Report From an Attendee of the Blacklight Power Demonstration

I’d like to thank Steve Menton for writing up the following report after attending yesterday’s demonstration at Blacklight Power. 

The post yesterday by “Investor”is 100% correct. You cannot draw conclusions about BLP from what you read on the Internet. Randy has developed an extremely comprehensive, elegant theory that is utilized to direct his laboratory efforts. After years of pointless arguments on the old hydrino study group, I have zero interest in engaging in any theory debates on the internet. However, in my view, those who don’t spend the time to review the extensive body of work that Mills has developed and put it in context, cannot meaningfully comment  upon the BLPs work.

I am a Blacklight investor and purchased my first shares in 1999 AFTER following Randy’s efforts for about two years and reading all of the derogatory comments from Peter Zimmerman, Steven Chu, Bob Park and a multitude of others. I did my own due diligence and concluded that none of them really understood what Randy was saying and they had not spent any time reviewing the experimental work. That is the common refrain with most of Mills’ critics. Believe me, I fully understand the controversy surrounding the theory. However, as Randy said multiple times yesterday, at the end of the day, experimental results trump theory. He has for a long time been accumulating results that cannot be explained by currently accepted QM. In fact, many of his results directly contravene what current theory says is possible. Under the circumstances, of course it is necessary to be cautious but the results speak for themselves.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend the results are not possible or reliable, but there are an increasing number of replications by qualified and reputable organizations and this has been going on for a while.  The number of replications has been steadily increasing and many have been done independently and offsite. Some are readily available to those who expend even a minimal amount of effort. I have yet to hear of a negative result from a competent replicator who correctly followed the Blacklight protocols. Indeed, every person that I know who has been to the Blacklight lab and reviewed the results is convinced that the experiments are real, carefully and competently performed and the results are significant. Those who have been following Blacklights work for a while know that there has been steady, albeit at times  frustratingly slow, progress. You have to realize that there are no books or resources for Randy to turn to in pursuing his experiments other than his own theory and brain. While there have been some starts and stops along the way, the recently announced results are the accumulation of years of experimentation driven by theory.

So, about the demo. There were about 65 to 70 people present. There was no opportunity for a meet and greet. I did not know most of the attendees, but there were representatives from chemical and engineering firms present as well as OEMs and major investment banks. I am not sure of the extent of media present.  There were no TV cameras, but there was a video being taken. Many people were taking notes, but I don’t think there was a lot of mainstream media there. I think the presentation was geared more towards developing interest among potential licensees and partners rather than media. Media will come in time.
Randy stated that the SF-CIHT results have been validated by four outside groups, but only one spoke at the meeting. That validator was from Rowan University so I am sure that many of the critics will dismiss his comments out of hand. Whatever. I tend to believe people who actually view the experiments and study the results rather than simply post negative comments on the Internet. The validator unequivocally confirmed the reported results from the newly developed SF-CIHT cell and stated it was a “game changer”. I thought one interesting moment was when the validator was asked whether he believed in hydrinos. His answer was something to the effect that this wasn’t a matter of belief, but about experimental results and that he was confident in the results.

The demonstrations were instantaneous bursts with input and output measured by established commercial devices including waterbath calorimetry. Continuous operation was not demonstrated so skeptics will likely be dismissive of the results. Randy spent some time explaining plans for achieving continuous operation. While there are some engineering issues ahead, the energy outputs are so astounding that there should be multiple ways to make useful devices.
While I have seen some comments that BLP rushed this demo because of recent developments relating to Rossi, such commenters obviously don’t know Randy. Randy is going to do things on his time and nobody else’s. He is not concerned with Rossi and, from second hand reports I have heard, BLP does not view Rossi as competition because they do not think his experiments are professionally done and do not believe that he is accurately measuring energy input and output.
My overall impression is that this demo was put together because, after many years of slow but steady progress, Blacklight has made recent, dramatic improvements in the energy densities. I think Randy believes the results are unassailable and irrefutable. My sense is that yesterday was the first step in what will be an evolving, more visible presence for Blacklight as they continue to advance the technology.

  • bitplayer

    The only thing we have to be unclear about is lack of clarity itself.

    ….but, always happy to have news.

  • artefact

    Thanks Steve!

  • artefact

    Thanks Steve!

  • Buck

    Steve, thank you for taking the time to share about your presence at the BLP demonstration.

  • Buck

    Steve, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and observations about BLP and the demonstration.

  • I only have one question. When will the first commercial product become available?

  • gp

    Hi Steve, thanks for the post. What are the plans for achieving continuos operation of the device, and more importantly what is the estimated time required for its implementation.

    Thank you

    • Steve Menton

      Randy was reluctant to get into specific time frames. I think he has been burnt in the past when he tried to make predictions. With that being said, it seemed pretty clear that future advances will happen in installments. Continuous operation through repetitive bursts will happen fairly quickly once said some new equipment is obtained. Coupling the continuous bursts with direct extraction of electricity will take longer. Randy is confident that it will not take long. I suspect there will be some trial and error, but I anticipate the push will be pretty hard.

  • gp

    Hi Steve, thanks for the post. What are the plans for achieving continuos operation of the device, and more importantly what is the estimated time required for its implementation.

    Thank you

    • Steve Menton

      Randy was reluctant to get into specific time frames. I think he has been burnt in the past when he tried to make predictions. With that being said, it seemed pretty clear that future advances will happen in installments. Continuous operation through repetitive bursts will happen fairly quickly once said some new equipment is obtained. Coupling the continuous bursts with direct extraction of electricity will take longer. Randy is confident that it will not take long. I suspect there will be some trial and error, but I anticipate the push will be pretty hard.

  • bachcole

    It sure would be fun and informative to see the demonstrations on video.

  • Stephen Savage

    Hi Steve … Thank you for these comments.

    I was wondering if you were able to garner any impression of the reactions of other attendees

    • Steve Menton

      From every indication I saw, people were very impressed and recognize the advancements are profound. My sense is most had a pretty good grasp on BLP and Randy’s work beforehand, hence the invite list

      • GreenWin

        I too thank you Steve. You have done readers here a service in offering your impressions and knowledge of Randy’s work. It is exciting to me to think there are now four quite different approaches to utilizing the anomalous heat as Rob Duncan calls it. It is apparent to me that Randy has a good idea of what is happening in his process. I hope you will continue to comment on BLP’s progress here.

  • Ivone

    There are commonalities between R. L. Mills’ theory and Stoyan Sarg’s theory of physics. They both study the microstructure of the sub Bohr l1 of the first energy level. They agree at this point. The number of steps between the 1st Bohr energy level and the surface of the proton is 137 which corresponds to the well known fine structure constant which is 1/137. However Stoyan Sarg goes on to assert that there is an ether, and that Einstein promoted it, and that there is such a thing as an absolute position in space. This is very unsettling for physicists.

    • jonnyb

      Yes, without aether, of some sort,. I cannot believe in any theory. Light is probably a wave, matter energy, but what is energy, still a long way to go. There is no true vacuum, so something must fill the gap. Tesla suggested aether was more dense than matter. Would Protium with electrons below ground state be a solid, or a gas. It sounds like Mills thinks it would just float up to the atmosphere. Would there be a new state of matter unable to be detected at the moment? I would be surprised if it was not very dense, could it be the aether? Let the scientists start looking for true answers not half complete theories.

    • Gerard McEk

      Would be interesting to arrange a discussion between Randell Mills and Stoyan Sarg.

    • Karl

      I’ve have tried to dig into Stoyan Sarg’s theories for quite some time now. It is really enjoyable and clarifying. His theory Basic Structures of Matters (BSM) also appear to resolve so many mysteries in current QM theories and its not just about a plausible explanation of Cold Fusion reaction. Personally I would not be surprise if the current main stream QM theories needs to be adjusted along the thinking of Stoyan Sarg. He also have an elegant explanation of the Newtonian gravitation.

    • bkrharold

      Thank you for sharing this information. I looked up the Stoyan Sarg theory, and found a document describing his theory. It is far more convincing that Mills Hydrino theory. It describes the origin of the p d f g orbital arrangements so familiar to chemists and explains them based on the geometry of the coulomb field of the protons. It is widely presumed that the coulomb field is perfectly spherical which would prohibit LENR, but now I can see how the coulomb field can be overcome in areas where it is weaker.

  • Ivone

    There are commonalities between R. L. Mills’ theory and Stoyan Sarg’s theory of physics. They both study the microstructure of the sub Bohr l1 of the first energy level. They agree at this point. The number of steps between the 1st Bohr energy level and the surface of the proton is 137 which corresponds to the well known fine structure constant which is 1/137. However Stoyan Sarg goes on to assert that there is an ether, and that Einstein promoted it, and that there is such a thing as an absolute position in space. This is very unsettling for physicists.

    • bachcole

      Yeah, but it is very settling for us common folk. (:->)

    • jonnyb

      Yes, without aether, of some sort,. I cannot believe in any theory. Light is probably a wave, matter energy, but what is energy, still a long way to go. There is no true vacuum, so something must fill the gap. Tesla suggested aether was more dense than matter. Would Protium with electrons below ground state be a solid, or a gas. It sounds like Mills thinks it would just float up to the atmosphere. Would there be a new state of matter unable to be detected at the moment? I would be surprised if it was not very dense, could it be the aether? Let the scientists start looking for true answers not half complete theories.

    • bkrharold

      Just out of interest, since you are familiar with this, do these sub Bohr levels represent a higher state of energy or a lower state, than the normal Bohr level? I will assume that the Bohr level represents what is normally considered the lowest stable energy configuration. So if an electron transitions from the sub Bohr1 of the first energy level to the next step of the 137 levels closer to the proton, should that release energy or consume it? . If it is an energy release, what is preventing it happening naturally?. If more energy is needed to initiate the transition than is produced, how can this process generate useful energy?

      • Ivone

        In both the Mills and Sarg theories, when the electron is sunk into the lower levels, a corresponding packet of energy is released. Ultimately, as the electron reaches the proton, it merges with the proton forming a neutron. This neutron, without any coulomb defences, combines with the Ni forming CU. Thus the physics of the Mills process and the Rossi process are the same, though the technologies are very different. It also explains why the Mills process emits just one hundredth of the energy density of the E – Cat, resulting in a liter of water for a few months over a gram of nickel over the same time period.

        • Ivone

          In the Santilli version, it does happen naturally. Thunder, according to Santilli, is caused by the plasma of the lightning dissociating the water molecule into its two atomic components. The hydrogen ion is then shocked into becoming a neutron and then combining with the carbon that is in the air and dissociated as well. The result is nitrogen, and the energy of the fusion is the crash of the thunder, and possibly an amplification of the lightning flash. Over the hundreds of millions of years, this has caused the nitrogen proportion of the atmosphere to increase.

          • Brokeeper

            Can you or Steve tell us how loud the BL SF-CIHT sparks are at 12K amps verses lightening? I’m assuming lightening has a lot higher amperage. Is there much shock wave involved? Just curious.

          • Brokeeper

            I just searched lightening amperage and it averages between 5K-20K so it’s about an average strike. So my question is can it be muffled to the point one can not hear it?

          • Ivone

            The lightning by itself is noiseless. The release of energy by the combination of carbon and neutron causes the thunder.

          • Brokeeper

            Wouldn’t the combining of the neutron with Ni cause the same thunder effect?

          • Ivone

            It would, if the effect wasn’t trapped in a steel cylinder. Thunder occurs in free air.

          • Curbina

            Ivone, you seem to be very aquainted with Santilli’s theory, are you part of Santilli’s team?

