• "Just a reminder that the topics of LENR, on one side, and hydrinos (i.e., Mills et al.), on the other, are considered distinct by proponents of both."


    There is some extra energy37% still unaccounted for In Mizuno's Dorothy... deuterinos?

  • It's definitely frustrating to watch and wait for BrLp. I wish, as well as others, that they would just design and demonstrate a continuous light source from the reaction. They got very close to showing this with a demonstration of self sustaining plasma last year. But it just went back to the same BrLp type issues - taking the reaction and turning it into a working product. It always seems to be stuck there.


    I think it would be great if they simply licensed the light technology (which is already patented) and let others do what they want with it. Kind of the way that ARM has basic chip technology and dozens of companies design their own chip products around it. BrLp has gotten bogged down trying to engineer a commercial product. Maybe that is not the business they should be in. Maybe they should be in the tech licensing business.

    • Official Post

    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.


    Dang Eric, wish you would have told me that before I emptied my life savings, and cashed in my retirement accounts to invest in BrLP. Just joking with you. Yes, of course I understand the Suncell to be highly speculative. Investors beware and all that. And as you say "ignorance can be bliss" facilitating believing, but in this case I have much blissful company.


    Very few have the credentials to make much sense out of Mills theory, or have the insider status to be privy to their internal data, leaving most having to read tea leaves -just like me, in judging whether he has what he says.


    The way I see it, this new energy stuff is sort of like watching Salmon go upstream to spawn (and die, but that's another story). You know most will not make it past the first few rapids, bears, and Eagles. Those though that successfully do navigate through...well, you start taking notice. Mills has made it through most of the obstacles, and while he has not yet made it to the spawning grounds, you can not help but take notice.


    So will he overcome the last hurdles and mate with a fish? We shall see in 2019 I guess.

  • R. Mills is acting like there he all the time in the world for him to produce a product, but if all goes as expected, there will be at least a few competitors in the market. Mills believes that he has a lock on mother nature but others who know how to treat her right will be in the game and way sooner than Mills will be.

  • R. Mills is acting like there he all the time in the world for him to produce a product, but if all goes as expected, there will be at least a few competitors in the market. Mills believes that he has a lock on mother nature but others who know how to treat her right will be in the game and way sooner than Mills will be.


    I have just been a casual observer of all of this and think it would be great if someone came forward with an energy breakthrough. Do I think it will happen any time soon? Probably not. Is that a depressing thought? Not at all. Mark Twain (or maybe it was John Lennon) said that life is what happens when you are making other plans. If you want cheap, clean energy just take a look around and you will see it coming to life. Somebody did make a bet on clean energy a few years ago and he is the Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison that people are looking for - his name is Elon Musk. People still laugh at him, but look at Tesla. Energy capture through solar? Check. Energy Storage with batteries? Check. Electric cars? Check.


    We are at the point where I do think it is getting late for new players to come in out of nowhere with exotic and novel energy concepts. All of the technologies behind Tesla are getting better and better. I'm not saying Tesla is the only winner in all of this, and they are still losing tons of money. But Elon had the right ideas. Everything is going in his favor. Solar cost and efficiencies are getting better. Expect new materials to create a new generation of solar that's even better. Battery storage is getting cheaper and better. Just wait until batteries go solid state in a few years. Electric cars? Basically every major car maker is now going electric. With all of these advances the world by mid century will be one of cheap and clean energy that has a hard time justifying the use of any fossil fuels. The future that everyone here wants is happening, it's just different and maybe more mundane than we thought. That big ball of gas out there in the sky proved to be the answer we were looking for.

    • Official Post

    Deleo,


    Nice post and good to see you back. As you say, there is plenty on the energy front to be excited about other than BrLP, and that Italian guy (what is his name?) with the Ecat thing. 10 years ago it was all *talk* of what could be, and sometime since then it started to actually happen. Solar for one has just blossomed recently without hardly any fanfare. I guess after 50 years of promises unfulfilled, everyone simply tunes it out, but it is really starting to kick-in.


    Passive energy conservation has always been right there for the pickings, with probably the biggest potential environmental benefit, yet for strange reasons it was never really pursued as vigorously as it should have. This latest invention from MIT, probably offers more for the earths energy balance than all the others combined:


    https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ry…ems-air-conditioning.html


    Of course, BrLP could beat that if Mills, and his staff of scientists are not fooling either us, or themselves.

