Posts by optiongeek

Quote from IH Fanboy

My guess is that first prototypes will be in the market more like 2020 rather than 2017, given that things take time, and schedules nearly always slip, but there seems to be a legitimacy in the air now for BLP more so than at any previous time.

I would gladly accept 2020. However, I'm a bit more optimistic. Some have mentioned sublimation of the graphite dome leading to carbon deposits on the CPV as a potential show-stopper. Mills claims his supplier has guaranteed zero sublimation in the targeted operating range - we'll find out when Mills manages to run his device "closed". I'm also a bit worried about how the cooling will work and how Mills plans to keep the CPV at around 80 C while the dome (just a few cm away) is at 3000 C. I'm not at all worried about the control assembly or the CPV. That's known technology. However, Mills is talking about "recycling" light to increase the efficiency using gold foil on the back of the CPV. That could introduce a new set of variables that need to be worked through.

Overall, I think the remaining challenges are all quite manageable. I was very much of a different opinion when he was rolling aluminum shots through a welder back in 2014. I could see the promise of the technology at that point, but it was pretty easy to see that generation wasn't going to cut it.

Quote from Mary Yugo

If you think that implies legitimacy, you're wrong. For example, nobody sued Steorn and they ripped off more than 20 million Euros over ten years from hapless investors. Most scams end in a whimper. The victims/marks are too embarrassed to sue and there is usually no money to recover because the scammers have already spent it. Steorn just went belly up bankrupt and so far, no lawsuits. Defkalion vanished altogether and no suits.

With Rossi you get dodgy business associates passing around fake business cards and phantom companies with no discernable business model. With Steorn you get bar-girls. With Mills you get dozens of real-life non-anonymous experts. These experts bring with them verifiable backgrounds with decades of experience working at top tier research labs and R&D companies. The investors and board members are from premium VCs, law firms and industrial companies who have collectively ponied up over $120m and waited with extreme patience for Mills to do his thing. If Mills wasn't on the level, you can believe these folks have the resources and know-how to put an end to it.

I'm just going to throw this out there. . .if all this drama is getting you down, you might think about taking another look at Mills and his twenty-five years of litigation-free R&D. Yes, he's gone after a couple of folks over the years for libel and interference in the IP process. But to date no one has ever tried to sue him regarding his research and claims. Just sayin'.

Quote from Shane D.

Can you drive up to his warehouse, lab, or corporate headquarters like you can with BLP in their New Jersey facility?

Just to emphasize this last point. . .I personally have driven up to the BrLP lab in New Jersey and seen his lab and his devices. I've spoken with BrLP lab techs responsible for conducting the experiments in which heavy tungsten electrodes are vaporized in seconds. I've schmoozed with readily identifiable industry heavyweights as they waited their turn to buttonhole BrLP executives so they can get their feet in the door and make deals. And I'm just a peon. Can anyone on the planet say the same about Rossi?

Thanks, Wyttenbach. very much appreciate your response. I'm pretty familiar with the design and I can assure you the Ar (Argon gas) supply is not meant to be consumed in the commercial version. It's there simply to provide an inert environment outside the reactor dome and within the containment shell. Argon is not part of the reaction at all. The only catalyst is HOH, with the H provided by the H-gas supply and an O contributed by a "very stable oxide" that is mixed into the molten silver. Mills has been quite clear that the stable oxide does not need to be replaced - the seal on the reactor dome should be impervious to everything but H and Hydrino. I don't know why he is showing a supply tank of Argon, that may just be required in the current "open" operating environment in which the device is running in a glove box.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Argon is the catalyst. Mills uses 97%Ag and 3%H according to the latest papers.

Very confused by this. In every Mills setup I'm aware of, Argon is only used as an inert environment. Relatively confident it is not being used as a catalyst in the latest setup. The catalyst is nascent water - HOH (H2O without hydrogen bonds). You also say "97% Ag" - Ag is silver, not argon. Can you please tell me where you're seeing this?

Quote from Mary Yugo

Mills is virtually certainly the same exact thing as Rossi except with quite a lot more polish.

Then perhaps you can start the site millsfraud.com and post any examples you happen to find where Mills has misrepresented.

Quote from axil

But they still shoud have spin or at least reactor with a magnetic field that would affect its spin.

Please take a look at the presentation at the link below. Starting at page 16 you can see the dozen or so analytical techniques that Mills and others have used to isolate and characterize hydrinos. Spin is one aspect they are using. I'm attaching a sample slide from page 21.

http://brilliantlightpower.com…calPresentation1.8.16.pdf

Quote from axil

Can anybody explain how this positive feedback loop works? What keeps that feedback mechanism constant and regulated?

