Blacklight Power Releases Video of January 28th Demonstration

Blacklight Power has just uploaded a video of the demonstration presented at its headquarters in Cranbury, NJ on January 28th, 2014.

The video can be seen at the link below. It runs for about 2 hours 15 minutes, but I noticed that the last few minutes seems to be corrupted. Maybe they will fix this in time. I haven’t had time to watch it all yet.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/

Here’s a Youtube version of the demo:

  • optiongeek

    Watching it now. Either he wins a Nobel Prize or this is Exhibit A at his criminal fraud trial.

  • E-CAT suomi
  • E-CAT suomi
  • E-CAT suomi
  • E-CAT suomi
  • bachcole

    That’s it??? I am still trying to get past my skepticism, and this demo did not do it. However, I am completely and utterly open to a more impressive and more MEASURED demo by Mills or anyone else. You see, I already have a champion (a short Italian guy) who is way ahead of Mills. Mills may surpass my champion, and more power to him. If he does, I will just switch champions. I am kind of fickle like that; I need results only. Nothing else will suffice.

    I only watched the first couple of minutes. I assume that the rest of the demo is a lot of talk. Talk won’t remove the particulates from the atmosphere nor warm me in the winter time.

    Understand that my skepticism is not active disbelief. It is open minded not-coming-to-a-conclusion skepticism. I hope that Mills shows me more convincing evidence. In the meantime, I wonder what my champion is up to today. (:->)

  • Anybody who can relay that amount of info without notes sure has my attention. Reminds me of Bob Rohner’s plasma “Popper.” Maybe BR was on to part of the equation where Randell Mills learned how to harness the plasma. High COP, controllable, smooth and consistent, we may be watching the end of all things Cold Fusion.

    • bachcole

      I doubt it. Dr. Mills has a lot of catching up to do. He his currently behind Rossi in January 2011. But, if we assume that he has a theory that is true, he may yet catch Rossi. Or, even better, Rossi may learn from him and stay ahead.

  • Donk970

    This guy talked endlessly about how they’d proven this energy output and how great this technology was going to be but, aside from a couple loud bangs, didn’t really demonstrate anything. BLP really, really needs to stop talking and build this thing even if they have to get someone else to build it.

    • enantiomer2000

      Fully agree with you. The demonstration was not convincing.

    • vvicctory

      Have you actually watched the entire video and undterstood any of it? Ignorace and stupidity in this age is simpy mind blowing for some!

      • Donk970

        First, name calling is pretty immature. Second, I did indeed watch the whole thing. Third, I do, in fact, believe that there is absolutely something to cold fusion. There’s just way too much solid experimental data to ignore and I don’t really doubt that BLP has something but… This kind of demo hurts the cause by leaving too many openings for the true skeptopaths to exploit. These guys need to keep their mouths shut and finish the job. Telling everyone how great it’s going to be when it’s done isn’t helping.

    • Daniel Maris

      It was a yawnathon for sure. He’s had getting on for two decades to perfect something a bit more impressive.

      • bachcole

        LOL!!!!!!!! Yawnathon, that’s a good one. Although I remain deliberately and stridently neutral, I have to admit that the demo really was a doze off. I am really surprised that people sat through it for over 2 hours. I wouldn’t have.

        • Ivone

          I, too, am very unconvinced.

          I am waiting for the E – Cat.

          • NCkhawk

            Well I was certainly hoping for more. We set off a 2 liter coke bottle full of Brown’s Gas several years back – way more impressive than these firecrackers. (and do not try that at home – we were fortunate no one was hurt – it was a very sharp explosion – we never found all the bottle pieces) I also wonder what that arcwelder would do if he set if off without anything loaded in it? I cannot discern energy in / out from any of the experiments from his discussion – was that clear to anyone?

          • Sanjeev

            Roughly 850 Joules in and 1800 Joules out. But we do not see the method, equipment, calibration… nothing just these numbers announced orally.

  • Donk970

    This guy talked endlessly about how they’d proven this energy output and how great this technology was going to be but, aside from a couple loud bangs, didn’t really demonstrate anything. BLP really, really needs to stop talking and build this thing even if they have to get someone else to build it.

    • enantiomer2000

      Fully agree with you. The demonstration was not convincing.

    • vvicctory

      Have you actually watched the entire video and undterstood any of it? Ignorace and stupidity in this age is simpy mind blowing for some!

      • Donk970

        First, name calling is pretty immature. Second, I did indeed watch the whole thing. Third, I do, in fact, believe that there is absolutely something to cold fusion. There’s just way too much solid experimental data to ignore and I don’t really doubt that BLP has something but… This kind of demo hurts the cause by leaving too many openings for the true skeptopaths to exploit. These guys need to keep their mouths shut and finish the job. Telling everyone how great it’s going to be when it’s done isn’t helping.

      • bachcole

        Abusive language is an excellent way to get banned around here.

    • bachcole

      I watched only the first 5 minutes, but I got out of it exactly what you did. The demo did not budge me so much as a freaking millimeter from my position of open minded skepticism. I will be looking forward to a real demonstration.

      But the video was more than 2 hours long with two loud pops. Now, that is was you call hot air. This guy makes “Rossi says” look like a piker.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Couldn’t have said it better myself. And I watched for about 20 minutes before the background noise and all the techo-babble got to me. From then on I skipped pieces and only went looking for the part where the real demo began. Sadly that must have been in the last five minutes…

  • dbg

    I watched most of the demo, but not all because I found it very hard to hear above the background noise. Accepting for the moment that Dr Mills is on to something, perhaps someone wiser and more attentive can explain if the power generation figures include the cost of manufacturing the fuel pellets, not to mention the generator itself. Mills was talking about feeding fuel pellets at up to 1000 times a second. A continuously running generator would chew through quite a few of these pellets. 1000 pellets x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 86,400,000 pellets/day. And that’s one generator. How much energy is required to manufacture the pellets? Do Mills’ figures include this variable?

    • Donk970

      The fuel behaves more like a catalyst and is recovered later in the cycle and put back into the feed hopper. My problem with all this is that if it’s as easy and cheap to build as he claims why didn’t he just build the damn thing? This whole thing came off like a desperation, please don’t pull my funding, event. What’s going to kill all these projects is investors who lack the foresight and patience to stick with the project. We need governments to fund these things not private investors.

    • Barry8

      Wasn’t it 1000 x per minute dbg?

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I have to say, this demo does put Rossi’s demo’s in perspective. Those demo’s at least got me interested. This one actually did the opposite.

      • Sanjeev
      • Fortyniner

        The BL site (Sanjeev link) says 1000 rpm rotation speed of the 60-tooth ‘interdigitating’ gears. However this is followed by the statement: “such that the firing rate is 1 k Hz corresponding to10 MW of power”. That doesn’t make much sense as 1000 rpm x 60 teeth = (obviously) 60kHz, not 1 kHz.

        • nightcreature3

          rpm is “per minute” , not “per second”. So it actually works out as 1kHz.

          • Fortyniner

            Yes, of course. A ‘senior’ moment…

  • dbg

    I watched most of the demo, but not all because I found it very hard to hear above the background noise. Accepting for the moment that Dr Mills is on to something, perhaps someone wiser and more attentive can explain if the power generation figures include the cost of manufacturing the fuel pellets, not to mention the generator itself. Mills was talking about feeding fuel pellets at up to 1000 times a second. A continuously running generator would chew through quite a few of these pellets. 1000 pellets x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 86,400,000 pellets/day. And that’s one generator. How much energy is required to manufacture the pellets? Do Mills’ figures include this variable?

    • optiongeek

      the pellets are recycled – the only consumable in the process is the HOH (water).

      • dbg

        Thanks, I missed that part! Does anyone know how many pellets are required per generator and how long they last until they have to be recycled?

        I remember Rossi addressing this issue with the E-cat a few months back. I think he provided rough estimates on the cost of recycling the fuel.

        • It’s not pellets as such but just a powder that is supposedly condensed back out of the plasma, collected then recycled by exposure to water vapour, i.e., a hygroscopic compound, that is also (presumably) the catalyst. As only “cheap, abundant, nontoxic, commodity chemicals” are used that would point to an oxide that readily converts to a hydroxide in the presence of water vapour.

