BlackLight Power Validation by Rowan University (Video)

Today’s announcement by Blacklight Power has brought the company back into the limelight, and has got a lot of LENR followers’ attention — myself included. I have always thought of BLP as being in the periphary of the LENR players, I suppose because that they have never identified their technology as LENR or cold fusion.

Over the years, Blacklight has worked with Rowan University in New Jersey as a partner to perform testing and validation services, and the video below (thanks for finding it Bertuswonkel!) gives a good overview of what is involved in the BLP system. It’s a year and a half old, and there’s no sign here of the millions of watts that today’s press release mentions, but it shows some interesting test results all the same.

And like Bertus mentioned, there’s a passing resemblance to a hot cat!

UPDATE: BLP specifically denies that it uses a cold fusion or LENR effect. Here’s a Q&A from its FAQ page:

Is the CIHT cell a cold fusion device since it uses nickel and hydrogen?

It is not possible to directly make electricity by a nuclear reaction. The CIHT cell is an electrochemical device similar to a fuel cell, except that H2O is the fuel and the energy output is extraordinary. Furthermore, the CIHT cell does not need nickel to work. Changing the electrode from nickel to molybdenum greatly increased the output, and additional metals other than nickel work as well. Moreover, solid fuels such as combinations of hydroxides and halides that do not contain any nickel and are not in metallic form produced very large amounts of thermal energy, and in both cases of the electrical and thermal reactions, the product of the power has been confirmed to be Hydrinos. Our new results add to the long-standing discredit of cold fusion, this mechanism is disproved by the lack of any evidence of a nuclear reaction.


  • artefact

    Here is an animation that shows their theory of the energy releasing process:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI1NwQNijSw

  • artefact

    Here is an animation that shows their theory of the energy releasing process:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI1NwQNijSw

  • Fortyniner

    The featured device and its ‘blacklight fuel’ powder does indeed look like a variant of a Rossi-style e-cat but there doesn’t seem to be any info about this kind of device on their website.. On the surface it appears to be unrelated to the water-fuelled ‘SF-CIHT’ cell just announced, but the latter may be a spin-off resulting from a better understanding of what happens in ‘e-cat’ type reactors such as the one in the video. Maybe they decided that e-cat reactors were just too difficult to control, or simply dumped them when they found something better.

    • GreenWin

      One of the reasons to admire Dr. Mills is his unique view of the electron and wave function. In this patent 2005, Mills proposes a method to compute the excited states of atoms – replacing Born and Schrödinger’s equations with his own interpretation of the electron: “Many scientists have solved this problem by conveniently adopting the
      Schrödinger interpretation for some problems and the Born interpretation
      for others. This duality allows the electron to be everywhere at one
      time-yet have no volume.”
      http://www.google.com.br/patents/US7689367

      Also THIS U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory Report on excess heat in a nickel/H2 environment indicates the US government has long been aware of energy producing effects based on Dr. Mills’ hydrino theory:
      “In April 1991, Dr. Randell Mills presented a theory and a power-producing electrolytic cell whose output was continuous, predictable and appreciably greater than the electrical input. The theory for the excess heat is described in a Mills and Kneizys paper’ that was published in the April 1991 issue of Fusion Technology.”
      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

    • Gordon Docherty

      consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

      The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

      So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP) energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists for electron shells?

      Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point energy to increase within the proton / electron vortices while simultaneously reducing it around about). If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

      The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

      • Gordon Docherty

        Ignore this post, read the other just above it (some text missing, some text not right)

    • Gordon Docherty

      As far as I remember, Blacklight’s CIHT device was designed to allow water, as the “fuel”, to be continuously circulated round into the reaction cell, where it was split into H2 and O, and the H2 then dissociated into monatomic hydrogen. From there, this monatomic hydrogen was then fed through a catalyst to produce Hydrinos and electrons. Now, very little of the monatomic hydrogen and water was consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the Hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

      The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

      So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a
      fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP)
      energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of
      less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists
      for electron shells?

      Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the
      nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point potential to decrease within the proton / electron combination, while simultaneously increasing the energy or spin speed of the vortices. If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

      The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

      • Gordon Docherty

        Ignore this post, read the other just above it (some text missing, some text not right)

        • Gordon Docherty

          OMG – don’t ignore this post, ignore the one below….

