• "Oil is not used to generate electricity"..In the Gulf states. I am not sure if that is true... perhaps they are using gas.

    The stayed reason I read for the switchover to nuclear was that it was cheaper than oil.

    However that was in 2014


    https://www.thenational.ae/uae…n-delayed-to-2018-1.42360


    My meaning was that if there is a nuclear incident in those 4 Korean reactors there may not be many tankers leaving the Gulf for Georgia or any place else

  • I will stick my neck out and forecast there is a better than 50% chance Rossi will come up with a believable demonstration in October. When he will have a saleable product is another story but I think will happen eventually. Same with the SunCell.


    ...

    more then 50 percent that some very expectable "cancellation" will be presented. Nothing else. BLP ? BLP is still in the state, where Rossi was, as he frauded the IH guys.

  • Quote

    I will stick my neck out and forecast there is a better than 50% chance Rossi will come up with a believable demonstration in October.


    Believable for whom? The "usual suspects?"

  • So, if I understand you right, Alan, after all the evidence presented for the pretrial depositions in Rossi vs IH vs Rossi, etc. etc., you STILL believe that Rossi has a working energy producing device or even that there is an appreciable chance that he does?

  • My reason for skepticism (other than the scientific judgement that their demos are not sound and Mills' theory is equally not sound) is simply history. What you say now has been true for 26 years, according to BLP, without any working product. You need to understand, in order to assess these situations, that some players find it easy to attract significant money from investors on hope of extraordinary returns as well as saving the world. It is relatively easy to do this with an unsound proposition. After all, there are so very very many investors out there, you only need a few to be willing to take your proposed gamble.


    The reaction here with support for BLP shows how easy it is to find takers for such a gamble. There is confirmation bias where later takers look at earlier respectable backers and reckon because they exist, BLP must have something. After 26 years BLP has a lot of confirmation bias.


    I know that they announced a product multiple times and failed to deliver. I also accept that as a reason to reject everything Mills says. But the fact that they could not design a working product in 26 years does not say anything about the validity of their claims. Nothing. Nada. This example was mentioned a lot but it fits perfectly: hot fusion was very often only 10-20 years away. And despite billions of $ and millions of working days spend on this topic they have not achieved a working product. And that on the basis of a theory everyone accepts! Does hot fusion exist? Or is this a fraud? With your and marys argument you would also dismiss hot fusion!


    Mills is working hard to make the suncell a reality and the hot fusion community is also working hard on a breakthrough. Both groups are working for a long time on their subject and both have not shown anything that is somehow near a working product. Is every dollar invested in hot fusion wasted? Is every dollar invested in the suncell wasted? What if hot fusion is possible and you had not invested? What if the hydrino reaction is possible and you had not invested? Who can tell in advance? In retrospective everything is easy to decide. So I say: don´t decide - do both!


    The bottom line: the "he promised to give us a product but did not hold his word" is not only true for Mills but for many other things. Of course you need to be careful if you invest in something but despite the odds it might be worth it! So once again: is hot fusion fraud and should we humans stop putting money into it because they broke their promises many times?


    And to give you an idea what might be the reason for the latest 20 million $ BLP gathered I advise everyone interested in BLP or cold fusion to read and understand his latest paper:

    https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/…i._Technol._19_095001.pdf

    Look what instruments they used. Check their calibration protocol for their instruments. See the difference between the active and inactive runs. It is easy to do these inactive runs in case of the hydrino reaction: if you don´t add a catalyst than nothing unusual happens. I asure you that no cat drank out of the reaction chamber - but I fear the bucket full of hydrinos evaporated over night...

  • Quote

    But the fact that they could not design a working product in 26 years does not say anything about the validity of their claims.


    Where do you get that? They (BLP) claimed to have a product ready to go commercial almost immediately and they did it as far back as twenty years ago. Those claims are OBVIOUSLY invalid. More to the point, they have by now become flagrant lies which should mean that any discerning person should not believe a word that Mills says-- not about future products, not about the performance of the sun cell, not about anything. People who lie about one high technology claim are certain to lie about others. Poster children: Rossi and Defkalion not to mention Tilley, Steorn, Howard Johnson, Otto and David Lee, the Rohner brothers (yes BOTH of them) and so on.


    There is no comparison with hot fusion whatsoever. Nobody ever said hot fusion would be commercial in two years. Hot fusion is based on well understood and established physical laws and principles which are without a doubt correct. Hot fusion is very difficult to achieve in practical amounts but the existing devices do CLEARLY work in that they do facilitate fusion with generation of considerable energy using accepted principles. The problem is achieving a stable plasma for long enough. The two cases have nothing in common. Same is true of cold and hot fusion.


