• Oh it's very simple, I'm surprise you didn't understand maybe you need a cup of strong coffe.

    I noted that when specific claim can't be proved by real facts, people usually switch to talk of other arguments mixing different matters.

    A quite common approach adopted here.


    I talked about that specific claims where proven by real facts but they were ignored for whatever reason.


    "A quite common approach adopted here."

    If you would know this forum better you would not have written this. Sometimes examples from different areas help people to step out of their bubble of biased thinking. I knew that the example I chose was not appropriate to get you out of this bubble, because most people in the western world would not agree with me on the topic of the US and I assume you are part of this culture. I should have taken an example involving the treatment of racism - this seems to be on everybodys minds these days.


    I hate it when I fall for trolls...

  • My post was about your "prove the world" statement which is an ill posed request. But you didnt get it and I wont rephrase it and put any more effort into explaining what I meant. Have a nice day!


    Thanks a lot because I prefer to live in the real world not speculating of an alleged conspiracy of the world against BLP.

  • These are only unuseful chatters... the classic routing talking about ITER,

    The difference btw BLP and ITER is that ITER makes promises to governments which dutifully dole out funds...lots of them.


    Whereas BLP makes promises to investors..


    Perhaps 'truth'' is in the USA and is one of those investors..

    or is not one, but instead has a vicarious feeling of anger at not enough ROI...


    however the US government doles out a lot more for ITER than BLP can dream of

    And the US doles out a bit less than Europe,,

    THE ROI for both BLP and ITER is zero


    Of course being in Oceania far from either BLP or ITER

    and never having invested a cent in either

    I have this minimal feeling of rage at my undefined ROI., .calculated from zero divided by zero..

  • Let me guess - you were critical or skeptical during the exchange and Mills didn't have time for you.

    Let's just say I hope one of the companies that has been working in this area is successful at, first, verifying their claims and, eventually, commercializing a lower cost and fossil fuel free form of heat and/or electricity. For the first past the gate, it won't matter what their personalities are like.

  • Let's just say I hope one of the companies that has been working in this area is successful at, first, verifying their claims and, eventually, commercializing a lower cost and fossil fuel free form of heat and/or electricity. For the first past the gate, it won't matter what their personalities are like.


    Prime video has a documentary called Newman. It is story of a proven over unity device by Newman. It is sad to see his personality transform. Basic he had something. He showed it often, got more support than I would have imagined is possible yet no body could make sense of it. But he believed that it does matter that no one could understand it, that it would lead to something important. Caution: fighting for what you know works against the impossibility of acceptance can turn one's personality to the dark side. Understanding will come but it can't forced.


    BLPs current efforts turn water into energy. Isn't it amazing how many have claimed to turn water to energy. I seen this forum say some very unfavorable things about companies with water to energy technology and favorable things about other water to energy technology. I is really all the same. I know based on mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and kinetics that water serves as reactants to produce by a series of transformation reactions nitrogen, a nuclear process. This is what happens with Aquafuel and therefore likely with BLP and all the others. But even facts from numerous sources struggle to get well meaning but nevertheless very prejudice people to do due diligence.


    It will happen when it does we will all wonder how we could all be so blind.

  • Prime video has a documentary called Newman. It is story of a proven over unity device by Newman. It is sad to see his personality transform. Basic he had something. He showed it often, got more support than I would have imagined is possible yet no body could make sense of it. But he believed that it does matter that no one could understand it, that it would lead to something important. Caution: fighting for what you know works against the impossibility of acceptance can turn one's personality to the dark side. Understanding will come but it can't forced.


    BLPs current efforts turn water into energy. Isn't it amazing how many have claimed to turn water to energy. I seen this forum say some very unfavorable things about companies with water to energy technology and favorable things about other water to energy technology. I is really all the same. I know based on mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and kinetics that water serves as reactants to produce by a series of transformation reactions nitrogen, a nuclear process. This is what happens with Aquafuel and therefore likely with BLP and all the others. But even facts from numerous sources struggle to get well meaning but nevertheless very prejudice people to do due diligence.


    It will happen when it does we will all wonder how we could all be so blind.

    I agree they all must spring from a similar phenomina, but I'm not sure it's mainly fusion to nitrogen. The conclusion seems to be electromagnetically mediated.