          • Ivone

            No, I’m not. I knew nothing of Santilli until last week, when I learned of his reactor that boils water using fusion between deuterium and carbon.

          • Curbina

            Ok, thanks for your answer Ivone. Is really good for me to know people that gets into the issues with keen interest and a cautiously open mind. I also see some paralells and of course differences between these takes, but that they are all talking about the same underlying phenomena, and that’s what fascinates me, to see that we have yet much to learn, and that some people take that step, while most of the remainder only keep belittiling their efforts because “we already know enough”. I for one think that what we need to do is helping these persons doing the difficult part to see where they take us. Regards!!!

          • bachcole

            I have heard of reports from Japanese scientists, I think, that said that they measured gamma rays increasing minutes before a lightning strike, and then peaking 2 seconds before the strike and falling off entirely after the peak and until well after the strike (until the next strike built up). I hope that this helps. It was an “oh gee whiz wow” moment that I shared with my son, but I didn’t go too deeply into it to remember the link. It is counter intuitive; the gamma rays should have spiked at exactly the strike, but oh no they had to be cute and complicated.

    • Gerard McEk

      Would be interesting to arrange a discussion between Randell Mills and Stoyan Sarg.

    • Karl

      I’ve have tried to dig into Stoyan Sarg’s theories for quite some time now. It is really enjoyable and clarifying. His theory Basic Structures of Matters (BSM) also appear to resolve so many mysteries in current QM theories and its not just about a plausible explanation of Cold Fusion reaction. Personally I would not be surprise if the current main stream QM theories needs to be adjusted along the thinking of Stoyan Sarg. He also have an elegant explanation of the Newtonian gravitation.

    • bkrharold

      Thank you for sharing this information. I looked up the Stoyan Sarg theory, and found a document describing his theory. It is far more convincing that Mills Hydrino theory. It describes the origin of the p d f g orbital arrangements so familiar to chemists and explains them based on the geometry of the coulomb field of the protons. It is widely presumed that the coulomb field is perfectly spherical which would prohibit LENR, but now I can see how the coulomb field can be overcome in areas where it is weaker.

  • AstralProjectee

    This is a nice report. Steve seems like a reputable guy as an researcher and investor. Pretty knowledgeable. So thanks to Steve for this nice prerequisite report about the BLP demonstration.

  • enantiomer2000

    I figured that the demo would be structured that way. Even assuming that BLP tech is legit, it still sounds like it is at least 5 years from commercialization. He knows how to create bursts of energy, but he has yet to determine how to control it continuously. The only real change from the 2012 announcement on CIHT is that the energy density has increased.

    • bkrharold

      Yes I agree, it seems Rossi is more of a “hands on” guy. His focus is on making things work, and secondarily the theory behind it. Although Rossi does seem to have his own ideas, which he will eventually share once, his IP is patent protected.

    • Steve menton

      The beauty of the new cells is that they are easily controlled by the type of solid fuel (there are several varieties and they essentially serve as a carrier for the H2o), the amount of electricity input and the amount of water. Can be scaled up or down and no chance of run away reactions

      • I ran across BLP help wanted ads from last fall for a project manager to convert plasma to electricity as well as a lab assistant. They ran ads for a ceramics engineer in mid-2012 following the consultant reports on the CIHT fuel cell.

        I’m confident we won’t have to wait five years.

  • SammyM

    Interesting comment by Steve Menton:

    ‘Randy is going to do things on his time and nobody else’s. He is not concerned with Rossi and, from second hand reports I have
    heard, BLP does not view Rossi as competition because they do not think
    his experiments are professionally done and do not believe that he is
    accurately measuring energy input and output.’

    Well the key words here are ‘from second hand reports I have
    heard’. So no clear proof that BLP actually said this. Nonetheless an interesting comment.

    • Omega Z

      Sammy
      It’s a competition.
      They all stick a barb into the competition should someone bring them up. This is all natural.
      Note: Rossi doesn’t believe in hydrinos. 🙂

  • theBuckWheat

    The amount of small-minded crap in the comments is just depressing. LENR has the real potential being the most important advancement in material human progress since the invention of the steam engine. I for one want to show respect to anyone who makes credible claims towards this goal. But nobody is well served in the long run by careless acceptance either.

    With that said: Steve, thanks for your narrative about the demonstration. Were you able to glean any metrics during the demonstration of energy in vs energy out and can you share them?

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Everyone seems to forget the computer was an incredible leap in science.

  • theBuckWheat

    The amount of small-minded crap in the comments is just depressing. LENR has the real potential being the most important advancement in material human progress since the invention of the steam engine. I for one want to show respect to anyone who makes credible claims towards this goal. But nobody is well served in the long run by careless acceptance either.

    With that said: Steve, thanks for your narrative about the demonstration. Were you able to glean any metrics during the demonstration of energy in vs energy out and can you share them?

    • AstralProjectee

      Just have to point out that BLP’s technology is not LENR but rather another type of technology. Perhaps they are somehow related but nevertheless different.

      • theBuckWheat

        Yes, I was lumping LENR and the BLP process together when maybe they really fit in Rob Duncan’s phraseology of “processes.that exhibit anomalous excess heat”. And I might add those that display energy density that can only come by nuclear mass reduction and that have very little or no ionizing radiation.

        • GreenWin

          tBW, thanks for your comments. I agree. It is rather “tribal” the way some people react. Mike McKubre has been fairly clear on the leaders of LENR being BLP, Rossi, DGT, and Brillouin. Some people seem to forget Mike’s final comments (S Allen’s interview) that a Win for One, is a Win for All.

      • Oscar Lopez

        BLP theory does not involve the nucleous. It is extracting energy decreasing the potential energy of the electrons in the hydrogen atoms, thus it is not LENR at all. I am really concern about the existence of that state (hydrino). Why it has not been detected after years of experiments? We have created antihydrogen and I do not see where QM is failing when dealing with current chemistry. As always I am opened to new experiments reavealing new unknown effects. The energy extraction of the hydrogen atom decreasing the electron potential energy can be a game changer. And, if true, maybe also a Nobel price.

    • Steve Menton

      COP > 100

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Everyone seems to forget the computer was an incredible leap in science.

  • googlyeyed

    Maybe Randy should have spent the last 20 years finding a way of detecting and confirming the creation of Hydrinos, and if indeed any energy was economically released a Nobel would be in order. Alas, after all these years with hat in hand all he can show is how to make 12,000 amp sparks.

    • Steve Menton

      Read the reports. There are at least 12 different mechanisms used to confirm the existence of hydrinos

      • googlyeyed

        So it’s settled. Labs around the world are using Mills technique to produce hydrinos. I would like to read those reports. I do believe in LENR. I know fusion exists…50 years, billions, and not 1 watt produced even though the science is well known. You have to learn to walk before you run. And what better way to discredit yourself by hyping a public demo and then have nothing to show. Could it be big oil starts these bogus companies (BLP), gets investors online and then fabricates these scenarios to discredit the alternate energy movement. Just wondering.

        • bachcole

          In my eyes, Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin aren’t the least bit discredited by this BLP disappointment. But, of course, I am not everyone; I am in fact someone watching this very carefully. So you could be right about the dis-credentialed part. About the conspiracy part, I doubt it.

  • Gordon Docherty

    absolutely nothing to do with LENR or BLP (at the moment), but here are a few links for Skylon:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n57jnMpAyc0 – THE THREE ROCKETEERS: THE FUTURE OF SPACE TRAVEL
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDexTPBvlg – Starfest III – Alan Bond – “Skylon: Shaping Tomorrow”
    http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

    Particularly from the first video, I see some parallels with the mainstream reaction to Hydrinos and LENR … especially:

    * around 16:40 onward … “highly expensive” … “remain unconvinced”
    * around 18:05 “brings classification” …”can’t take to European Space Agency”
    * around 28:35-29:05 .. .”doubts that a single stage to orbit spacecraft will ever be achievable”

    I believe, in hindsight, that 1980-2010 will be seen very much as a time when narrow minded, short-term, financial interests were allowed to run roughshod over the very existence of human kind and it is only now, with dogged determination and not a few intellectual battles, a few brave souls are beginning to break through the wall of indifference or outright hostility that has been brought into being by those reactionary forces attempting against all common sense and logic to maintain and even increase their power base that seeks to stifle anything that threatens to challenge their version of the truth. From me, at least, a heartfelt thanks and recognition of the outstanding work now being done by those brave few souls.

  • Gordon Docherty

    absolutely nothing to do with LENR or BLP (at the moment), but here are a few links for Skylon:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n57jnMpAyc0 – THE THREE ROCKETEERS: THE FUTURE OF SPACE TRAVEL
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDexTPBvlg – Starfest III – Alan Bond – “Skylon: Shaping Tomorrow”
    http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

    Particularly from the first video, I see some parallels with the mainstream reaction to Hydrinos and LENR … especially:

    * around 16:40 onward … “highly expensive” … “remain unconvinced”
    * around 18:05 “brings classification” …”can’t take to European Space Agency”
    * around 28:35-29:05 .. .”doubts that a single stage to orbit spacecraft will ever be achievable”

    I believe, in hindsight, that 1980-2010 will be seen very much as a time when narrow minded, short-term, financial interests were allowed to run roughshod over the very existence of human kind and it is only now, with dogged determination and not a few intellectual battles, a few brave souls are beginning to break through the wall of indifference or outright hostility that has been brought into being by those reactionary forces attempting against all common sense and logic to maintain and even increase their power base that seeks to stifle anything that threatens to challenge their version of the truth. From me, at least, a heartfelt thanks and recognition of the outstanding work now being done by those brave few souls.

  • georgehants

    Probably already been posted, hard to check
    ———
    Extremtech
    Cold fusion tech picked up by major US partner, prepares for launch in the American and Chinese energy markets
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175507-cold-fusion-tech-picked-up-by-major-us-partner-prepares-to-launch-in-the-american-and-chinese-energy-markets

  • georgehants

    Probably already been posted, hard to check
    ———
    Extremtech
    Cold fusion tech picked up by major US partner, prepares for launch in the American and Chinese energy markets
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175507-cold-fusion-tech-picked-up-by-major-us-partner-prepares-to-launch-in-the-american-and-chinese-energy-markets
    EDIT —- O’ dear there is already a string pt up by Admin, I shall wake-up now, Ha.

  • Sanjeev

    Mills released the waiver that attendees signed.(see attachment)
    http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1729

    It looks like some people are hell bent on discrediting BLP. Such opposition makes me think BLP has the goods, else why will anyone do so much effort on negative publicity.

  • homersage

    Yes! And if you want to better understand the physics of the Aether I implore you to review the work of Thomson and Bourassa.

    Excerpt:

    “Our Aether Physics Model is mathematically viable and bases on the same empirical data as established physics. However, the theory goes much further, becoming the “Grand Unification Theory” by unifying the four known interactions, or forces – the strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational forces. Using the principle of reductionism, the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable by the fabric of space-time itself. Among other accomplishments, from first principles the Aether Physics Model accurately predicts the relative strengths of the forces, and the 1s ‘orbital’ electron binding energy for all the elements. We show that the fundamental constants in physics are not just random values, but have an exact value based upon a quantum-scale, dynamic Aether (the Aether unit has a precise value equal to Coulomb’s constant times 16(Pi)²). The Aether Physics Model is stunning in that it mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision.”