          IMO the most likely compound of this type would be a ‘light metal’ oxide/hydroxide, such as lithium, magnesium, aluminium, sodium or potassium. The oxides of these metals will absorb water vapour quite quickly to form hydroxides, and will then continue to take up water, eventually forming a solution or a gel. In a slightly damp form this material could easily be moved around by archimedean screw conveyors. However there are many issues arising from the proposed design that taken together mean that it is essentially just a ‘thought experiment’ that could not operate as proposed.

        • optiongeek

          I’ve asked Mills that question directly. According to him, the only step in regeneration is “rehydration” – which I assume means pass it through a water vapor chamber.

    • Donk970

      The fuel behaves more like a catalyst and is recovered later in the cycle and put back into the feed hopper. My problem with all this is that if it’s as easy and cheap to build as he claims why didn’t he just build the damn thing? This whole thing came off like a desperation, please don’t pull my funding, event. What’s going to kill all these projects is investors who lack the foresight and patience to stick with the project. We need governments to fund these things not private investors.

      • dbg

        Thanks! I’m not sure if recycling in this context just means used again, or if the pellets need to undergo some kind of processing.

        I too am a little perplexed by Dr Mills’ statements about how easy this thing is to build with “off-the-shelf components”. I did pick out that BLP has ordered a MHD converter, so maybe they are building one!

        • Allan Shura

          With something so elegant and no moving parts there are a few parts.

    • Wasn’t it 1000 x per minute dbg?

      • dbg

        I heard him (or my memory did) use the term Hz, which was where I got the (up to) 1000 times per second figure. I found it difficult to hear him, too much time in front of guitar amps…

      • Sanjeev
      • The BL site (Sanjeev’s link below) says 1000 rpm rotation speed of the 60-tooth ‘interdigitating’ gears. However this is followed by the statement: “such that the firing rate is 1 k Hz corresponding to10 MW of power”. That doesn’t make much sense as 1000 rpm x 60 teeth = (obviously) 60kHz, not 1 kHz.

        • nightcreature3

          rpm is “per minute” , not “per second”. So it actually works out as 1kHz.

          • Yes, of course. A ‘senior’ moment…

    • lynchzilla

      My impression was that the “fuel” is a moist powder containing H2O, his catalyst required to initiate the hydrino formation, and some other stuff. Rather than extrude through a nozzle and a Archimedes screw, he’s hoping to use some gears to grab a very small bit of the fuel, maybe compress it a bit, and then hit it with some energy to ignite the reaction. Rather than an expanding gas, he claims to create a burst of high-energy plasma that can be used to create electricity directly using a MHD generator.

      Eric Lerner at LPP is working with capacitor-bank generated plasma hoping to “pinch” the plasma to a temperature that will create hot fusion. He’s had problems with the electrodes getting damaged by the plasma; so he’s currently rebuilding the system out of solid tungsten.

      Possibly Dr. Mills will have to face similar problems scaling this up to a large and continuous-running system.

      I don’t think Dr. Mills is a dishonest scientist. He’s probably a bit optimistic.

      All those who are calling him a scam artist, liar, and other derogatory terms, what have you ever done to advance the field of science and physics? That’s what I thought (abject silence).

      • Allan Shura

        Solid tungsten of course as all TIG welders use.

  • Buck

    This example helps to explain my level of respect for both Rossi and Godes who have each worked for years to develop their respective LENR devices . . . . They understand that it doesn’t just take “two weeks to build with off the shelf” items. And, to my understanding, they have achieved far more remarkable results for far less than $80M.

    • Donk970

      Indeed, my main problem with this whole “demo” is that if it were as cheap and easy as he claims why didn’t he just build the bloody thing and demo that?

      • Buck

        I agree.

  • Buck

    This example helps to explain my level of respect for both Rossi and Godes who have each worked for years to develop their respective LENR devices . . . . They understand that it doesn’t just take “two weeks to build with off the shelf” items.

    And, to my understanding, they have achieved far more remarkable results for far less than $80M. Their powerpoint presentations are in addition to working R&D LENR devices with measurement devices attached showing all manner of data including power-in, power out, and COP . . . they are not in lieu of the devices.

    • Donk970

      Indeed, my main problem with this whole “demo” is that if it were as cheap and easy as he claims why didn’t he just build the bloody thing and demo that?

      • Buck

        I agree.

        • bachcole

          I feel obligated to hold Mills to the same standard as I hold everyone else, including Rossi. I spent 19 freaking, difficult months withholding my vote for Rossi until I had what I believe to be proof positive (Levi, et. al.). I feel obligated to myself and to my integrity and for the reputation of this forum uphold that standard. I don’t want this forum to be looked upon as a bunch of unicorn petting, wishful-thinking goofs or cultists. I will be damned if I am going to give my vote to someone who puts on a miserable excuse for a demonstration as what we saw with Mills. When Mills stands and delivers, then I will believe in him and his work, JUST EXACTLY LIKE ROSSI STOOD AND DELIVERED.

          Lots of hot air and lots of pressure from his friends and investors won’t sway me. Only results will sway me. I don’t care how reasonable it is to assume that he has the goods.

          • Buck

            Roger, I’m with you.

  • HiggsField

    I like the way Randy wears ear defenders while to audience gets subjected to a supersonic shock-wave which he previously said could damage you ears:) Nice!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Now I was hoping to see something like the core of an anti-matter engine in operation, you know: big plasma effects, annihilation of mass and more stuff like that. Instead I saw and heard some small firecrackers. As demo’s go, that was very unconvincing to me. Clearly this isn’t meant for the masses. All I saw were some minor explosions which apparently are more energetic than they supposed to be. Put millions of these explosions in serial and you’re in business.

    The guy loves to talk and maybe everything he says is true, but I really can’t tell.

    For now I’ll stay with the ecat.

    • Ivone

      I, too, am very unconvinced.

      I am waiting for the E – Cat.

  • HiggsField

    At about the 20 min mark: 0.1 TW/L power density.

  • HiggsField

    At about the 20 min mark: 0.1 TW/L power density.

  • HiggsField

    About 25 min in. I like his rant on Quantum Theory. I actually think he is has something valid to say here.

  • HiggsField

    About 25 min in. I like his rant on Quantum Theory. I actually think he is has something valid to say here.

  • HiggsField

    At about 29:30 randy make an extraordinary statement. He says you can make water explode using high current forming an arc plasma, which in turn willing make power. I assume that this would be a sub-par version not requiring his catalyst.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. And I watched for about 20 minutes before the background noise and all the techo-babble got to me. From then on I skipped pieces and only went looking for the part where the real demo began. Sadly that must have been in the last five minutes…

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I have to say, this demo does put Rossi’s demo’s in perspective. Those demo’s at least got me interested. This one actually did the opposite.

  • NCkhawk

    Well I was certainly hoping for more. We set off a 2 liter coke bottle full of Brown’s Gas several years back – way more impressive than these firecrackers. (and do not try that at home – we were fortunate no one was hurt – it was a very sharp explosion – we never found all the bottle pieces) I also wonder what that arcwelder would do if he set if off without anything loaded in it? I cannot discern energy in / out from any of the experiments from his discussion – was that clear to anyone?

    • Sanjeev

      Roughly 850 Joules in and 1800 Joules out. But we do not see the method, equipment, calibration… nothing just these numbers announced orally.

      • bachcole

        Which to me means basically nothing. I don’t call him a crook, and if anyone should call him a crook I would be in the difficult position of defending him. I just don’t see any beef. Inventors are innocent until proven guilty. Inventions are nothing until proven to be real.

      • E-CAT suomi

        Yes I was a bit dissapointed also about that. I tought that they would explane whats is going with their systems and add theory later. Now they talked theory, possibilites, pshysics and showed some nice reactions plus the reactor performing in the lcd tv. I liked Rossis method of showing all, ecplaining all but the thing that makes it business, whats the catalyte.

  • Sanjeev

    Couldn’t hear or see much but the demo does show a gain of 2 (at 1:16). Rest of the talk is just projections, a conceptual generator and theory.

