Epimetheus Member
  • Member since Mar 31st 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Epimetheus

    In addition to Alan: in the Ruhrgebiet in germany there were many coal mines in the last century and they build the cities above these mines. Currently there live 5 million people in this area. Due to the mining the cities sank up to 14 meters and water would turn the area into a giant lake if we would not pump this water out of the cities.

    How much does it cost to run these pumps forever?

    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 :-)

    Wow. This is impressive. Just changing hydrogen input and pressure and having such response of the energy generation. Pretty hard to explain in a chemical enviromente that does not react with hydrogen. 200kw excess with 25kw input starts to become interesting for electricity generation.

    But this sentence "The reactor wall excess heating or localized heating are not commercial impediments since they can be managed with cooling technology. " sounds like a typical premature Mills statement. I start to believe this when I see a demonstration. Without two or three rocket engineers in their team I doubt that they will find a fast and bullet proof solution for their cooling problem.

    Perhaps... because when done properly they do not work?

    The simple explanation is usually the correct one.

    I already told you two times I guess but you seem to ignore the facts: Mills early plasma reactors were replicated by Prof. Conrads and Prof. Kroesen. In the case of Prof. Conrads they made experiments for about a year. Conrads had 40 years + experience with plasma science and build and led the plasma experiement TEXTOR for 20 years.He and his Phd student found unusual plasma behaviour and a "novel chemical power source".

    I am not sure if you understand the implications of what they found:

    "The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges" and "

    The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed" and "

    The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen."

    Prof. Kroesen also found these properties.

    So I would advise you to stop spreading false claims about the replication of Mills work in most of your BLP comments. That you wish that your statements are right doesnt make them right. The next time you repeat these statements I am going to call you a liar. Repeating false claims after being corrected shows that you have unfair intentions. I know that you think you are right because if these findings where true the whole scientific world must have replicated it and found this "new chemical energy source". That you think this way is a consequence on your false assumption that science is neutral and just. But I think over the years this forum showed thousands of examples that science is more politics than the pure and sacred art you have in mind. Fun fact: Although Conrads was one of the most respected plasma scientist in the world and had the Bundesverdienstkreuz he was not allowed to conduct a replication of Mills work at his university in Greifswald and also not in his former university in Jülich. The plasma physics department at Bochum allowed him to conduct this replication. History shows that science and experimental findings that lie outside the established theories dont get a fair treatment. Conrads was emiritus by the time he did this replication so he had nothing to lose. It is obvious that you dont do a replication if you are young and want to pursue a carreer in academics.

    I dont get all these "...after all the time and money spent on this..." comments. How in gods name do you know how long it should take to control this reaction?? You are like my boss: Everything should be done in about a month - hard tasks can take two months. I still dont know why he thinks that two months are enough without knowing the requirements and the necessary tasks involved to complete it.

    • I build two LEGO toys with my boy. One took 10 minutes to complete and one a few days. Seems when we needed a few days we had a "shit and bust" kind of approach. Couldnt have anything to do with the one having a ten page manual and the other 550 pages.
    • Building notre dame took 200 years. What took them so long? Its just putting stone and wood together and smear some paint on the walls...
    • Where is our fusion reactor?? They showed a proof of concept (called Ivy Mike) in 1952. That is freaking 70 years with billions (or trillions by now?) of funding and still no net energy!!!! Seems like they have a "shit and bust" kind of approach.

    Of course there are also cases of mismanagement (see the airport we are building in berlin) and it takes way longer than necessary. But Mills has an intrinsic motivation to get this thing flying. He is hoping for the breakthrough much more than all of us combined. No one on earth has a clue what is needed to build a high power long duration hydrino reactor. No one on earth has a clue what is needed to build a high power long duration LENR reactor. So how do you know that it should be done by now???

    I like this quote from the paper Robert linked:

    ...Prior todiscovery of the Lamb Shift, calculating the mass of an electron produced an infinite, andtherefore meaningless, result. Theorists used the experimentally measured mass of an electron to replace the infinite mass and renormalized the quantum electrodynamics equations...

    Woohaa...the predictive power of QED.

    New video. Pace will be picking up at BLP, as they court new investors.

    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.

    The SunCell® was loaded with a heat sink of 50 kg of gallium and submersed in a 760 liter, vigorously stirred water tank that was initially at room temperature. The SunCell® internal temperature remained steady at about 400°C which is a typical operating temperature of a steam turbine power plant. The run duration of two hours was also limited by the thermal tolerance of the water tank, but this larger tank enabled the duration to be doubled compared to the previous run (August 23rd video). The video camera recording failed early in the run due to the water temperature exceeding that of the camera’s operational limit. The theoretical power from conventional chemistry with hydrogen addition is zero. The reaction of atomic hydrogen to hydrino or dark matter form of hydrogen catalyzed by HOH catalyst present in trace is the basis of this extraordinary hydrogen power source.

    This is great news. But putting 50kg of gallium into the reactor as "a heat sink" tells me, that they have problems controlling the reaction. They are artificially increasing the termal time constant of the system - probably because the time constant of their control possibilities is too large for such an "explosive" reaction. They still have much work to do.


    I am pretty sure that not many people looked so deep into GUTCP as Wyttenbach. And he gives Mills credit for what he achieved and is building up on many of his results. GUTCP is not very clear on many aspects. This does not mean that MIlls is not correct, but some of his conclusions seem wrong/incomplete from what is written down. This is no surprise, because the topics are highly complex and there are many topics covered in GUTCP.

    Why assume those? If I assume my pigs have a high lift to drag ratio, not to mention practical flapping wings, then for sure, they can fly.

    What's fantastic about it? Where is any indication of input power? output power? calorimetry? I'm not going to sit through the whole thing ... did I miss it? Some nice shots of Labview or even old fashioned panel meters?