    You can purchase on Amazon (I have no affiliation with the authors), or review the “Secrets of the Aether” Free here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/qadi16pi2/home/secrets-of-the-aether

    Or: http://www.16pi2.com/

    Or: http://theories.toequest.com/articles/13/2/A-New-Foundation-for-Physics/Page2.html

    Or: http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Researchers/Secrets%20of%20the%20Aether%20%28Third%20Edition%29%20-%20D.W.%20Thomson%20III%20&%20J.D.%20Bourassa%28OCR%29.pdf

    • jonnyb

      Cheers reading it now

  • homersage

    Yes! And if you want to better understand the physics/structure of the Aether I implore you to review the work of Thomson and Bourassa.

    Excerpt:

    “Our Aether Physics Model is mathematically viable and bases on the same empirical data as established physics. However, the theory goes much further, becoming the “Grand Unification Theory” by unifying the four known interactions, or forces – the strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational forces. Using the principle of reductionism, the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable by the fabric of space-time itself. Among other accomplishments, from first principles the Aether Physics Model accurately predicts the relative strengths of the forces, and the 1s ‘orbital’ electron binding energy for all the elements. We show that the fundamental constants in physics are not just random values, but have an exact value based upon a quantum-scale, dynamic Aether (the Aether unit has a precise value equal to Coulomb’s constant times 16(Pi)²). The Aether Physics Model is stunning in that it mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision.”

    You can purchase on Amazon (I have no affiliation with the authors), or review the “Secrets of the Aether” Free here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/qadi16pi2/home/secrets-of-the-aether

    Or: http://www.16pi2.com/

    Or: http://theories.toequest.com/articles/13/2/A-New-Foundation-for-Physics/Page2.html

    Or: http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Researchers/Secrets%20of%20the%20Aether%20%28Third%20Edition%29%20-%20D.W.%20Thomson%20III%20&%20J.D.%20Bourassa%28OCR%29.pdf

    • homersage

      Sorry, I’ve been a fly on the wall for a couple years now… I just subscribed to respond to Ivone’s comment on Stoyan Sarg’s theory of physics and the “ether”… but somehow it did not align beneath it.

      Perhaps Frank can move this to align. Regardless, the ether/Aether is the answer and Thomson, who started out with a study of Tesla’s work and has made significant advancement toward a unified theory, IMHO.

    • jonnyb

      Cheers reading it now

      • homersage

        jonnyb,

        That’s great. Personally I am in awe of the fact that he has reduced QM to algebraic terms (nature favors simplicity… as did Einstein) through coherent dimensional analysis, and honors of the scientific method, which MS academia abandoned long ago.

        He has even redefined several constants and offers greater degrees of accuracy. The theory posits that subatomic
        particles are neither particulate, nor waves, but
        have a unique form of existence described as
        “primary angular momentum”. Holographic Universe theory supports this conclusion…

        If I can point out a particular area of the http://www.16pi2.com/ link; In the lower left links to some very good discourse with academia where Thomson defends his theory gallantly IMHO.

  • MK

    I was extremely sceptical about Blacklight. I am still sceptic, but I feel I could be wrong.
    Should it be possible that(at least) two totally different new energy sources (and significant enhancements to our physical knowledge) emerge at the same time?
    My guess is that Blacklights approach (if its really Hydrinos) is something totally different to LENR.
    The “ash” of the Blacklight technology are assumed to be Hydrinos. The LENR researchers talk about transmutation products (He. Cu, etc.) as “ash”. Gets more fascinating…………………

  • MK

    I was extremely sceptical about Blacklight. I am still sceptic, but I feel I could be wrong.
    Should it be possible that(at least) two totally different new energy sources (and significant enhancements to our physical knowledge) emerge at the same time?
    My guess is that Blacklights approach (if its really Hydrinos) is something totally different to LENR.
    The “ash” of the Blacklight technology are assumed to be Hydrinos. The LENR researchers talk about transmutation products (He. Cu, etc.) as “ash”. Gets more fascinating…………………

    • Bing

      I still think they are closely linked.

  • Sanjeev

    Mills released the waiver that attendees signed.(see attachment)
    groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1729

    It looks like some people are hell bent on discrediting BLP. Such opposition makes me think BLP has the goods, else why will anyone do so much effort on negative publicity.

    • gp

      Good question, although we are commenting a post that after talking wonders of BLP goes on to try and discredit Rossi…

    • GreenWin

      Thanks Sanjeev. In this game the louder the FUD, the more likely the inventor is on to something good.

  • Sanjeev

    Mills released the waiver that attendees signed.(see attachment)
    groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1729

    It looks like some people are hell bent on discrediting BLP. Such opposition makes me think BLP has the goods, else why will anyone do so much effort on negative publicity.

    • gp

      Good question, although we are commenting a post that after talking wonders of BLP goes on to try and discredit Rossi…

    • GreenWin

      Thanks Sanjeev. In this game the louder the FUD, the more likely the inventor is on to something good.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    The most relevant slide(42) of his powerpoint presentation -> the actual state of progress:
    Completed
    10 W stack achieved
    50 times increase in surface power density
    Off-site validation

    Next
    Multi-watt laboratory demonstration unit
    Concept Stack
    1.5 kW pre-manufacturable prototype
    1.5 kW cells will be ganged to provide stationary
    and motive power levels to meet those of essentially
    all applications

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    The most relevant slide(42) of his powerpoint presentation -> the actual state of progress:
    Completed
    10 W stack achieved
    50 times increase in surface power density
    Off-site validation

    Next
    Multi-watt laboratory demonstration unit
    Concept Stack
    1.5 kW pre-manufacturable prototype
    1.5 kW cells will be ganged to provide stationary
    and motive power levels to meet those of essentially
    all applications

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Thanks for posting. What I hear is many more years to try to get this effect continuous if possible. It will also likely be argued that as a shareholder in BLP negative comments could only serve to devalue your stake. I say this as a supporter and believer in BLP, and am sure many comments will be more negative.

    It is sad that they cannot already do what they claimed, but I’ve been following these stories for many years, and another few won’t hurt.

    The Rossi ecat I also have faith in, but have some trouble with the fact he claims he was selling Industrial heating units at $4 million each and then Cherokee and Rossi combined parted with his stake for a mere $11 million. I think he could have raised that much simply by selling shares. I know I would have invested.

    I do think BLP will dominate the market once they have a product. If the ecat is realized; it ill dry funding for many green techs such as solar and wind. I wonder also if BLP finances would find investors bailing.

    I find it hard to imagine how Rossi or BLP or any of the over 20 LENR developers intend to protect their inventions, because they seem very basic to build from any schematics shown.

    I like many here was a bit too optimistic about their intentions and wonder why BLP would even bother hosting a demo without something to show.

    • Veblin

      People keep saying that Rossi sold for 11.5 million. No. Industrial Heat reported at the time of Filing that they raised 11.5 million of 20 million. That money is for R&D. We have no idea what Rossi will get. Maybe a royalty on everything sold. Maybe 10% of a trillion. That would make him the worlds richest person. We just don’t know.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        True. Thanks for correcting that. I imagine any inventor would not want to cut himself out. Still we are looking at another long prolonged wait with no news.

      • GreenWin

        Veblin, I received word from a Rossi “insider” indicating about 8X the Filing target in cash value. This could mean almost any combination of equity (stock, options, warrants, etc) in IH and subsidiaries, hard cash, gross profit plus royalties, a low interest credit line, insurance policies, rights of refusal, expense accounts etc. IH is also actively looking for further investment to meet its filing target.

        But the terms of the rights acquisition are not public. And for that matter we do not know what those rights include. They could simply be worldwide marketing rights to the IP. Or they could be rights to the IP itself. It is unlikely that Dr. Rossi has transferred or assigned the patents, trademarks, or industrial secret IP to anyone other than his self and spouse.

        • Mr. Moho

          It is unlikely that Dr. Rossi has transferred or assigned the patents,
          trademarks, or industrial secret IP to anyone other than his self and
          spouse.

          Do you remember this?

          http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works-pefectly/

          Also, from the IH press release:
          http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html

          Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy.

          • GreenWin

            Having some experience in forms of IP, I am simply cautious. I would look for documentation (e.g. transfer or assignment of the Italian patent or trade secret) or to hear from an IP / patent specialist specifically what constitute the IP rights Mr. Vaughn acquired. I reserve judgment from an investor’s POV Mr. Moho. However, as you imply, one cannot license a manufacturer to build a product without first having some specific, exclusive or non-exclusive right to the underlying IP. Nothing to argue about. 🙂

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for sharing your first hand views Steve. Hope you stick around!

    • Paul

      BLP will dominate the market? Not to simple to forecast. Their thechnology is not so easy, even if it’s amazing. Moreover, power density of the best their cells is 100 times than gasoline. The E-Cat has a power density of 10000 times gasoline! So, much will depend on the price per kW at which their products will be put on the market. The prices need to be very low, I guess not more than 10% of all the current alternative technologies for energy production to guarantee a real success on the market and a revolution which makes them remain in the History.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Possibly a “Who makes safe green energy first” scenario. I think we may see a bit of both technologies. Any breakthrough by a LENR company involving media and scientific support might clear out investors from all the others.

        I (for instance) would not invest a penny in BLP if the Rossi device was accepted by science and media.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Thanks for posting. What I hear is many more years to try to get this effect continuous if possible. It will also likely be argued that as a shareholder in BLP negative comments could only serve to devalue your stake. I say this as a supporter and believer in BLP, and am sure many comments will be more negative.

    It is sad that they cannot already do what they claimed, but I’ve been following these stories for many years, and another few won’t hurt.

    The Rossi ecat I also have faith in, but have some trouble with the fact he claims he was selling Industrial heating units at $4 million each and then Cherokee and Rossi combined parted with his stake for a mere $11 million. I think he could have raised that much simply by selling shares. I know I would have invested.

    I do think BLP will dominate the market once they have a product. If the ecat is realized; it ill dry funding for many green techs such as solar and wind. I wonder also if BLP finances would find investors bailing.

    I find it hard to imagine how Rossi or BLP or any of the over 20 LENR developers intend to protect their inventions, because they seem very basic to build from any schematics shown.

    I like many here was a bit too optimistic about their intentions and wonder why BLP would even bother hosting a demo without something to show.

    • Veblin

      People keep saying that Rossi sold for 11.5 million. No. Industrial Heat reported at the time of Filing that they raised 11.5 million of 20 million. That money is for R&D. We have no idea what Rossi will get. Maybe a royalty on everything sold. Maybe 10% of a trillion. That would make him the worlds richest person. We just don’t know.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        True. Thanks for correcting that. I imagine any inventor would not want to cut himself out. Still we are looking at another long prolonged wait with no news.

        • bachcole

          I can’t help but think that Rossi realized that he was an inventor, not a business person or a marketeer, and he decided that Cherokee was perfect for his needs.

      • homersage

        I suspect the richest “person” has hundreds of trillions, but you will never see their name in Forbes… they are the psychopaths that have suppressed technologies in the past that would set humanity free from the yoke of debt slavery (assuming one truly understands central banking and fractional reserve banking).

      • GreenWin

        Veblin, I received word from a Rossi “insider” indicating about 8X the Filing target in cash value. This could mean almost any combination of equity (stock, options, warrants, etc) in IH and subsidiaries, hard cash, gross profit plus royalties, a low interest credit line, insurance policies, rights of refusal, expense accounts etc. IH is also actively looking for further investment to meet its filing target.

        But the terms of the rights acquisition are not public. And for that matter we do not know what those rights include. They could simply be worldwide marketing rights to the IP. Or they could be rights to the IP itself. It is unlikely that Dr. Rossi has transferred or assigned the patents, trademarks, or industrial secret IP to anyone other than his self and spouse.

