Posts by Navid

    We have an RF engineer looking at this but can use more people to join. The material isnt' that much, but you have to go to fundamentals (ie. what is "kinetic angular momentum", "potential angular momentum", what is flux linkage, what is the energy of a spin flip transition mean in this context) , and have to reference the Jackson E&M book. Thesis is simple: if we can show that a real physical model can be created that seems to calculate some phenomena, even if it isnt' the final model/answer, it might open up inquiry into advanced classical physics - which is about as popular as a Wuhan is a tourist destination right now. If this works, we have may even have a new consulting business on our hands. Inquire within!


    “The world is pivoting toward fusion as the necessary complement to other technologies which, collectively, will enable the carbon-free energy future we all need,” Chief Executive Officer Christofer Mowry said in the statement.…0-million-for-demo-system

    Alan or others, I'm not familiar with this tech but they are using shockwaves. Does this tech have overlap with LENR?

    As the reality of this increases - the amount of funding spent on sewing confusion will increase.

    There are people who come into boards like this to stir the pot - to make each side attack each other - and leave the general public in doubt.

    I encourage the owners of this forum to have a strategy to deal with this. It may look like geniuine "doubters" but they are paid to hold back progress.

    If you owned an oil company wouldn't you hire some lackeys to do this? Of course you would.

    Peter Zimmerman and Bob Parks - the academics - are said to have held back BLP for 10 years. Let's not let that happen anymore.

    Mills didn't struggle to get e-cat power density. He couldnt make the process commercially competitive with the regeneration of reactants at scale. These are commercial details that Rossi probably hasnt' worked out either. Meaning - "open up the ecat and stick in more powder" is not a solution. Only people who've never had to commercialize a product speak in a way to suggest Mills is a fraud, and that if he was real he'd just make something in a few years and be done with it. It can take a long time to perfect a process, and sometimes the process cant be perfected so you have to try an alternate means. That is the challenge of being a pioneer.

    There is 0% chance Rossi is doing anything different - he's telegraphing his copying. He even references patented work by Mills, has a theory which claims to be nuclear - but we all can see it is probably written by somebody else to justify the supposed novelty of his invention. The fact that he now messages it is really chemical energy tells us he doesnt believe his own theory and patents.

    The claim 100g of metal hydride can last for 6 months in the eCat - that sounds like you've torn apart the machine and know how it works? Is there any water input? (seems like he said there is) How do you know that's not a source of hydrogen?

    Hi, I appreciate what you bring to this forum. Again Mills and Holmids work seems to best explain what is going on in the plasma based experiments, heat and light with no to minimal ionizing output. The waste is useful but hard to detect, makes more sense than coming from nothing. I have to ask how much hydrogen is needed for a device to work at 3, 20 and 27kw respectively for 6 months assuming recycled catalysts? Just as an upper limit, to compare to what Rossi/others claim so in the future we can define if nuclear energy is involved or claims are based on all your company claims.

    We are left to believe that some infrequent rare nuclear fusion is going on in the e-Cat for which why would they need 1g of hydrogen at all - since the number of fusion events would be small but very energetic! OR, we have a chemical process and we would need 1G of hydrogen.

    The expected output of a v1 Suncell imo is about 500kW/sq/meter - that is my calculation. It could go way up from there.

    If we are making chemical fusion at much higher densities - then this is nothing like fusion in the sun. A human being radiates more energy per volume than the fusion reaction in the sun. The sun is just big.

    As for LENR, if someone can write down the fusion reaction and expected rate of the fusion events, and then the expected energy density from that reaction, it would be great. Rossi or other

    At timepoint 8:11 he says 1g of hydrogen lasts about 24hrs. It is easy to calculate hydrino energy and that would be about 3kW.

    Hydrino chemical reactions do that. At the end of the video he does a belabored calculation of the heat output and says is in that ballpark.

    I see nothing here that anyone in the world cannot accomplish by copying Mills' early work.

    Good eye that Rossi references Thermacore, so he obviously does follow Mills. I get the impression that Rossi reads voraciously. He certainly has taken to the view of a spatially extended electron, but not sure how that would compare to Mills' extended electron in the specifics.

    I'm sure you wouldn't last 5 minutes around Rossi without realizing he's spouting gobblygook.

    There is no physicist who has gotten close to Mills who's been able to even throw him off his game on any subject in physics and chemistry. I included some leaders in the LENR field. But more relevant are people like Johannes Conrads who was the founder of an institute for Plasma Physics in Germany. It is like having a James Maxwell type alive while the world is sitting there smoking bongs talking about the interpretations of quantum mechanics from confused gurus like Bohr. Einstein would have immediately paid attention. Mills had an interview in 1997 to which I guess only a few people alive even understand what the real problems are AND are willing to consider the possibility, that there is a possibility, that Mills was on track:

    AR: So, you were working at inventions having to do with medicine and healing and you came upon…you started working on the mathematics…..

    RM: Of atomic theory…

    AR: Of atomic theory, and finding that the theory was evidently wrong.

    RM: Yes.

    AR: And it’s not only your discovery but other people have seen so many inconsistencies.

    RM: That’s correct.

    AR: That you had to say there must be something wrong with this whole mess. Einstein saw that.

    RM: Yes, Einstein saw right through that at the very beginning.

    AR: And he said that his theory was, at least, not complete.

    RM: He was correct though. His part of it was correct and his intuition was correct, but he couldn’t finish it. I think I’ve finished what Einstein’s dream was.


    Some of you don't realize, that if water vapor in the air is ionized you can make atomic hydrogen.