  • The featured device and its ‘blacklight fuel’ powder does indeed look like a variant of a Rossi-style e-cat, but there doesn’t seem to be any current info about this kind of device on their website. Maybe they decided that e-cat reactors were just too difficult to control, or simply dumped them when they found something better. On the surface it appears to be unrelated to the water-fuelled ‘SF-CIHT’ cell just announced, although the latter may be a spin-off resulting from a better understanding of what happens in ‘e-cat’ type reactors like the one in the video.

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/ciht-cell/

    • GreenWin

      One of the reasons to admire Dr. Mills is his unique view of the electron and wave function. In this patent 2005, Mills proposes a method to compute the excited states of atoms – replacing Born and Schrödinger’s equations with his own interpretation of the electron: “Many scientists have solved this problem by conveniently adopting the
      Schrödinger interpretation for some problems and the Born interpretation
      for others. This duality allows the electron to be everywhere at one
      time-yet have no volume.”
      http://www.google.com.br/patents/US7689367

      Also THIS U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory Report on excess heat in a nickel/H2 environment indicates the US government has long been aware of energy producing effects based on Dr. Mills’ hydrino theory:
      “In April 1991, Dr. Randell Mills presented a theory and a power-producing electrolytic cell whose output was continuous, predictable and appreciably greater than the electrical input. The theory for the excess heat is described in a Mills and Kneizys paper’ that was published in the April 1991 issue of Fusion Technology.”
      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

    • Gordon Docherty

      consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

      The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

      So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP) energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists for electron shells?

      Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point energy to increase within the proton / electron vortices while simultaneously reducing it around about). If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

      The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

      • Gordon Docherty

        Ignore this post, read the other just above it (some text missing, some text not right)

    • Gordon Docherty

      As far as I remember, Blacklight’s CIHT device was designed to allow water, as the “fuel”, to be continuously circulated round into the reaction cell, where it was split into H2 and O, and the H2 then dissociated into monatomic hydrogen. From there, this monatomic hydrogen was then fed through a catalyst to produce Hydrinos and electrons. Now, very little of the monatomic hydrogen and water was consumed in one go, so the monatomic hydrogen and water were both recycled and reused: only the Hydrinos were vented off, to float into the upper atmosphere:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/

      The CIHT device was a redevelopment of Blacklight’s original Nickel powder reaction chamber:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxHD6d0Msw

      So, we have monatomic hydrogen nucleii being combined with electrons in orbits lower than the Bohr radius, something that classical physicists claim is impossible. Yet, what stops the negatively charged electron from simply plunging into the positively charged nucleus? According to classical physics, nothing, as there is nothing between the electron and nucleus, and the electron, by constantly “spinning” around the nucleus, is using up energy and should therefore just run out of it. Yet, after Billions of years, the universe is still here and we are all here, so this rather simplistic view just doesn’t hold up. More recently, it has been postulated that the electron spins as a
      fluctuating wave, wrapping around the nucleus, and it is the average distance and amplitude of the fluctuations that determines the Bohr radius. So far, so good. What, though, is to stop the electron wavefront from nonetheless just collapsing inward – where is the energy to maintain the wave coming from? This is where the Zero Point (ZP)
      energy field (or potential) is postulated, whereby electrons pull energy from the Zero Point context into themselves and then re-radiate it again in discrete quanta, with the Bohr radius being the lowest of these ratios in a uniform ZP context, namely 1:1. So far, so good, and again, this is why quantum physicists like to think that a radius of
      less than one is not possible. What, though, if something changed about the electron, or, rather electron/proton combination, to allow this in/out ratio to change so that a new relationship is established between nucleus and electron, at least in the case where the nucleus is a single proton. Would it then be possible for the electron wavefront to become linked or entangled in some way with the nucleus, perhaps changing to an elliptical shape that comes closer to the nucleus, rather than the equidistant “spherical” shape currently assumed by physicists
      for electron shells?