    • Paul

      BLP will dominate the market? Not to simple to forecast. Their thechnology is not so easy, even if it’s amazing. Moreover, power density of the best their cells is 100 times than gasoline. The E-Cat has a power density of 10000 times gasoline! So, much will depend on the price per kW at which their products will be put on the market. The prices need to be very low, I guess not more than 10% of all the current alternative technologies for energy production to guarantee a real success on the market and a revolution which makes them remain in the History.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Possibly a “Who makes safe green energy first” scenario. I think we may see a bit of both technologies. Any breakthrough by a LENR company involving media and scientific support might clear out investors from all the others.

        I (for instance) would not invest a penny in BLP if the Rossi device was accepted by science and media. I won’t even invest in a sailboat right now because if this hits everyone and their dog will want an electric yacht.

  • theBuckWheat

    Yes, I was lumping LENR and the BLP process together when maybe they really fit in Rob Duncan’s processes. that exhibit “anomalous excess heat”. And I might add those that display energy density that can only come by nuclear mass reduction and that have very little or no ionizing radiation.

    • GreenWin

      tBW, thanks for your comments. I agree. It is rather “tribal” the way some people react. Mike McKubre has been fairly clear on the leaders of LENR being BLP, Rossi, DGT, and Brillouin. Some people seem to forget Mike’s final comments (S Allen’s interview) that a Win for One, is a Win for All.

  • Ivone

    In both the Mills and Sarg theories, when the electron is sunk into the lower levels, a corresponding packet of energy is released. Ultimately, as the electron reaches the proton, it merges with the proton forming a neutron. This neutron, without any coulomb defences, combines with the Ni forming CU. Thus the physics of the Mills process and the Rossi process are the same, though the technologies are very different. It also explains why the Mills process emits just one hundredth of the energy density of the E – Cat, resulting in a liter of water for a few months over a gram of nickel over the same time period.

    • Ivone

      In the Santilli version, it does happen naturally. Thunder, according to Santilli, is caused by the plasma of the lightning dissociating the water molecule into its two atomic components. The hydrogen ion is then shocked into becoming a neutron and then combining with the carbon that is in the air and dissociated as well. The result is nitrogen, and the energy of the fusion is the crash of the thunder, and possibly an amplification of the lightning flash. Over the hundreds of millions of years, this has caused the nitrogen proportion of the atmosphere to increase.

      • BroKeeper

        Can you or Steve tell us how loud the BL SF-CIHT sparks are at 12K amps verses lightening? I’m assuming lightening has a lot higher amperage. Is there much shock wave involved? Just curious.

        • BroKeeper

          I just searched lightening amperage and it averages between 5K-20K so it’s about an average strike. So my question is can it be muffled to the point one can not hear it?

          • Ivone

            The lightning by itself is noiseless. The release of energy by the combination of carbon and neutron causes the thunder.

          • BroKeeper

            Wouldn’t the combining of the neutron with Ni cause the same thunder effect?

          • Ivone

            It would, if the effect wasn’t trapped in a steel cylinder. Thunder occurs in free air.

          • Curbina

            Ivone, you seem to be very aquainted with Santilli’s theory, are you part of Santilli’s team?

          • Ivone

            No, I’m not. I knew nothing of Santilli until last week, when I learned of his reactor that boils water using fusion between deuterium and carbon.

          • Curbina

            Ok, thanks for your answer Ivone. Is really good for me to know people that gets into the issues with keen interest and a cautiously open mind. I also see some paralells and of course differences between these takes, but that they are all talking about the same underlying phenomena, and that’s what fascinates me, to see that we have yet much to learn, and that some people take that step, while most of the remainder only keep belittiling their efforts because “we already know enough”. I for one think that what we need to do is helping these persons doing the difficult part to see where they take us. Regards!!!

  • Rick Allen

    How can the BLP cell produce megawatts of power when it is claimed the reaction only produces 200 times the energy of chemically burning hydrogen? Is this an indicator that nuclear reactions are happening as well?

  • Rick Allen

    How can the BLP cell produce megawatts of power when it is claimed the reaction only produces 200 times the energy of chemically burning hydrogen? Is this an indicator that nuclear reactions are happening as well?

  • Christina

    It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

    If Dr. Rossi, Industrial Light and Cherokee already are manufacturing their products and awaiting results of some tests that perhaps upgrade their technology/product and the tests are successful, they may well be in business by Christmas for placing their E-Cat into factories and well on the way for placing them into everything else.

    BLP seems to be where Rossi was a few years back or even further away from producing products for sale.

    This is just my impression of what’s going on after reading this website since spring of 2012.

    One thing is certain. Those born today will live in a world we wouldn’t recognize were we transported to their 30th birthday party today.

    • bachcole

      Just looking at things softly, I get the same impression. The difference is that BLP has a theory, and Rossi may have a theory, but he hasn’t told us yet. But Rossi’s theory is more like, “I’ve got this reaction, I wonder how it works.” But Mills’ theory is more like, “Hey, I’ve got this fabulous theory (that a lot of people are raving about), let’s see what we can do with it.” Right now, in the long run, I think that Mills is looking like the winner. In the short run, it looks like Rossi will be the winner.

      • Morse

        Are you saying that Rossi is Edison and Mills is Tesla? 🙂

        • bachcole

          Yes. Rossi plows ahead without much in the way of a theory, or at least one he hasn’t told us, just like Edison. Or at the very least Rossi may have discovered his reaction and the theory came later. Tesla was more of a theory kind of a guy, as is Mills.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Normally one should expect that somebody who has a theory that describes the physical processes correctly would be able to develop and optimize his devices much faster than somebody else who works rather by the trial-and-error method. So why is Mills not yet far ahead of Rossi, provided that his theory is correct? There may be different reasons. First, Mills must have spent an enormous amount of time with his publications. That might have reduced the available time for the practical work drastically. Secondly, engineering is a matter that differs from the purely theoretical part. A theory of fundamental processes will not be sufficient to predict everything that will happen in an existing device, especially if it has a fairly complex structure. Perhaps such a device could be simulated with a supercomputer, but that would require enormous resources, and further theoretical work and the programming would have to be done. Thus, an evolutionary trial-and-error approach will be unavoidable in any case. Thirdly, the work must be organized in an optimal way. Job sharing seems to be an effective method, Rossi’s collaboration with Focardi was a good example. I wonder, by the way, if Rossi has found an adequate successor for Focardi in the meantime.

    • NT

      Hopefully, there will be a recognizable earth thirty years hence given all the pollution from fossil fuels and our nice and safe fission reactors (Fukushima & Chernobyl major failures for starters to say nothing about what has already been dumped in the oceans for years)! Rossi and others may not have a world to sell anything too if they don’t get with it soon!

  • Patrick McCartney

    I ran across BLP help wanted ads from last fall for a project manager to convert plasma to electricity as well as a lab assistant. They ran ads for a ceramics engineer in mid-2012 following the consultant reports on the CIHT fuel cell.

    I’m confident we won’t have to wait five years.

  • googlyeyed

    So it’s settled. Labs around the world are using Mills technique to produce hydrinos. I would like to read those reports. I do believe in LENR. I know fusion exists…50 years, billions, and not 1 watt produced even though the science is well known. You have to learn to walk before you run. And what better way to discredit yourself by hyping a public demo and then have nothing to show. Could it be big oil starts these bogus companies (BLP), gets investors online and then fabricates these scenarios to discredit the alternate energy movement. Just wondering.

  • Dejan Njegus

    Oh what a disappointment… but I knew it… I knew it would be like this… lots of empty talk and not a single one jpeg or, God forbid, video file… it seems that after all Rossi is very open to public – compared to these guys… in my humble opinion these “unified theories” and “hydrinos” are loads of BS… after all these years they STILL didn’t show us anything… don’t get me wrong I’m a believer, I believe in Cold fusion or LENR, whatever you want to call it… HUMAN RACE needs it FAST and YESTERDAY, before we exterminate each other over the last drop of oil…
    I just have a feeling that Mills had run out of money and he needs new injection for “further research”, plus… he is panicking… real stuff is coming… and it’s coming fast… next two to three years we will have it… but he will had to explain to his shareholders how some Italian guy overtook him so fast and holds patents :-)))))))
    On my list Rossi is still number one, NASA number two… then all the rest…

    • Miles

      If the technology is “real” as they claim, ….so revolutionary, ….so ground breaking, …so earth shattering, a game changing alien like technology, which will have an impact on the global economy, remind me BlackLight Power,…what exactly is the main hold up? Can someone explain this to me? Have you seen the pollution in China? I’m 100% certain China would give you billions for it!!!

      China PM calls for national roll-out of electric vehicles – to improve pollution level in their major cities.
      See more: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/29/china-pm-calls-for-national-roll-out-of-electric-vehicles/#sthash.EI9IBqJu.dpuf

      Sounds like they’re trying to sell sand in bottles to the Arabs.

      • Fortyniner

        I think you overstate the ‘wow factor’ a little. It is only astonishing if you believe that Science has all the answers and there is nothing left to be discovered – an unlikely proposition. There have been many hints that surplus energy may be available from water, and many people who have claimed to have developed systems that harness some of this energy, so Mills’ claims are not that ‘mind blowing’ when seen in this context.

        The problem is that going from an explosion in an expensive laboratory apparatus to a commercial product is a potentially long process. Unfortunately BLP do not seem to be strong on engineering feasibility, so the process may take longer than it should. How soon a product can be developed may depend on whether Mills hires experienced engineers to help in development, or tries to go it alone.

    • HiggsField

      I think that perhaps Mills is too much the academic/scientist and not enough the engineer. You are probably right he needs more cash and if he is not carefully will be over taken by others like Rossi and Brillouin Energy. I will not be surprised if 2 or more years go by before we hear from Mills again. We are likely looking at two different effects, one LENR, and the other something else.

  • Dejan Njegus

    Oh what a disappointment… but I knew it… I knew it would be like this… lots of empty talk and not a single one jpeg or, God forbid, video file… it seems that after all Rossi is very open to public – compared to these guys… in my humble opinion these “unified theories” and “hydrinos” are loads of BS… after all these years they STILL didn’t show us anything… don’t get me wrong I’m a believer, I believe in Cold fusion or LENR, whatever you want to call it… HUMAN RACE needs it FAST and YESTERDAY, before we exterminate each other over the last drop of oil…
    I just have a feeling that Mills had run out of money and he needs new injection for “further research”, plus… he is panicking… real stuff is coming… and it’s coming fast… next two to three years we will have it… but he will had to explain to his shareholders how some Italian guy overtook him so fast and holds patents :-)))))))
    On my list Rossi is still number one, NASA number two… then all the rest…

    • Miles

      If the technology is “real” as they claim, ….so revolutionary, ….so ground breaking, …so earth shattering, a game changing alien like technology, which will have an impact on the global economy, remind me BlackLight Power,…what exactly is the main hold up? Can someone explain this to me? Have you seen the pollution in China? I’m 100% certain China would give you billions for it!!!

      China PM calls for national roll-out of electric vehicles – to improve pollution level in their major cities.
      See more: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/29/china-pm-calls-for-national-roll-out-of-electric-vehicles/#sthash.EI9IBqJu.dpuf

      Sounds like they’re trying to sell sand in bottles to the Arabs.

      • kidmarc

        To explain the hold up is to be on the inside of BLP. [Try contacting Blacklight Power]

        With regard to cleaning up the pollution, China has implemented using permaculture (alcohol) and problably H2 as methods. EV’s do nothing to “improve pollution levels”.

