BLP update

Quote

Remember, the videos are not intended to 'prove' anything (especially to skeptics).

Yes, why prove anything? It's only been twenty-five years or more and what is it now, $60M or perhaps much more invested?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Yes, why prove anything? It's only been twenty-five years or more and what is it now, $60M or perhaps much more invested?

Perhaps they did, but not in public (to investors only).

Perhaps. Perhaps my invisible flying pigs actually fly.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Perhaps my invisible flying pigs actually fly.

That's given for sure! We lucky, do daily read it!

Quote from Epimetheus

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

Display More

I make no assumptions. I'm just saying that the published here info from them is highly ambiguous and cannot be interpreted to mean beyond chemical excess energy.

Nor can what you say be so interpreted.

It may be that more careful analysis of their whole system would be more impressive. In which case a shame they have not published this. Or perhaps they have but nobody has posted it here.

The comparison with Higgs boson is silly (and shows you are either uninformed or indulging in rhetoric). Transient power results do not mean high excess energy - because energy is power integrated. In any chemical system there is the possibility of high transient powers from chemistry within a small energy budget.

THH

No spitting but call it as I see it!

Quote

It may be that more careful analysis of their whole system would be more impressive.

You can bet that if there was a way to make their system appear more impressive, after all these years and all that money, they would use it. Nobody seems to want to use Occam's Razor here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I make no assumptions. I'm just saying that the published here info from them is highly ambiguous and cannot be interpreted to mean beyond chemical excess energy.

The only point that holds is that they possibly never will get the high COP needed to go on, if the cannot manage a second LENR after burner. Such things happen if a theorist cannot properly distinguish between hope and facts. There are no Hydrino states as Mills believes except D*/H* that have been confirmed by many researchers now.

THH simply is uniformed and tries to downplay any even slightly (COP 4-8) positive result. On one side he is helping us to be able to silently patent LENR, step after step without a crowd in the neck... The so called positive fools effect!

Quote from THHuxleynew

The comparison with Higgs boson is silly (and shows you are either uninformed or indulging in rhetoric). Transient power results do not mean high excess energy - because energy is power integrated. In any chemical system there is the possibility of high transient powers from chemistry within a small energy budget.

Typical sentence after 2 beers. Has no relation to Epimetheus post.

But I agree: The Higgs boson is silly as it is a virtual resonance of the proton only - what CERN measures. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4) physics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The only point that holds is that they possibly never will get the high COP needed to go on, if the cannot manage a second LENR after burner. Such things happen if a theorist cannot properly distinguish between hope and facts. There are no Hydrino states as Mills believes except D*/H* that have been confirmed by many researchers now.

THH simply is uniformed and tries to downplay any even slightly (COP 4-8) positive result. On one side he is helping us to be able to silently patent LENR, step after step without a crowd in the neck... The so called positive fools effect!

A COP of 8 is quite enough for many applications. Your forgetting this is a combustion replacement with at least 100 times the energy density (200 times at theoretical max). Unlike muon catalyzed fusion (D-D) or any fusion-fission system there is no ionizing radiation, unknown radiation or neutron flux. A LENR afterburner would be a mighty useful feature, but maybe an option transcending just transportation or destributed civilian applications.

Somehow LeBob 's above post reminds me of the old saying (maybe dating all the way back to Freud?): "Neurotics build castles in the air and psychotics live in them." Adding an unproven LENR "afterburner," LOL to an unproven hydrino based energy generator is indeed living inside a castle in the sky. It's a very comical thing to write.

PS: a low cost, non-polluting, carbon neutral, new high power energy, heat generating device with a "COP" of 8 should a) be easily made self sustaining with no power in (COP=infinty) and should start a multibillion dollar business immediately.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

PS: a low cost, non-polluting, carbon neutral, new high power energy, heat generating device with a "COP" of 8 should a) be easily made self sustaining with no power in (COP=infinty) and should start a multibillion dollar business immediately.

Only in your minds virtual castle....

First you have to master the technology - lives out of your mind - and is sometimes damn hard to master!

Wyttenbach I strongly disagree. You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the technology to determine whether a claim that it makes energy is true or not. What you have to know is how measurements are made so that they are reliable and credible. That has always been the issue, never the technology.

If you put a 20kW (or 20MW) generator in front of me that runs a long time on a trivial amount of affordable fuel, I do not care how it works as long as it passes safety criteria and has been well tested. I'm definitely interested in technology and I have a rough idea how some functions of some of the gadgets I use everyday are achieved. But for many, I really don't know the technology. You think I really care exactly how 5G functionality is put into a tiny, thin, light "phone"? Hell, it boggle my mind that such a thing can even be assembled, much less serviced. But I use it and have confidence in it. Power generators should be the same way. And power generators are what Mills, Brillouin and others are claiming. And castles in the sky is what they are delivering so far.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

carbon neutral, new high power energy,...should start a multibillion dollar business immediately.

Immediately is a techno-illiterate SOT term..out-of date...as we speak

Prime Minister Ardern has given until 2050 to make New Zealand carbon neutral

By that time ITER's tritium solution should be up and running..almost..safely almost,, efficiently almost..

perhaps Jacinda's "nuclear moment" is prophetic..

