Posts by Epimetheus

Quote from clarifier

Yeah, I started to favour those guys, now I see, they are crap.

To "indicate" that they "start" the device, they shaked the camera a little bit, then some gas came up, and I hardly doubt, this is really boiling water, and this gas + its source disappears after some seconds. Where is "persistently" ???

Boiling water would boil as long as the device is running.

I do not think, this, if something of the video is no fake and all is real, device has a COP > 0.

Display More

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.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

I have not heard of a scammer fooling people in this kind of situation, but I have heard of isolated groups of professionals working for years on what turned out to be a mistake. The best example was Fedyakin et al. working on polywater. You might say everyone fooled himself. It was a group hallucination, sort of like a cult.

There have been examples of this in technology, such as really bad or non-working products such as at Theranos. There is evidence that Elizabeth Holmes and her closest staff members were engaged in fraud. Or at least, they knew the product hardly worked in some ways, and did not work at all in other ways. However, my impression from the book is that most of the researchers directly engaged in experiments were sincere. It often happens that things don't work and years of effort are in vain. That isn't fraud. That's how the cookie crumbles. If you knew it was going to work, that would be "development" not "research."

I do not think it is fair to say that the Theranos gadget was a complete fraud that did not begin to work, like some perpetual motion machines or Rossi's 1 MW reactor in Florida.

That is definitly possible. But for group hallucination and being a cult you dont need a small isolated group. The educated people in the middle age in europe where organized in a large group called the "catholic church", and they all thought that the earth is the middle of the universe - for centuries. The german society thought that jews are "unworthy life" for 10 years. The american society thought that communism is the death to all free people and has to be purged from the face of the earth for 40 years.

And my favorite hallucination:

For electrons and protons Maxwells laws do not hold but instead the laws of physics change magically when going from macroscopic to microscopic scale.... And atoms here on earth have a probability unequal to zero to be on mars the next time we look at them....

To find truth is no easy task for us humans. Thats because it is hard/impossible to estimate the true uncertainty of the information we rely our worldview/opinions on. And we can have a worldview and opinions even if we have no information on certain important aspects. In these cases we just have some generic assumptions with even higher uncertainty (in social context we call these generic assumptions "prejudice"). It is inherent to humans to underestimate the uncertainty of information. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to draw any conclusion and act accordingly.

There are cases in which small groups are hallucinating.

There are cases in which small groups are right.

There are cases where large groups are right.

There are cases where large groups are hallucinating.

I hope that we humans learn to first gain wisdom (and after that knowledge) to find good ways to deal with all these uncertainties. And yeah, I had a glass of wine

Quote from Dr Richard

Looks like BLP are about to market their first working Suncell having sorted how to extract the power - photo voltaics would never have worked but now thy have MHD but God, its complicated. Not a simple system you can tinker with if something goes wrong - and I never understand why he always shows pictures of Suncells exploding spewing out their silver plasma contents. Its not LENR but claims to be about 1000 times more powerful than your average diesel engine - when can I buy one, please?

Personally I like the videos of exploding devices. Exploding devices, awfully looking program code, automatic assembly lines that destroy the input instead of building things,...etc. - this is reality. Highly polished presentations make me suspicious.

Great they have a simulation of a great MHD cycle, but I agree with you that this MHD device is highly complicated. They will never develop something like this alone. But the real kick off is the thermal suncell. If they could expand the working time span to 6 hours or better a full day and build up a good water flow calorimetry with high power output of the reactor - I think in this stage an OEM could start heavy investing with money and own staff.

Another interesting comment on reddit by someone who attended the shareholder meeting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Brill…ce=share&utm_medium=web2x

Running for an hour would be great, compared to what they had in october (if it is with a relevant energy output). But this part "..., after which some sort of undisclosed processing step was required" shows that it is a long way towards a working product.

Quote from THHuxleynew

...

Many people like epimetheus find it difficult to believe this - but it happens to be well attested from experimental results, and also clear from QM.