        Peace

      • I think you overstate the ‘wow factor’ a little. It is only astonishing if you believe that Science has all the answers and there is nothing left to be discovered – an unlikely proposition. There have been many hints that surplus energy may be available from water, and many people who have claimed to have developed systems that harness some of this energy, so Mills’ claims are not that ‘mind blowing’ when seen in this context.

        The problem is that going from an explosion in an expensive laboratory apparatus to a commercial product is a potentially long process, requiring specialist engineering skills. Unfortunately BLP do not seem to be strong on engineering feasibility, so the process may take longer than it should. How soon a product can be developed may depend on whether Mills can find a brilliant engineer to match his own theoretical brilliance, or tries to go it alone.

    • HiggsField

      I think that perhaps Mills is too much the academic/scientist and not enough the engineer. You are probably right he needs more cash and if he is not carefully will be over taken by others like Rossi and Brillouin Energy. I will not be surprised if 2 or more years go by before we hear from Mills again. We are likely looking at two different effects, one LENR, and the other something else.

  • Pipmon

    How does one invest in BLP? (as in standard trading markets, not private funding) When I inquired of BLP back in that time zone (94-97) they were: ‘sorry but we are not open for public investment’. Has this changed? I ask of course because you mention that you bought shares in 1999. Searching for a Blacklight ticker symbol on any finance site that I’ve tried yields nothing still. Is there some subsidiary or offshoot of BLP that offers shares directly or indirectly linked to BLP? Not that I’m about to buy any shares at this point, but I am curious.

    • bing

      Private only. You would have to be an accredited investor, ie. worth over $1M not counting your home.

  • optiongeek

    Steve, thanks for putting this up. Very much appreciated.
    You characterized the demo as conclusively > 100 COP albeit non-continuous. Did the demo also include ‘regeneration’ of the catalyst/fuel mixture. That is, did Mills show multiple reactions from the same catalyst after being recharged with water vapor? Was there any analysis of the catalyst material that demonstrated it wasn’t being broken down in any meaningful way? Thanks!

  • optiongeek

    Steve, thanks for putting this up. Very much appreciated.
    You characterized the demo as conclusively > 100 COP albeit non-continuous. Did the demo also include ‘regeneration’ of the catalyst/fuel mixture. That is, did Mills show multiple reactions from the same catalyst after being recharged with water vapor? Was there any analysis of the catalyst material that demonstrated it wasn’t being broken down in any meaningful way? Thanks!

  • US_Citizen71

    So it appears we now have a modern equivalent of Edison vs Tesla for the control of the future of power generation. May they both win as we could use both technologies.

    • BroKeeper

      And to maintain lowest cost possible. More the merrier. However, I hope Rossi gets the major portion of the credit for the newer LENR realization.

  • US_Citizen71

    So it appears we now have a modern equivalent of Edison vs Tesla for the control of the future of power generation. May they both win as we could use both technologies.

    • Brokeeper

      And to maintain lowest cost possible. More the merrier. However, I hope Rossi gets the major portion of the credit for the newer LENR realization.

    • bachcole

      But this modern “Edison” is way sweeter than the original Edison.

  • MLTC

    Thank you, Steve! 🙂

  • Daniel Maris

    Steve Menton was commenting positively on Mills’ theory and technology at least 12 years ago. Of course he now appears to have a vested interest in talking up the company’s prospects, being a shareholder himself.

    I just don’t know why Mr Menton isn’t more curious about why it has taken a couple of decades for Mills to get this stage – where he doesn’t actually have a prototype device, only some sort of intermittent plosive device, working at very low levels of energy output -if his theory, design abilities, and planning are all of such a high order.

  • Jeff

    I have an extensive website that goes into details of Randell Mills’s theory and helps explain some of it to the average person.
    since I can’t post links, it is:
    zhydrogen dot com

    I plan to buy a calorimeter and try Mills experiment where he uses a spot welder to ignite a small sample of Copper and Water (.08 grams total). The input is 899 J and the output is 3035 J for a net of 2136 J.This is listed on page 225 of his patent titled “Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same” that is listed on his website (right on the home page of blacklightpower dot com)
    Mills used a Parr 1341 caloremeter that costs $7000 new. Maybe I can get a used one for half that price. Then I’ll have to modify it to accept the current pulse from the spot welder. My guess is it will cost $6 to $10k in materials.
    Can anyone help fund this? Maybe I can get it through a crowd funding site.
    I’m fully qualified to do this experiment since I’ve built accurate calorimeters in the past and run high voltage experiments. I have 23
    years experience in mechanical engineering doing many complex projects.
    Jeff Driscoll

  • Christopher Calder

    It is possible that the BlackLight devices work, but that the Mills theory of how they work is wrong. Just because you can make something work does not mean that you have the theory nailed down. This may be just another form of nickel hydrogen reaction, just like Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin. Brillouin also has a water based system in addition to a dry hydrogen gas based system.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Hydrinos are pretty hard to believe

  • It is possible that the BlackLight devices work, but that the Mills theory of how they work is wrong. Just because you can make something work does not mean that you have the theory nailed down. This may be just another form of nickel hydrogen reaction, just like Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin. Brillouin also has a water based system in addition to a dry hydrogen gas based system.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Hydrinos are pretty hard to believe

  • Thanks Steve. For those who are waiting for the Blacklight steak, I have an appetizer for you. Just got back from MIT where I saw a video of a CF device running a sterling engine. Not sure of the efficiency but how cool is that? Will try to get a copy with more info. Barry

    • AB

      That sounds interesting. Is a closed loop possible?

      • It was a Phusor which predates the NANOR. I want to find out more about it. Phusors were lower power so I’m not sure how much the electrical input was actually powering the sterling engine. It was one of Mitchell Swartz’s experiments. He doesn’t just use low wattage. He often does for safety, time and expense. Some of the NANORS were made with nickel as well. The sterling engine vid was at the very end of the class, people were already leaving. I asked him if he ever showed the video on the web and he said no so I asked him if I could show it and he said yes. I think it has more historic value than an efficient CF machine but still, I repeat, how cool is that? It has to be one of the first marriages of a CF device to a SE.

        The lectures at MIT are already coming up at Ruby’s site http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/

    • friendlyprogrammer

      That’s more interesting than this demo.. TY…

    • Daniel Maris

      Yep, that sounds v. cool. I’ve always thought that if someone has some low powered device, that’s what they ought to do, to at least show the overunity is not a measurement error (of course, in the milliwatt range, there may still be issues about where heat may be coming from).

    • Christopher Calder

      I hope that is true. My belief is that LENR will never be fully accepted unless and until we can use it to perform actual work. Running an engine for weeks on end (for example) would be work, and that is easy to prove and understand.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. Someone needs to buy a 5 ton truck and set up LENR and generator (even to hydrogen), and drive it through every state without stopping for fuel. I’d say a car, but equipment to do this would require a lot of space and maintenance at this time. Motorhome? Then the crew could sleep in shifts and cook

        • Owen Geiger

          Sort of like Stan Meyer’s water car? Better make that vehicle armor plated and don’t stop to talk with strangers.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

          • tlp

            What’s New1/29/14Demonstration of the High Energy SF CIHT Technology Full length Presentation (uploading soon), (2 hours 15 minutes)

    • Sanjeev

      So do you mean that the heat is coming from LENR?
      There are similarities like hydrogen, Pd catalyst, plasma etc, but is it a really efficient combustion or is it a cold fusion process? How much power out for 200W in ?

      Anyway its a good thing for hho crowd and it will be a great surprise if there is LENR in there, or if Rossi used something like a car catalytic converter (with Ni instead of Pd) to build his Ecat.

      • Owen Geiger

        It’s too early to tell if it’s LENR. There are no measurements that I’m aware of. The fact it’s open source is great. The simplicity is most intriguing. This looks like high school science (in a school where innovation, creativity and open thought are fostered). Scale this process up a bit and you’ve got a nice little heater/boiler/cooker. I encourage everyone to follow the links above and check this out.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          The experimenter is just speculating. He has no sophisticated instruments. He does have a small business in producing and selling cheap hydrolysis equipment.
          http://jdcproducts.com/products.html

  • Thanks Steve. For those who are waiting for the Blacklight steak, I have an appetizer for you. Just got back from MIT where I saw a video of a CF device running a sterling engine. Not sure of the efficiency but how cool is that? Will try to get a copy with more info. Barry

    • AB

      That sounds interesting. Is a closed loop possible?

      • It was a Phusor which predates the NANOR. I want to find out more about it. Phusors were lower power so I’m not sure how much the electrical input was actually powering the sterling engine. It was one of Mitchell Swartz’s experiments. He doesn’t just use low wattage. He often does for safety, time and expense. Some of the NANORS were made with nickel as well. The sterling engine vid was at the very end of the class, people were already leaving. I asked him if he ever showed the video on the web and he said no so I asked him if I could show it and he said yes. I think it has more historic value than an efficient CF machine but still, I repeat, how cool is that? It has to be one of the first marriages of a CF device to a SE.

        The lectures at MIT are already coming up at Ruby’s site http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/

    • friendlyprogrammer

      That’s more interesting than this demo.. TY…

    • I hope that is true. My belief is that LENR will never be fully accepted unless and until we can use it to perform actual work. Running an engine for weeks on end (for example) would be work, and that is easy to prove and understand.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. Someone needs to buy a 5 ton truck and set up LENR and generator (even to hydrogen), and drive it through every state without stopping for fuel. I’d say a car, but equipment to do this would require a lot of space and maintenance at this time. Motorhome? Then the crew could sleep in shifts and cook

  • Wayne M.

    @Steve Menton

    Thank you for identifying yourself instead of hiding behind anonymous.

    You spent the first three of your five paragraphs attacking the people in this blog or defending yourself and Dr. Mills. All we really want is clear information about the demo without all the drama.

    You said, “I did my own due diligence and concluded that none of them really understood what Randy was saying”.

    Really. The room is filled with many smart people. Not one.

    You also said, “I am a Blacklight investor and purchased my first shares in 1999”.

    What has been your ROI over the last 15 years?

    Finally you said, “Randy is going to do things on his time and nobody else’s. He is not concerned with Rossi and …”.

    With Industrial Heat on the move, I think the rossino is going to trump the hydrino. There is not going to be a second place winner once a machine is really in the market and the other guy’s machine is still just over the horizon.

    Time will tell all and I hope you get your money back (and more) because you were right.

    • optiongeek

      I dunno. Assuming Steve’s version of the demo is accurate (no reason to think otherwise), I’m guessing there might have been some folks in the room who’d take Steve’s shares off his hand at a tidy profit.

  • bachcole

    I notice that my belief in Mills has moved a little, like from perhaps from 30% to 35%, BECAUSE someone who saw a DEMO reported back to us about it. I am a demo and evidence kind of guy. Show me the evidence. Now, if we had a video, my faith in Mills might move up to 45% or so. A third party test done by people whose reputations and careers were on the line, with pictures, now that would be very impressive. I might even go well past the 50% mark. If they were people some of whom I had known and appreciated for many months, like Levi and Essen, then my belief pointer would slam up against the 100% post and wrap around it.

    • Enser Corporation replicated BLP’s CIHT fuel cell independently in their own lab, assisted by a third-party consultant. The report is available with the January 14 press release on BLP’s website.

  • ScrumpyDumpy

    Steve, you mentioned that COP > 100 was claimed. Were there more details? because from reading the patent “Experiments” section it appeared that actual COP was 2-3, and you could only get near 100 by accepting his claim that it was only the first 5% of energy input that initiated the combusion. Certainly MIGHT be true but certainly casts the experimnet in a different light.