    Now Rossi and other players can sleep peacefully tonight as BLP is at least many years behind them from the perspective of a final product. We do have an effect which produces a large amount of energy for a split second. Translating it into a working, useful and economical product is a big task (cannot be done in a few weeks, that claim is impractical to put it mildly).

    Hopefully he gets oems and manufacturers soon, because there are really smart engineers in the field who can turn this into a product, Mills cannot do it alone easily. So its best to sell the know how and let others develop applications.
    The concept generator shown is not practical (imho), who would like the pallets, gears, superconducting magnets, liquid nitrogen, MHD, vacuum and all sorts of complex, highly expensive things in favor of a hot tube of metal (Ecat-HT) ?

    Even if a miracle happens and some oem manages to make such a generator it will cost 100s of millions to make and operate. However, if engineered correctly, the 0.1TW/liter of water is a possibility.
    Mills needs to change gears and direction if he wants BLP to get a share of lenr pie.

    • tlp

      I tried to listen carefully, but I couldn’t here “few weeks”, but a few months. I think that could be possible, if enough money and resources are available. That’s why this demo was now and not later. Development costs may be in the range of tens of millions, but the actual “engine” could eventually be as cheap as Mills predicts.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess the “within few weeks” claim was in the press release or pesn interview, I can’t remember now.
        What’s the predicted cost of SF-CIHT of 10MW ?

        • tlp

          That few weeks was Sterling’s interpretation, Mills didn’t say that.

          “The estimated cost of the SF-CIHT cell is about $10/kW”

          so about $100k

  • Sanjeev

    Couldn’t hear or see much but the demo does show a gain of 2 (at 1:16). Rest of the talk is just projections, a conceptual generator and theory.

    Now Rossi and other players can sleep peacefully tonight as BLP is at least many years behind them from the perspective of a final product. We do have an effect which produces a large amount of energy for a split second. Translating it into a working, useful and economical product is a big task (cannot be done in a few weeks, that claim is impractical to put it mildly).

    Hopefully he gets oems and manufacturers soon, because there are really smart engineers in the field who can turn this into a product, Mills cannot do it alone easily. So its best to sell the know how and let others develop applications.
    The concept generator shown is not practical (imho), who would like the pallets, gears, superconducting magnets, liquid nitrogen, MHD, vacuum and all sorts of complex, highly expensive things in favor of a hot tube of metal (Ecat-HT) ?

    Even if a miracle happens and some oem manages to make such a generator it will cost 100s of millions to make and operate. However, if engineered correctly, the 0.1TW/liter of water is a possibility.
    Mills needs to change gears and direction if he wants BLP to get a share of lenr pie.

    • bachcole

      Assuming that your appraisal is correct, what I saw will not be in people’s homes for a very long time, if ever. The noise and the capital expenditure would make it impossible. So, if people want distributed energy resources, they should not look to Mills.

      • If Mills can stop ‘conceptualising’ a mile ahead of his practical results long enough to provide irrefutable proof of his hydrino theory, that would be a major step on the road to a new energy source. Otherwise I fear you are correct.

      • Sanjeev

        It may not be as noisy in final setup because of vacuum, but home use is not possible for the concept generator. Its 10MW and the infrastructure to build and safely maintain a high vacuum to confine 10MW plasma, and liquid helium and liquid nitrogen for superconducting magnets etc is going to be huge. Ask hot fusion guys….
        I’d instead buy the $5k Hyperion, if it ever comes out.

        Liquid helium leaks out of even solid thick glass, like magic, matter cannot hold it for long. But the question is why is that needed at all and who made that drawing?

    • tlp

      I tried to listen carefully, but I couldn’t hear “few weeks”, but a few months. I think that could be possible, if enough money and resources are available. That’s why this demo was now and not later. Development costs may be in the range of tens of millions, but the actual “engine” could eventually be as cheap as Mills predicts.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess the “within few weeks” claim was in the press release or pesn interview, I can’t remember now.
        What’s the predicted cost of SF-CIHT of 10MW ?

        • tlp

          That few weeks was Sterling’s interpretation, Mills didn’t say that.

          “The estimated cost of the SF-CIHT cell is about $10/kW”

          so about $100k

  • Wildly Optimistic

    I have been wildly optimistic about BLP for a very long time and waiting, somewhat impatiently, for lots of really cheap energy. First it was cheap to run heat generators driving turbines and electrical generators. From out of nowhere CIHT took the stage and became the future of lots of really cheap energy. Now that seems to have disappeared being replaced by lots of plasma driving a MHD generator. Have I missed something? It seems I have been wildly optimistic about a lot of expensive talk.

    Dr. Mills you need to go back to the first one of these and make it work and stop horsing around with the next wild idea, and the next, and the next. When it is generating tons of money and has silenced the skeptics, let that fund the next big step. As for me I have stopped waiting. Someday, maybe, I will hear of a BLP generator to heat and power my house. Who knows a decade later there might even be a BLP generator powering my electric car across the country on a liter of water.

    Now that I have stopped holding my breath, I will go find something else to do.

  • Obvious

    I thought the Blacklight Rocket Engine had continuous plasma output ages ago.

  • Allan Shura

    I always assumed that the Blacklight raison de entre was the CHIT (assumed LENR like) chip. This relation to supersonic plasma appears to be another branch all together with the main similar feature being the electric arc.
    Do not take my word for it being a casual observer but the impression I get is that this is a bit over to be said to
    be hither to unknown to man. The prototype (design) looks to be a hybrid. The plasma concept seems to be much
    along the line of the MHD in the Papp – Rohner plasma popper recently experimented on by Russ Gries of RWG
    Research, an open source experimenter. I raised the question of why a mixture of inert gases in the vac cylinder (apparently has something to do with rate of propagation and contraction). Russ Gries kindly tested first hydrogen then helium but has not gotten to the argon and nitrogen tests. Again this shows the complete lack of conventional public
    knowledge in this field. You can fill in the gaps from here but Transformer companies have long known the power
    of the arc. Its just that Rohner thinks in terms of internal combustion, MHD thinks in terms of water. It hope
    Blacklight can pull off the assembly and availability in a matter weeks but hope is what we have until summer.

  • Allan Shura

    I always assumed that the Blacklight raison de entre was the CHIT (assumed LENR like) chip. This relation to supersonic plasma appears to be another branch all together with the main similar feature being the electric arc.
    Do not take my word for it being a casual observer but the impression I get is that this is a bit over to be said to
    be hither to unknown to man. The prototype (design) looks to be a hybrid. The plasma concept seems to be much
    along the line of the MHD in the Papp – Rohner plasma popper recently experimented on by Russ Gries of RWG
    Research, an open source experimenter. I raised the question of why a mixture of inert gases in the vac cylinder (apparently has something to do with rate of propagation and contraction). Russ Gries kindly tested first hydrogen then helium but has not gotten to the argon and nitrogen tests. Again this shows the complete lack of conventional public
    knowledge in this field. You can fill in the gaps from here but Transformer companies have long known the power
    of the arc. Its just that Rohner thinks in terms of internal combustion, MHD thinks in terms of water. It hope
    Blacklight can pull off the assembly and availability in a matter weeks but hope is what we have until summer.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I did not watch the complete video yet. For me, the question if Mills’s reactors work as predicted is less interesting than the question if Mills’s theory is true. Although I have been rather skeptical when I heard of hydrinos for the first time, after taking a look at his theoretical work I must say (as far as I understood it) that this is one of the most elegant theories I have ever seen. It has its own value from an “aesthetic” point of view, whether it’s true or not.

    Regarding the theory, I would appreciate two things:

    1. A thorough investigation that rules out any alternative source of the observed EUV spectra. The problem is that the postulated hydrinos change their energy state only when they get in contact with a catalyst. Especially should be clarified if the catalysts could produce similar spectra in the absence of hydrogen.

    2. A proof for the existence of hydrinos that is independent of the EUV measurements. If it were possible to isolate a certain quantity of hydrino gas, it should not be too difficult to determine its physical and chemical properties. It wouldn’t even be necessary to measure the energy levels, the evidence that there is an unknown form of hydrogen would be more than enough.