      Imagining the “origin” of an electron to be a vortex, then perhaps by adding energy to the electron it is possible to change the vortex in much the same way as a hurricane changes as the energy in the hurricane intensifies around the eye? Perhaps this intensifies the forces that keep proton and electron together? By then creating resonance, so that energy can slip easily between all parts of an atom and between atoms (made possible by the presence of a catalyst and/or a restricted geometry framework), these electrons really can shrink in closer to the
      nucleus and, depending on their energy and that of the energy in the Zero Point context, either form a Hydrino or a proto-neutron, which, with more energy causing the higher-energy electron vortex to meld with the proton vortex then goes on to form an in-situ “low (kinetic) energy” neutron. So, with the same mechanism, it is then possible from monatomic hydrogen nucleii (protons), energy, free electrons and a restricted geometry, to form Hydrinos, low kinetic energy neutrons, and then on to transmutation products. I believe, in other words, at the heart of all these inventions, is the exploitation of the physical makeup of electrons and protons themselves, using the surrounding geometry to shape field forces, create local differences in ZP potential and constrain physical movement, forcing “caught” electrons and protons to absorb energy from their immediate environment in the form of changes to their spin axis forces (or spin speeds!) that, through coherence inducing effects, can be persuaded to hook up and meld, like two storms coming together where external factors are just right…further, with constrained geometries and increasing spin speeds, what is in effect being created is a controlled implosion (perhaps allowing the Zero-Point potential to decrease within the proton / electron combination, while simultaneously increasing the energy or spin speed of the vortices. If this were the case, then simply bombarding Hydrinos with photons should make little difference their makeup (the bound electrons should try to stay put), with only high energy protons being able to “pull” the bound electron away from the proton to which it is bound – a possibility that may even be at the root of bringing Hydrinos, energy and protons together to form stable neutrons and protons.

      The point, in other words, is that Hydrino theory does not rule out LENR or vice-versa, and that detection of these obviously new effects requires something more than just pointing a Geiger counter or using a Cloud Chamber, which, after all, detect the artifacts of Explosions, not Implosions…

  • anonymous

    Rowan University mentions some (small) grants from BLP, so they are involved. The question is: what came out? Any reports have been published?

    Year 2008-2009

    Calorimetry Investigations for Blacklight Power at SJ Tech Park, Peter Janssen, $116,359

    Year 2011-2012

    Mugweru, Amos

    • Synthesis and characterization of hydrogen containing compounds

    o Blacklight Power Company (2009 – 2012)

    o $104,010

    You bet if the results had been conclusive, they would have been published. You can’t take all this at face value.

    Respectfully

  • Bertuswonkel

    Also remembered that Eugene Mallove always was a strong supporter of BL.
    Looked at some old papers, thought these remarks might also be of interest:

    In the spring of 1991, Dr. Randell Mills et al. reported significant excess heat from ordinary water cells with nickel electrodes, an energy which they deemed to be coming not from nuclear reactions, but from a new form of catalyzed shrinkage reaction via a drastically remodeled form of the hydrogen atom and a re-write of quantum mechanics, which is now called by Mills “Classical Quantum Mechanics” (CQM)

    These explanations (and even the claim of excess heat in ordinary water-based electrochemical cells) did not go over well either with the CF/LENR community or the hard-line Establishment critics of table-top anomalous physics. CF/LENR scientists, themselves outcasts from the Establishment, strangely enough have not paid much attention to Mills’ experimental work. This is most unfortunate, because it is compendious and strongly supportive of excess heat but also of non-standard, highly anomalous, spectral anomalies from hydrogen systems.

    This stance can be explained because of the very strong resistance by CF/LENR theorists to exploring foundational flaws in Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM). Mills’ CQM work could shed considerable light on the problem of CF/LENR—these are results that cannot and should not be logically separated from efforts to understand CF/LENR results proper.

    Randell Mills, for his part, wants nothing to do with the “cold fusion” field, in part because of the bad “PR” that cold fusion has acquired. But Mills, while accepting that his ”shrunken” (sub-ground state) hydrogen atoms (“hydrinos”) may well cause nuclear reactions due to their more charge- neutral presentation to other nuclei, does not believe that the excess heat being reported in CF/LENR experiments is of nuclear origin

    • ecatworld

      Thanks for the interesting analysis, Bertus.

    • GreenWin

      Mills 1991 theory is derived from the work of Pons and Fleischmann. After the orthodox science community railroaded P&F and ordered the USPTO to forbid patents issued to anything like “cold fusion” – Mills dropped that approach entirely. Mills’ subsequent theories rely on energy resulting from hydrino transition states. The Report I have linked below for the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Ohio, confirms the US government has been aware of excess heat from hydrogen in some form since at least 1991 and more likely since P&F announced in 1989. As for CF being nuclear, many experiments confirm the production of He4 (e.g. 2002 DeNinno ENEA) – a generally accepted standard byproduct of nuclear fusion.