  • MaxToll

    I agree with Steven, thank you for this insightful piece. So many “skeptics” trolling the blogs without spending a nanosecond talking to the inventors, researchers and experimentalists, summarily dismissing anything and everything. What a waste of (their) time. If all this time could be put to real work by joining the teams of BLP, Rossi and others, we would all be further ahead.

  • Omega Z

    Sammy
    It’s a competition.
    They all stick a barb into the competition should someone bring them up. This is all natural.
    Note: Rossi doesn’t believe in hydrinos. 🙂

  • RobertMStahl

    Go, Randy!

  • NT

    Hopefully, there will be a recognizable earth thirty years hence given all the pollution from fossil fuels and our nice and safe fission reactors (Fukushima & Chernobyl major failures for starters to say nothing about what has already been dumped in the oceans for years)! Rossi and others may not have a world to sell anything too if they don’t get with it soon!

  • Dave Gellert

    Where’s Google? Where’s Buffet? Where’s Branson? I wish this was true. This type of quantum leap doesn’t belong in a restricted presentation. The emperor has no clothes!

  • Pierre

    Doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. The only things that matter are evidence and commercialization.

  • GreenWin

    I too thank you Steve. You have done readers here a service in offering your impressions and knowledge of Randy’s work. It is exciting to me to think there are now four quite different approaches to utilizing the anomalous heat as Rob Duncan calls it. It is apparent to me that Randy has a good idea of what is happening in his process. I hope you will continue to comment on BLP’s progress here.

  • GreenWin

    Thanks for sharing your first hand views Steve. Hope you stick around!

  • david55
    • Sanjeev

      Doesn’t look like Ecat or LENR, more like burning hydrogen (hho)

      • david55

        They claim it is plasma crated by Catalyst not burning hydrogen.

      • david55

        They claim it is plasma created by catalysts not burning hydrogen.

        • Sanjeev

          Ok. yes there can be plasma since its a mixture of water and hydrogen. The guys says that it looks overunity but I couldn’t find any measurements. Of course the output energy is tricky to measure and will need a good calorimeter.
          An interesting video here, showing plasma. That looks like a catalytic converter of a car.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTuFuw6vAlo&feature=share&list=UUi3fFZN1pwHTyM8H_nSxerg&index=1

          • david55

            That’s Awesome

          • david55
          • Andreas Moraitis

            To me, this looks rather like a chemical reaction. Atmospheric oxygen could be involved.

          • david55

            No this is not ordinary chemical reaction this is plasma and you can see x-ray radiation.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I wouldn’t disagree, but aren’t X-rays invisible? If the tool he holds in his hand provides HHO gas (I had misunderstood that initially), than atmospheric oxygen would, of course, not be required. I could still imagine that this is a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, which is catalyzed by the powder, but I don’t want to quarrel…

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Why would you need atmospheric oxygen with HHO?

  • david55
    • Sanjeev

      Doesn’t look like Ecat or LENR, more like burning hydrogen (hho)

      • david55

        Randell mills paper about plasma formation by catalysts.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/0963-0252/12/3/312/

      • david55

        They claim it is plasma created by catalysts not burning hydrogen.

        • Sanjeev

          Ok. yes there can be plasma since its a mixture of water and hydrogen. The guys says that it looks overunity but I couldn’t find any measurements. Of course the output energy is tricky to measure and will need a good calorimeter.
          An interesting video here, showing plasma. That looks like a catalytic converter of a car.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTuFuw6vAlo&feature=share&list=UUi3fFZN1pwHTyM8H_nSxerg&index=1

          • david55

            Sanjeev

            That’s Awesome

          • david55
          • Andreas Moraitis

            To me, this looks rather like a chemical reaction. Atmospheric oxygen could be involved.

          • david55

            No this is not ordinary reaction this is plasma and you can see X-rays

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I wouldn’t disagree, but aren’t X-rays invisible? If the tool he holds in his hand provides HHO gas (I had misunderstood that initially), than atmospheric oxygen would, of course, not be required. I could still imagine that this is a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, which is catalyzed by the powder, but I don’t want to quarrel…

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Why would you need atmospheric oxygen with HHO?
            Oops, I didn’t realize you had corrected yourself later on.

          • bachcole

            I don’t understand what I am looking at with the video. It looks like the probe has a flame coming out of it. What is feeding that flame??? He puts it close to the catalytic converter and it shows a fire. He puts it ON the catalytic converter and he shows the Sun. What is happening here???

          • david55

            Hi bachcole
            It is HHO gas coming out of probe that in contact with catalyst form plasma not flame.

          • Sanjeev

            He is creating glowing plasma using HHO gas and electrified catalytic converter.

          • bachcole

            I think that I understood what you said by watching the video, but is he getting more energy out than he would have if he had not used the catalytic converter? I am not asking if he got a COP > 1. If he got more energy out with the catalytic converter, (1) couldn’t that be used for energy output enhancement, and (2) doesn’t that show that something Millsian is going on or something else not covered by current physics?

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            From what I understood from the long 1hr 45min video, it was just raw HHO applied to a cold (un-electrified) catalyst. Maybe I missed something.

          • Justin Church

            I was looking for updates to the BLP demonstration and was pleasantly surprised to see you guys chattering about our work with catalytic combustion of hho aka oxyhydrogen gas. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on the process. Yes we are sending raw hho, no flame into a standard catalytic converter of a car and seem to be obtaining a substantial amount of heat. A lot more heat than using an hho flame pointed at a piece of metal. We have found many similarities in this process and the so called “E-Cat” device. The heat effect works on the same principle. If you study cold fusion or LENR you will understand they are loading hydrogen into a catalyst metal structure inside the core of a reactor and obtaining an excess heat effect as the hydrogen fuses into the metal lattice to release helium or fuse with the atomic structure of the metal to trans mutate it to another, in Rossi’s case, Nickel is claimed to transmutate to Copper which releases the excess thermal energy. Blacklight Power also use HHO plasma in their reactor and the plasma bursts create electrical energy instead of heat. It is very possible people like Andrea Rossi used a catalytic converter in the beginning stages of the research to get to the point he is now. I am working on sealing up and insulating the cat over the course of the next week or two to get some baseline numbers for everyone. For the most part people have been very positive and excited but we are seeing a lot of “We Want Measurements” from the community as well. Most of these people are what I call the “Peanut Gallery” and have never built anything their-self. They don’t care about the engineering of the device and the usefulness of it unless they are spoon fed numbers. It is a very simple process to test out. Buy or build a small hho generator, inject gas into a catalytic converter, watch it heat up. The information has been out for almost a month now and there have been only about 3 or 4 of us that have actually experimented with it. We are looking for others to join in, we can not do it alone. I am working just as hard as I can to get the cat ready to go up against a standard resistive heater of the same wattage but I have to finalize the design. If we get it right, we can easily build a highly efficent forced air heater or boiler using off the shelf parts. We don’t have to wait for Rossi or others in the Cold Fusion arena to put the technology on the market. Garage Engineers are much better at taking the technology and putting it to use than some of the Corporate boys that haven’t made it out of the lab yet and their reactors are sitting in the corner with more probes on it than a hospital patient. We want to make sure everyone around the globe has the opportunity to explore the same phenomena that most of us can only read about.

          • Fastbuck

            Hi Justin
            Thank you for for sharing this with us. I believe you have discovered a process that is more fundamental that either Rossi or Mills as your reaction happens at atmospheric pressure and requires no heat or electricity to initiate(except for the electricity used to produce the HHO). I am curious if you have tried this with a unused catalytic converter. Wondering if the carbon and other deposits might be contributing to the reaction.

          • Justin Church

            Thank you for your insight. Personally I have not tried the process on a brand new converter but a couple of other experimenters have and it works just the same. Actually a brand new converter is probably a lot better than one that has been used. The carbon deposits actually cover up the Platinum/Palladium deposits and you have to burn the carbon off first with a torch to expose the metals surface so the hho gas will make contact with it.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Thank you for the information. Here are some questions from the “peanut gallery”:

            1. You speak about the possibility that your HHO gas can be combusted with a flame. Does it mean that you adjust the concentration of H2 in a way that explosions are impossible? (Under normal conditions, pVol[H2] should be 77%). Otherwise, I would be somewhat concerned.

            2. Did you consider that the higher temperatures you reach with the catalyst powder – in comparison to the ordinary combustion of the HHO gas – could just be a consequence of a higher reaction rate, or additional chemical reactions (I suppose the answer is Yes)?

          • bachcole

            Justin, nice post. Now, if everything that was shown and everything that you said is true, then you just changed the world. I don’t need fancy and very expensive heat measuring devices to know that you got out more watts than you put in. 68 watts in an incandescent bulb (a much smaller volume and no convection out) would have trouble being painful. The behavior of the video host was more like he was putting his hand on a 100 watt incandescent bulb, but with a much larger volume and with plenty of heat convection.

            I think that this would help to substantiate Mills’ theory. I hope that you can provide us with more videos. It is still possible that Rossi is right; if the electron orbit is pushed low enough, then there is room for a nuclear reaction.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            If you watch the long 1hr 45 min video, he says that it’s raw HHO applied to a cold, un-electrified catalyst……unless I heard it wrong.

          • Justin Church

            Yes you are correct its raw un-ignited hho being sent into a standard automobile catalytic converter. We are seeing a substantial amount of heat from the reaction. Much more than using the flame alone. We are working to provide some better numbers for everyone but we have to insulate, contain, and control the reaction before we can give a solid analysis. I was looking for updates to the recent BLP demo and was pleasantly surprised to see chatter about our work. Its a possibility the catalytic combustion of hho aka oxyhydrogen is the same thing as the Andrea Rossi E-Cat. Keep in mind BLP also use HHO plasma in their technology. More work has to be done. I open sourced the concept so others could help and experiment. Really easy to do. Build or buy a hho generator, pump exiting gas into a catalytic converter, watch it heat up. Simple as that. As simple as it is, I am having an impossible time finding any information on the process, thats another reason I gave the information away. You seem to have a firm grasp on what we are doing. Thanks for the kind words…

      • Owen Geiger

        It doesn’t seem like burning hydrogen to me.

        From the H-cat forum http://hho-cat.hostoi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=1603b4b4064c8359f5544501eabf72f3&t=10

        What’s done:

        1. A proof of concept of on demand HHO flame-less catalytic combustion heating process. Referred to on the forum as H-Cat.
        2. We are now aware of the possibilities and It has become a reality.
        3. We know that the flame-less gas is much more powerful that the flame application.
        4. We know that we can use simple brute DC power at 200 watts and create heat of 600 to 900 F in a very short time.
        5. We know that once the heat has come above 500 F the gas output can be reduced and the Heat remains constant.
        6. We have observed that we can increase the efficiency considerably by spreading the gas over the entire catalytic substrate.

        • Sanjeev

          So do you mean that the heat is coming from LENR?
          There are similarities like hydrogen, Pd catalyst, plasma etc, but is it a really efficient combustion or is it a cold fusion process? How much power out for 200W in ?

          Anyway its a good thing for hho crowd and it will be a great surprise if there is LENR in there, or if Rossi used something like a car catalytic converter (with Ni instead of Pd) to build his Ecat.