    (I apologize for the case that this has already been done.)

    • Sanjeev

      His theory is nice and does predict some things very accurately. But is it complete and can it replace QM? Can it explain stuff like double slit experiment, tunneling, entanglement etc, which are convincingly explained by QM? If yes, then it is worth something. (I have no idea if it does, may be someone can point me to a link.)

      I’m actually bothered by Mills trying to predict the dark matter and expansion of the universe using his theory. These two things are not real (yet), they are merely hypotheses, to make some math work. A theory is serious only if it predicts real and easily verifiable things.

      It predicts hydrinos, but we still have doubts, because we do not see them. Perhaps no one tried to get a spectra of hydrogen in presence of a catalyst, only Mills did that. I wonder why no one else tried that simple experiment in last 20 years.Perhaps its not possible to bottle the hydrinos, they would leak through it easily, so a generator is needed.

      It also predicts anomalous heat, but again its not a day to day thing to verify. So we must wait till the hydrino generators become available. Nothing can be said about the theory till then. I find the fence comfy. BLP’s delay is causing delay in progress of science (if the theory is correct) and also holding back a clean energy source.

      • GreenWin

        Sanjeev, I agree it is curious that we do not have independent confirmation of UV spectra – or at least a published confirmation. As for the expansion of the universe, just three years ago the Nobel Prize went to expanding universe theorists. And Randy has been credited by at least one scientist as predicting the acceleration of the expansion of the universe – long before the Nobel was awarded.

        “At least, [Mills] can today console himself that he has been proved correct,
        before everyone else, because the Nobel prize for Physics was awarded this week to three American astrophysicists for their work
        proving that the acceleration of the expansion is a reality.”
        Society for Classical Physics

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111004-nobel-prize-physics-universe-expansion-what-is-dark-energy-science/

        You might also consider the rather expansive body of evidence that Mills’ and LENR researchers have been actively opposed and ridiculed since Pons and Fleischmann. Therefor any “delays” are more likely the work of invested interests, i.e. orthodox science than those of Mills or BLP.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I did not watch the complete video yet. For me, the question if Mills’s reactors work as predicted is less interesting than the question if Mills’s theory is true. Although I have been rather skeptical when I heard of hydrinos for the first time, after taking a look at his theoretical work I must say (as far as I understood it) that this is one of the most elegant theories I have ever seen. It has its own value from an “aesthetic” point of view, whether it’s true or not.

    Regarding the theory, I would appreciate two things:

    1. A thorough investigation that rules out any alternative source of the observed EUV spectra. The problem is that the postulated hydrinos change their energy state only when they get in contact with a catalyst. Especially should be clarified if the catalysts could produce similar spectra in the absence of hydrogen.

    2. A proof for the existence of hydrinos that is independent of the EUV measurements. If it were possible to isolate a certain quantity of hydrino gas, it should not be too difficult to determine its physical and chemical properties. It wouldn’t even be necessary to measure the energy levels, the evidence that there is an unknown form of hydrogen would be more than enough.

    (I apologize for the case that this has already been done.)

    • Sanjeev

      His theory is nice and does predict some things very accurately. But is it complete and can it replace QM? Can it explain stuff like double slit experiment, tunneling, entanglement etc, which are convincingly explained by QM? If yes, then it is worth something. (I have no idea if it does, may be someone can point me to a link.)

      I’m actually bothered by Mills trying to predict the dark matter and expansion of the universe using his theory. These two things are not real (yet), they are merely hypotheses, to make some math work. A theory is serious only if it predicts real and easily verifiable things.

      It predicts hydrinos, but we still have doubts, because we do not see them. Perhaps no one tried to get a spectra of hydrogen in presence of a catalyst, only Mills did that. I wonder why no one else tried that simple experiment in last 20 years.Perhaps its not possible to bottle the hydrinos, they would leak through it easily, so a generator is needed.

      It also predicts anomalous heat, but again its not a day to day thing to verify. So we must wait till the hydrino generators become available. Nothing can be said about the theory till then. I find the fence comfy. BLP’s delay is causing delay in progress of science (if the theory is correct) and also holding back a clean energy source.

      • bachcole

        ” I find the fence comfy.” So also do I. (:->)

      • GreenWin

        Sanjeev, I agree it is curious that we do not have independent confirmation of UV spectra – or at least a published confirmation. As for the expansion of the universe, just three years ago the Nobel Prize went to expanding universe theorists. And Randy has been credited by at least one scientist as predicting the acceleration of the expansion of the universe – long before the Nobel was awarded.

        “At least, [Mills] can today console himself that he has been proved correct,
        before everyone else, because the Nobel prize for Physics was awarded this week to three American astrophysicists for their work
        proving that the acceleration of the expansion is a reality.”
        Society for Classical Physics

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111004-nobel-prize-physics-universe-expansion-what-is-dark-energy-science/

        You might also consider the rather expansive body of evidence that Mills’ and LENR researchers have been actively opposed and ridiculed since Pons and Fleischmann. Therefor any “delays” are more likely the work of invested interests, i.e. orthodox science than those of Mills or BLP.

  • Allan Shura

    Solid tungsten of course as all TIG welders use.

  • Allan Shura

    With something so elegant and no moving parts there are a few parts.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am very disappointed by Mills demo. I believe Rossi did much better in 2011. If you have a COP of 100 that should be quite easy to prove: little energy in, lots of energy out, but that was not shown, only a lot of talk about power and power density. It does not convince the scientist, the complexity does not convince the laymen, maybe it can convince the investor? Maybe he is right and he really got something, but his way to present it does not convince me.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am very disappointed by Mills demo. I believe Rossi did much better in 2011. If you have a COP of 100 that should be quite easy to prove: little energy in, lots of energy out, but that was not shown, only a lot of talk about power and power density. It does not convince the scientist, the complexity does not convince the laymen, maybe it can convince the investor? Maybe he is right and he really got something, but his way to present it does not convince me.

    • bachcole

      I am sort of hoping that any investor at risk (investing too much of their own money) is reading these comments. We have had a lot of time to think over these matters, and perhaps we can protect people who know more about money than they do about physical science, epistemology, and scientific proof.

  • Fortyniner

    If Mills can stop ‘conceptualising’ a mile ahaead of his practical results and provide irrefutable proof of his hydrino theory, that would be a major step on the road to a new energy source. Otherwise I fear you are correct.

  • Sanjeev

    It may not be as noisy in final setup because of vacuum, but home use is not possible for the concept generator. Its 10MW and the infrastructure to build and safely maintain a high vacuum to confine 10MW plasma, and liquid helium and liquid nitrogen for superconducting magnets etc is going to be huge. Ask hot fusion guys….
    I’d instead buy the $5k Hyperion, if it ever comes out.

    Liquid helium leaks out of even solid thick glass, like magic, matter cannot hold it for long. But the question is why is that needed at all and who made that drawing?

  • Buck

    Roger, I’m with you.

  • georgehants

    It makes absolutely no difference who does or who does not believe in BLP, as with all subjects it is either True or False, without the necessary Evidence it is impossible to determine the Truth and speculation or “opinion” is a total waste of time.
    Just wait for the necessary Evidence to determine the Truth regarding BLP and move on to discussing something worthwhile where the Evidence is conclusive, such as the incompetence and corruption common in science and effecting Cold Fusion etc.
    Then rather than pointlessly going round in circles something may be achieved.

    • tlp

      In my opinion there is the necessary Evidence. It seems that your “opinion” is different.

      • georgehants

        tlp, your reply is a little lacking in direction.
        Evidence for what?
        Mine is not an “opinion” but Fact unless you show otherwise.

        • tlp

          Evidence of energy from water.

          • georgehants

            I did not deny or confirm that, if it is True and the Evidence is clear then everybody on page will be agreeing with you I take it.
            Is everybody on page agreeing with you?
            You have not explained your suggestion that I am giving an “opinion” rather than Fact.

          • tlp

            without the necessary Evidence … Just wait for the necessary Evidence …

          • georgehants

            Thank you for confirming my Factual comment.