It is also so improbable as to be impossible that anything as big as a cat can be treated like this: the correlations amongst the enormous number of degrees of freedom available for a macroscopic object at normal temperatures make reconstituting a neither dead nor alive cat in this case impossible.

...

Yeah right. It is difficult to believe! And you have to believe - you have to "shut up and calculate" because it does not make any sense at all. You belive in QM because you can calculate most of the relevant physical properties of our world and you have experiments that show that the equations work. This is true for many experiments, but not for all. Because there is no alternative to QM in the eyes of the believers, they seem to have the tendency to say "ahh...98% of QM works - just wait ten years and the last 2% will fit somehow". That is the same arrogance as the physicists showed in the end of the 19th century ("Dont study physics. Nearly everything in physics is known."). QM believers have no reason to be so arrogant. Ever heard of dark matter or mass? There are huge blind spots in the eyes of believers. That is true for me but definitly also for THH, SOT and the whole QM community.

QM failed so miserably and describing mass (that Higgs particle thing is ridiculous: oh. Our collider found a new peak. For what particle are we looking? Uh... the Higgs Boson. OK. It has to be the Higgs Boson.) or dark matter. If someone comes along and has a good hypothesis what dark matter could be and if this someone tells you how you can perform experiments that can produce this dark matter candidate and if these experiments where succesfully replicated independently by great physicists with much expertise (Prof. Conrads and Prof. Driessen) and they also find unusual behavior perhabs that would be a good time to descend from the white QM horse and replicate. But they would rather build another 10 billion $ collider or 500 million $ dark matter detector then to perform simple experiments of someone who talks bad about QM. That is not the behavior of adults and it is definitly not "scientific".

I know that there are many experiments out there that show "quantum behavior". But can you look me in the eye and swear that it is not possible that another (completely different) theory is able to describe these experiments? You cannot. So we are at the beginning. I believe the probability function approach of QM is just a mathematical model and is not our physical reality and Mills has a much better approach. You believe the opposite. You cannot proof that you are right and me neither. But perhabs you can admit that it could be a good idea for mainstream physics to replicate Mills. Not in the 1989 cold fusion style of replication - "We worked our asses off in the last 40 days and could not find anything...so cold fusion must be fake." but with a reasonable time frame, staff and budget.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Lack of evidence

Everyone can say anything. I say: there is lack of evidence that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time! Have a nice day!

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is disputed (by me and many others) unless you are referring to the many well known chemical reactions which hydrogen participates in...

On what basis do you dispute this?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Selling your work site is a sure indicator of flaming success... oh wait...

According to Mills and a few others. Many main line scientists think it's hogwash and parts of it are plagiarized to boot. And there is basically nothing to show for >$100M and 25+years other than an arc welder dumping power into a small piece of silver which does make a bright bang -- surprise! ...not

With these comments main line scientists just showed their bias. These "loud scientists" are related to science as "mainstream journalists" to journalism these days. The critizism found on wikipedia is rediculous. They talked about Mills work as if he does not understand basic things like plus and minus. Mills has developed the only working theory that is able to calculate the ionization energies and the structural properties of hundreds of molecules to great accuracy with analytical equations from basic phyiscal constants. Show me another model that is able to do this and I admit that he "plagiarized to boot".

If you define "there is basically nothing to show" as "you cannot buy it in walmart" than you are perfectly right. In my eyes he has very much to show, like a multitude of measurements of properties of dark matter for example. There are many really expensive experiments out there that cost more than $100M and showed no sign of dark matter. He is able to produce it and trap it for analysis. But yeah...nothing to show...right

Quote from Max Nozin

COP around 2? After 20MW in a cup, little Sun.

Why are they doing that if it already has been 'proven' many times?

That is very confusing.

I think they are doing this because of the upcoming shareholder meeting in april. They obviously tried to set up a calorimetry device with a complete continously running reactor, as seen in the last video they released. That system is not working yet and to show some energy in / energy out results they repeated their spot welder experiments. I think it is as simple as that.