  • Prime video has a documentary called Newman. It is story of a proven over unity device by Newman. It is sad to see his personality transform. Basic he had something. He showed it often, got more support than I would have imagined is possible yet no body could make sense of it. But he believed that it does matter that no one could understand it, that it would lead to something important. Caution: fighting for what you know works against the impossibility of acceptance can turn one's personality to the dark side. Understanding will come but it can't forced.


    BLPs current efforts turn water into energy. Isn't it amazing how many have claimed to turn water to energy. I seen this forum say some very unfavorable things about companies with water to energy technology and favorable things about other water to energy technology. I is really all the same. I know based on mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and kinetics that water serves as reactants to produce by a series of transformation reactions nitrogen, a nuclear process. This is what happens with Aquafuel and therefore likely with BLP and all the others. But even facts from numerous sources struggle to get well meaning but nevertheless very prejudice people to do due diligence.


    It will happen when it does we will all wonder how we could all be so blind.


    All anyone needs to do is set up an isolated system that includes whatever startup energy is necessary, and then run a device for a long enough time to harvest more energy from it than it needed to start up. Newman never did that, so he didn't have a "proven over unity" device. LENR is different, but the same rules of proof apply. The movie is an interesting study of how we can fool ourselves when we really want something to be true.


    IMO, when someone has an LENR device that works, they will not have any trouble finding investors. And, conversely, if someone has trouble finding investors, they are very unlikely to have a device that works.

  • IMO, when someone has an LENR device that works... investment


    the works -versus investment is not a big step change relation

    but a chicken-egg incremental step relation

    'works' is a vague idea

    based on the chickenfeed investment .. so far LENR works to the level of at least 2:1 energy out/energy in

    but this is insufficient to match the heat transfer COPS of 4:1 or 6:! available from electrical air conditioninh


    works to the level of 10:1 ..100:! or 1000:1

    requires mucn more investment

    once LENR gets to confrimed 10:1 much more investment should follow..

    Brillouin is stuck on 2.7:1 since March,2019

    Covid has shut down the Berkeley lab of Brillouin .. but Mills appears to keep his Cranbury operating... but his COP's are inglorious.. so far

    on the other hand ITER does not 'work' anywhere near 2:1 and has jumped the investment steps using governmental handouts

  • based on the chickenfeed investment .. so far LENR works to the level of at least 2:1 energy out/energy in

    but this is insufficient to match the heat transfer COPS of 4:1 or 6:! available from electrical air conditioninh


    Different meaning of COP.


    When someone demonstrates that sufficient energy is produced by an "LENR" device to make the device power its own input needs -- even if it does not produce sufficient excess to harvest energy for any other purpose, the investment into LENR would IMO become on the order of trillions of dollars.


    I understand that there are claims, and I understand that there are claims of verification. I also understand that a LOT of human beings are anxious to make money, to the point that they will, for a profit, produce and advertise addictive products that kill people, or deny that the product they produce is destroying the environment for future generations.


    So I am 100% convinced that, once there is a whiff of profit to be made from a previously unknown physical process, the existence of the process will be obvious to all due to the rush of money into attempts to exploit the process. Let me be clear: I'm not saying the phenomenon is not real; I'm just saying no one has yet demonstrated it in a repeatable fashion. When they do, I'm confident that will be apparent to all.

  • Then you haven't read the literature.

    No, I certainly haven't read the scientific reports, nor do I expect I'd understand them. I'm aware that Brillouin claims to have been validated by SRI, and I gather that Brilliant Light Power has a bunch of "names" willing to vouch for them. I know Mizuno claims to have had something heating what appears to be a den or living room for a winter, but then apparently dismantled it.


    Given that I don't view myself as capable of understanding the physics at any worthwhile detail, I rely on my understanding of human nature. If greedy capitalists have failed to understand the physics and/or calorimetry, then my approach has backfired. I just figure that there'll be a rush to the slop trough if and when there's anything worth eating. No visible rush, and I assume there's been no verification satisfactory to the people who are paid really good money to make wealthy people wealthier.

  • I just figure that there'll be a rush to the slop trough if and when there's anything worth eating



    If BLP can demonstrate energy out/energy =10:1 .. that will be tasty...

    then the investors like mjtrac can sort out dtails like amortised capital cost.. ROI..etc


    With an energy out/energy in = 4:1 as demonstrated in the last few tests.