    As for the paper you cited, I am not qualified to review it. I defer to someone here who is if there is someone and they want to bother. One thing I looked for in a brief browse was what the input power was. My impression of all of Mills' so-called sun cell experiments is that he dumps huge amounts of electric power for brief periods into a metal sample which then vigorously vaporizes -- exactly as expected. Nothing strange there. I can do it with an arc welder and a dead short across the electrodes. What I was not able to find was an analysis of energy in vs energy out. In particular, what was the energy in and how was it measured? Maybe I missed it.

  • An interesting anectode from the early times of BLP and cold fusion. A post by Dr. Mills in response to a former co-worker of Eugene Mallove:

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…versations/messages/13265

    Here is part of the message:


    "Mallove sent V. Noninski to Dr. Farrell’s Franklin and Marshall College chemistry lab where he set up a replication of my published experiment (attached). He slept on the lab bench and would not leave even for food that I brought to him. He successfully replicated my experiment (attached) and called Mallove with great excitement. I witnessed the call. To his astonishment, Mallove was furious “IT IS NUCLEAR OR NOTHING”. In general, cold fusionists found it unacceptable that light water and nickel electrolysis, not heavy water and palladium was reproducible at generating a significant gain in heat."


    This is nonsense. I knew Eugene Mallove well. I spoke with him many times a week, visited him several times, and I have hundreds of messages from him. I also know Noninski pretty well. There is no way Mallove would have said this. He was enthusiastic about Mills' nickel light water results. He was impressed by Thermocore's presentation of those results at MIT. So was I, and I still am. See:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf


    Mallove thought the effect was probably nuclear, but he understood that Mills did not think so. He would never be angry about a theory issue. I myself could not care less whether it is nuclear or Mills' super chemistry. Based on the helium results with Pd-D I suppose D-D fusion is occurring in those systems, but I am indifferent to theory, and I would not get emotional about it. Neither would Mallove.


    I do not know whether this was a misunderstanding or a lie, but I am sure it did not happen.


    The part about Noninski not sleeping or eating sounds plausible.

  • An interesting anectode of the early times of BLP and cold fusion. A post by Dr. Mills in response to a former co-worker of Eugene Mallove:

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…versations/messages/13265


    For nigh onto 28 years now and still counting, fusion as a cause of LENR is a myth that has befuddled the thinking processes of just about all LENR activists. Now we know that LENR can be produced using protium and the R. Mills response referenced here has lost it bite. Even more, we know that proton proton fusion is virtually impossible. So LENR using protium cannot be produced by a fusion reaction. It must be produced by another nuclear process. We know that LENR using protium is based on some nuclear process other than fusion because this type of LENR reaction also produces transmuted elements.


    Someday, when ash from the SunCell is eventually available, it will contain transmuted elements. This transmutation of elements is how we will know that the hydrino is a myth and the SunCell is a LENR based reactor.

  • But the fact that they could not design a working product in 26 years does not say anything about the validity of their claims. Nothing. Nada. This example was mentioned a lot but it fits perfectly: hot fusion was very often only 10-20 years away. And despite billions of $ and millions of working days spend on this topic they have not achieved a working product. And that on the basis of a theory everyone accepts! Does hot fusion exist? Or is this a fraud? With your and marys argument you would also dismiss hot fusion!

    I agree somewhat, but it does not "fit perfectly." The two situations are different in many ways. Such as:


    Mills keeps changing his devices, methods and goals. The hot fusion people, in contrast, have stuck with the Tokamak. (Maybe they have stuck with it too long. I cannot judge.)


    As you said, no one disputes hot fusion physics, whereas practically no one agrees with Mills' physics. Even if he fails to make progress toward a practical device, I think it would be reasonable to hope that he would make progress in explicating his theory and perhaps convincing more people it is correct. As far as I know, he has not.

    Mills is working hard to make the suncell a reality and the hot fusion community is also working hard on a breakthrough. Both groups are working for a long time on their subject and both have not shown anything that is somehow near a working product. Is every dollar invested in hot fusion wasted?

    Yes, every dollar invested in hot fusion probably is wasted, as far as I can tell.