    • Marc Ellenbroek

      I wonder if Randell Mills ever investigated nuclear effects like the production of Tritium, Helium and transmutatio in his cells.

    • Herb Gillis

      Does BLP (Mills) say what becomes of the “hydrinos” after they form? What is their ultimate fate? To my way of thinking this hydrino business makes it hard to take BLP seriously.

      • Sandy

        Because of their reduced weight, hydrinos float up to the top of the atmosphere and then they are carried away by the Solar Wind.

  • Bertuswonkel

    Also remembered that Eugene Mallove always was a strong supporter of BL.
    Looked at some old papers, thought these remarks might also be of interest:

    In the spring of 1991, Dr. Randell Mills et al. reported significant excess heat from ordinary water cells with nickel electrodes, an energy which they deemed to be coming not from nuclear reactions, but from a new form of catalyzed shrinkage reaction via a drastically remodeled form of the hydrogen atom and a re-write of quantum mechanics, which is now called by Mills “Classical Quantum Mechanics” (CQM)

    These explanations (and even the claim of excess heat in ordinary water-based electrochemical cells) did not go over well either with the CF/LENR community or the hard-line Establishment critics of table-top anomalous physics. CF/LENR scientists, themselves outcasts from the Establishment, strangely enough have not paid much attention to Mills’ experimental work. This is most unfortunate, because it is compendious and strongly supportive of excess heat but also of non-standard, highly anomalous, spectral anomalies from hydrogen systems.

    This stance can be explained because of the very strong resistance by CF/LENR theorists to exploring foundational flaws in Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM). Mills’ CQM work could shed considerable light on the problem of CF/LENR—these are results that cannot and should not be logically separated from efforts to understand CF/LENR results proper.

    Randell Mills, for his part, wants nothing to do with the “cold fusion” field, in part because of the bad “PR” that cold fusion has acquired. But Mills, while accepting that his ”shrunken” (sub-ground state) hydrogen atoms (“hydrinos”) may well cause nuclear reactions due to their more charge- neutral presentation to other nuclei, does not believe that the excess heat being reported in CF/LENR experiments is of nuclear origin

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks for the interesting analysis, Bertus.

    • GreenWin

      Mills 1991 theory is derived from the work of Pons and Fleischmann. After the orthodox science community railroaded P&F and ordered the USPTO to forbid patents issued to anything like “cold fusion” – Mills dropped that approach entirely. Mills’ subsequent theories rely on energy resulting from hydrino transition states. The Report I have linked below for the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Ohio, confirms the US government has been aware of excess heat from hydrogen in some form since at least 1991 and more likely since P&F announced in 1989. As for CF being nuclear, many experiments confirm the production of He4 (e.g. 2002 DeNinno ENEA) – a generally accepted standard byproduct of nuclear fusion.

    • Marc Ellenbroek

      I wonder if Randell Mills ever investigated nuclear effects like the production of Tritium, Helium and transmutatio in his cells.

    • Herb Gillis

      Does BLP (Mills) say what becomes of the “hydrinos” after they form? What is their ultimate fate? To my way of thinking this hydrino business makes it hard to take BLP seriously.

      • Sandy

        Because of their reduced weight, hydrinos float up to the top of the atmosphere and then they are carried away by the Solar Wind.

  • Daniel Maris

    Wow! Stunning news. It seems like our hopes of 2014 being “the” year may not have been unfounded.

    Whether LENR or not, this is pretty impressive stuff.

  • Daniel Maris

    Not sure what your point is – that Rowan are corruptly in cahoots with BLP? A risky career move for the prof.

    And if BLP hadn’t worked with a reputable uni, presumably you would be arguing “why will no reputable engineering university work with them?” .

  • bkrharold

    “I have always thought of BLP as being in the periphary of the LENR players”
    This “work” (scam) is not related to LENR in any way. It would be a big mistake to associate LENR with BLP, as it would discredit all the hard work done by legitimate honest scientists like Rossi and Mike McKubre and many others to investigate and develop LENR.

    • GreenWin

      So, tell bkrharold, which of the papers of Dr. Mills have you read and what specifically, cirtically gives you reason to assume Dr. Mills is not a “legitimate honest scientist?” Seems like a lot of people in government and the private sector find his work centered around LENR/CF/Hydrino intriguing enough to provide backing over the last twenty years. Or are you just another denier troll?