    BLP is not appetizing even with the hype...

    https://brilliantlightpower.co…-produced-by-the-suncell/

  • Has BLP really shown this, repeatably? To who? Via web videos? I still believe they have something even if Mills hydrino physics is not 100% correct. If they can demonstrate 4:1 then it is time to bring in external resources for replication. This "product engineering" seems too Rossi like, and that is not a compliment. TIme to get major labs and universities to replicate.

  • If they can demonstrate 4:1 then its time

    The time will be decided by "the external resources" not anyone else

    Mills maintains this

    "The power gain of four times input power was sufficient to output net electrical power to the grid using mainstay turbine-generation systems."


    If Mills says "mainstay... electrical" he needs to demonstrate reliability ...

    which needs many more tests ..more $.. .from the "external resources..".. This is not new knowledge to Mills.


    it would be good if Mills could guarantee a load factor of 95% which is what geothermal electricity generation achieves...

  • PhysicsForDummies


    Well, my thoughts on 'single most convincing' change from time to time. It's a bit like 'your favourite film' - also subject to change. Currently I like these two papers:-


    Storms GD 1.pdf


    Storms GD 2.pdf


    Ed Storms and Brian Scanlon both have backgrounds in top-flight nuclear physics labs. Ed has complained to me that 'nobody seemed interested in replicating it', but to me it is simple clear and positive.


    I. INTRODUCTION

    Emission of radiation is characteristic of nuclear reactions. Such radiation is required to

    carry away momentum and energy from the reaction and deposit it as heat in the environment. In

    contrast, the nuclear reactions associated with cold fusion appear to produce less radiation than

    expected when detection is attempted outside of the apparatus. This unexpected behavior has

    encouraged a search for low-energy radiation within the device. This search is important because

    detected radiation clearly shows that nuclear reactions are occurring and provides information

    about the process. Consequently, such observations are far more supportive of a nuclear reaction

    than the conventional measurement of heat.

    In addition to heat energy, cold fusion is found to produce helium1-12 and occasionally

    tritium13-21. The helium is expected to originate as energetic alpha particles and the tritium as

    energetic tritons. A search for such energetic particles has been undertaken by other workers

    using CR-39 as the detector.22-26 However, energetic particles can also be detected using a silicon

    barrier detector (SBD), from which their energy can be obtained, or by use of a Geiger-Mueller

    (GM) counter, using absorbers to determine their energy. These methods are used in this study to

    measure the energy of the detected radiation. This paper further describes studies reported

    previously. 27,28

    Two methods to initiate a fusion reaction have been explored. First, a discharge has been

    studied in low-pressure D2 gas using various kinds of cathode materials. Second, fine powders of

    materials containing palladium have been exposed to pressurized D2 gas. Both the SBD and GM

    detectors were used in the former study while only the SBD was used in the latter work.

    II.


  • I think any demonstration of 1.01:1, repeatable, documented sufficiently thoroughly that an undergraduate team at any university, aided by a professor as necessary, can replicate the process and see the result, would cause a stampede, similar to the stampede after the first F&P result. Large companies would want to be the first to exploit a promising technology.


    My recollection is that Toyota was involved in a good deal of work, based on the early cold fusion results.


    If you have, to everyone's satisfaction, more power out than power in, that's a process that can then be optimized, and the profitability race would be on and visible to all. That's my opinion, not based on any understanding of science, but based on my understanding of our economic system. I'm fully prepared for it to be wrong. I just haven't seen reason yet to think I'm wrong. I truly hope I do, because I would love for humanity's destructiveness to be mitigated.

  • mjtrac : We have been through that already. There will never be a stampede. When the breakthrough is achieved and a LENR product is near than there will be all kinds of mumbled excuses by established scientists. No stampede - no public admittance of being wrong 90 years.

    Prof. Conrads was curious and wanted to replicate Mills. He was an old prof. by then and had 40+ years of experience in plasma science and a huge reputation. He was not allowed to conduct research at his university because of the potential "image problems" when conducting experiments of "pseudo science". The university I graduated at allowed him to conduct experiments for one year. They were succesful and ended in a paper describing the success. No stampede. That was 2003.