    But there is a giant difference here. Giant, as in, the size of a large building versus the size of your hand. Giant, as in, billions of dollars versus a few hundred dollars. Mills' devices are small. They are millions of times cheaper than a Tokamak. He has made many of them. So, it is reasonable to expect that some of them would work well enough to convince people in a relatively simple demonstration. Unfortunately, the methods are so difficult to understand, and the devices so different from one another, I cannot make head or tail of them. I have no idea whether they are working or not. I am not an expert, but I have spent a lot of time looking at cold fusion devices, which the Mills devices resemble. If I cannot figure them out, I think it is fair to say they are obscure.


    In contrast to this obscurity, many cold fusion experiments have demonstrated that the reaction produces power density, temperatures and sustained heat high enough to make this into a practical source of energy. It is dead easy to see that is what they are doing. The effect clearly could be made practical, if only it can be better controlled. Control is the only thing we lack.


    Mills says his gadgets are not cold fusion devices. Just yesterday he told me again emphatically that he does not believe cold fusion exists. But anyway, whatever he says, his gadgets do resemble cold fusion devices. Whether they are or not, and whether his theory is right or wrong, is no concern of mine. I could not care less about that. If his gadgets actually work (which I cannot judge) I suppose they are cold fusion devices based on McKubre's conservation of miracles law. That is to say, it seems unlikely that two apparently similar reactions have been discovered but they are not actually similar.

  • fusion as a cause of LENR is a myth that has befuddled the thinking processes of just about all LENR activists

    That is what Mills said to me yesterday. I wrote back to him:


    "Please see:


    Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf


    Miles described this in more detail in other papers.

    These studies, along with studies by other researchers, show that deuterium is transmuted into helium, releasing heat. That transmutation is fusion, by definition. How it occurs cannot be explained by theory, but it is fusion."


    He did not respond in a coherent, scientific way. Neither will you. You say this is not fusion, but you are wrong. The experimental evidence shows that it is.


    Someday, when ash from the SunCell is eventually available, it will contain transmuted elements.

    How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant? Are you a time traveler from the future?


    You have a bad habit of making bold, affirmative statements about things as if they were proven facts, when these things are actually your own imaginary notions. Notions unsupported by an experimental evidence, and believed by no one other than you. Such as your claim that cold fusion must be caused by muons. You impress no one when you do this. People do not believe you, just because you write with such assurance.

  • How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant? Are you a time traveler from the future?

    http://www.newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf


    I say so, because this dusty plasma based LENR system has almost the same engineering approach as the SunCell in terms of plasma generation.


    The use of argon gas

    dusty plasma produced by an electric arc and a verity of electrode materials.

    Very high plasma temperature.

    The use of water.

    About the same optical temperature

    About the same plasma temperature

  • You have a bad habit of making bold, affirmative statements about things as if they were proven facts, when these things are actually your own imaginary notions. Notions unsupported by an experimental evidence, and believed by no one other than you. Such as your claim that cold fusion must be caused by muons. You impress no one when you do this. People do not believe you, just because you write with such assurance.

    JedRothwell: Notions unsupported by an experimental evidence


    Holmlid has measured muons. He is the only person to look for subatomic particle emissions. But recently MFMP has found some. We are getting there.


    Fusion is likely happening in LENR but as a secondary reaction caused by muon catalyzed fusion.


    Furthermore, the dusty plasma LENR systems don't have a lattice to produce fusion compression required by LENR doctrine.


    Proton proton fusion as in Ni/H is impossible even in a lattice based system.

    • Official Post

    I know that they announced a product multiple times and failed to deliver. I also accept that as a reason to reject everything Mills says. But the fact that they could not design a working product in 26 years does not say anything about the validity of their claims.


    Epi,


    Thank you for the link. For the first time I am aware of, Mills gives an explanation for those years long delays. Must be painfully obvious to him, as it to us. Here is what he said:


    "We received zero help from anyone: academia, government, industry. Those projections were mostly from independent firms or diligence assessments. You can’t build the Panama Canal with three guys a one shovel. So, the only path was to invent a means that circumvented the Panama Canal. Looks like the impossible is becoming inevitable. Rather than milliwatts we are producing millions of watts and we don’t need any central gen, grid, or fuels infrastructure."


    "The work should go fast now that the invention part is majority over, and we have sophisticated engineers that can operate the system. The transition could not occur until the design stabilized."

  • Quote

    Rather than milliwatts we are producing millions of watts and we don’t need any central gen, grid, or fuels infrastructure."



    Watts are not a measure of energy as I am sure Dr. Mills well knows. Also, if you make so much power, and by inference, energy, why does his sun cell require any power input at all once it has been started?

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.