          • Owen Geiger

            It’s too early to tell if it’s LENR. There are no measurements that I’m aware of. The fact it’s open source is great. The simplicity is most intriguing. This looks like high school science (in a school where innovation, creativity and open thought are fostered). Scale this process up a bit and you’ve got a nice little heater/boiler/cooker. I encourage everyone to follow the links above and check this out.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            The experimenter is just speculating. He has no sophisticated instruments. He does have a small business in producing and selling cheap hydrolysis equipment.
            http://jdcproducts.com/products.html

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Instant hot reaction when HHO contacts used auto catalytic converter.
          This amateur garage experimenter thinks this may involve LENR. He claims to get around 500° (probably Fahrenheit) interior temp with 69 watt input in producing the HHO via hydrolysis from electrolyte ( water + sodium/potassium hydroxide). Watch the 1st video 1st. If still interested, skip around on the 2nd to avoid falling asleep.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUbgOVlBwTTcIxpm09VIz7xA

          Here’s his long discussion(1hr 45min) video:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVlBdZf9jc

          • bachcole

            Here is the thing: He says that he is using 67 watts of electricity. But he is also providing the reaction with HHO. Now am not sure what you guys mean by HHO, but I doubt that it is exactly the same thing as H2O. Is it not the case that HHO has some extra potential energy, like the H and the H and the O are disassociated from each other and provide some energy when they come together; a lot of energy would be my understanding.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            The 69 watts is what he claims it took to produce the HHO. There was no further input except to spray the HHO onto the catalyst. No further electric charge, no radio wave, no ultrasonic, no microwave, and no plasma.

            HHO is disassociated hydrogen + O, as opposed to H2O. The hydrogen atoms are not bonded.

          • bachcole

            Thank you, Iggy. So, with regular water the hydrogens are not only sharing electrons with the oxygen but also with each other; is that correct? But with HHO, the hydrogens are not sharing an electron with each other but still share with the oxygen; is that correct? If this is the case, do the hydrogens flop around, or do they have a set angle from each other while connected to the oxygen? Also, would HHO be stable for very long?

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Yes, as I understand it, the natural state of hydrogen is H2. HH wants to re-pair. When HH switches back to H2, there’s a large release of energy. That’s how Brown Gas torches are able to cut through thick steel.

            It’s been speculated that HH is a big part of Rossi’s process.

          • Owen Geiger

            Yes, LENR may be taking place. I was being cautiously optimistic. Maybe it’s just plasma. Still, something exciting is going on. One video talked of spiral copper tubing with multiple holes to better distribute the HHO. These garage experimenters could open up a whole new field of devices. That’s my main interest — how can average folks benefit from this technology? I don’t want to wait 10-20 years for some trickle down effect.

            Did you see the bright light from some of those experiments? They said it looked like the sun. It reminds me of the bright light from sonoluminescence. There is some similarity even though they’re different processes.

            Tip for garage experimenters: If this takes off, please go back and compile the best short clips into one succinct video with text so this can go viral.

    • HHIram

      I’m confused by the first video. 70 watts input power – input to what? If all that power is being used to “electrify” the catalytic converter element, then what about the energy used to produce the hydrogen gas?

      If this 70 watts includes BOTH the energy used to electrify the element AND to electrolytically split water to produce H gas, then I might be impressed. But as far as I can see, it looks like he’s just burning hydrogen gas by using a car’s catalytic converter as a goofy spark plug. If that’s the case, then obviously most of the energy will be coming from the hydrogen gas – which he either produced with extra energy separately or bought from a company that used energy to produce it.

      I hope I’m wrong.

      • Owen Geiger

        It’s too early to tell exactly what’s going on, at least from these crude videos. I don’t want to jump the gun and make any big claims, but what they’re doing is definitely interesting. I hope Frank will keep an eye on these experiments.

        Standard science says the energy available from burning hydrogen and oxygen is less than the energy required to split water molecules. That’s true, but there’s more to the story as these garage tinkerers are discovering. What happens if the HHO is made from second hand solar panels? What happens when the reactor is coated with raney nickle foam of optimum nano structure that’s impregnated with a catalyst such as tungsten or potassium carbonate. Then pulse the reactor with EMF or RF. Now you’re dealing in the realm of LENR reactions and the situation is entirely different. Use low cost off the shelf components, open source the plans and the race is on. I’m tired of waiting for this trickle down stuff from international corporations that will surely be years away and taxed to the max.

  • Brad Arnold

    I was following BLP and Dr Mills from the start, and became disillusioned by his glacial progress and novel theory. OTH, the generation of electricity (DC, not AC) directly from the reaction is intriguing. BLP is something like a 60 million dollar company, and keeps getting more investors, so where there is smoke, there is most likely fire. Listening to an audio interview with Dr Mills, I came away with the impression that he soft pedals the steps he still must make to craft and beta test a useful device, both in terms of scale (output), and in terms of design. Wish him luck, but think that he must be trailing the other three companies (Rossi, Brillouin, and Defkalion) in terms of date for commercialization.

  • Bill Mehess

    Sounds like a plasma burst to me. Continuous operation would have made this real. Same effect could be achieved with the discharge from a high capacity cap. I suspect Mr Mills is in need of new investors

  • Morse

    Are you saying that Rossi is Edison and Mills is Tesla? 🙂

  • david55

    It is HHO gas coming out of probe that in contact with catalyst form plasma not flame.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Normally one should expect that somebody who has a theory that describes the physical processes correctly would be able to develop and optimize his devices much faster than somebody else who works rather by the trial-and-error method. So why is Mills not yet far ahead of Rossi, provided that his theory is correct? There may be different reasons. First, Mills must have spent an enormous amount of time with his publications. That might have reduced the available time for the practical work drastically. Secondly, engineering is a matter that differs from the purely theoretical part. A theory of fundamental processes will not be sufficient to predict everything that will happen in an existing device, especially if it has a fairly complex structure. Perhaps such a device could be simulated with a supercomputer, but that would require enormous resources, and further theoretical work and the programming would have to be done. Thus, an evolutionary trial-and-error approach will be unavoidable in any case. Thirdly, the work must be organized in an optimal way. Job sharing seems to be an effective method, Rossi’s collaboration with Focardi was a good example. I wonder, by the way, if Rossi has found an adequate successor for Focardi in the meantime.

  • Sanjeev

    He is creating glowing plasma using HHO gas and electrified catalytic converter.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      From what I understood from the long 1hr 45min video, it was just raw HHO applied to a cold (un-electrified) catalyst. Maybe I missed something.

  • tlp

    Blacklight Power’s What’s New page has been updated:
    2/6/14 Presentation by Dr. Randell Mills at the twenty-first annual Groundhog Day Investment Forum, hosted by Emerald Asset Management.
    1/28/14 Live demonstration hosted by BlackLight Power, Inc.

    but no link to the demo video yet. But maybe soon?

    • Daniel Maris

      You mean a link to another promo video? Yeah, soon enough I would reckon.

      • Allan Shura

        I am a bit interested in if Mills has actually programmed a comprehensive AI system himself. I have so I know there
        is significant work involved but I can only find his ostensibly authoritative theoretical paper and not any examples.

  • tlp

    Blacklight Power’s What’s New page has been updated:
    2/6/14 Presentation by Dr. Randell Mills at the twenty-first annual Groundhog Day Investment Forum, hosted by Emerald Asset Management.
    1/28/14 Live demonstration hosted by BlackLight Power, Inc.

    but no link to the demo video yet. But maybe soon?

    • Otto1923

      I bet we won’t see a vid until 2/6/14
      Presentation by Dr. Randell Mills at the twenty-first annual Groundhog Day Investment Forum, hosted by Emerald Asset Management.

  • Daniel Maris

    Where can we see BLP’s old steam-turbine generator then? Presumably if they had that all sorted they would be proudly displaying it in operation somewhere.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Instant hot reaction when HHO contacts used auto catalytic converter.
    This amateur garage experimenter thinks this may involve LENR. He claims to get around 500° (probably Fahrenheit) interior temp with 69 watt input in producing the HHO via hydrolysis from electrolyte ( water + sodium/potassium hydroxide). Watch the 1st video 1st. If still interested, skip around on the 2nd to avoid falling asleep.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUbgOVlBwTTcIxpm09VIz7xA

    Here’s his long discussion(1hr 45min) video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVlBdZf9jc

  • SammyM

    When someone pointed out this very site and particularly this discussion to Randell Mills he was none too pleased. This is what he said about the E-cat and it’s followers:

    ‘Thanks for the notification. To me e-cat is a cult. What can you say
    to a group that believes in thousands of watts of an unknown nuclear
    reaction that has no trace of radiation, and believes in a reactor where
    no one outside knows the identity of what it is?’

    The link is: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1731

    Reading his other posts there he is not in a good mood.

    • jousterusa

      So he doesn’t believe in Rossi and Rossi doesn’t believe in him. I think they’d both have more credibility if they both believed in each other. The doubts they cast tar both men.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Rossi seems clueless about what causes his “effect”. Maybe he needs to look at Hydrinos.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I’m in the E-cat cult. Could it be this?

      H(1)~Ni(n)~H(1) > Cu*~H(1) > Zn* > Ni(n-2) + He(4)

      Overall:
      Ni(64) + 2p > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV (no MeV gamma rays)

      • Sanjeev

        Never heard of He being released in case of Ni-H LENR.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I think they see helium formation in the Brillouin reactor. I think a fusion-fission reaction could explain the lack of MeV gamma rays.
          Or maybe: Ni + p > Co + He

    • Fortyniner

      What can you say to a man who claims millions of watts from an unknown chemical reaction and offers a miraculous reactor that only exists in his own mind?

  • SammyM

    When someone pointed out this very site and particularly this discussion to Randell Mills he was none too pleased. This is what he said about the E-cat and it’s followers:

    ‘Thanks for the notification. To me e-cat is a cult. What can you say
    to a group that believes in thousands of watts of an unknown nuclear
    reaction that has no trace of radiation, and believes in a reactor where
    no one outside knows the identity of what it is?’

    The link is: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1731

    Reading his other posts there he is not in a good mood.

    • SammyM

      Actually it’s even worse. If you click on ‘Show all messages in this topic’ his original message (now edited) was:

      ‘Thanks
      for the notification. To me e-cat is a cult. What can you say to a
      group that believes in thousands of watts of an unknown nuclear reaction
      that has no trace of radiation, and believes in a reactor where no one
      outside knows the identity of what it is and the one who does has been
      jailed for fraud?’

      Oh boy. I thought you were not supposed to comment on your competitors …

      • Buck

        Well, it’s clear to me that Mills has been reading Popular Science for his news about Rossi

        • bachcole

          ohhh, dripping resentment. Do we really want to respond like that. I want Mills to focus all of his attention on building energy producing units, not responding to our responding to his immature attitudes toward Rossi, E-Cats, and ecatworld.com.

      • C. Kirk

        Well Dr. Mills is a much better “Magician” at making money disappear than Dr. Rossi …..

    • bachcole

      Fortunately I am not looking for moral or emotional maturity. I am looking for evidence. When he shows us evidence, then I will believe what he has to say. NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE.

    • jousterusa

      So he doesn’t believe in Rossi and Rossi doesn’t believe in him. I think they’d both have more credibility if they both believed in each other. The doubts they cast tar both men.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Rossi seems clueless about what causes his “effect”. Maybe he needs to look at Hydrinos.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I’m in the E-cat cult. Could it be this?

      H(1)~Ni(n)~H(1) > Cu*~H(1) > Zn* > Ni(n-2) + He(4)

      Overall:
      Ni(64) + 2p > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV (no MeV gamma rays)

      • Sanjeev

        Never heard of He being released in case of Ni-H LENR.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I think they see helium formation in the Brillouin reactor. I think a fusion-fission reaction could explain the lack of MeV gamma rays.
          Or maybe: Ni + p > Co + He

    • What can you say to a man who claims millions of watts from an unknown chemical reaction and offers a miraculous reactor that only exists in his own mind?