      • bkrharold

        I admit I have not read Dr Mills papers, but I did read a scathing rebuttal of his claims. If he really has the goods then I will stand corrected. I am convinced that LENR is real, there is real evidence from many respected scientists.

    • Omega Z

      Roger

      I think Mills is legit. It is by following his work that I discovered E-cat.
      By the way, Having watch BLP for a while, I had NO complaints about the rate of Rossi’s progress. Comparably, Rossi has moved like Greased Lightning. 🙂
      And as for Mills strategy. ? ? ?
      Either
      It’s His scientific approach, Makes a Gain then back-steps & restudies all the little side effects that makes his work very slow.
      OR
      He’s trying to cover all the bases thus a Licensing Monopoly on all the different uses of the technology.

      Regardless, I’m Pro Rossi, but as stated before, the more players the better. Keeps them honest. They have to compete which benefits everyone.

      Here’s a Side Note: In the 90’s, Mills stated according to his math, that the Expansion of the Universe was not slowing down, But, In fact was speeding up.

      Everyone said he was Crazy.
      However, A couple years ago, Two Researchers were presented a Nobel for proving Mill’s theory right..

  • Daniel Maris

    You’re saying Rowan University are in on the scam?

    • GreenWin

      Daniel, this guy’s assuredly a troll. Doubtful he’s capable of reading any of Dr. Mills’ rather astounding works.

      • Daniel Maris

        The ENSER report of 13th January is a real sledgehammer to the skeps’ position.

    • many of Mills claims looks weird, and his theory is at least to be improved…
      The claims are never seen unlike usual LENR anomalous heat. It is not a replicated claim.

      However, the report of replication gives some weight. I start to realize it may be a good news, with the handfull of similar reports…
      I am just waiting for a review of those reports by skeptics, seeing if they have their usual BS, or if they have something real to answer.
      I would like also to have confirmation by the testers that they wrote what Blacklight say…

      to compare with Defkalion, I was reassured when I heard Gibbs reporting Nelson was conforming the report.

      if Rowen could rebuild a reactor themselves, it is interesting.

      need more data.

  • GreenWin

    So, tell bkrharold, which of the papers of Dr. Mills have you read and what specifically, cirtically gives you reason to assume Dr. Mills is not a “legitimate honest scientist?” Seems like a lot of people in government and the private sector find his work centered around LENR/CF/Hydrino intriguing enough to provide backing over the last twenty years. Or are you just another denier troll?

  • bachcole

    Enough with the “troll” and “scam” talk. GreenWin, I am impressed with your saying that Mills has astonishing papers. Could you please tell us what is astonishing about them in small words and short sentences, and then tell us what the experimental evidence is, or will we have to wait for that until the 28th. I want Mills to be the real deal. But all of these delays are killing me. And the disappear hydrogen isn’t helping any.

    • GreenWin

      Rog, one of the few remaining pleasures in life is to call BS on “people” who have for a long while attempted to convince human beings of their essential evil. Much of this BS started with religious belief that man was “born in sin.” BS. How can we reconcile the statement, “We are all God’s children,” with, “Man is born in sin?” Only, I suppose if God is a “sinner.”

      Without going into Dr. Mills’ detailed papers on classic atomic models – let’s start from the assumption that we will never know “everything” about our world or those around it. Wonderful! There is no need to know everything. Tis the journey to knowledge that is worthy. So, to start, simply read the Report given to the United States Air Force Wright Laboratory back in 1994. It’s all about Dr. Mills’ theories that explain, in part the P&F and Rossi effect. This establishes Dr. Mills as a primary creator in the area of energy from hydrogen. It also links the US guv’ment to first hand knowledge of a form of LENR as far back as 1991.

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

      Now, let’s have some creative fun and suggest that Dr. Mills and Blacklight Power, is what’s known as a technology transfer entity. A channel through which, advanced forms of science and technology are offered to human beings. Cool. Given that the Universe appears to subscribe to the “Quid Pro Quo” concept — what does such an entity demand in exchange?? Roger, you ever see Dr. Steven Spielberg’s TV mini-series “TAKEN”? It’s all about ET’s and… er, intergalactic barter. The problem with these fictions is liberties taken by both “trading partners.” Without the specific, discreet provision of informed consent – egregious crimes against humanity would be committed.

      Thank goodness, it’s only a TV show, eh??