          • Gordon Docherty

            “Supersymmetry has not been ruled out by the LHC at all.” – that’s why I said below “consigning, in the process, thoughts of “supersymmetry” out into the cold” rather than “into history” – perhaps “into the long grass” would have been a better way of saying it.

            To understand this further, the following provides a good read:

            http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/04/24/is-supersymmetry-ruled-out-yet/

            As the article (by thanks to Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler) points out, the thing about supersymmetry is that it is based on virtual particles (which aren’t really particles at all, but more general quantum-mechanical disturbances in the fields of nature). As it also says (thanks to Matt Strassler) under :

            http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/supersymmetry/where-stands-supersymmetry-as-of-42012/

            “the problem with supersymmetry — and indeed with any really good idea, such as extra dimensions, or a composite Higgs particle — is that such a basic idea typically can be realized in many different ways. Pizza is a great idea too, but there are a million ways to make one, so you can’t conclude that nobody makes pizza in town just because you can’t smell tomatoes. Similarly, to rule out supersymmetry as an idea, you can’t be satisfied by ruling out the most popular forms of supersymmetry that theorists have invented; you have to rule out all its possible variants. This will take a while, probably a decade.”

            What also comes out, though, is that large particles are now looking decidedly dubious, and so unlikely to be “the stuff of dark matter”, while Mills’s hydrinos fit the bill quite nicely.

            This having been said, however, hydrinos as Mills sees them may not be quite the full picture: coming back to Hydrinos and LENR, it may well not be a question of which is the more fundamental effect, but rather, whether there is a more fundamental effect still – a source or Quelle theory (Quelle is German for source) of which LENR and Hydrinos are but manifestations.

            Anyone following the Hydrino and LENR developments for long enough have probably also come across work in the Zero Point field and the interesting effects surrounding “Casimir cavities” – so named after the
            Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir. Now, the Casimir force is something that even Wikipedia admits to as being real!

            Now, although a few years old, the blog of one “Francis Froarty” (exact identity unknown):

            http://froarty.scienceblog.com/

            and articles reached from that blog:

            http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/
            http://froarty.scienceblog.com/29738/hydrino-patent-based-on-catalyst-denied-while-later-patent-for-relativistic-hydrogen-based-on-casimir-cavity-granted/
            http://froarty.scienceblog.com/tag/jan-naudts/
            http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2
            http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm

            see Hydrinos, LENR reactions and ZPEnergy capture (as per Haisch and Moddel’s patent) as a relativistic effect, after work done by Jan Naudts (who “squares” (sorry for the pun) the contradition inherent between the Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom, which allows for a low-lying eigenstate, called the hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction and the corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation, which is not square integrable – this was mentioned elsewhere on this site as a reason why Hydrinos “can’t” exist
            even though experimental evidence says otherwise,), another name that may be familiar to those who have been following these developments with interest.

            So, the real Quelle effect may well be down to the relativistic effects resulting from the constricted space geometry of Casimir cavities causing changes in the “time” dimension, which appear to us from the
            outside as if many reactions have occurred near simultaneously, while from the inside they appear to be happening at their usual much slower rate… this would also finally explain the mystery of why (and how)
            catalysts actually work, that is, why a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst suddenly “speeds up”, something that has been, until now still ultimately a mysterious process…

            Just a thought…

          • Roger Bird

            His name is Matt Strassler, who happens to be a theoretical physicist. Otherwise you are putting him on a pedestal, and that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.

          • Gordon Docherty

            fair enough – bad habit picked up while working in Germany a few years back – Doktor-Ingenieur and all that (the title becomes part of the name). It sometimes slips through. Echoes of Dr.Strangelove, I guess…

          • enantiomer2000

            Some people still believe the earth is flat or the universe is 6000 years old. Perhaps we just need to get more evidence? There will always be disbelievers. Mills however still has a ways to go to prove to the majority. If he builds his engine and it runs like he says it does there will be no use denying it.

          • georgehants

            Why would one believe or deny anything until the full Evidence, as known is proclaimed?
            Has Mills said, I have given you the full Evidence, now believe me?
            Why do people think that their believing or disbelieving in something not yet proven is somehow going to matter?

          • Obvious

            I wonder if even integer, and whole square root integer fractional states would be inherently unstable to to the susceptibility to destructive resonance (constructive interference). So that not all “possible” 137 fractional Ryberg states would be feasible or at least not stable.
            That does of course go against the 1/4 H production theory.

  • georgehants

    As always it makes absolutely no difference who does or who does not believe in BLP, as with all subjects it is either True or False, without the necessary Evidence it is impossible to determine the Truth and speculation or “opinion” is a total waste of time and very un-scientific. (unless you are thinking of investing in something)
    Just wait for the necessary Evidence to determine the Truth regarding BLP and move on to discussing something worthwhile where the Evidence is conclusive, such as the incompetence and corruption common in science and effecting Cold Fusion etc.
    Then rather than pointlessly going round in circles something may be achieved.

    • tlp

      In my opinion there is the necessary Evidence. It seems that your “opinion” is different.

      • georgehants

        tlp, your reply is a little lacking in direction.
        Evidence for what?
        Mine is not an “opinion” but Fact unless you show otherwise.

        • tlp

          Evidence of energy from water.

          • georgehants

            I did not deny or confirm that, if it is True and the Evidence is clear then everybody on page will be agreeing with you I take it.
            Is everybody on page agreeing with you?
            You have not explained your suggestion that I am giving an “opinion” rather than Fact.

          • tlp

            without the necessary Evidence … Just wait for the necessary Evidence …

          • georgehants

            Thank you for confirming my Factual comment.

          • enantiomer2000

            Some people still believe the earth is flat or the universe is 6000 years old. Perhaps we just need to get more evidence? There will always be disbelievers. Mills however still has a ways to go to prove to the majority. If he builds his engine and it runs like he says it does there will be no use denying it.

          • georgehants

            People who believe in a flat Earth are interesting, What psychological conclusions have been put forward by our scientific friends to account for this?
            Why would one believe or deny anything until the full Evidence, as known is proclaimed?
            There is another honest answer which is – we do not know.
            Has Mills said, I have given you the full Evidence, now believe me?
            Why do people think that their believing or disbelieving in something not yet proven is somehow going to matter? (except as a very personal belief system)
            In any case of doubt then the only course of action is to demand (or wait for) more Evidence.
            Only science with nothing but a few “expert opinions” thinks itself so important that it can pronounce that there is no Cold Fusion or no creator, or a million other just as incompetent declarations.

          • bachcole

            Mills’ supporters seem to think that if they stomp their feet loud enough and often enough and if they pout enough and call us cultists enough and say how unscientific we are that that will constitute proof.

          • bachcole

            No one here wants to deny Mills. We just want to see a proof that has legs.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Interestingly, once upon a no-so-long-ago the universe consisted of the type of matter and energy found anywhere on Earth. Then someone did some calculations and decided the universe didn’t have enough matter to make sense, so there must be some “dark matter” out there that was hard to see, but would show up over immense distances in the form of gravitational lensing. Now, some evidence is coming out that this may well be the case, but could this matter be down to super-heavy particles. Well, the LHC put paid to that idea – the Higgs was hard enough to “find”, but there is no evidence at all for other super-heavy particles (consigning, in the process, thoughts of “supersymmetry” out into the cold). Astrophysicists however, are now considering the idea of particles more akin to super-stable forms of hydrogen that are rather unreactive and are “hard to see” – exactly the characteristics of the Hydrino. Likewise, after stating that space was “full of nothing”, dark / space energy is now on the cards as “a ubiquitous energy field” (that would show up, say, at Zero Point, as a seething foam of energy that caused the atoms to vibrate as those atoms lost there own internal internal kinetic energy – oh, look, they do…) that would eventually act to push galaxies apart. So I, for one, given the evidence put forward by Mills and others (for example, spectral absorption and the similarity between Hydrinos and “dark matter”), and the extremely accurate modelling of his Millsian software, am a firm believer in the Hydrino. What we all need now is a philanthropist with deep enough pockets and unwavering belief in “the common good” to accelerate this, and other products out of the invention stage, through the innovation stage and out into the wider community. Now, that would be a person worthy of the world’s respect…

    • Fortyniner

      “There is a reason the old [dominant conceptual paradigm] persists beyond its time, an economic one. Even if a novel principle is developed and does perform better than the old, adopting it may mean changing surrounding [economic, academic, and governmental] structures and organizations. This is expensive and for that reason may not happen … another reason is psychological. The old principle lives on because practitioners are not comfortable with the vision and promise of the new.