    Atomic hydrogen is a fuel.

    Papp Engine!

    Is the ecat hermetically sealed so that no source of hydrogen can be used?

    Ya right.

    Rossi references Thermacore in his patent. He is using MHD - which was proposed by Mills and he has the patent on that. He is literally trolling Mills.

    The Ragone plot is abused, however the before-after weighing never occurred. There is no mention of a before weight.

    This is what they say - I assume that means change not charge.

    If one considers the weight of the charge = 1 g, one gets the following values relevant to thermal energy
    density and power density

    The Casimir effect is real and due to vacuum fluctuations. The ZPE is indeed real regardless of the fact that it is an additional potential source of energy in the E-Cat SK, The SAFIRE Project Reactor, and the Suncell other than the hydrino reactions your hero Randell Mills proclaims to be the only route to such excess energy. In reality, I believe there's evidence that there are multiple sources of energy in all of these systems.

    The effect may be real. But we're not talking about measurements, we are talking about the physical theories for the measurements. This is the basis of all the issues. You need to cleanup your thinking here and what I am saying will be more obvious. There might be multiple sources of energy, but if we have the wrong theory (as now shown disprove by experiment - seems that experiments don't count for much anymore, too bad).

    To be succint, I showed you the HUP is now disproven and said that disproves one theory (but I didnt advocate for another).

    You argue your theory is right nonetheless.

    That isn't science.

    The "zero" holds together many other things in physics. The basis of this energy is so-called virtual particles that spontaneously flash into existence at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle.

    Problem is, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was disproved by experiment in 2016.


    I did not know anything about Rossi. I've since learned he has the heart of a promoter, and has been able to push this far on the basis of his scheming.

    Upon research I found they claimed they were making nuclear energy because the ecat only weighed 1g less than they started with. A lot of energy/weight of ecat == very high density == must be nuclear!

    Weighed the engine but not the input gases (and anything from environment) and did not measure the gas output. Imagine weighing your car after a long trip and saying "wow the engine weighs 299.01kg but it started at 299.02kg. Thus ENERGY/WEIGHT is so high - you must have a nuclear reactor! Guys, you didn't measure the fuel tank or the exhaust

    One person claimed Rossi must be making nuclear energy because Upsala university published a Ragone plot. He left this "pleasant" response.


    Apparently you missed the Rogaine Chart in the 2014 Lugano Report or you wouldn't be making such a silly claim, educate yourself while you can cause the future is already here.

    <here is my response>

    First, I did not provoke a response about a silly claim or needing to educate myself. We have more experience than Uppsala University on this matter. I will reach out to them to educate them and see where we can go with this report.

    As for their published Ragone plot it is not valid.

    Second, Uppsala university measured a reactor before and after and found 1g change. That is like measuring a car engine before and after running it and claiming it makes a lot of energy from 1g weight change. Hydrogen from the environment or from the e-cat can be used, and hydrino gas is extremely small, hard to contain, and vents to the atmosphere (like CO2 and H2O in a car engine). Here is their exact calculation: (1618194 watts / 0.001kg) -> 5,825,000MJ/kg (conversion not shown)

    Third, Uppsala university realize they don't know what is happening: so they say cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside reactor So they weighed the entire reactor 452g in the calculation. (1618194 watts / 0.452kg) -> 13,000MJ/kg

    Again,that is like measuring a car engine before and after running it and claiming it makes a lot of energy even if you assume the entire car engine was burned.

    This is not professional science. This is not even high school science. There are US Military labs working in this space, and if you want to be taken not as a laughing stock you have to look at the scientific literature.

    <end of my response>

    FORUM MEMBERS: In the interest of science, we have published more information about Hydrino Energy and confirmation than we have in the past including confirmation a stunning interview from a major chemical company Grace.

    Robert, I put in a link to the paper in my note. I can probably get you answers for all these questions but not now - it's a lot of work and digging.

    To answer H2[1/4] is favored by Mills because he use the water catalyst - which has a 81.6ev (27.2 * 3).

    If he was using Zn (with 1st ionization potential of 9.39 and 2nd of 17.96 = 27.2) the H[1/2] would be favored.
    It is all chemistry, not hocus pocus.

    The hocus pocus are people who use the catalysts without knowing why they work.

    Yes and No.. the condensed hydrogen reaction seems to be exothermic.. exptally for " H2(1/4)"

    but the theory behind multiple dihydrinos seems to be incomplete

    and the existence of multiple dihydrinos H2(1/2) H2(1/3) ... H2(1/5) etc has not been confirmed

    Wrong. At the 1999 APS meeting he presented data showing high binding KHI. He had Hydride ions that formed blue crystals H-[1/4] and green crystals H-[1/6].

    The paper and a ton of experimental work was done to confirm this and the published paper is here.…abs/pii/S0360319900000379

    He also told everyone that a unique battery could be made from these ions because of their high binding energies.

    Note: I found this out recently. Fleischmann and Mallove were there, and really some world class people like Johannes Conrads. There were about 25 people there for 3 hrs - and the comments were pretty basic like "how come if this is true don't we see this all the time?"

    The double slit is the central problem of QM - I don't think anyone thinks it is child's play. Poor Jed barely can understand a resonant chemical reaction, so clearly he's going to be confused by double-slits and quantum foams and all the crazy stuff they have built up into the quantum philosophy.

    I'm curious to know if Mills explanationof interactions between electrons and photons - classical diffraction not interference - is agreed? How does SO(4) relevant or contribute to this?