      • Anon2012_2014

        “Rog, one of the few remaining pleasures in life is to call BS on “people” who have for a long while attempted to convince human beings of their essential evil. Much of this BS started with religious belief that man was “born in sin.” BS. How can we reconcile the statement, “We are all God’s children,” with, “Man is born in sin?” Only, I suppose if God is a “sinner.””

        Come on Greenwin. Some people believe in LENR, some or skeptics, and some are still unconvinced one way or the other. I value all opinions as I am unconvinced one way or the other. I hope for LENR.

        But why does bringing Evil, God or Sin into the conversation add anything? We are talking science. Technology. God, Evil, and Sin are religion.

        Let’s be scientist here, not theologians!

        • GreenWin

          Anon, until science and Richard Dawkins reconcile the inevitable integration of spirituality and science – we must be both IMO.

          • bkrharold

            I agree. All knowledge is one, including the things we do not yet understand. There is no such thing as the Supernatural, everything that occurs is natural by definition. calling the unknown Supernatural is a way to avoid thinking and also to ridicule those who do.

    • bkrharold

      Bachcole after reading some of the other posts and learning a bit more about Mills and BLP, I will retract my accusation of a scam. However looking at the video, I see what appears to be a standard LENR reactor very similar to Rossi’s. My conclusion is that Dr Mills is working in the same field as Rossi and McKubre and that their Technology is the same. I am not convinced by his Hydrino theory and I think the Wisdom Larsen theory has more promise.

  • Anon2012_2014

    The Rowan Video is from July 2012. He needs the “large reactor with 1 kG to get 1 MJ. He calls this the 50 kW reactor, which implies it only runs for 20 seconds.

    This is less than what chemical combustion can provide.

    The 2012 reactor is old news and only confounds our analysis. Let’s move on to the new reactor analysis.

  • Omega Z

    Roger

    I think Mills is legit. It is by following his work that I discovered E-cat.
    By the way, Having watch BLP for a while, I had NO complaints about the rate of Rossi’s progress. Comparably, Rossi has moved like Greased Lightning. 🙂
    And as for Mills strategy. ? ? ?
    Either
    It’s His scientific approach, Makes a Gain then back-steps & restudies all the little side effects that makes his work very slow.
    OR
    He’s trying to cover all the bases thus a Licensing Monopoly on all the different uses of the technology.

    Regardless, I’m Pro Rossi, but as stated before, the more players the better. Keeps them honest. They have to compete which benefits everyone.

    Here’s a Side Note: In the 90’s, Mills stated according to his math, that the Expansion of the Universe was not slowing down, But, In fact was speeding up.

    Everyone said he was Crazy.
    However, A couple years ago, Two Researchers were presented a Nobel for proving Mill’s theory right..

  • tlp

    Some time ago I found this interesting conference proposal:
    http://t10.cgpublisher.com/proposals/117/index_html

    by Peter Jansson, who is talking in this video. I could’t find the actual conference paper. It seems that it was newer published or even presented, although it was accepted to 2013 conference.

    “This paper produces data about a new energy technology being researched by Rowan University for a highly controversial energy company. We describe our empirical data juxtaposed to the criticisms and controversy surrounding the research’s sponsor. When is data derived from technology and experiment sufficient to be considered knowledge? Is the scientific method still in practice in the 21st century or will data that does not agree with current paradigms be cleverly hidden from broader society in order to protect important scientific paradigms?”

  • tlp

    Some time ago I found this interesting conference proposal:
    http://t10.cgpublisher.com/proposals/117/index_html

    by Peter Jansson, who is talking in this video. I could’t find the actual conference paper. It seems that it was newer published or even presented, although it was accepted to 2013 conference.

    “This paper produces data about a new energy technology being researched by Rowan University for a highly controversial energy company. We describe our empirical data juxtaposed to the criticisms and controversy surrounding the research’s sponsor. When is data derived from technology and experiment sufficient to be considered knowledge? Is the scientific method still in practice in the 21st century or will data that does not agree with current paradigms be cleverly hidden from broader society in order to protect important scientific paradigms?”

  • GreenWin

    Anon, until science and Richard Dawkins reconcile the inevitable integration of spirituality and science – we must be both IMO.

  • This position is one of the most logic.
    His pet theory is very pet theory…
    anyway he have been founded, and some people confirmed reality… but reality of what ?
    Like you I feel he have yet another nuclear reactor design… at early lab maturity.
    Maybe also he observed some things (note that Defkalion talk of huge light when they put a window in their reactor, maybe the bottom of the spectrum that produce the eUV Mills observe)