Que Sera.. sera..

Apparently robert bryant doesn't grasp the concept inherent in the English word "start" among others.

"start a multibillion dollar business immediately."

perhaps a less rhetorical bombast from our resident technical expert would be

" start a 1$ business tomorrow"

One key thing mentioned in this video is the importance of atomic hydrogen production. The condensates are formed out of amassed dense hydrogen? If this is more appropriate in the Safire thread move it.

From the "Future of Energy" thread.

Was also thinking the hydrogen economy would work wonders with a hydrino/dense hydrogen based energy grid. A pure water flow distribution network would make more sense, probably heavy water for high energy LENR systems and pure H2O for drinking and hydrino/chemical energy far superior to burning hydrogen with oxygen. Both of those systems theoretically produce more energy than is needed for electrolysis and starting the initial reaction. Liquid water is just the most versatile, inert and compact transport conduit for hydrogen/deuterium, especially if the energy density makes electrolysis at location feasible.

You could have psuedo-centralized LENR desalination, purification and industrial process producing reactors that distribute water to microgrids, civilian/commercial transport craft and homes for hydrino based reactors. And maybe the dense hydrogen condensates produced, key to the claimed nuclear reactions, are collected and sent back to the larger atomic/industrial power plant. Symbiosis, thoughts?

Quote from Alan Smith

Fedex could do it.

Or use existing water grids, and use a compact unit to extract D2O by the time it gets relavant and feasible.

Current drinking water has a D2O:H2O ratio of 1:3500.
But, I agree Alan, separate distrubution is probably more feasible. Potential energy density of 1 cm³ D2O is immense.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Or use existing water grids, and use a compact unit to extract D2O by the time it gets relavant and feasible.

Current drinking water has a D2O:H2O ratio of 1:3500.
But, I agree Alan, separate distrubution is probably more feasible. Potential energy density of 1 cm³ D2O is immense.

A proposed integration with the grid is for purity reasons to many minerals and such would clog up the systems, also would necessitate getting rid of clorine and fluoride in the water for drinking and cooking. We always assume a hundred percent conversion in energy density probably it will be less than that, with a final output depending on COP. Yes though, on the massive density difference between a water/H reaction in a hydrino reaction and deuterium fusion. So FedEx heavy water for specialized LENR and pipes of drinking water for civilian/widespread chemical reactions.

Quote from Alan Smith

A nice idea. But the amounts of heavy water required hardly justify building a water grid. Fedex could do it.

There is absolutely no need to distribute heavy water with pipes, and it would be impossible to distribute it with any method other than tightly sealed containers with no air in them. Things like pipes are out of the question. There is no need because only a tiny bit is needed, and because it has to be sealed into the device, like battery acid. Otherwise it will be contaminated. It is hydroscopic, so it cannot be exposed to air. An automobile will use roughly 1 g per year. So you need far less than the battery acid in today's automobile. (A car battery has about 1 kg of sulphuric acid.) A kilogram of heavy water in an automobile would last 1000 years in theory, but in actual practice it will probably be contaminated after a few years, and it will have to be replaced.

I expect D2 gas will be needed, rather than D2O. Again, that can only be distributed in air-tight ultra-clean containers. Actually, I expect it will be extracted from ordinary water on site in the factories that manufacture modules for automobile engines, generators, refrigerators and other machines that use cold fusion as the primary source of energy. I expect the cold fusion device to be a sealed module designed to produce heat at a certain temperature and power level, that will be inserted into the heat engine or boiler. It will wear out after some years, and it will have to be replaced. By "wear out" I mean the deuterium will become contaminated with air leaking in. This will happen long before all of the deuterium transmutes into helium.

It would take roughly 15 tons of heavy water to produce all of the energy in the world, but I expect much more will be needed because of contamination, and because most heavy water (or D2 gas) will be left over in scrapped modules. See p. 32:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

I think the price of heavy water will fall by at least a factor of 10, because most of the cost is for the energy needed to extract it. So I doubt that left-over heavy water will be cleaned up and recycled. It will probably be easier to let it evaporate and extract new heavy water. There is no danger to letting left-over heavy water evaporate. You would not want to toss it into the ground or flush it into a river because it will probably contain nanoparticles or other dangerous materials. If Pd or other precious metals are needed, the NAE metal itself will be rigorously recycled, the way lead from lead-acid batteries is recycled today. Nearly all lead is captured by modern recycling techniques.

With oil, coal, wind and other conventional energy, energy overhead is an issue. That is, the amount of energy it takes to extract and refine the fuel, or to build the dam or wind turbine. With oil, overhead is 10% to 20%. With wind it is around 2%. With cold fusion using current methods of extracting heavy water, it would be ~0.05%. (See p. 46) I expect better methods can be developed that will take less energy per gram of heavy water. You might think there is no point to saving energy in a cold fusion economy, but there would be, because low energy machines are usually smaller, quieter, cooler, more reliable, and longer lasting. For example, people will continue to use LED lights with cold fusion, rather than going back to incandescent ones, because LEDs have so many advantages other than low energy consumption.