      Origination is not just a new way of doing things, but a new way of seeing things … And the new threatens … to make the old expertise obsolete. Often in fact, some version of the new principle [paradigm] has been already touted or already exists and has been dismissed by standard practitioners, not necessarily because lack of imagination. But because it creates a cognitive dissonance, an emotional mismatch, between the potential of the new and the security of the old. This time is likely to be decades not years.”

      W. Brian Arthur, “The Nature of Technology – 2009

      • GreenWin

        Dissonance theory suggests that if individuals act in ways that
        contradict their beliefs, then they typically will change their beliefs
        to align with their actions (or vice-a-versa).”
        Pathological skeptics will never accept LENR or Hydrino as it contravenes their deeply rooted belief system.

        • georgehants

          You cannot use butterfly language to communicate with caterpillars.
          Timothy Leary

          • GreenWin

            Ha! Tim lives! George, FYI, Admin at ECN cautioned my “gangsta” personality oddly after I introduced the probability that libel plus racial/ethnic slurs constitute “hate crime.” Skeptics have painted themselves into a shrinking corner by not arresting and putting an end to such misanthropic behavior. Which, I suppose is to be expected from a group whose hatred of truth informs their hatred of ethnicity.

      • georgehants

        At the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, the world’s nations were
        supposed to reach an agreement that would protect future generations
        against catastrophic climate change. But not everyone was playing by the
        rules. A leaked document now reveals that the US employed the NSA, its
        signals intelligence agency, to intercept information about other
        countries’ views on the climate negotiations before and during the
        summit. According to observers, the spying may have contributed to the
        Americans getting their way in the negotiations.
        http://disinfo.com/2014/01/nsa-spied-climate-talks-obama-admin-sabotage/

        • georgehants

          Many of the scientists who helped establish the widely accepted
          scientific theories and laws have warned future scientists not to be
          limited by their work. They also note that many of the greatest
          discoveries were ridiculed at first, as they stood in opposition to
          preconceived notions.
          Here are 17 insights from some of the greatest minds of science.
          http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/478126-dangers-of-believing-too-much-in-science-explained-by-scientists/

        • Charles

          I’m still staggering around from that blow where someone speculated that the hydrino may be ‘dark matter’. My cosmic brain is rattling so much I can’t ever think about the test Mills ran.

          • stefan

            Note that one can find a solution in ordinary QED that could be attributed to the lowest hydrino state, but it’s a queer solution e.g. non L2 integrable solution. what it really means I do not know though. Mills theory claims to be different than QED e.g. he has another model and one can argue that it is an incomplete model e.g. I cannot find an argument that his condition for a stable state is neccesary and sufficient (to show this you probably need more information about the physics of the sources in his model), it could very well lack the sufficient part. The stability at least for the higher hydrino states is questionable, the lower one’s I do not know, here the electron should be relativistic and Shrödinger experience does not hold water. Also these lower states might be really hard to hit because they do not radiate and hence a step down cannot radiate photon’s you need a catalyst, but the energy gap is so huge that typical energy levels are not sufficient. In all this may give you a counter argument why hydrinos can in fact be what composes the dark matter and also explain why hydrinos are typically not seen in experiments and why Mill’s have taken 20 years without producing a clear break through and only produced wage proofs. Also if you look at his model it performs very well at atomic scale and there is not any real evidence that he does it all wrong, it all looks like he is using the model and then explore normal physics to get to the fantastic formulas. If I’m wrong here please publish how he fakes his calculation of e.g. the g factor.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Interestingly, once upon a no-so-long-ago the universe consisted of the type of matter and energy found anywhere on Earth. Then someone did some calculations and decided the universe didn’t have enough matter to make sense, so there must be some “dark matter” out there that was hard to see, but would show up over immense distances in the form of gravitational lensing. Now, some evidence is coming out that this may well be the case, but could this matter be down to super-heavy particles. Well, the LHC put paid to that idea – the Higgs was hard enough to “find”, but there is no evidence at all for other super-heavy particles (consigning, in the process, thoughts of “supersymmetry” out into the cold). Astrophysicists however, are now considering the idea of particles more akin to super-stable forms of hydrogen that are rather unreactive and are “hard to see” – exactly the characteristics of the Hydrino. Likewise, after stating that space was “full of nothing”, dark / space energy is now on the cards as “a ubiquitous energy field” (that would show up, say, at Zero Point, as a seething foam of energy that caused the atoms to vibrate as those atoms lost there own internal internal kinetic energy – oh, look, they do…) that would eventually act to push galaxies apart. So I, for one, given the evidence put forward by Mills and others (for example, spectral absorption and the similarity between Hydrinos and “dark matter”), and the extremely accurate modelling of his Millsian software, am a firm believer in the Hydrino. What we all need now is a philanthropist with deep enough pockets and unwavering belief in “the common good” to accelerate this, and other products out of the invention stage, through the innovation stage and out into the wider community. Now, that would be a person worthy of the world’s respect…

    • “There is a reason the old [dominant conceptual paradigm] persists beyond its time, an economic one. Even if a novel principle is developed and does perform better than the old, adopting it may mean changing surrounding economic, academic, and governmental structures and organizations. This is expensive and for that reason may not happen. Another reason is psychological. The old principle lives on because practitioners are not comfortable with the vision and promise of the new.

      Origination is not just a new way of doing things, but a new way of seeing things. And the new threatens to make the old expertise obsolete. Often in fact, some version of the new principle [paradigm] has been already touted or already exists and has been dismissed by standard practitioners. Not necessarily because of lack of imagination, but because it creates a cognitive dissonance, an emotional mismatch, between the potential of the new and the security of the old. This time is likely to be decades not years.”

      W. Brian Arthur, “The Nature of Technology – 2009 (slightly abridged)

      • GreenWin

        Dissonance theory suggests that if individuals act in ways that
        contradict their beliefs, then they typically will change their beliefs
        to align with their actions (or vice-a-versa).”
        Pathological skeptics will never accept LENR or Hydrino as it contravenes their deeply rooted belief system.

        • georgehants

          You cannot use butterfly language to communicate with caterpillars.
          Timothy Leary

          • GreenWin

            Ha! Tim lives! George, FYI, Admin at ECN cautioned my “gangsta” personality oddly after I introduced the probability that libel plus racial/ethnic slurs constitute “hate crime.” Skeptics have painted themselves into a shrinking corner by not arresting and putting an end to such misanthropic behavior. Which, I suppose is to be expected from a group whose hatred of truth informs their hatred of ethnicity.

      • georgehants

        At the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, the world’s nations were
        supposed to reach an agreement that would protect future generations
        against catastrophic climate change. But not everyone was playing by the
        rules. A leaked document now reveals that the US employed the NSA, its
        signals intelligence agency, to intercept information about other
        countries’ views on the climate negotiations before and during the
        summit. According to observers, the spying may have contributed to the
        Americans getting their way in the negotiations.
        http://disinfo.com/2014/01/nsa-spied-climate-talks-obama-admin-sabotage/

  • Guest

    There is finally a technology out there – out of the box – reliable – repetitive – efficient – commercialized

    How come people are not going nuts about that?

    Can anyone please say: Distraction

  • Fortyniner

    It’s not pellets as such but just a powder that is supposedly condensed back out of the plasma, collected then recycled by exposure to water vapour, i.e., a hygroscopic compound, that is also (presumably) the catalyst. As only “cheap, abundant, nontoxic, commodity chemicals” are used that would point to an oxide that readily converts to a hydroxide in the presence of water vapour.

    IMO the most likely compound of this type would be a ‘light metal’ oxide/hydroxide, such as lithium, magnesium, aluminium, sodium or potassium. The oxides of these metals will absorb water vapour quite quickly to form hydroxides, and will continue to take up water, eventually forming a solution. In a slightly damp form this material could easily be moved around by archimedean screw conveyors. They will all disintegrate into the oxide plus water vapour when heated. However there are many issues arising from the proposed design that together render it a thought experiment only that could never operate as proposed.