I agree that this is confusing and I would not show a COP 2 experiment in 2019 after showing the same result two years back. That looks like they made no progress which is obviously not the case (see reactor progress from september 18 to feb 19). I expect the reactor calorimetry results in about a year. We saw the system of jan 19 and there is still lots of work to do, so no chance to see it this year. I can wait

Rathke did a sign error in this paper. His whole argument was based on this sign, so it is not worth the paper that it is printed on. I would be more interested in a paper "A critical analysis of the hydrino model. J. Wyttenbach". You need people in science that can acknowledge the progress someone did, even when it forces you to throw old stuff over board. Rathke is in the well known "we alone know the truth and all the others are heretics" mode. He once wrote in a forum that he wrote this paper to prevent ESA (?) to put money into ivestigating Mills results. Great - more money for even greater particle colliders, ITER or the human brain project. I could cry...

I really liked this article and its predecessor. His writing style is pretty clear and I think he is making a very good job in giving an idea about certain topics from Mills theoryframework.

They like to make papers so there will be a paper in the future. Look at the paper they released last year. It is pretty detailed. I could imagine that they try to land the great punch with their next paper. They need to sink this in oil, refine the process, make sure the reactor runs for 1-2 hours before failure and model the whole thing thermodynamically. After that they surely try to get an independant peer review of their measurement system. Peer review takes time, they need to address the objections the peer has, measure again.... If they have their system ready in summer 2019 I would expect a paper minimum six months later.

So this will take time. But what are 1-2 years compared to the 28 years of the overall saga? The sceptics will say "red paint" and the believers will say "insert long list of not verifiable arguments". But Mills knows this and I think he is preparing some kind of "great punch". Till then I enjoy every progress video.

I agree with Mark U that there is plenty evidence für the H2(1/4). They made null runs for all their results and the spectroscopic signals vanished in these null runs and when they did their "hydrino thing" the signal appeared and had the value they expected from theory. I also like the photoluminescence emission spectroscopy result, with which you can measure the internuclear distance of H2 that shows the 1/4 H radius.

But I also agree with Wyttenbach and Simon Brink that the mechanism for hydrino generation might work in another way as Mills thinks. I think they have more of enough evidence for the necessary properties of their catalysts, but the equations and mechanisms could be different in reality from their current form. I think the proper mechanism includes Mills H2(1/4) but could be different. And their are probably mechanisms at play that Wyttenbach describes that Mills ignores or dont know.

But I am confident about their future: the prototype reactors are very good and within the next year they could have a device to study the reaction in detail. They can look into their reaction with the glas reactor and their highspeed camera. In a few months they can do energy in and out calculations to learn about the energy balance of their system and I think they are the only ones with high power reactors in the field. Higher power means, that they learn faster and with more signal/noise about the physical properties of their reaction. The water bath will allow them to run the reaction for a longer period of time. Currently they dissipate heat just through radiation - that hinders them to increase the power output. They have different reactor designs they analyse in parallel and that will speed up progress. I am pretty confident that they will have the most interesting experiment/reactor on this planet within the next two years. A commercial product is nowhere to be seen at the horizont.

Another video on the news page Shane linked in the post above. Sounds promising - a water bath is an important step towards "energy in - energy out" analysis. I really like the title of the video. Reads like a recent boost in confidence - if I had to guess, I would assume that the DoD meeting went good for BLP.

@SOT

I dont know anything about the equipment used in the current experiments, but they published a paper this year with their "shot ignition" experiments and I think it makes sense that they still use these instruments:

from here: https://www.brilliantlightpowe…st-Power-Paper-050818.pdf

Excerpt:

"The current and voltage traces as a function of time were recorded at a time resolution of 56 ns via 60

MHz digital oscilloscope (Picotech, Picoscope 5442B) using a voltage and current probe. The voltage was
measured by a 25 MHz 70 V 10:1 differential voltage probe (Picotech, model TA041) accurate to +/-2% and the
current was measured with a Rogowski coil (PEM, LFR 15/150/700) that was accurate to +/-0.3%. The
relationship of the light emission to the current and voltage of the ignition power source was studied to
determine the real power into the shot. "

Quote from THHuxleynew

We need devices that can produce such outrageous levels of excess energy that even the most ardent skeptics can easily see that the output is either enormously larger than the input or the output is infinity compared to the input. There are many paths to achieve this.