  • I have just been a casual observer of all of this and think it would be great if someone came forward with an energy breakthrough. Do I think it will happen any time soon? Probably not. Is that a depressing thought? Not at all. Mark Twain (or maybe it was John Lennon) said that life is what happens when you are making other plans. If you want cheap, clean energy just take a look around and you will see it coming to life. Somebody did make a bet on clean energy a few years ago and he is the Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison that people are looking for - his name is Elon Musk. People still laugh at him, but look at Tesla. Energy capture through solar? Check. Energy Storage with batteries? Check. Electric cars? Check.


    We are at the point where I do think it is getting late for new players to come in out of nowhere with exotic and novel energy concepts. All of the technologies behind Tesla are getting better and better. I'm not saying Tesla is the only winner in all of this, and they are still losing tons of money. But Elon had the right ideas. Everything is going in his favor. Solar cost and efficiencies are getting better. Expect new materials to create a new generation of solar that's even better. Battery storage is getting cheaper and better. Just wait until batteries go solid state in a few years. Electric cars? Basically every major car maker is now going electric. With all of these advances the world by mid century will be one of cheap and clean energy that has a hard time justifying the use of any fossil fuels. The future that everyone here wants is happening, it's just different and maybe more mundane than we thought. That big ball of gas out there in the sky proved to be the answer we were looking for.


    The price of PV cells has reduced (and is still reducing) spectacularly. As the efficiency (for cheap commercial PVs) goes up. That was predictable because the there is enormous technological scope for improvement and massive R&D to get it.


    Surprisingly, the cost of off-shore wind power (the most difficult and expensive, but unrestricted) type has decreased by 50% in just a few years in the UK. A triumph for the policy of giving large initial subsidies to push free market competition in a particular long-term desired direction.


    Batteries (an essential component in the renewable mix and needed for effective electric cars) have similarly been getting much better and cheaper. Here, as with PV, the state of art is a long way from the technological limits, but equally it seems that getting batteries that are low cost, high energy and power density, and long life, is a very severe challenge. Li technologyy goes on improving, but It is taking an awful long time for any of the radically new competitive technologies to pan out. I think that breakthroughs here will come (are starting to come) from more accurate modelling that allows large design spaces to be fully explored and characterised without physical construction.

  • I didn't "wave away caution." It's just I feel the warnings are too repetitive.


    In internet comments about claims such as BLP where the status of the claim is uncertain you will always get the people who respond emotionally and repetitively in a positive or negative way.


    However, BLP has a long history, with a lot of public data. We can track the claims, look at whether the demos have got more or less convincing, look at whether the positive results from early claims have developed as might be expected, or not.


    Also, we can look at Mills' theoretical claims (he is unusual in exposing a large amount of material) and what experts make of them.


    The detail in all that is not simple to put together. It is not easy for a newcomer, impressed as Shane by the latest demos and the support from a variety of partners, to put that in its context both scientific and historical.


    New but "same old" claims from BLP therefore deserve slightly repetitive, and detailed, re-analysis of the relevant context incorporating the latest developments.

    • Official Post

    Also, we can look at Mills' theoretical claims (he is unusual in exposing a large amount of material) and what experts make of them.


    The detail in all that is not simple to put together. It is not easy for a newcomer, impressed as Shane by the latest demos and the support from a variety of partners, to put that in its context both scientific and historical.


    THH,


    I think you and others put too much emphasis on Mills theory, i.e. If his theory is wrong, his Suncell is wrong. We still do not know how a bicycle works, but we have been building them for 200 years.


    https://www.fastcompany.com/30…entific-mystery-heres-why


    Mills has actually been pretty transparent about developments as compared to others. That may be so he can keep the money coming in, or it could be that he knows he is on to something and wants the word out. Whatever his reasons, by his actions he looks from the outside looking in like a legitimate inventor/businessman. Yes, I know that does make him so, and if he were a lone operator, without a team working with him, no strategic partners, and with no validations, I would not take him very seriously.


    That is not to say his moving the product launch date back 2 years is not disappointing, because it is. And it does rightfully raise suspicions, especially in light of his 26 year history of broken promises. Just this May he was quoted in an interview that "2 months from now we will have a commercial product ready", or something like that. 3 months later he lets slip a 2 year delay. That is such a dramatic turn around, he must have known in May that what he said in the interview would not happen. Frustrating, a red flag, and something that should make potential investors wary.


    That said, I am interested in BrLP, but I will not be hanging onto the story like I did with Rossi. It will be put on the back burner.

  • Quote

    We still do not know how a bicycle works, but we have been building them for 200 years.