    • stefan

      QM (QED QCD etc) is a well tuned model, and as you say we would be fools to dismiss everything at one go. On the other hand Mill’s theory is computational much much nicer to work with, and both models produce very accurate results for e.g. the hydrogen atom. But
      considering Mill’s theory is ok as stated above, how the heck can QED and Mill’s theory basically tell the same story, what’s the connection. This is the big question that needs an answer.

      Also as optiongeek say, you cannot compare a 90 year heavily developed model with a 20 year one developed by essentially Mills, the man years difference is too huge, one need to see Mills model in the light if it has merit to do extraordinary things given say another 20 man years of development and to me that answer is a big yes. The whole issue here reminds my of how difficult it was for Keppler to replace the old earh is the center model, which have been fine tuned during centuries and was bloody exact in it’s predictions, although very clumsy. Keppler had to refine his model by himself for, was was it another 20 years, until it was as potent as the old theory. Although it was a much more elegant model the scientific community could not understand it’s potential. It certainly looks like we have pretty much the same story here with Mill’s theory (assuming no tricks).

  • Eggnog

    Does the hydrino theory attempt to explain simple quantum situations like the electron double slit experiment?

    Or does he try to obfuscate things by giving hand-waving solutions to more difficult problems? I looked through some of his materials and he claimed to predict molecular energies better than quantum hartree fock theory. Well, Hartree Fock is a very approximate method for solving the schrodinger partial differential equation when there are a large number of variables, it will give you an answer within 1% or within 80% depending on how much you violate the assumptions of the mathematical model.

    His electron orbisphere picture looks ridiculous, he explains nothing.

    Supersymmetry has not been ruled out by the LHC at all. The LHC so far has only eaten away at some more of the possible supersymmetry parameter space. There are other theories that address dark matter as well.

    Most likely his experiments are a scam, or based on LENRs unbeknownst to him.

    • optiongeek

      QM has had 90 years to develop a predictive model. The best minds in the world have worked on the problem and, as you say, the error is still 80%. How can that be regarded as anything but a failure? You say Mills “explains nothing”. I disagree. He explains everything he has done in great detail, it’s all there for someone willing to read and comprehend what he has written. Apply some scrutiny to the so-called “proofs” of QM – double-slit, Bell’s inequality, Electron G-factor, and they all melt. QM is a 90-year lie.

      • Eggnogg

        The top quark was predicted then found, the W and Z bosons were predicted then found. The Higgs boson was predicted and found, in the mass range that was indirectly determined to be likely. The same can be said of at least one of the other quarks. Quantum field theory calculations accurately predicted the rates and shapes of many distributions at the Large Hadron Collider.

        QM can make predictions that match experiment down to 1 part in 10^8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

        The “80%” number I floated there is for hartree fock calculations on large molecules, this method is an approximation method to solving partial differential equations that cannot be analytically solved. The fully nonlinear equations cannot be solved for large molecules with current computing power.

        If you want to see a more modern, time dependent density functional theory calculation of a molecule check out this cool video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYsktRlhMOg . The detailed excitation energies of various molecules can be predicted accurately with QM.

        • optiongeek

          Yes, you’re very convincing. A life devoted to using the wonderfully elegant and predictive QM model to discover all of the universe’s mysteries is a rare and priviledged path and isn’t at all a waste of time. In fact, I envy you. Truly.

        • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

          QM (QED QCD etc) is a well tuned model, and as you say we would be fools to dismiss everything at one go. On the other hand Mill’s theory is computational much much nicer to work with, and both models produce very accurate results for e.g. the hydrogen atom. But
          considering Mill’s theory is ok as stated above, how the heck can QED and Mill’s theory basically tell the same story, what’s the connection. This is the big question that needs an answer.

          Also as optiongeek say, you cannot compare a 90 year heavily developed model with a 20 year one developed by essentially Mills, the man years difference is too huge, one need to see Mills model in the light if it has merit to do extraordinary things given say another 20 man years of development and to me that answer is a big yes. The whole issue here reminds my of how difficult it was for Keppler to replace the old earh is the center model, which have been fine tuned during centuries and was bloody exact in it’s predictions, although very clumsy. Keppler had to refine his model by himself for, was was it another 20 years, until it was as potent as the old theory. Although it was a much more elegant model the scientific community could not understand it’s potential. It certainly looks like we have pretty much the same story here with Mill’s theory (assuming no tricks).

    • GreenWin

      Egg, will you supply us with citations and direct evidence that Dr. Mills’ experiments “are a scam?” And to which specific “LENRs unbeknownst to him” do you refer?? Can we assume such LENRs are beknownst to you??

    • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

      Well, there is only one option here, either he has taken a experimental fact and fitted a formula to the output, if so please specify where he does not take a route that is not govern by the underlying physical model (I really would like to know). Or we need to take his work seriously. Pictures can look ridiculous or not, the basic thing is to understand where the logic break. So far no one has shown what he does wrong with the math as far as I can tell.

    • Gordon Docherty

      “Supersymmetry has not been ruled out by the LHC at all.” – that’s why I said below “consigning, in the process, thoughts of “supersymmetry” out into the cold” rather than “into history” – perhaps “into the long grass” would have been a better way of saying it.

      To understand this further, the following provides a good read:

      http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/04/24/is-supersymmetry-ruled-out-yet/

      As the article (by thanks to Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler) points out, the thing about supersymmetry is that it is based on virtual particles (which aren’t really particles at all, but more general quantum-mechanical disturbances in the fields of nature). As it also says (thanks to Matt Strassler) under :

      http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/supersymmetry/where-stands-supersymmetry-as-of-42012/

      “the problem with supersymmetry — and indeed with any really good idea, such as extra dimensions, or a composite Higgs particle — is that such a basic idea typically can be realized in many different ways. Pizza is a great idea too, but there are a million ways to make one, so you can’t conclude that nobody makes pizza in town just because you can’t smell tomatoes. Similarly, to rule out supersymmetry as an idea, you can’t be satisfied by ruling out the most popular forms of supersymmetry that theorists have invented; you have to rule out all its possible variants. This will take a while, probably a decade.”

      What also comes out, though, is that large particles are now looking decidedly dubious, and so unlikely to be “the stuff of dark matter”, while Mills’s hydrinos fit the bill quite nicely.

      This having been said, however, hydrinos as Mills sees them may not be quite the full picture: coming back to Hydrinos and LENR, it may well not be a question of which is the more fundamental effect, but rather, whether there is a more fundamental effect still – a source or Quelle theory (Quelle is German for source) of which LENR and Hydrinos are but manifestations.

      Anyone following the Hydrino and LENR developments for long enough have probably also come across work in the Zero Point field and the interesting effects surrounding “Casimir cavities” – so named after the
      Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir. Now, the Casimir force is something that even Wikipedia admits to as being real!

      Now, although a few years old, the blog of one “Francis Froarty” (exact identity unknown):

      http://froarty.scienceblog.com/

      and articles reached from that blog:

      http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/
      http://froarty.scienceblog.com/29738/hydrino-patent-based-on-catalyst-denied-while-later-patent-for-relativistic-hydrogen-based-on-casimir-cavity-granted/
      http://froarty.scienceblog.com/tag/jan-naudts/
      http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2
      http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm

      see Hydrinos, LENR reactions and ZPEnergy capture (as per Haisch and Moddel’s patent) as a relativistic effect, after work done by Jan Naudts (who “squares” (sorry for the pun) the contradition inherent between the Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom, which allows for a low-lying eigenstate, called the hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction and the corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation, which is not square integrable – this was mentioned elsewhere on this site as a reason why Hydrinos “can’t” exist
      even though experimental evidence says otherwise,), another name that may be familiar to those who have been following these developments with interest.