    As always: these videos are not for you. These videos are for the people who follow BLP and who assume no fraudulent behavior. They mentioned the input power for older systems - I assume that the input power was tuned down and not up. I assume this because of my knowledge about the process which is very limited. This was 11 months ago:

    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.

    You can see great progress from the first closed suncells to the current 350C° steady temperature one hour run. I doubt that getting this suncell stable included ramping the input power up. But that is pure speculation.

    The news is about 2 and a half things:

    - stable temperature

    - long duration run

    - a rough estimate of the energy generated (getting 120 gallons of water from 25C° to 98°C is not calorimetry but gives you a rough estimate)

    Nothing interesting for the sceptics to see. But for me this is the demonstration of the technical breakthrough I was waiting for: with a one hour run and >20kw excess power it is possible to build a scientifically convincing setup that shows excess energy without any doubt. But that is another year down the road...

    10'000 Amps times max 15Volts for 3/1000 of a second times 10/s according old publications. Not a very high COP but enough for his investors. As said maximum 500eV per H*-H* is not much compared to fusion of D*-D* with 23.6MeV

    That gives 4,5kw mean input power. My memory told me "max 6kw" input power => COP > 6.6 with a 40kW signal. Good thing with BLP is that they published their scientific milestones pretty fast in the past. RM is a writing machine. I would love to hear some technical details :-)

    120 gallons boiling in an hour (or did it boil before)? I cant do the math - dont know what a gallon is :-)

    My BLP newsgroup says 80kw for boiling it in 30min (boiling seems to occur in the middle of the video) and half when assuming 60min. Pretty good for this small box.

    I dont think it is pure luck because in my opinion his model that connects space, mass and energy has a high chance to be correct. But I think he got lucky with the exact number. The text at Eq. 32.142 shows the basis of this value. It is the number of galaxies, the mean number of stars per galaxy and the mean mass/energy conversion rate of each star. I have no idea about the error bounds of these values but I guess they are rather high. And I dont know about the sensitivity of the final value in regards to these input values.

    Such an analysis would be interesting.

    I think they should pick an experiment with a high chance of success and especially high power output. These are hard to be found in the open science realm and I dont know if they want to deal with complicated NDAs of commercial groups.

    I hope R20 becomes such an experiment in the next two years. I wish every replicator all the luck of the world.

    I dont know the status of the reactors of Russ George and Alan. Is this highly reproducible? They definitly have a large signal. Does Google want to deal with Russ?

    I would suggest they replicate Randell Mills. High output - high reproducibility. Older experiments with less output power than today have been replicated at RUB in germany in 2003, in Eindhoven in 2006 and someone here recently posted a master thesis from 2009 where they replicated the effect with a 3 weeks visit of one of the PhDs from BLP. Current experiments have huge output power - but perhabs its not LENR but a different plus energy concept. And I dont know if Google wants to deal with Mills. He seems to be quite complicated from time to time.

    Speeking about Mills: has anybody mentioned the electric universe guys from the UK (dont remember the name of their experiment)? They have large excess energy too.

    I doubt that replicating these low power/energy experiments from the 90s and 00s will have an impact at all, even if Google successfully replicates them. To say it in Jeds world: if the Wright brothers needed three years to get media coverage while having a flying plane (!!!) I doubt that showing a single wing in the airflow chamber with a force measurement system that shows small signs of lift will achieve anything at all. If they dont find an experiment where they can show melting reactors, rooms heated with a reactor instead of a fire pit etc., their work will not have the effect I am hoping for. So stick with Mills melting reactors, try to deal with Russ or wait and pray that R20 is reproducible, but choose a high power experiment. Thats my opinion.

    The values of the Blower Power curve have been obtained by multiplying the values of the blower's Voltage and Current. However, it was done by multiplying their respective values rounded off to the second decimal digit and not those directly measured by the field instruments. These rounded off values comes necessarily from a spreadsheet like the one published here on L-F (2), which contains the data of the 120 W control test held on May 20, 2016.

    This fact demonstrates that the values of the Air Speed were calculated starting from the above Blower Power values! Otherwise, it would have been absolutely impossible for a measured quantity to follow exactly the same trend of the Blower Power curve, whose main and small jumps derive from the rounding off of Voltage and Current data.


    This is absolutely ridiculous. How can you be sure of this? You just have an excel graph!? You can have a suspicion, but saying that your "analysis" demonstrates something lets you lose all credibility. Sorry...

    I added a picture from my master thesis. Its voltage vs. time. Black my mathematical model and in red the measurements. I am sure you can demonstrate that I calculated the measurement values from the model and never measured anything. Ascoli65 is able to do this on the basis of a picture with 100% certainty.

    Fun fact: these are measurements. The measurements have a standard deviation of 1mV. Pretty hard to see on a 0,3V scale. But I am sure you can proof me wrong.

    You saw mechanical movement in most videos in the last year. When the process starts some valves switch and pressure rises in the connecting hoses. That causes some movement and shaking if the camera is mounted somewhere with a mechanical connection to these hoses. Your point is ridiculous: they showed videos of melting reactors and molybdenium rods with arm wide holes in it and you think they want to impress us with a shaky camery?? Sorry, but there are so many valid objections against BLP - I think you can make better than that.

    BLP enthusiasts? What say?

    Too few information for me. I did not get what is different from other runs. Does the text mean they fed power in just for one second? That would be impressive because you can clearly see the heat generated. I dont think anything interesting will come out of BLP in the next year. As an experienced rocket engineer mentioned: they need to build a cooling system that avoids boiling to occur and that is able to remove heat as quickly as possible. That is going to take some time. And they need to find ways to better control the reaction to a desired power level. Showing these short burst tests is a step back in my eyes.