    NONSENSE! What in the world do you think is mysterious about how bicycles "work"?


    Quote

    That is not to say his moving the product launch date back 2 years is not disappointing, because it is.


    You think?



    Quote

    And it does rightfully raise suspicions, especially in light of his 26 year history of broken promises.


    Uhhun. He's been moving back 2 years every two years for 26 years, as you say. And why are we still even listening to him?

  • Helios fires statement from Cranbury


    "Where are you reading that we are pursuing steam turbines? We are pursuing a simple heater for the $4T heating market. Concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) are presented electricity technologies.

    The MHD cycle could recirculate liquid silver alone such that there is essentially zero pumping power consumption and no gas cooling losses, resulting in high efficiency. Albeit, another aspect to consider is that efficiency is not that relevant. The power per unit volume and the corresponding capital cost, divided by the power is what counts. Modeling shows over 5MW/liter net power (unmatched by huge multiples). The capital cost is the sum of two EM return pumps + permanent magnet + electrodes = a few thousand. The cost per kilowatt looks amazingly low"


    So even if the conversion efficiency is only 5% each time a silver blob passes through the MHDevice .. it keeps recirculation very quickly..

    • Official Post

    Uhhun. He's been moving back 2 years every two years for 26 years, as you say. And why are we still even listening to him?


    Mary,


    Mills has learned a thing or two from the hot fusion industry. They are always "20 years from market", so Mills lopped off a 0 from that and is always 2 years from market. Hey, whatever works.


    Also, science can not explain how bicycle stay upright. I know you hate reading links, but it's in there. They do not say it, but I think it has something to do with LENR. Maybe Axil can explain? :)


    Anyway's, here are the other Mills comments on Yahoo from the past few days:


    "The wild cards are how fast Columbia Tech and other partners can move now that the heavy lifting is over, and the significant impact that MD may have on the program."


    "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."


    "We are a serious company working diligently on solving the problems to make hydrino reactions a commercial power source. In my opinion, we have been more successful than any other small company in history with NO support regarding the "world [that] can start planning the introduction of hydrino based technology in earnest”."


  • Sounds off to me. Low efficiencies mean very large cooling requirements, which cost. In any case a simple heater has very large market, so why complicate with other stuff till that exists?The answer, for BLP, is that PR is always needed to get funds, whereas working product has been postponed 26 years and I'll bet a large amount will be postponed another 5 (to give the bet a viable termination date). Of course it will be postponed forever.

  • Quote

    Mills has learned a thing or two from the hot fusion industry. They are always "20 years from market", so Mills lopped off a 0 from that and is always 2 years from market. Hey, whatever works.


    What TTH said. The whole light generation/photovoltaic converter idea is idiotic when a simple heater using little or no fuel would generate an incalculable amount of income. Trillions. That has always been the "tell" in various schemes of free energy scams -- they act as if they don't know how simple it would be to monitize them. Rossi is the poster child for this observation.


    The difference between Mills and the hot fusion "industry" is that the hot fusion advocates report their progress accurately, in the open and with lots of peer reviewed papers in reputable publications. Mills's stuff is vague and makes no sense. The very idea that one would design a high energy reaction so that the way to extract the energy involved a bright light and photocells is absurd. For many reasons, the hydrino theory is absurd. Mills lessons recently probably came mostly from the likes of Rossi. I am sure Rossi shook Mills up by demonstrating how easy it is to fleece the rich with very dumb scams. There is no need to write 600 page books and involve dozens of scientists. All you need is a silly kludge and a few gullible low level professors.


    If Mills is scamming, and he doesn't give enough info so anyone can prove it either way, he is going about it the hard way.


    There have been many refutations of the hydrino theory-- I know little about it -- one brief version is found here: https://physics.stackexchange.…been-replicated-elsewhere


    Quote

    If it were indeed possible to get energy out of a ground state atom, then by definition, that atom would not be in the ground state. In other words, claiming that you can get energy out of ground state atoms is, in fact, a claim that what look like ordinary hydrogen atoms at rest are actually atoms in some kind of meta-stable excited state. What are the odds that after 13 billion years, ALL of the hydrogen in the universe is still in this 'false' ground state? Surely there would be enough of the 'true' ground state material floating around that someone would already have noticed it? There would have to be some obvious clues.

  • LMMHD. Generator in Reverse.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Cranbury brilliants Just need

    1. To substitute Hg with Ag

    2 To raise temperature to ``2162C

    3. To push the molten silver around by pressure.

    4. To expend another 200000 manhours of R&D

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.