BLP update

    Admonition flare from the centre of the Millsian solar system to all satellites re: 2019, MHD

    "

    Nice armchair decision when you have no idea what the tradeoffs are including time to market, risk, cost, materials, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, applications, competitiveness, etc."

    In reply to

    [email protected][email protected]

     

    Developing MHD for future designs is great but please don't decide it's so great you are going to just leapfrog CPV technology and make everyone wait even longer. Thanks. 



       >"Some of you are going to be cross, the timeline has shifted the >commercial product to 2019 "
     


    • Official Post

    http://www.brilliantlightpower…/SCTE-Energy-2020-web.pdf


    Yes, this could all be bogus, with Mills, his science team, and partners making it all up, validators in error, but the more they progress in technical difficulty, product design, strategic partnerships, marketing, the less likely that becomes. Oh, and the more he braves giving his presentation to representatives of the mainstream science community as he did this week...that helps too.


    Yes, even then, this could be an elaborate hoax so I will keep my guard up. Honestly, were it not for being burned by Rossi, instead of being cautiously optimistic about BrLP, I would be wildly enthusiastic at this point.


    Have to wonder what those engineers at the SCTE Energy 2020 Energy Conference on 12 Sept. in Denver thought when Mills presented this? Especially when the slides about water being the fuel, and Hydrino theory (dark matter, suns corona) were shown. I would love to have the Q&A afterwords available.











    Quote from Shane D.

    Honestly, were it not for being burned by Rossi, instead of being cautiously optimistic about BrLP, I would be wildly enthusiastic at this point.


    I think this must be because you're approaching things from a nontechnical point of view, and all of the apparent confirmations from third parties and the slideware with the complex equations must come across as impressive. Since Rossi, you have become a bit more wary of getting too enthusiastic about something until all of the dust has settled. For every one of you there might be several who are taking a similar approach who are not as wary. This is no doubt where BrLP get their funding.


    I recall that the "validation" reports of several of the validators incorporated similar tracts of text, unattributed, perhaps from some common document, and sometimes slightly modified. The text that was incorporated itself included a series of paragraphs that were repeated over and over from some template. The method of calculating how much power was being released was a novel one and was used by several of the validators. The measurements were done not by the validators but by BrLP and then given to them. At least one of the validators had a prior contracting relationship with BrLP that spanned two decades.


    These things might seem like minor quips not worth worrying about, but if they occurred in an academic context it would be pretty bad for the principal investigator.


    After noting these things and after having taken a closer look at the mathematicalese in the GUT-CP tomes sometime back, which seem together to be an act of mathematical runaround, perhaps seeking to scare away people who might be more critical, I would urge caution on anyone who might be thinking of giving these guys any more money.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I would urge caution on anyone who might be thinking of giving these guys any more money.

    Not sure how many times one can say the same thing but it is a large number. Presumably everyone on this forum knows your views already. Outside investors probably won't see it.


    Obviously skeptics won't believe any experiment but only the sale of commercial reactors. Investors waiting for that will make much less than those that take a chance earlier - knowing the risks. It is rare for the original inventor's company to become the major player.

    Adrian, I just put forward an argument for caution for anyone contemplating investing, setting out several reasons for that caution. Are you able to address or rebut any of those points? They're good reasons to be wary. Or are you going to restrict yourself to vague generalities for waving away caution?

    Quote

    Yes, this could all be bogus, with Mills, his science team, and partners making it all up, validators in error, but the more they progress in technical difficulty, product design, strategic partnerships, marketing, the less likely that becomes. Oh, and the more he braves giving his presentation to representatives of the mainstream science community as he did this week...that helps too


    Shane, as with Rossi, the devil is in the details. If you look at the "technical partners," none really advocate for BLP that I know of. My suspicion is that they simply have contracts with them to look into and measure things. Who would turn that down from a well funded company? If you look at the scientific advisers, Renick's background is stated vaguely and the details of his work on BLP stuff even more so; "Chary" is essentially in house -- his work at Rowan has been generously funded for many years by BLP. I read one of his papers on the subject and it was the typical poor description that you find in badly done work. Dr. Jansson seems more reputable but what did he actually do with BLP stuff? The mystery for me is only Dr. Booker who seems entirely reputable and qualified. But if you look at the papers he chooses to list on his web site description, NONE has anything to do with validating the Sun Cell. That also is typical. https://physics.unca.edu/faces/faculty/booker Why would he not include in his prominent publications, work which if valid, could earn him a Nobel Prize and/or a huge fortune?


    So Mills and company says these physicists have "validated" his concept but have they tested the Sun Cell? Have they verified input and output power and energy using their own tools and methods completely independent of Mills and his team? I very much doubt it.


    As for the PDF of the presentation, it is 20% razzle dazzle meaningless computer generated art and 20% predictions of tests and production which they have made since 1991! The rest is rehashing of the world's energy needs. Really? They need to remind us of that? It's classic bullpushing for vaporware stuff. And I will bet you any amount that 2019 won't be different from 2009 and 2011 and 2014 and whenever else BLP promised production power plants. It won't happen. It's exactly like Rossi only pitched at a *slightly* more astute clientele of wishful thinkers who have more money than sense. My humble opinion, of course.

    Well... no. You can invest in Woodford. I don't know their minimum but I think it's modest. And at least one person who posts here regularly and expressed their ire about Rossi, did just that.

    Interesting changes from
    May 2016 to May 2017 to Sep 2017


    May 2016 : 250kW electric as first phase. Hot and heavy on motive -- Project 300 units installed 2017

    Photovoltaics (PV) is 50% of cost

    Edit 2 :

    -- Field test in 1H 2017
    -- Commercial launch in 2H 2017

    May 2017 : Thermal as Phase 1, Electric Phase 2, reduced to 150kW -- no times on phases

    Sep 2017 : Talking about 6 months for III-V PV (Now Spectrolab/Boeing)

    Next generation : Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) --- directly from the reaction chamber?


    Edit Sep 2017 :

    -- Field test in 2H 2018
    -- Commercial launch in 2H 2019

    Quote

    Project 300 units installed 2017

    Photovoltaics (PV) is 50% of cost

    Edit 2 :

    -- Field test in 1H 2017


    -- Commercial launch in 2H 2017



    Won't happen. Maybe a field test done by BLP or their paid for consultants. But production? Commercial launch? Almost certainly never. And absolutely certainly not this year or the next!! Want to bet?

    Quote from maryyugo

    Won't happen. Maybe a field test done by BLP or their paid for consultants. But production? Commercial launch? Almost certainly never. And absolutely certainly not this year or the next!! Want to bet?

    Usual MY careful reading. Those were the predictions in March 2016.


    Sep 2017 :

    -- Field test in 2H 2018

    -- Commercial launch in 2H 2019

    Quote

    That is categorically nothing like investing in LENR. Only 2% max of Woodford's PCT is invested in IH.


    So? If LENR is real, it's worth trillions. It's virtually incalculable how much virtually free energy is worth. So even Woodford's small share would be ... what's the expression currently? "YUGE"!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.