      So, the real Quelle effect may well be down to the relativistic effects resulting from the constricted space geometry of Casimir cavities causing changes in the “time” dimension, which appear to us from the
      outside as if many reactions have occurred near simultaneously, while from the inside they appear to be happening at their usual much slower rate… this would also finally explain the mystery of why (and how)
      catalysts actually work, that is, why a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst suddenly “speeds up”, something that has been, until now still ultimately a mysterious process…

      Just a thought…

      • Roger Bird

        His name is Matt Strassler, who happens to be a theoretical physicist. Otherwise you are putting him on a pedestal, and that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.

        • Gordon Docherty

          fair enough – bad habit picked up while working in Germany a few years back – Doktor-Ingenieur and all that (the title becomes part of the name). It sometimes slips through. Echoes of Dr.Strangelove, I guess…

  • BuildItNow

    Randy Mills at 1:29:00, talks about how his team is actively looking for companies that can produce a working prototype as soon as possible. It looks clear that he is convinced he has the high-power-per-“pop” figured out and wants more investment to get a his first prototype running to produce continuous high power, not just a one off “pop”. Randy gives off a sense of urgency to move forward rapidly, so, we could find out it this is real, this year, or Blacklight will fade away if the others like Rossi etc get production versions into mainstream use and awareness. I give Blacklight about 20% probability of being real based on the off-hand way Randy talks about related issues, one example being that he stated that houses would better run off Direct Current (DC) rather that our current use of Alternating Current (AC) as most of the equipment in the house uses DC internally. The idea that houses could easily switch to DC boarders on ridiculous as those devices that do use DC use all types of voltages and the efficient way to convert voltages is with AC. Additionally, converting DC to AC is currently available “off the shelf … Randy” via inverters you can buy right now in stores down the street, so, why did Randy even make such a statement. To me it indicates a cavalier attitude that casts doubt over everything else he says.

    • Charles Hansen

      good points, and if I’m not mistaken, you’d have to convert DC voltages anyways, as running a 12V line across the house vs a higher voltage, would have a lot more loss.

    • Allan Shura

      A million appears way more than enough to source the off the shelf parts and fabricate the in house specs for a
      prototype. I guess one thing that puzzles be a bit about this engineering design is the predicted wear on the
      gear electrode parts .

    • Wholewitt

      There are some points about using DC being better that are true such as DC has a power factor of one where motors and capacitive input power supplies (non power factor corrected) have a fairly low PF (about 0.65). DC is better for long distance power transmission as well. Of course you are right about the voltage conversion problem but with modern electronics and if blenders, etc were designed for DC this could be overcome. Many AC adapters are now switching instead of 60 Hz transformers.
      I think Mills underestimates the problems in making a continuous power system from his device. I wonder why, with such technical expertise, Blacklight can produce a video with decent sound? Can’t they even put a sound baffle around that noisy “whatever it is” in the background?

  • Obvious

    Mr. Mills suggested on another forum that the excess O2 and hydrinos could be vacuumed away from an operating device. Can one “vacuum away” dark matter? How would that work? Lots of excess O2 can’t just be wished away, and would seem to an easily testable byproduct compared to the hydrino “ash”. Not to mention that O2 is a severe hazard near a hot device.

  • stefan

    Well, there is only one option here, either he has taken a experimental fact and fitted a formula to the output, if so please specify where he does not take a route that is not govern by the underlying physical model (I really would like to know). Or we need to take his work seriously. Pictures can look ridiculous or not, the basic thing is to understand where the logic break. So far no one has shown what he does wrong with the math as far as I can tell.

  • ScrumpyDumpy

    IN the presentation, Mills said they backburnered the solid fuel heat reactor because they could not reliably regenerate the reaction products. (He said, if you only regenerate 90%, then it takes just a few generations till you have “lost” almost all your reaction products.)

    He didn’t explicitly say it, but being familiar with their history, I deduced that they are back burnering the CHIT cell because they could only scale up their units by a factor of 50 in the last year and half. They were needing to scale it up by a factor of 10,000 according to one of the previously published CIHT validation reports.

    With SF-CIHT he is glossing over the fact that the expt currently shows a COP of 2, and CLAIMS that only a small
    part of the input energy is used to detonate the fuel. I actually believe this, but until he gets the input/output ratio actually optimized this will be a point that needs to be proven. Also, he doesn’t say why regenrating the solid fuel will be any easier than regenerating the solid fuel was, although there is a claim that regenerating one of the fuels actually made it 5x more powerful.

    I am off to home depot to pick up my off-the-shelf MHD device to convert stray microwave oven radition into useable power.

    Lest I sound skeptical, let me say that I actually believe in Mills theory and that he has shown beyond a reasonable
    doubt that hydrinos exist and experimental results are compatible with his theory. Unfortunately, he has not produced the goods and seems to be more motivated by the theory than the actual application. But if there is
    anything there, he has now published enough that others can duplicate and extend.

    finally, I speculate that one of the reasons mills moved to his high current approach is the work of
    Defkalion, whose spark plug accomplishes something similar at least to my untrained eye.

    • Gerard McEk

      I think that the spark of Defkalion is low current and bing used to make atomic hydrogen and may also be used to initiate proton-electron oscillations within the lattice to start the LENR process. This is quite different from the very high current BLP use in their cells.

  • Allan Shura

    A million appears way more than enough to source the off the shelf parts and fabricate the in house specs for a
    prototype. I guess one thing that puzzles be a bit about this engineering design is the predicted wear on the
    gear electrode parts .

  • Gerard McEk

    I think that the spark of Defkalion is low current and bing used to make atomic hydrogen and may also be used to initiate proton-electron oscillations within the lattice to start the LENR process. This is quite different from the very high current BLP use in their cells.

  • Teepee

    BLP released the calorimetry data from the public demo here – http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/012814JH-Demo.pdf

  • Charles

    I’m still staggering around from that blow where someone speculated that the hydrino may be ‘dark matter’. My cosmic brain is rattling so much I can’t ever think about the test Mills ran.

    • optiongeek

      Occam’s razor – essentially all of the visible universe is ordinary hydrogen, about 50x more “stuff” exists that we can’t see, but behaves a lot like cold, dark hydrogen. What’s the simplest explanation? It’s the ash from hydrino transitions going on since inception. Simplest = most probable.

      • Obvious

        I wonder if even integer, and whole square root integer fractional states would be inherently unstable due to the susceptibility to destructive resonance (constructive interference). So that all “possible” 137 fractional Ryberg states would not be feasible or at least not stable.
        That does of course go against the 1/4 H production theory.

    • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

      Note that one can find a solution in ordinary QED that could be attributed to the lowest hydrino state, but it’s a queer solution e.g. non L2 integrable solution. what it really means I do not know though. Mills theory claims to be different than QED e.g. he has another model and one can argue that it is an incomplete model e.g. I cannot find an argument that his condition for a stable state is neccesary and sufficient (to show this you probably need more information about the physics of the sources in his model), it could very well lack the sufficient part. The stability at least for the higher hydrino states is questionable, the lower one’s I do not know, here the electron should be relativistic and Shrödinger experience does not hold water. Also these lower states might be really hard to hit because they do not radiate and hence a step down cannot radiate photon’s you need a catalyst, but the energy gap is so huge that typical energy levels are not sufficient. In all this may give you a counter argument why hydrinos can in fact be what composes the dark matter and also explain why hydrinos are typically not seen in experiments and why Mill’s have taken 20 years without producing a clear break through and only produced wage proofs. Also if you look at his model it performs very well at atomic scale and there is not any real evidence that he does it all wrong, it all looks like he is using the model and then explore normal physics to get to the fantastic formulas. If I’m wrong here please publish how he fakes his calculation of e.g. the g factor.

  • Wholewitt

    There are some points about using DC being better that are true such as DC has a power factor of one where motors and capacitive input power supplies (non power factor corrected) have a fairly low PF (about 0.65). DC is better for long distance power transmission as well. Of course you are right about the voltage conversion problem but with modern electronics and if blenders, etc were designed for DC this could be overcome. Many AC adapters are now switching instead of 60 Hz transformers.
    I think Mills underestimates the problems in making a continuous power system from his device. I wonder why, with such technical expertise, Blacklight can produce a video with decent sound? Can’t they even put a sound baffle around that noisy “whatever it is” in the background?