of hydrogen atoms. For me it doesn't matter whether the effect is nuclear or isn't, as long as it amounts to a practical product. If it has 24/7 load following power production and more abundantly resourced energy density than commercial chemical sources and solar panels it's lovely!

Quote from Shane D.

These tests are to determine optimum conditions and to project power densities for engineering applications

I guess the aim is for BLP to come up with costings.. for the next step of development

. as with LENR... as Wyttenbach has stated..

the problem is not heat production but heat removal...

Wow. This is impressive. Just changing hydrogen input and pressure and having such response of the energy generation. Pretty hard to explain in a chemical enviromente that does not react with hydrogen. 200kw excess with 25kw input starts to become interesting for electricity generation.

But this sentence "The reactor wall excess heating or localized heating are not commercial impediments since they can be managed with cooling technology. " sounds like a typical premature Mills statement. I start to believe this when I see a demonstration. Without two or three rocket engineers in their team I doubt that they will find a fast and bullet proof solution for their cooling problem.

Quote from Director

What drives me nuts is that the path towards a higher COP and better performance is obvious. What they need to do is go pure plasma, eliminate the molten metal, use the negative resistance regime to create a complex space charge configuration just like they are now, and then TUNE IT INTO RESONANCE! This would make the macro-EVO or complex space charge configuration further self organize and start producing more output for less input. The only problem is, of course, such an enhanced system would show evidence of LENR.

I think it will work much better in pulse regime then in presented continuous.

Quote from Epimetheus

But this sentence "The reactor wall excess heating or localized heating are not commercial impediments since they can be managed with cooling technology.

This statement is obviously wrong or simply to optimistic. If they cannot fully contain the swirl-flow, then flares will hit the wall and locally overheat and destroy it after a certain number of impacts.

A lot of engineering ahead and still no explanation how to get rid of all H* produced. I definitely would not like to stay around these experiments.

Quote from Director

What drives me nuts is that the path towards a higher COP and better performance is obvious. What they need to do is go pure plasma, eliminate the molten metal, use the negative resistance regime to create a complex space charge configuration just like they are now, and then TUNE IT INTO RESONANCE! This would make the macro-EVO or complex space charge configuration further self organize and start producing more output for less input. The only problem is, of course, such an enhanced system would show evidence of LENR.

Or maybe the truth is closer to what Mills has been claiming with slight variations and surprises? A reason we rarely get dangerous radiation in LENR experiments is because possibly this is a mostly "chemical" explosion with a slight increase in nuclear energy release potencial. An unexpectedly dense appearance in the chemical energy scene. Really it's about the parts you deside to listen to, embrace or push away. I intend to observe all that is being proposed. So far BLP from an unbiased perspective is amazingly the most realistic public approach.

Quote

A reason we rarely get dangerous radiation in LENR experiments is because possibly this is a mostly "chemical" explosion with a slight increase in nuclear energy release potencial.

Certainly possible but equally likely, there is no radiation because the experiments don't work and the claimed results come from artifacts or errors in measurements.

Many people here are confusing power and energy. Their calorimetry is ideal for measuring total energy out - which maybe will be more than energy in + possible chemical?

Instead they talk about power out vs in without qualifying over what period this is averaged, and without mentioning energy.

If they meant average power in and out it would mean something. They don't say that and their calorimetry is one-shot not continuous.

So - either they are being very careless in what they say - or they are making the best of transient results which do not overall prove anything.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Many people here are confusing power and energy. Their calorimetry is ideal for measuring total energy out - which maybe will be more than energy in + possible chemical?

Instead they talk about power out vs in without qualifying over what period this is averaged, and without mentioning energy.

If they meant average power in and out it would mean something. They don't say that and their calorimetry is one-shot not continuous.

So - either they are being very careless in what they say - or they are making the best of transient results which do not overall prove anything.

Display More

When I say chemical I'm referring to the proposed process outlined by a Mills and possibly Russians/Holmid/Wyttenbach, with at least 100 times more theoretical energy density than gasoline. I'm also wondering if the unreliable but pushing above "background/mainstream theoretical" estimates of atomic reactions work with the strangely beautiful chemical reaction, as symbiotic or being a diluter to the catalytic effects. IDK thinking out loud. Seems as Mills has positive feedback in production it isn't significantly nuclear in nature, which some say is why the walls bust. They bust because that's how much atomic H can unleashed. Light enough gas on fire and you could do the same thing.

Quote

If they meant average power in and out it would mean something. They don't say that and their calorimetry is one-shot not continuous.

So - either they are being very careless in what they say - or they are making the best of transient results which do not overall prove anything.

Does anyone think this is anything but deliberate? It is classic for many past "free energy" and high tech scams and delusions.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Many people here are confusing power and energy. Their calorimetry is ideal for measuring total energy out - which maybe will be more than energy in + possible chemical?

Instead they talk about power out vs in without qualifying over what period this is averaged, and without mentioning energy.

If they meant average power in and out it would mean something. They don't say that and their calorimetry is one-shot not continuous.

So - either they are being very careless in what they say - or they are making the best of transient results which do not overall prove anything.

Display More

I am not confusing anything. In my comment I was referring to the change of color of this massive steel bowl. You can see the guy who controls the hydrogen input and you can see every pressure change in the movement of one of the input cables/pipes. He is giving step functions of hydrogen pressure change to the system and by the change of color you can see the time constant of the system respons. The respons is freaking fast. You need massive power for such a fast change. Monitoring input power is stupidly simple in this system and knowing what chemicals are in the bowl is rather simple too. Assuming no fraud: where does the power come from?

And you are doing cherry picking here: They have a two hour video with heating water. I know this is not a calorimeter but it gives a rough estimate. This video is about controlling the power.

But I love your last sentence: "Transient results do not prove anything." Do you know the lifetime of the higgs boson? I would call THIS a transient result. And you also cannot prove that explosions release energy because this is such a transient behavior which is not measurable by current human technology.

You assume that the people at BLP (and me) are stupid, so I think it is fair if I spit a bit sarcasm in your direction

Quote from THHuxleynew

Many people here are confusing power and energy. Their calorimetry is ideal for measuring total energy out - which maybe will be more than energy in + possible chemical?

Instead they talk about power out vs in without qualifying over what period this is averaged, and without mentioning energy.

If they meant average power in and out it would mean something. They don't say that and their calorimetry is one-shot not continuous.

So - either they are being very careless in what they say - or they are making the best of transient results which do not overall prove anything.

Display More

They are measuring the temperature change of a large volume of liquid gallium. Since gallium has a surprisingly low melting point and a surprisingly high vaporization temperature, there is a very large range of temperatures to work with. Depending on the run and judging by the videos, the timeframes for measuring the average power by temperature differences are in the order of anything from tens of seconds to many minutes.

Remember, the videos are not intended to 'prove' anything (especially to skeptics). They are for encouragement of people and investors who have goodwill towards BLP. For more in-depth and satisfying numbers you will have to wait for the usual third party validations, which I suspect will occur in a matter of a few months.