I didn't really understand it very well until Mills' explanation at the Dec. 6th roadshow presentation DC. In the basic hydrino reaction we have the following steps:

• m * 27.2eV is transferred to the catalyst by some mechanism (let's say multipole coupling).
• The Hydrogen atom absorbs a corresponding energy hole and becomes unstable. It therefore shrinks to the hydrino state corresponding to m and releases continuum radiation while doing so.
• However, the catalyst is also unstable because it has absorbed m * 27.2eV and it must release this somehow. The most common way to do this is by ionization. This causes a buildup of charge which acts to limit the reaction rate.
• In Nov. 2013, Mills made a breakthrough when he discovered that the reaction will not be rate limited when it occurs in an arc-current. Apparently the arc-current acts against the charge build up in some way. The reaction rate is neither constant nor regulated. In fact, the reaction becomes explosive.

Still not a perfect explanation, but it's more than what I knew before watching the video. Here it is in case you are interested. The discussion starts around time mark 27' 30"

Quote from bc_stadler

The Potentials Phi and A are constant in time. Therefore the magnetic B and electric field E are constant in time. Therefore only the (time) Fourier component with frequency 0 exists. No photon emits.

You'll be happy to know that you, and Mills and reality all agree. In "ground" state Hydrogen, the electron does not radiate as you have deduced. However, apply the same analysis to the excited state of Hydrogen. Now, the electron orbitsphere has absorbed a photon. The electric field from this "trapped photon" partially masks the central charge, and the effective charge felt by the electron is now "fractional". Using the same equations, Mills shows that the space-time Fourier now has a sinc(x) component (i.e. sin(x)/x) which does not fall out neatly and leads to the components that are synchronous with lightspeed. Thus, the excited state is unstable and will eventually emit a photon that will return the atom to "ground" state. Once back at the ground state, the potential for those synchronous with lightspeed Fourier components disappears and the atom cannot radiate any more. Please take a look at Chap 2 in Mills' book and find the sinc(x) in equation 2.29. I think it'll will make more sense to you now.

Quote from padam73

Do you have a reference from BLP saying that the vapour pressure of silver is 10 atm? Also, do you know the partial pressure of H and H2O in the vessel? These questions to know whether the conditions are appropriate to produce condensed excited states following Manykin's theory. Thanks.

Mills has commented to that effect on the Society for Classical Physics forum - you can search for a reference if you want. However, I wouldn't spend too much time on the LENR aspect. Mills is quite explicit that prior tests with different isotopes of hydrogen yield indistinguishable results. The nucleus has nothing to do with the reaction other than supply a specific charge.

Quote from Mary Yugo

(1) Why have hydrinos never been observed in nature? We get to see a hell of lot of hydrogen in nature. We've seen it behave in a virtually uncountable number of environments. We've seen how it reacts, at temperatures ranging from a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, to hundreds of times hotter than the core of the sun. We've seen react with pretty much every element that exists on earth. High energy, low energy, you name it. We see how it behaves in stars, in nebula, in atmospheres ranging from mars to gas giants. And yet, there's never been the slightest hint, in any of those environments, that the hydrogen atom has an energy state below the common base. Why?

We do see hydrinos in nature. Have you ever heard of 'dark matter'. It's actually quite common.

Quote from Mary Yugo

(2) Why has blacklight constantly claimed to be less than a year from commercializing their system?

According to John DeCarlo in the video I linked, he's targeting a v1.0 field test unit in Jan/Feb. Very detailed project plan. Have a look.

Quote from Mary Yugo

(3) Why does blacklight pretend that they can't tell anyone how to reproduce their system from scratch, when they've filed a patent on it? (This one is particularly telling when it comes to the issue of fraud. Because either (a) they're lying when they say they can't reveal the process to build their device, or (b) they lied on their patent application. There's no third choice: a patent application is required to provide instructions detailed enough to reproduce an invention; either they've already given away the "secret" that they can't reveal, or they didn't. If they did, then they're lying; if they didn't, then they lied.)

Uh, have you looked at BrLP's technical docs. He's actually pretty clear about how to build a device. In fact, I've spoken with an academic who did just that. Downloaded a BrLP experimental description and ran an experiment that got the same results. Never spoke to Mills until he was done. Gil Crouse is the name. Of course, there are about dozen other replicators who have succeeded. The information is all there, you just have to look.

Quote from Bob

However, I do question the self-sustain comment. Am I missing something?

What you are missing is described by my comment above about diffusion of charged species to ground (i.e. the vessel wall) after the current source is cut off. In every other terrestrial plasma, the diffusion is *extremely* quick, on the order of msec. Having a plasma stick around for minutes in the absence of a source current is a compelling demo. Ask any plasma physicist.

Quote from Mary Yugo

WTF is Columbia Tech? Do they have a link or web page about their Mills related work?

Better than some web page, here is John DeCarlo himself talking about Columbia Tech and his firms involvement with BrLP. It's a serious company with excellent bona fides. Mills' only detractors are folks who haven't spent the time to investigate his claims carefully.

Quote from Mary Yugo

So far, for more than 20 years, BLP has been promising power plants and not delivering anything to anybody. Their experiments are meaningless except to enthusiasts and perhaps themselves. They are very much like Defkalion, Rossi and Steorn.