      • bachcole

        I am wondering where all of that $60 million went.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    The 69 watts is what he claims it took to produce the HHO. There was no further input except to spray the HHO onto the catalyst. No further electric charge, no radio wave, no ultrasonic, no microwave, and no plasma.

    HHO is disassociated hydrogen + O, as opposed to H2O. The hydrogen atoms are not bonded.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    If you watch the long 1hr 45 min video, he says that it’s raw HHO applied to a cold, un-electrified catalyst……unless I heard it wrong.

  • Those who doubt Mills about releasing energy below the Ground State might enjoy a paper by Ronald C. Bourgoin, once a student of the late Dr. Robert Carroll, who predicted the potential importance of fractional quantum states long before Mills began his work. http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2007/astp5-8…/bourgoinASTP5-8-2007.pdf‎
    Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom: A General Solution

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, maybe it could happen but it would still be a chemical reaction. I don’t think that could account for the energy that’s seen in LENR.

  • And now, back to reality:

    “In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM [Mills’ ‘Classical Quantum Mechanics’], in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/

    • oreo57

      FAIR enough but consider this:
      “This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in
      favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for
      interpretation in terms of conventional physics.”…..
      Until this is answered it is still a he said she said situation.. WHAT IF there is no “conventional answer”?
      This goes back to the people that say “oh it is just a chemical reaction” but present zero ability to explain it “conventionally” and worse of all don’t even bother w/ trying..THAT is NOT science but dogma..

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Thank you for the information. Here are some questions from the “peanut gallery”:

    1. You speak about the possibility that your HHO gas can be combusted with a flame. Does it mean that you adjust the concentration of H2 in a way that explosions are impossible? (Under normal conditions, pVol[H2] should be 77%). Otherwise, I would be somewhat concerned.

    2. Did you consider that the higher temperatures you reach with the catalyst powder – in comparison to the ordinary combustion of the HHO gas – could just be a consequence of a higher reaction rate, or additional chemical reactions (I suppose the answer is Yes)?

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Yes, as I understand it, the natural state of hydrogen is H2. HH wants to re-pair. When HH switches back to H2, there’s a large release of energy. That’s how Brown Gas torches are able to cut through thick steel.

    It’s been speculated that HH is a big part of Rossi’s process.

  • C. Kirk

    Well Dr. Mills is a much better “Magician” at making money disappear than Dr. Rossi …..

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Piantelli’s claims of seeing energetic partials emanating from his
    activated nickel rods when he places them into a cloud chamber proves a
    nuclear reaction is taking place in H-Ni systems.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Piantelli’s claims of seeing energetic partials emanating from his
    activated nickel rods when he places them into a cloud chamber proves a
    nuclear reaction is taking place in H-Ni systems.

  • oreo57

    Kelfin, until this criteria is satisfied, the answer remains unknown.

    “This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in
    favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for
    interpretation in terms of conventional physics.”

  • tlp

    What’s New1/29/14Demonstration of the High Energy SF CIHT Technology Full length Presentation (uploading soon), (2 hours 15 minutes)

    • Just finished streaming it. The last 10 minutes cut off, and the sound wasn’t the best. But Randell Mills walked the audience through the evidence and theory. “We’re far ahead of where we could have imagined,” Mills said during a Q and A.

  • Stoyan Sarg

    The Blacklightpower demo presented on January 28, 2014 in front of selected people
    without participation of scientists is not convincing proof of what Randell Mills
    claims. He said that he made a special water distillation for obtaining a
    “hydrino” – a theory that he wants to promote. However, he does not have
    convincing theoretical and experimental argument for his hydrino. More probably
    he produced a Brown gas. This gas invented and patented by Yull Brown
    http://brownsgas.com/browns-gas-oxyhydrogen-hho-gas/browns-gas/yull-brown.html

    It is known also as a HHO gas and it is commercially used for years. It has
    quite distinctive properties from hydrogen and oxygen mixture and when ignited
    it implodes obtaining a pure water. Its
    physical properties are investigated by a number of researchers. According to
    Stoyan Sarg it is a different state of water molecule embedding energy in
    quantum state. The spectral analysis made by Ruggero Santilli shows that Brown
    gas is not a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen, so it is in accordance with Sarg’s
    suggestion. George Wiseman investigated the hydrolysis process and found that
    the applied energy is embedded in the Brown gas. So what Randell Mills probably
    did? He obtained a Brown gas and used a substance as a metal hydride to absorb it.
    In this case the Brown gas molecules are preserved for a long time in a similar
    way if a hydrogen is absorbed and preserved. Then in the presented demo he
    ignited this substance by arc and obtain explosion (in fact the implosion in
    this case is followed by explosion). So his claim that the explosion energy is
    millions times larger than the energy of the triggered pulse might not be
    correct.

    • Teepee

      Validation report from scientist just posted here http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf

      • The report seems to say ‘interesting study and apparent effects, now go and replicate under better controls’ exactly what you would expect from a scientist commenting on rudimentary scientific method – skeptical but full of encouragement to do some robust science that we can comment on. There are so many potential variables to control and yet Mills has made no effort to do so for the past decade. If he is not an inscrutable magician he needs to stop behaving like one.

    • mike from philly

      hmm, You guys aren’t still claiming Mills a fraud? Now you are trying to take credit from him? Why should we believe you guys now? You were full of shit then. But not now? Yea, right. I think it may be more fitting, saying “Mills may have took the gas brown discovered and stabilized it and named it hydrino. I think when scientists fine tune his theory, he will get the credit he may deserve. There is no reason to argue your points now. Why hasn’t it hit you that we now know we can get cheap energy with no pollution? Shouldn’t a guy like you be dancing in the streets? oil will only be good for rubbers and plastics and such. And according to Mills his software can resolve exactly for every particle. We would be able to eliminate any use of petroleum. What is wrong with you people? celebrate because someone will have units out if blacklight doesn’t. Just saying.

      • Jack Liston

        If you are right, then why has Randy once again not been able to follow through with his latest promise to deliver the November 2014 prototype. In fact, I’m pretty certain in the last 20 or so years, he has never fulfilled any promises that show actual proof of his claims.

  • The report seems to say ‘interesting study and apparent effects, now go and replicate under better controls’ exactly what you would expect from a scientist commenting on rudimentary scientific method – skeptical but full of encouragement to do some robust science that we can comment on. There are so many potential variables to control and yet Mills has made no effort to do so for the past decade. If he is not an inscrutable magician he needs to stop behaving like one.

  • Danziger

    I wonder what else one needs to see to get start thinking about the absolute necessity to make major revisions to the already classic ” modern ” physics. As a condensed matter physicist, working for nanoelectronics firms, I saw plenty other effects hardly explainable within the framework of today’ s physics. Therefore, more curiosity and less hubris, please. No doubt, I would help to improve stand of our community !

    R. Mills is perfectly right. I studied his (bulky) books and can only recommend others to do the same.

  • Danziger

    I wonder what else one needs to see to get start thinking about the absolute necessity to make major revisions to the already classic ” modern ” physics. As a condensed matter physicist, working for nanoelectronics firms, I saw plenty other effects hardly explainable within the framework of today’ s physics. Therefore, more curiosity and less hubris, please. No doubt, I would help to improve stand of our community !

    R. Mills is perfectly right. I studied his (bulky) books and can only recommend others to do the same.

  • disqus_SIB5Bk1RfN

    Most of the debunkers are caught in their misconception of what Free Energy actually is. Even among proponents their is a great misunderstanding of what we mean by “Free Energy”. Essentially, it is the extraction of excess energy where we get more energy out of a given process than we put in. It is not mysterious and is observed even in the burning of gasoline or coal. We do not need to put in all of the energy we get out, nature did that for us and thus we extract FREE ENERGY! The same analogy applies to a Nuclear Power Plant. We do need to first put the “mass” onto the fuel that is converted into usable energy and we extract more energy than we put in, even if all of the mining and refinement input energy is calculated no doubt. Heat pumps extract excess energy from the surrounding environment and so are not mysterious or inexplicable at all and they don’t polarise people into believers and non believers either. The problem as you can see is misconception of what free energy actually means. It does not mean energy invented out of nothing, that is absurd in the physical universe as we understand it. Another excellent example of FREE ENERGY is the slingshot effect experienced by Space Probes as they pass by a large planet such as Jupiter and Saturn. The probes get pulled in by the gravitation of the planet, are not captured, and are thus accelerated significantly. The energy comes from the gravitational field of the planet and is FREE. There is nothing mysterious about the theories or processes published by BLP and there is plenty of peer review and experimental validation that has been done. Appears very sound from I can discern also.

  • disqus_SIB5Bk1RfN

    Most of the debunkers are caught in their misconception of what Free Energy actually is. Even among proponents their is a great misunderstanding of what we mean by “Free Energy”. Essentially, it is the extraction of excess energy where we get more energy out of a given process than we put in. It is not mysterious and is observed even in the burning of gasoline or coal. We do not need to put in all of the energy we get out, nature did that for us and thus we extract FREE ENERGY! The same analogy applies to a Nuclear Power Plant. We do need to first put the “mass” onto the fuel that is converted into usable energy and we extract more energy than we put in, even if all of the mining and refinement input energy is calculated no doubt. Heat pumps extract excess energy from the surrounding environment and so are not mysterious or inexplicable at all and they don’t polarise people into believers and non believers either. The problem as you can see is misconception of what free energy actually means. It does not mean energy invented out of nothing, that is absurd in the physical universe as we understand it. Another excellent example of FREE ENERGY is the slingshot effect experienced by Space Probes as they pass by a large planet such as Jupiter and Saturn. The probes get pulled in by the gravitation of the planet, are not captured, and are thus accelerated significantly. The energy comes from the gravitational field of the planet and is FREE. There is nothing mysterious about the theories or processes published by BLP and there is plenty of peer review and experimental validation that has been done. Appears very sound from I can discern also.

  • Shiva

    I am a machinist at Blacklight power. The generators work they just make a mess.

    • Frank Acland

      Interesting, can you explain more?

    • bachcole

      Yes, more.

  • ecatworld

    Interesting, can you explain more?

  • Flyingfiddlers

    So where are the energy generators that we can buy??????

    • mike

      Go to ecat.com and order a home unit, it is only waiting safety certifications. Mills Will only distribute to licensed power distributors. Which pisses me off, but at least we’ll be on the road to pollutionless energy that obsoletes fossil fuels.

  • mike

    Go to ecat.com and order a home unit, it is only waiting safety certifications. Mills Will only distribute to licensed power distributors. Which pisses me off, but at least we’ll be on the road to pollutionless energy that obsoletes fossil fuels.

  • Gabriel Hanna

    Ever since 1989 Mills has been making promises and prototypes, and so far no electricity has been produced. Every time, the breakthrough is just a few months or years away.

    It almost doesn’t matter if Mills’ physics is bogus or not–if it worked, it wouldn’t matter–it’s that the promises are never met, the electricity is never produced, but more and more money is always going in and the breakthrough is always right around the corner.

    The fact that his physics IS bogus is why I am not putting money in it; other people can do what they like. I don’t blame him if he believes in what he’s doing, but at best this is a con where he has conned himself, and at worst it’s the more tiresome sort of con.

  • BLP Observer

    It is now four months past the time frame R Mills said it would take to
    produce the next prototype and, surprise-surprise, he has nothing to
    show for it. All BLP is posting on-line right now is literally old propaganda material from 2005. Once again, they managed to trick more investors to pay their (Randy, Bill, etc) generous salaries to carry on the rhetoric. I wonder if they will now go back to the Millsian scam again to buy more time?