No we don't. We need devices that produce clear (say > 30%) excess power (and >> chemical excess energy) replicably and when independently tested using good calorimetry.

Regards, ardent skeptic

That is not true THH and you know it. You need an "international academy of science" to officially acknowledge LENR as a real and official science. Before that you would say that the experimen)t (no matter how good it was) was not independently tested (original experiment and replication were on the same continent -> not indepent; the researchers sat at the same table at the last conference -> not indepent; ...--> infinity) and you would say it was not "good calorimetry" (solar activity was not taken into account and the sun heated up the experiment --> no good calorimetry; there is no 24 hour video stream of the experiment - a cat could have slept on the experiment heating it up --> no good calorimetry;...--> infinity).

You are going to learn that real science is to a large extend a social/emotional thing and not the highly idealized science from the textbook. When you are converted from a skeptic to a believer by national TV in the (hopefully not so far away) future you will see many of the here presented experiments in a different light. You would not admit it and you would defend your past view as the "correct" scientific method, but this would not change the fact that you were flat out wrong. (I know that good science needs sceptics (to a certain degree) to design better experiments)

Quote from Wyttenbach

The problem is very simple: Mills should start to understand the role of silver and may be ask somebody that knows how LENR works...

With the currents setup he will only destroy money and most goodwill.

I cannot judge this, but I think in his current plan to move forward your opinion is (unintentionally) adressed: he is pursuing the galium path with the suncell heater and the silver path with the MHD design. So it is not far fetched to assume that on his way forward he is going to realize the points that are important in your view.

But asking someone of the LENR field (what Mills will never do) will not bring much insight I think, because you seem to be the only one with an opinion about the influence of silver. And I don´t know on what property of silver you base your assumptions.

My personal bottom line: he has the reaction running and controlling the reaction is solely an engineering challenge in the next year(s). New theoretical advances/explanations are needed if he wants to operate his cell beyond a couple of hours, I think.

axil: jip. See comment of sept. 5 video in "videos" section on the BLP homepage. I think the problem is with the continuous supply of the H2 and inhomogenuous spread of H2 in argon. I asked a question regarding the control possibilities of reaction rate on SCP forum, but Mills said he is not going to answer the question due to IP issues.

Quote from Bob

...

One point that I find curious, is that the text often made statements such as "World’s First Continuous-Plasma," the plasma only lasted a few seconds.

I guess I will have to research further into the website to see if more indepth information is there. Talk about hydrinos and theory is one thing, measured and verified power in / out is another.

Thanks.

_{That is quite easy to understand. He is not talking about the world first generation of a plasma, but the world first generation of a plasma caused by a hydrino reaction in a device that tries to harness the hydrino reaction. His statements are bound to the technical device. The last milestones were:}

_{- having a device that runs a hydrino reaction in a closed system (before that it where open glove box like devices) in batch mode (firering the ignition spark, switching it of for a while and then fire again...)}

_{- having a device that runs the electricity continously through the galium to have a continuous hydrino reaction}

_{There is currently no power in / power out in continuous operation. They have just power in / power out for the "shot mode" with a small "grain/droplet" of active material that they are igniting (see bomb calorimetry in part 2 of the Q3 Update slides). That is not enough to convince anyone. For the power in / power out in continuous operation he first need stable continuous operation without melting a hole into the cell. That is not accomplished yet. Of course he measures how much power goes into the reaction because the input power is mainly electrical and in his latest paper you can see the equipment with which he measures electrical power in. Currently you just can estimate the output power of the reaction by guessing how much energy is needed to melt the cell But these melting results do not convince anybody as seen in the past - the giant hole in the molybdenium rod within a few seconds has not attracted any interest (google molybdenium melting point).}

_{So we are all wating for continuous operation without cell destruction.}

_{By the way: I really like that he publishes videos of failed tests and his "meant to by funny" comments.}