I'll make sure to let BrLP's development partners (including at least one prominent utility provider) know about your concerns. Perhaps you can contact the firm that is fabricating the prototype equipment yourself and warn them. Columbia Tech's CTO is John DeCarlo, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Perhaps someone would want to go over what BLP has released on this and create a description. My understanding is that the streamer is liquid silver, being used as a conductor. It's obviously not a plasma, you can see that it's a liquid.

The intersecting molten liquid silver streams are the electrodes carrying the approximately 10kA current required for the reaction. The fuel is simply H diffused into the chamber as H2 gas, and the HOH catalyst required by the reaction is provided a "very stable" source oxide mixed into the stream. The product is H[1/4]_2 (dihydrino gas), which escapes from the reaction chamber and through the atmosphere into space.

The reaction causes the vessel to heat up to approximately 3000C with 10 atmospheres of pressure from silver vapor. At some point (i.e. 4' 30") the reaction becomes self-sustaining and the input current is withdrawn. A minute or so later, the reaction has cooled enough that the ignition current is needed again. Four independent experts have reported out over 2MW is provided in steady state from this reaction, at over 500x gain (obviously infinite gain when the current is shut off). Mills has reported that the device can run all day, but due the current lack of controls currently requires constant manual attention to operate (see below).

As commented on by folks with decades of plasma experience, a self-sustaining plasma is simply unknown to science outside of the Sun. A source of charge species is *always* required to maintain the plasma and these particles will diffuse to ground in milliseconds once the input current is turned off, killing the plasma. So I stand by my assertion that BrLP demos have shown Nobel-prize winning phenomena.

Mills has been very open about the remaining engineering before his field test unit is ready. First, the vessel is still operating in "open" mode, inside a pressurized glove box. This is because he lacks the necessary control systems to regulate the flow of molten silver effectively and therefore it must be done by hand. He has said the control components are being developed now. Second, the Concentrator Photovoltaic units are still being developed by his partner - Masimo. The first version of these are due next month. As I mentioned, he's planning a press conference at the end of January. Perhaps we'll see a fully functioning field test unit in operation.

Quote from damn_right _man

...so can we expect to see such a horror show like it was with orbo/steorn ?

BrLP shows so far have been nothing like Orbo/Steorn. At the Oct 26th, the world was introduced to the first ever terrestrially-situated plasma that sustained itself without an input current source. That's Nobel Prize winning stuff on it's own (see video at time mark 4' 30"). However, Mills has said the roadshow will not introduce new demos. Instead, he's called out late January for a press conference.

Quote from optiongeek

According to GUTCP, photons superpose absolutely. As I understand GUTCP, the energy hole corresponding to the release of m * 27.2eV is modelled as a single photon, regardless of the value of m. And a subsequent release of another m * 27.2eV just adds to the existing energy hole. I'm going to ask Prof. Huub Bakker (Massey University) about this. I know he is working on a text book describing this exact issue.

Prof. Bakker has responded to my email which I copy here:

"This is absolutely right. Photons can be superimposed absolutely if they have the same wavelength (size) and the energy absorbed/emitted by an electron is added/removed from the, one, photon trapped in the orbitsphere.
For instance, this is how an excited electron behaves. The photon absorbed has the energy difference between two states and therefore is much larger than any already-trapped photon. Yet there is only one photon after the change of state, one that is a harmonic of the new orbitsphere size. (Damn, a number of questions have raised themselves in my head that show that I don’t really (still!) know what’s going on.)
regards
Huub"

Quote from Wyttenbach

stefan: These arguments are quite compelling. But.., as I mentioned down to H(137) you need to calculate in many photons, which themselves must obey some basic rules about their relative frequencies. But what happens to the photon, if the radius of the electron shrinks? Normally the frequency must increase too!, what is quit fantastic, in the case where more than one photon comes into the play!

Which part (electron, captured wave?) of the hydrino shell is interacting - releasing energy - e.g., on the way down from H(11) --> H(31) , just to mention a case with two primes, which never fits?
I said this already month ago: There is no hydrino-statistics after H(1/13)! May be this is a stopping point, because to go further you need a many-body reaction.

According to GUTCP, photons superpose absolutely. As I understand GUTCP, the energy hole corresponding to the release of m * 27.2eV is modelled as a single photon, regardless of the value of m. And a subsequent release of another m * 27.2eV just adds to the existing energy hole. I'm going to ask Prof. Huub Bakker (Massey University) about this. I know he is working on a text book describing this exact issue.

Quote from Eric Walker

Ok, let's not worry about the suspicious reworking of angular momentum

You may call it suspicious. However, Mills uses this distribution of angular momentum and first principles (such as Poynting Theorom) to derive a three-term closed-form equation for the electron's anomalous magnetic dipole moment with the same level of precision as the 16-page expanded equation from QED. I present Mills' equation (1.228) here, you can see the derivation for yourself starting with equation 1.163 in GUTCP Vol 1. (http://brilliantlightpower.com…2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf):

Anomalous electron dipole moment w/11-digit accuracy: g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2 (GUTCP equation 1.228)

For comparison, the QED version in all 16-pages of its glory is found here (I've seen 50-page expansions as well): https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9602417v1.pdf